Female Pastor Invites Drag Queen to Teach Scripture to Children at Lutheran Church

 Female Pastor Invites Drag Queen to Teach Scripture to Children at Lutheran Church

Pastor Erin Coleman Branchaud invited the drag queen to read to children and teach scripture to them during worship on Sunday at the St. Luke’s Lutheran Church of Logan Square. It should come as no surprise that the pastor includes her preferred pronouns in her bio.

Source: https://bigleaguepolitics.com/female-pastor-invites-drag-queen-to-teach-scripture-to-children-at-lutheran-church/

So, this Meme is going around on Facebook, with the hashtag “No Need for Jesus”

What, exactly, does Gd say about human sacrifice in the TaNaKH?

But first, some Christian Circular Reasoning

"So, this Meme is going around on Facebook, with the hashtag “No Need for Jesus,” (and even though that is not his original name), I am outraged by these insinuations!

I am going to respond to all seven of these false accusations against our Messiah one-by-one (as I have the time during my travels).

The first thing that I want to address is this notion that our Messiah was supposedly a “human sacrifice.”

When somebody is willing to die in order to uphold the Mosaic Law (Towrah), they are not offering themselves as a human sacrifice!

Some examples are, the prophet Daniel who refused to bow to another false deity, and he was threatened with death by the Lion's Den. Daniel was willing to die rather than to violate Towrah!

Another example is Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego when they refused to bow to the golden image of Nebuchadnezzar, and they too were threatened with being cast alive into a furnace. They were willing to die rather than violate Towrah!

During the Maccabean Revolt in 164 B.C. all those Jewish martyrs who were slaughtered in the days of Antiochus Ephiphanes (because they refused to violate the Mosaic Law) fall under the category of a law found in the Talmud.

In the Babylonian Talmud, (Makkot 23b-24a), it says:

“Three types of negative commandments fall under the yehareg ve’al ya’avor, meaning ‘One should let himself be killed rather than violate it.’”

These Towrah commands for which the Talmud states that we should be willing to die for rather than to violate are: murder, idolatry, and forbidden sexual relations.

This begs the question: “Which of these commandments did Yahuwshuwa allow himself to be killed for, rather than to violate them?”

To find out, please see this blog entitled:

Was Our Messiah a Human Sacrifice?

https://doubleportioninheritance.blogspot.com/…/was-yahuwsh…

Exodus 21:30 says that if the owner of an Ox kills a person, (and it has previously been known to hurt people), the Ox and it's owner must both die. The owner of the Ox may also pay money instead of his life for a RANSOM. Our Messiah did both! He offered up his life, and he also paid the Bride Price!

Exodus 21:30 If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the RANSOM of his life whatsoever is laid upon him.

The “Ox” (the aleph, or first-born) is symbolic of Yisra'el, and they were known to kill all the prophets who were sent to them! Therefore, our Messiah (being the owner of the Ox) offered his life as a RANSOM!

Matthew 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a RANSOM for many.

Our Messiah was in fact, portraying the “twin goats” for Yom Kippur, as well as the “one-year old male lamb” for Passover (Exodus 12:5).

Not only that, but he was also portraying the “red heifer” for the cleansing of the altar (see Numbers 19). The red heifer was not killed inside the Temple! The red heifer is the only sacrifice that was done OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS OF JERUSALEM!

To understand fully what our Messiah did for us, we must understand that he was actually fulfilling all the sacrifices in the Abrahamic Covenant seen in Genesis 15:9 (a 3-year old heifer; a 3-year old she-goat; a 3-year old ram; a turtledove and a young pigeon).

Our Messiah came to CONFIRM THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT, see this blog entitled:

Who Confirms the Covenant of Daniel’s 70th Week?

https://doubleportioninheritance.blogspot.com/…/who-confirm…

Yes, it is true that the lamb in Leviticus 4:32 for a sin offering is a female (because Eve being female was the first to sin). However our Messiah fulfilled the pattern of the twin goats on Yom Kippur for Both Houses of Yisra'el.

The meme is not taking into account the ordinance for Yom Kippur in Leviticus 16, which uses twin goats.

According to the instructions in Leviticus 16, one goat is killed as a sin offering, and the other is “sent away into the wilderness,” called the scapegoat.

The Hebrew word for the twin goats in Leviticus 16:7 is “sayir,” which literally means “a he-goat.” The Hebrew word for “scapegoat,” is “azazel,” the root-word being “az,” (a she-goat). However, it is obvious that since the priest had to cast lots to determine which goat was killed and which one was sent away, both goats had to be the same gender, which would be male.

