"Mithraism is the cult of Mithra. It was created on its own virtue to not only worship pagan beliefs and practices, but to pervert and mock future religious practices that Satan knew Yahweh would incorporate into His people.
It emphasized a personal faith, the conflict of good and evil, and the reward of virtue and punishment of wickedness in the afterlife, the end of the world and the powers of hell. The religion spread from Persia through the Roman Empire from 68 BC until the 3rd century AD, becoming a serious rival to Christianity, and yet those in the churches today are barely even aware of its existence. If you ask most Christians today who Mithra is most wouldn't have any idea. The church has kept that part of its history silent and hidden when it's one of the major reasons so many of our early brethren were killed.
Mithraism is said to have declined in the 4th century AD. but when you look at the overwhelming evidence you'll soon realize it didn't go anywhere, it infiltrated and was incorporated into the church and became a large part of Christianity itself. That is why you won't hear much about it from the church. They don't want you to hear or understand that Christianity was changed. And that the churches we have today do not resemble the churches of the early believers and what they lived and died for. We've been sold down the river of deception for almost 1700 years.
Satan isn't always stupid. In fact he's very clever. Satan's Mithra was a great and deceptive imitation."
I begin to wonder what evidence she is going to present to say Mithra was something that came into the church in the 4th Century? She hasn't provided a source, she just expects people to believe her claims blindly without checking them out. In fact, Why is she claiming that Mithraism has this large influence on Christianity?
"Who was Mithra? He appealed to everybody and at one time was a dominant god followed by almost every race and nation throughout the history of mankind utilizing many different names such as Buddha, Horus, Krishna, Odin, Quetzalcoatl, Baal, Ra (the sun god), Bel, Marduk, Apollo, and about 15 others. Originating from Persia, he was both god and goddess as a bi-gender god, both male and female. Almost all of these gods who carried Mithra dogma have their birthdays on December 25, the birthday of the "sun." Even today's Christians know Jesus's real birthday isn't in December but October, yet for the sake of church tradition they go along with it anyway."
There is no doubt Jesus' birthday was not on December 25th at all. But, Where is she getting this idea that Mithra being a dominant god and was known by many names? What are the sources she is getting this from? She doesn't quote any reliable source to back up her claims. I think Buddhists would be quite offended if a person made this claim about their religion and not back it up. Again, Show me evidence Shriner, don't assert. The Devine Evidence apologetics team have refuted the idea of Pagan parallels and even cover the falsehood of Mithra being born on December 25th: http://thedevineevidence.com/jesus_similarities.html (This link is now defunct).
Now she may say that the website is a false website and can't be trusted, But she cannot back up her claims about December 25th being the birth day of several gods, thus, she has a witness against her she can't refute. Dismissal is not the same as Rebuttal.
" The early church believers were persecuted and killed because they wouldn't bow to the Sun-god worship and had to go underground to meet on the Sabbath (Saturday), and yet today Christians all over the world meet on Sun-god day to worship who?
Mithraism was established as far back as the early years after Adam and Eve had left the garden among the pagan nations. In fact the bull motif later adopted, (Mithra is depicted as standing on the bull, in the process of slitting its throat) is a reflection of the Age of Taurus, around 4500-2300 BCE. The sacred bull motif is found in numerous places around the "known world" precisely during the Age of Taurus. The change between the ages of Taurus and Aries is recorded even in the Bible, at Exodus 12, where Moses institutes the sacrifice of the lamb or ram instead of the bull. Mithra's slaying of the Bull was an act that became as central to Mithraism as was the crucifixion to Christianity.
The bull represented rebirth, fertility and fecundity, with his blood corresponding to the wine of the mysteries. The sacrifice of the bull was reenacted in the Mithraic baptism, a mystery rite in which the initiates were splattered with the blood. The initiate was then said to have been "born again." In Mithraism, the slaying of the Heavenly Bull, Mithra is essentially sacrificing himself, in order to save the world: the bull appears to signify the earth or mankind, and the implication is that Mithra, like Christ, overcame the world; but in the early Persian writings Mithra himself is the bull, the god thus sacrificing himself becoming a close mimickry and mockery of the real Messianic Sacrifice to come in which God's Son would fulfill to redeem mankind.
