Science has, on many, many occasions served to shut down certain critics of religion and religious history. In particular, the Old Testament of the Christian Bible (based on the Jewish Torah) and the New Testament have been the target of naysayers, atheists, and Leftist revisionist historians for centuries. With the advent of modern technology and scientific theory and exploration, archaeological excavation has uncovered corroborating evidence time and time again that clarified and verified long-held assertions by Jews and Christians that the books of the Bibles (both Jewish and Christian) are accurate and true histories of what has already occurred in ages past.
If you’re like me, you enjoy a good documentary. There are literally thousands out there on any given subject. Some of the really enjoyable ones are those that take no particular biased opinion, but work from the standpoint of a person simply trying to discover truth. I used to be a fan of the History Channel until I actually began to research subject matter myself. Then, the ugly truth emerged and that was that the History Channel, A&E, Discovery, National Geographic, etc., etc., were all on the same page as far as developing a storyline and delivering the finished product. Number one, it has to be marketable. Can’t make money without someone wanting to watch it and without advertisers interested in sponsoring that show. Number two, it has to be controversial or provocative. For obvious reasons, you don’t want a real draw-out boring program (see Number one above). And Number three, it has to have a slight, extreme or radical Leftist slant. This is key in the packaging of these shows because of the types of people involved in the production, the actors who bring the stories to life, and the sponsors who follow trends based on social media and sales statistics.
For this reason, I completely avoid all the Liberal trappings of the documentaries which pretend to be about “exposing the truth” about history, particularly when it comes to anything that happens to be sacred to Christians or is deeply ensconced in identity politics or racial inequality. If you’ve ever gone on Netflix to watch a documentary about, say, the Book of Genesis, you’d be sadly mistaken to believe that this will be an in-depth study of the Book of Genesis. Rather (as becomes quickly apparent during your viewing of the show) the program is out to disprove the Book of Genesis in one way or another. They usually approach the subject matter from several different angles, all exposing the “lies or half-truths of the men who wrote the Book.” And this is a pattern with practically 100% of the so-called documentaries. The information is there to test your faith, to see if you’re actually paying attention to scripture and not to the flashy, state-of-the-art computer graphic renderings of the construction of Solomon’s Temple or the Exodus from Egypt.
Once again, science has come to the rescue and facts bear out more evidence that the Bible should be taken at its literal word rather than in mystical metaphors and allegory. Read on the following page about the amazing new DNA evidence direct from Egypt that will shut the mouths of condescending Liberals…at least temporarily. An extraordinary finding!
Love having a racist try and explain the bible to us.
God’s Word is science….
And how exactly did the story you just spoke about stay so true and factual. While the bible did not.
Claim: Mithras was born of a virgin on December 25th, in a cave, attended by shepherds
Truth: Mithras was actually born out of solid rock, leaving a hole in the side of a mountain (presumably described as a “cave”). He was not born of a virgin (unless you consider the rock mountain to have been a virgin). His birth was celebrated on December 25th, but the first Christians knew this was not the true date of Christ’s birth anyway, and both Mithraic worshippers and the early Roman Church borrowed this celebration from earlier winter solstice celebrations. Shepherds are part of Mithraism, witnessing his birth and helping Mithras emerge from the rock, but interestingly, the shepherds exist in the birth chronology at a time when humans are not supposed to have been yet born. This, coupled with the fact the earliest version of this part of the Mithraic mythology emerges one hundred years after the appearance of the New Testament, infers it is far more likely this portion of Mithraism was borrowed from Christianity rather than the other way around.
Claim: Mithras was considered a great traveling teacher and master
Truth: There is nothing in the Mithraic tradition indicating he was a teacher of any kind, but he was could have been considered a master of sorts. This would not be unexpected of any deity, however. Most mythologies describe their gods in this way.
Claim: Mithras had 12 companions or disciples
Truth: There is no evidence for any of this in the traditions of Iran or Rome. It is possible the idea Mithras had 12 disciples is simply derived from murals in which Mithras is surrounded by twelve signs and personages of the Zodiac (two of whom are the moon and the sun). Even this imagery is post Christian, and, therefore, did not contribute to the imagery of Christianity (although it could certainly have borrowed from Christianity).