Our Messiah, Yahuwshuwa, fulfilled the pattern of the Yom Kippur Twin Goats forty days before he began his ministry on Yom Kippur (see Luke 4). His cousin John (a Levite) was the legitimate High Priest that year in the eyes of the Father, (while Caiaphas was an impostor).

So, yes, as the sin offering, he was indeed brought before the High Priest (his cousin John) according to Deuteronomy 12:13-14!

It is important to understand that there are two altars in Jerusalem:

1.) The one in the Temple.

2.) The one where Abraham offered up his son, Isaac at the base of the Mount of Olives (this is where Messiah was sacrificed at the place of the Skull!)

John was the one who “selected” the Yom Kippur goat when he announced, “Behold the Lamb, who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29-36)

At his baptism, he was portraying the role of the “Yom Kippur” sacrificial goat who would later die for the sins of Both Houses of Yisra’el. Baptism is a metaphor for death (see Romans 6:3-4). Immediately following his baptism, he was “sent into the wilderness” as the scapegoat for the Lost Sheep of the House of Yisra’el (the exiles).

Not only was he portraying himself as the Yom Kippur twin goats at his baptism, but he was also cleansing himself in preparation to be the High Priest (Melchizedek) after his 40-day fast in the wilderness (see Leviticus 16:4).

When he read the Isaiah 61 scroll in Luke 4, he was announcing himself as “Messiah” (the anointed one) and as the “High Priest” who “declared the acceptable year of YHWH.” Only the High Priest could “declare the acceptable year of YHWH” on Yom Kippur (see Numbers chapter 10).

The role of the High Priest was being transferred from the sons of Aaron, back to the original High Priest, Melchizedek when John the Baptist declared “I am not worthy to unloose his shoe-strap” (this is an allusion to the Levirate Marriage in Deuteronomy 25:5-10).

Our Messiah was the perfect sin offering that had no defect (symbolic of sin) according to Leviticus 22:22-25. His body was broken for us because his body was also symbolic of “Bread from heaven.”

Wheat must be broken, beaten, and finely milled before it can be made into bread. The stripes and the piercings on his body are seen on Unleavened Bread at Passover (Isaiah 53:5; Zechariah 12:10).

Our Messiah was killed as the Passover Lamb, which is not a sin offering! The Passover Lamb is a SUBSTITUTE FOR THE FIRST-BORN SONS!

Our Messiah fulfilled all the sacrifices of the Abrahamic Covenant in Genesis 15:9 in ONE FELL SWOOP!

To understand fully, how our Messiah portrayed the role of the Yom Kippur Twin Goats as well as the High Priest at the beginning of his ministry, see these two blogs below:

Messiah’s Forty Days of Fasting Leading Up to Yom Kippur!

https://doubleportioninheritance.blogspot.com/…/messiahs-fo…

The Yom Kippur Twin Goats Fulfilled in Messiah

https://doubleportioninheritance.blogspot.com/…/twin-goats-…"

Source: Maria Merola Wold June 22 at 9:53 AM

G-d hates human sacrifices.

The Christian idea of the messiah is that Jesus was the blood sacrifice that saves everyone from his or her sin. But who, exactly, died on that cross? If it was Jesus-the-god, that would mean that Gd can die. But how can Gd die? If it was only Jesus-the-human, then all Christians are left with is a human sacrifice. What, exactly, does Gd say about human sacrifice in the TaNaKH?

In Deuteronomy, Gd calls human sacrifice something that Gd hates; an abomination to Gd.

Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou inquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. Thou shalt not do so unto the Etrnl thy Gd: for every abomination to the Etrnl, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods. [Deuteronomy 12:30-31]

In Jeremiah, Gd tells us that Human sacrifice is so horrible a concept, that it did not even come into Gd's mind.

Because they have forsaken me, and have estranged this place, and have burned incense in it unto other gods, whom neither they nor their fathers have known, nor the kings of Judah, and have filled this place with the blood of innocents; They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spoke it, neither came it into my mind: Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the Etrnl, that this place shall no more be called Tophet, nor The Valley of the Son of Hinnom, but The Valley of Slaughter. [Jeremiah 19:4-6]

Similarly, in Psalm 106 and in Ezekiel 16:

Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils, And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood. [Psalm 106:37-38]

Moreover thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters, whom thou hast borne unto me, and these hast thou sacrificed unto them to be devoured. Is this of thy whoredoms a small matter?  [Ezekiel 16:20]

Some Christians might claim that Gd seemed to want human sacrifices, because Gd appeared to demand one from Abraham, when He commanded the sacrifice of Isaac. This is a misreading of the biblical text in Genesis. When one reads this section carefully, one sees something quite different.