Like the vast majority of the ancient gods, Mithra was never a "real person." In actuality he was originally represented by non-human forms. It is very significant to note that ancient Iranians themselves did not represent the Sun-god in human form in the earliest times, and they used to represent him by means of symbols. In one of the sepulchres of Darius near Naqshi Rustam, Mithra is represented as a round disc (a UFO). Next stage was that of human busts of Sun in later Mithraism. Today we see Mithraic symbols more commonly known as Masonic or Illuminati symbols such as the all-seeing eye or references to the sun and sun-god."
I am not really interested in these illuminati conspiracies, I have to be honest on that. But I do find the symbols on the American dollar to be rather dodgy nevertheless, but that's another issue.
Worship on a Sunday is NOT connected to Mithraism at all. The Lords Day to celebrate the resurrection was on a Sunday, because that was the day he rose. I'll provide early documentation for this later in this article. There is nothing in Mithraism either that says he is the Son of God what so ever either. The funny thing is that Shriner confuses Mithra of Persia with Mithra of Rome, which is later covered.
"Mithra paganism has the following in common with the Jesus Christ of today's churches:
* Mithra was born on December 25th. Although Jesus was born in October, the churches today Celebrate Mithra's birthday being conned into believing it was Jesus' birthday.
* Mithra’s birth was witnessed by shepherds and by Magi (wisemen) who brought gifts to his sacred birth-cave of the Rock (to mock the wisemen who would bring gifts to Jesus).
* He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.
* He had 12 companions or disciples (although in Mithraism this was represented by the 12 astrological signs).
* He performed miracles.
* He was buried in a tomb.
* After three days he rose again (of course no one witnessed this).
* His resurrection was celebrated every year (although he was never a real person).
* Mithra was called "the Good Shepherd."
* He was considered "the Way, the Truth and the Light, the Redeemer, the Savior, the Messiah."
* He was identified with both the Lion and the Lamb.
* His sacred day was Sunday, "the Lord's Day," hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ.
* Mithra had his principal festival on what was later to become Easter, at which time he was resurrected.
* His religion had a Eucharist or "Lord's Supper."
* Mithra performed the usual assortment of miracles: raising the dead, healing the sick, making the blind see and the lame walk, casting out devils. As a Peter (son of Petra) he carried keys to the kingdom of heaven. (3)
* His triumph and ascension to heaven were celebrated at the spring equinox (Easter), when the sun rises toward its apogee.
In all to the Babylonians (Romans), Mithra became the god of light and truth, the god of mediation between god and man. He was to his worshippers;
* The creator of life.
* Mediator between man and the higher gods.
* God of light.
* All-seeing one.
* Guardian of oaths (covenants).
* Protector of the righteous in this world and also in the next."
This next bit is refuted by the Devine Evidence site. This is what they say about this issue:
""Mithras, not to be confused with Mitra (the warrior angel of ancient Persia), was the head deity of Mithraism.
Trying to piece together the actual legends relating to Mithras is difficult as the earliest evidence relating to him is
only found in artistic reliefs- the original texts regarding Mithraism have long since been lost, leaving behind only
fragments. For this discussion, we will focus on Roman Mithraism as this is the Mithras the critics claim as being
the inspiration for Jesus (although this allegation could easily be dismissed by showing most texts containing the
alleged connections postdate the Christian texts). Furthermore, Roman Mithraism surfaced centuries after the
existence of the Hebrew Messianic prophecies.
Note: The original authority on Mithraism was Franz Cumont who believed the Mitra of ancient Persian and the
Mithras of Mithraism were one and the same. Most of his research was compiled in the 1800's and, because he
was the first known scholar to explore the dead religion of Mithraism, his research went undisputed for quite
awhile. If you look through early 20th century publications, one can see Cumont's findings were accepted without
debate. It was only upon later investigation by differing historians and archaeologists that many of Cumont's
theories were disproved. To see what I am referring to, read this article from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica
which is based on Cumont's theories as compared to more modern research.