Claim: Mithras promised his followers immortality
Truth: While there is little evidence for this, it is certainly reasonable to think Mithras might have offered immortality, as this is not uncommon for any God of mythology.
Claim: Mithras performed miracles
Truth: Of course this is true, as this too was not uncommon for mythological characters.
Claim: Mithras sacrificed himself for world peace
Truth: There is little or no evidence this is true, although there is a story about Mithras slaying a threatening bull in a heroic deed. But that’s about as close as it gets.
Claim: Mithras was buried in a tomb and after three days rose again, and Mithras was celebrated each year at the time of His resurrection (later to become Easter)
Truth: There is nothing in the Mithraic tradition indicating he ever even died, let alone resurrected. Tertullian did write about Mithraic believers re-enacting resurrection scenes, but he wrote about this occurring well after New Testament times. Christianity could not, therefore, have borrowed from Mithraic traditions, but the opposite could certainly be true.
Which is actually ironic because many of the greatest scientific discoveries made in the last 500 years were made by Christians but that is mostly because most western university were founded by Christian and for a long time the only people who really went to university were those going in the priesthood
Treston Smith
Treston Smith
Let’s see the Hebrew Sabbath was on Saturday! We are no longer under the Mosaic law, we are under the new Covenant of Christ! And Christians worship on Sunday because it is the day of Christ’s resurrection from the grave! For those who don’t get it! Carry on!
I don’t need proof! However I do enjoy sitting back and watching science catch up with the living word of God!!!
Claim: Mithras was born of a virgin on December 25th, in a cave, attended by shepherds
Truth: Mithras was actually born out of solid rock, leaving a hole in the side of a mountain (presumably described as a “cave”). He was not born of a virgin (unless you consider the rock mountain to have been a virgin). His birth was celebrated on December 25th, but the first Christians knew this was not the true date of Christ’s birth anyway, and both Mithraic worshippers and the early Roman Church borrowed this celebration from earlier winter solstice celebrations. Shepherds are part of Mithraism, witnessing his birth and helping Mithras emerge from the rock, but interestingly, the shepherds exist in the birth chronology at a time when humans are not supposed to have been yet born. This, coupled with the fact the earliest version of this part of the Mithraic mythology emerges one hundred years after the appearance of the New Testament, infers it is far more likely this portion of Mithraism was borrowed from Christianity rather than the other way around.
Claim: Mithras was considered a great traveling teacher and master
Truth: There is nothing in the Mithraic tradition indicating he was a teacher of any kind, but he was could have been considered a master of sorts. This would not be unexpected of any deity, however. Most mythologies describe their gods in this way.
Claim: Mithras had 12 companions or disciples
Truth: There is no evidence for any of this in the traditions of Iran or Rome. It is possible the idea Mithras had 12 disciples is simply derived from murals in which Mithras is surrounded by twelve signs and personages of the Zodiac (two of whom are the moon and the sun). Even this imagery is post Christian, and, therefore, did not contribute to the imagery of Christianity (although it could certainly have borrowed from Christianity).
Claim: Mithras promised his followers immortality
Truth: While there is little evidence for this, it is certainly reasonable to think Mithras might have offered immortality, as this is not uncommon for any God of mythology.
Claim: Mithras performed miracles
Truth: Of course this is true, as this too was not uncommon for mythological characters.
Claim: Mithras sacrificed himself for world peace
Truth: There is little or no evidence this is true, although there is a story about Mithras slaying a threatening bull in a heroic deed. But that’s about as close as it gets.
Claim: Mithras was buried in a tomb and after three days rose again, and Mithras was celebrated each year at the time of His resurrection (later to become Easter)
Truth: There is nothing in the Mithraic tradition indicating he ever even died, let alone resurrected. Tertullian did write about Mithraic believers re-enacting resurrection scenes, but he wrote about this occurring well after New Testament times. Christianity could not, therefore, have borrowed from Mithraic traditions, but the opposite could certainly be true.