DECEMBER BIRTH Many religious festivals were consolidated into one holiday to coincide with the winter solstice.
Christmas is only celebrated on December 25th due to this tradition. This argument already proves to be insignificant as there is nothing in the Scriptures which mentions this date.
ATTENDED BY SHEPHERDS The earliest existing account of Mithras' birth is found in a relief depicting him
emerging from a rock with the assistance of men who certainly appear to be shepherds (which is interesting
considering his birth was supposed to have preceded the creation of humans!). But this little tidbit was added later, apparently by those who didn't notice the contradiction. Furthermore, this relief dates to 4th century A.D.!
VIRGIN BIRTH There is no mention of a virgin birth in Mithraism. The earliest reliefs depict a fully-mature Mithras emerging from a rock (as shown in three illustrations to the left).
TWELVE DISCIPLES Mithras did not have twelve disciples, but I can relate a far-fetched similarity to this
allegation. In two of the reliefs to the left, Mithras is surrounded by the twelve signs of the zodiac. Claiming
Mithras had twelve disciples because there are twelve signs of the zodiac is the connection critics try to make. The
critics simply see twelve beings and claim the figures are disciples. Some go as far to defend their position by
mimicking Franz Cumont's theory, claiming the figures were actually Mithras' twelve disciples dressed up in zodiac costumes! How they can make this connection is unknown as no inscriptions accompany the original reliefs.
GREAT TEACHER I can find no mention in any text or relief showing Mithras to be a traveling teacher. Regardless, it would hardly seem significant as many legends speak of mankind receiving wisdom from their gods.
ATONEMENT OF SIN The claim regarding Mithras atoning for sin leads me to as the question, how? There is no
mention of this in any record. Mithras does sacrifice a sacred bull to create life but I see no reference to the
atoning of sin, the atoning of sin through blood, or Mithras atoning for sin. Some try to merge the bull and Mithras
into one being but this concept is unanimously rejected by Mithras scholars.
LAST SUPPER There are two reliefs which show Mithras celebrating a banquet. The first relief shows Mithras and
Helios dining together after the sacrifice of the bull. The other depicts Mithras dining with the sun before ascending
into paradise with the other gods. But for some reason the tale becomes distorted with Mithras saying to his
(imaginary) disciples, "He who shall not eat of my body nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and
I with him, shall not be saved." Yet this quote was added centuries later during the middle ages and is not even attributed to Mithras!
CRUCIFIXION Though critics claim Mithras was crucified, there is no mention of this in the reliefs or texts. In fact no death is associated with Mithras, nevertheless crucifixion. We are told he completes his earthly mission then is taken to paradise in a chariot- alive and well.
SUNDAY AS A HOLY DAY This appears to be correct, at least for Roman Mithraism. But considering almost every religion used Saturday or
Sunday as a holy day, there was a 50/50 chance of this hitting the target- or at least a 1/7 chance for the number of days in a week.
Christians selected Sunday as their holy day only because it was the day of Christ's resurrection.
SIMILAR TITLES I did find some similarities but the claims critics make seem to be manipulated from their original form- there were no exact
matches to the names critics list. I also listed other titles that are often cited but prove to be incorrect:
- Savior, Redeemer, Messiah. Mithras is never referred to any of these. Why would he be since he never served such a purpose? Messiah is also a Hebrew word which makes one wonder what the source is for this allegation.
- Lamb of God, Good Shepherd. Skeptics try to use the depiction of Mithras holding the sacrificed bull over his shoulders as evidence but this is absurd as the bull is slaughtered! Furthermore, the Old Testament references lambs and shepherds long before Mithraism ever surfaced.
- Son of God. I didn't technically find this but I'll give it as a freebie if you consider Mithras as the son of Ahura Mazda.
- The Way Truth and Light, Light of the World. Though the names are not an exact match I did find warrior angel of light but this is associated with the Iranian Mithras- not the Roman Mithras of Mithraism.
- Lion. Again, not an exact match but I did find an association to sky/celestial lion, referring to the sign of Leo. But like the reference to lambs, the Old Testament mentions the Lion of Judah long before Mithraism ever originated.
- The Living Word. Mithras is sometimes called logos which means word but never as the living word.
- Mediator. Mithras was the mediator between good and evil whereas Jesus is the mediator between God and man.
THEOLOGICAL COMPARISONS I consolidated the similarities that come standard in most religions into one section. For lack of a better title,
we'll call this our stating the obvious list:
- Mithraism had a strong sense of community among its members (only men were allowed to be members, by the way)
- Mithraism taught the immortality of the human soul (so did Judaism which preceded Mithraism)
- Mithraism placed emphasis on living an ethical and moral life (so did Judaism which preceded Mithraism)
- Mithraism believed in the concept of good verses evil (so did Judaism which preceded Mithraism)
- Mithraism taught all life sprouted from god(s) (so did Judaism which preceded Mithraism)
- Mithras performed miraculous deeds
- Mithraism taught the eventual destruction of the earth
ERRONEOUS SIMILARITIES The following miscellaneous similarities exist neither in the ancient reliefs of Mithras or in any version of the
surviving texts:
- Mithras began his ministry at the age of 30 (no reference to any age is mentioned).
- Mithras was buried in a tomb (Alive, I suppose?). The only reference I could find to this was every year during the winter solstice, he was supposedly reborn out of a rock (but this tale was added later).
- A Holy Trinity (Even with all sorts of new gods becoming associated with Mithraism over time, I can find no mention of any gods forming a specific trinity)."
The scriptures themselves do not even say that there were three wise men, it just says that they came to bring gifts to the Lord Jesus as a baby. The NT doesn't specify how many men actually came to Jesus, so the connection between Jesus and Mithra is untenable.
Also Peter is not called Petra in the New Testament, he is called Petros, which can be found here: http://biblehub.com/text/matthew/16-18.htm
In addition to what the Devine Evidence mentions about the Crucifixion, Prayson Daniel in his article "Refuting Mithras Myth Parallelism To Christianity" has said:
"There is no record of him being a great teacher with 12 disciples. The only possible association is when Mithra was surrounded by 12 signs(personages of Zodiac) at the slaying of the bull(which is post Christian)
Mithras did not bodily resurrect, One of the myth has it that he was taken to paradise in a chariot alive and well after finishing his earthly mission(No crucification, no resurrection).
Again the German Professor for Ancient History, Manfred Clauss points out
We should not simply transpose Christian views and terms onto other mystery cults. It would be reading Christianity into other mythical religion/cult and not the other way around."“…the entire discussion is largely unhistorical. To raise the issue of a competition between the two religions is to assume that Christians and Mithraists had the same aims. Such a view exaggerates the missionary zeal — itself a Christian idea — of the other mystery cults. None of them aimed to become the sole legitimate religion of the Roman empire, because they offered an entirely individual and personal salvation. The alternative ‘Mithras or Christ?’ is wrongly framed, because it postulates a competitive situation which, in the eyes of Mithraists, simply did not exist….We should not simply transpose Christian views and terms in this area onto other mystery cults. Most of the parallels between Mithraism and Christianity are part of the common currency of all mystery cults or can be traced back to common origins in the Graeco-oriental culture of the Hellenistic world. The similarities do not at all suggest mutual influence….there are more substantial parallels at the ritual level, particularly the ritual meal….” (Clauss, The Roman Cult of Mithras, page 168-169,)
http://withalliamgod.wordpress.com/2011/01/15/refuting-mithras-myth-parallelism-to-christianity/
" It was the Mithra cult that was the leading rival of Christianity in Rome, and more successful than Christianity for the first four centuries of the “Christian” era. In 307 A.D., the emperor officially designated Mithra “Protector of the Empire.” Some resemblances between Christianity and Mithraism were so close that even St. Augustine declared the priests of Mithra worshipped the same deity as he did.
Mithra was born on December 25, called “Birthday of the Unconquered Sun,” which was incorporated into the church in the 4th century A.D. as the birthday of Christ.
Before returning to heaven, Mithra celebrated a Last Supper with his twelve disciples, who represented the twelve signs of the zodiac. In memory of this, his worshippers partook of a sacramental meal of bread marked with a cross This was one of the seven Mithraic sacraments, the models for the Christians’ seven sacraments . It was called mizd, latin missa, in other words, English mass. Mithra’s image was buried in a rock tomb, the same sacred cave that represented his mother’s womb. He was withdrawn from it and said to live again."
The subject of the Lords supper has already been covered. I would also like to know what document she is quoting from regarding what Augustine said, again she doesn't give a reference.
The quote is:
"we hold this day Holy, not like the pagans because of the Birth of the Sun, but because of the birth of him who made it day Holy, not like the pagans because of the Birth of the Sun, but because of the birth of him who made it".
I have seen this quotation abused and misused on the internet constantly and not one single person, ever gives the chapter and book it comes from in Augustine's writings. Where is it? what is the name of the treatise it is in? Give the source. I am not interested in defending Christmas I just want the quote where Augustine said what he said. I have yet to find the source. If I found it, I hope to add it as an addendum to this article in the near future.
"Like early Christianity, Mithraism was an ascetic, anti-female religion. Its priesthood consisted of celibate men only . Was Paul a Mithraic priest?"
No he wasn't, He was a Jew from Tarsus. He chose to be celibate because he was on a mission of giving the gospel to the nations, he didn't have time to settle down. If he was married, it is likely she stayed in Tarsus and did not accompany him, but that is my assumption with respect to the status of his wife if she had one. Paul had NO connection to Mithraism what so ever.
"Women were forbidden to enter Mithraic temples. The women of Mithraic families had nothing to do with the men’s cult, but attended services of the Great Mother in their own temples of Isis, Diana or Juno. Anahita was the Mother of Waters, traditional spouse of the solar god whom she bore, loved and swallowed up. She was identified with the Anatolian Great Goddess Ma. Mithra was naturally coupled with her, as her opposite, a spirit of fire, light and the sun.. Her “element,” water, overwhelmed the world in the primordial flood, when one man built an ark and saved himself, together with his cattle, according to Mithraic myth.
What began in water would end in fire, according to the Mithraic eschatology. The great battle between the forces of light and darkness in the Last Days would destroy the earth with its upheavals and burnings. Virtuous ones who followed the teachings of the Mithraic priesthood would join the spirits of light (Illuminati) and be saved. Sinful ones who followed other teachings would be cast into hell with Ahriman and the fallen angels.
Where others fall short believing Christianity mimmicked and copied Mithraism, they cannot see that it was Mithraism itself that was created to mimmick and copy the coming Messiah and church. But even worse what happened was that Christianity would then incorporate Mithraic paganisms perverting the truth faith. "
I am still waiting for a source for her to provide a source with respect to some of these things she is claiming, the Illuminati didn't even exist in the time of the Mithraic religion if my memory serves me correctly. One article I recommend looking and checking for yourself is this one here:http://www.unc.edu/~ltolles/illuminati/Introduction.html
If the source is correct, then the Illuminati did not exist in the time of the 4th Century or any century that Mithraism thrived in thus Shriner is wrong.
"Led by whom? Paul. Paul quotes from Mithraic sculptures when he cites, "And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ" I Cor. 10:4 Paul often quoted from Mithraic dogma, the Hillel inspired "Mithraic" Talmud, or misquoted the Old Testament. And yet the church ignores all the warning signs that he wasn't whom or what he portrayed himself to be. "
Let's actually READ 1 Corinthians 10:4 and see if this reprobate is representing Paul accurately:
"10 For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. 2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3 They all ate the same spiritual food 4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.
6 Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did. 7 Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written: “The people sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry.”[a] 8 We should not commit sexual immorality, as some of them did—and in one day twenty-three thousand of them died. 9 We should not test Christ,[b] as some of them did—and were killed by snakes. 10 And do not grumble, as some of them did—and were killed by the destroying angel.
11 These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the culmination of the ages has come. 12 So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall! 13 No temptation[c] has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted[d] beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted,[e] he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it."
Nothing about Mithraism here, just another stupid conspiracy coming from Shriner's mouth. Paul is referring back to the time of the Exodus story and is simply pointing out that the wicked within the people of Israel as a result of their disobedience where condemned to die in wilderness and were killed by other causes for other acts of disobedience. He is not even remotely connecting ANYTHING to Mithaism. Where is that in the text or any outside source?
" During the fourth century it was the church itself led by Mithraic Constantine that incorporated Mithraic beliefs and doctrines into the church, making them doctrines and traditions. Following 300 years of persecutions, there weren't many early Christian believers left to protest and resist the intrusion and takeover of Mithraism into the church. They had all died refusing to accommodate it.
Constantine the Great was an avid Mithra worshiper and his devoted mother Helena, a great worshipper of Ishtar, ‘My Lady’ the Queen of Heaven. It was Constantine who transferred most of the doctrines and tenants of Mithraism, as well as the shrines and temples into the Christian Church after his 'conversion' to Christianity in 312A.D. He didn't abandon his occult practices after his conversion, he brought them into the church and then had the church write new Scriptures to incorporate them into the church doctrines."
Constantine never lead the church, the only thing he did was call the Council of Nicea to discuss the Arian heresy. The issues discussed where the date to celebrate Easter (which I don't agree with), denouncing Gnosticism and the Arian heresy (both the two I affirm).
Furthermore, to suggest that following 300 years of persecution that Christians would willingly accept Mithraism or accept being a part of it suddenly is utterly absurd.
Furthermore, there is not a single shred of evidence that Constantine told the church to write New Scriptures, that was never done at Nicea or at any point by Constantine at all. In fact usually it's Rabbinic Jews, Muslims and some atheists that pass around this misinformation. Some videos I recommend would be videos by James White and InspiringPhilisophy, their material on the Council of Nicea is brilliant:
Abdullah of London and the Council of Nicea: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DxHcwgMs3Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSKBGdv07nQ
Although the Trinity is not an issue raised by Shriner, these videos should deal with the subject of the canon appropriately and will of great help. Though Shriner does believe in the Gospels judging by what I have read so far, she rejects Paul's letters and claims that Constantine had commanded new scriptures to be written.
James White also states in an article he wrote the following:
"While the creed of the council was its central achievement, it was not the only thing that the bishops accomplished during their meeting. Twenty canons were presented dealing with various disciplinary issues within the church. Of most interest to us today was the sixth, which read as follows:
Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges.20
This canon is significant because it demonstrates that at this time there was no concept of a single universal head of the church with jurisdiction over everyone else. While later Roman bishops would claim such authority, resulting in the development of the papacy, at this time no Christian looked to one individual, or church, as the final authority. This is important because often we hear it alleged that the Trinity, or the Nicene definition of the deity of Christ, is a “Roman Catholic” concept “forced” on the church by the pope. The simple fact of the matter is, when the bishops gathered at Nicea they did not acknowledge the bishop of Rome as anything more than the leader of the most influential church in the West."
This article is does cover alot of ground with respect to the subject of the council of Nicea and does refute the idea that one person, including Constantine, forced Christians or even had the power to force Christians to write new scriptures. Constantine, did not do such.
To show the validity of this change over without conversion, consider this worship decree issued by the Emperor Constantine in the year 321 AD., which was some nine years after his supposed conversion.
Constantine, Emperor Agustus, to Helidus: "On the venerable day of the sun let the magistrates, and the people residing in cities rest, let all workshops be closed. In the country, however, persons engaged in agriculture may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits".
Note here the day mentioned; ‘The venerable day of the sun’, the special day dedicated to the cult sun-god, Mithra, the first day of the week, SUNDAY! This was the first recorded blue Sunday law. In short, Constantine had never given up worshipping on his beloved ‘venerable day of the sun’, the day totally dedicated to the sun-god Mithra, the ‘son of the sun-god’.
Constantine threw out the truths of the early church and assimilated them with Mithraism, thereby creating two Messiahs: The God of Mithra, which would become the dominant deity of the church then, and still is today, and the God of the early believers. Which one are you following today?"
I follow Yeshua, who is YHWH incarnate thank you very much. Again, just because pagans worshipped on Sunday, that doesn't mean Christians got Sunday worship from pagans. Sunday was already the observance of the day of the Lord. Constantine is always blamed regarding the subject of Christianity in the 4th Century though again, no evidence exists that he did such. I thoroughly recommend the reading of the Didache which can be found here: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-lightfoot.html
To touch on the point about the Lord's Supper and Sunday, read the following:
"9:1 But as touching the eucharistic thanksgiving give ye thanks thus.
9:2 First, as regards the cup:
9:3 We give Thee thanks, O our Father, for the holy vine of Thy son David, which Thou madest known unto us through Thy Son Jesus;
9:4 Thine is the glory for ever and ever.
9:5 Then as regards the broken bread:
9:6 We give Thee thanks, O our Father, for the life and knowledge which Thou didst make known unto us through Thy Son Jesus;
9:7 Thine is the glory for ever and ever.
9:8 As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains and being gathered together became one, so may Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom;
9:9 for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever and ever.
9:10 But let no one eat or drink of this eucharistic thanksgiving, but they that have been baptized into the name of the Lord;
9:11 for concerning this also the Lord hath said:
9:12 {Give not that which is holy to the dogs.}
14:1 And on the Lord's own day gather yourselves together and break bread and give thanks, first confessing your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure.
14:2 And let no man, having his dispute with his fellow, join your assembly until they have been reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be defiled;
14:3 for this sacrifice it is that was spoken of by the Lord;
14:4 {In every place and at every time offer Me a pure sacrifice;14:5 for I am a great king, saith the Lord and My name is wonderful among the nations.}"
Now obviously Eucharist doesn't refer to the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, that is a given, but I would like to know what is the Lord's day being referred to in this document? Perhaps Shriner can explain. I think the Didache stands as a testimony against Shriner regarding the idea that the Eucharist or Lord's Supper was not a product of Mitharism.
Another letter I can provide is the Epistle of Barnabas which says
"Barnabas 15:9
Wherefore also we keep the eighth day for rejoicing, in the which
also Jesus rose from the dead, and having been manifested ascendedinto the heavens."
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/barnabas-lightfoot.html
Saturday is the 7th day right? What is the writer referring to in the context? SUNDAY, Nothing about Mithraism created Sunday worship in 4th Century. This letter is from 100 AD.
Justin Martyr, from the second century said in his dialogue with Trypho:
"CHAPTER XLI -- THE OBLATION OF FINE FLOUR WAS A FIGURE OF THE EUCHARIST.
"And the offering of fine flour, sirs," I said, "which was prescribed to be presented on behalf of those purified from leprosy, was a type of the bread of the Eucharist, the celebration of which our Lord Jesus Christ prescribed, in remembrance of the suffering which He endured on behalf of those who are purified in soul from all iniquity, in order that we may at the same time thank God for having created the world, with all things therein, for the sake of man, and for delivering us from the evil in which we were, and for utterly overthrowing principalities and powers by Him who suffered according to His will. Hence God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: 'I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord; and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands: for, from the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same, My name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure offering: for My name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord: but ye profane it.' He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us, who in every place offer sacrifices to Him, i.e., the bread of the Eucharist, and also the cup of the Eucharist, affirming both that we glorify His name, and that you profane . The command of circumcision, again, bidding [them] always circumcise the children on the eighth day, was a type of the true circumcision, by which we are circumcised from deceit and iniquity through Him who rose from the dead on the first day after the Sabbath, [namely through] our Lord Jesus Christ. For the first day after the Sabbath, remaining the first of all the days, is called, however, the eighth, according to the number of all the days of the cycle, and [yet] remains the first."
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html
These are examples of Sunday observance being mentioned as a day of observance for Christians with respect to the subject of Sunday observance. I leave you guys to think about this issue.
I may continue responding to Shriner's article if the Lord Wills.
Answering Judaism.