Most Jewish biblical commentators interpret this incident as a test of Abraham's loyalty: Gd wanted to see if he would actually kill Isaac, his own son. However, a number of Jewish commentators from the medieval era, and many in the modern era as well, read the text somewhat differently. The early rabbinic midrash 'Genesis Rabbah' imagines Gd as saying 'I never considered telling Abraham to slaughter Isaac.' Rabbi Yona Ibn Janach (Spain, 11th century) wrote that Gd demanded only a symbolic sacrifice. Rabbi Yosef Ibn Caspi (Spain, early 14th century) wrote that Abraham's imagination led him astray, making him believe that he had been commanded to sacrifice his son. Ibn Caspi writes 'How could Gd command such a revolting thing?'

Rabbi Joseph H. Hertz (Chief Rabbi of the British Empire), writes that child sacrifice was actually 'rife among the Semitic peoples,' and suggests that 'in that age, it was astounding that Abraham's Gd should have interposed to prevent the sacrifice, not that He should have asked for it.' Hertz interprets the Binding of Isaac as demonstrating that human sacrifice is abhorrent. 'Unlike the cruel heathen deities, it was the spiritual surrender alone that Gd required.'

Let's examine the text:

And it came to pass after these things, that Gd did test Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. [Genesis 22:1-2]

The text reads that Abraham should 'offer him there for a burnt offering'. It does not read that Gd told Abraham to kill him for a burnt offering!

The original Hebrew is actually even clearer on this issue. The Hebrew reads, 'v’ha-ah-ley-hu sham l’o-lah.' It translates as, 'Raise him up there FOR a sacrifice.' The text does not say that Gd demanded Isaac to BE a sacrifice, but rather only that he should be raised up for one.

Furthermore, a close reading of the text tells us that this was a test, and that Abraham did not pass it. What is the test to which Abraham is being put? Gd wants Abraham to tell Gd, 'NO! I WON’T DO IT!' Abraham had just defended people he did not know in Sodom and Gemorrah. So Gd's test of Abraham is whether or not he would defend his own family as vigorously as he had defended strangers. Like many of us, he did not. He flunked. Many of us, for example, will talk sweetly to a voice on the phone, get off the phone, and then speak disrespectfully to our kids or our spouse, treating others, even strangers, better than we treat those we love.

When the test is first put before Abraham, the day before he actually takes the knife, preparing to kill his own son, Gd speaks to him directly:

And it came to pass after these things, that Gd did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. And He said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. [Genesis 22:1-2]

Please not that it is Gd speaking directly to Abraham, and not an angel of Gd. However, after he takes hold of the knife, it is only an Angel of Gd who speaks to Abraham:

And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. And the Angel of the Etrnl called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. [Genesis 22:10-11]

And then later it is still only an Angel of Gd who speaks to Abraham:

And the Angel of the Etrnl called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time… [Genesis 22:15]

As a matter of fact, Gd never spoke directly to Abraham again. From the very moment that Abraham demonstrated his willingness to actually kill his son, Gd never again spoke directly to Abraham.

Note also that the promises of the Angel of Gd to Abraham are nothing new, they are only reiterating what Gd, directly, had already promised to him (cf. Gen. 12:2, 12:3, 12:7, 13:15, 13:16, 13:17, 15:1, 15:5, 15:7, 15:14, 15:18, 17:2, 17:4, 17:6, 17:8, 17:16). It is as if Gd was saying to the Angel, 'I am through with him. Pat him on the head because he thinks he did right, remind him of his reward for his previous faith, but I am done with him!'

You see, Gd had already told Abraham His covenant would go through Isaac. Gd wanted Abraham to say, 'Wait a minute, You, Gd, are now going against Your own word!' Gd knows that we are always closer to those we will argue with, than with those we will not.

When person does wrong, who are you more likely to admonish: someone you know, or someone you do not know?

Gd wants us to be that close to Gd. Gd wants us to be like Abraham, who was willing to argue with Gd regarding strangers in Sodom and Gemorrah. Gd wants us to be as close to Gd as Moses was, indicated by the fact that Moses argued with Gd -- repeatedly -- on behalf of the People of Israel. Gd wants us to be like Job, who felt so close to Gd that he could argue with Gd for justice. We can argue with Gd like true close friends can argue with each other, because Gd is truly our Closest Friend. Abraham flunked Gd's test, and so Gd never spoke to Abraham directly again.

Note also the true meaning of the word, 'Israel,' which is 'One who wrestles with Gd.' We are not to be blind followers (the word 'Christian' means 'follower of the Christ’), and we are not to merely submit to Gd ('Islam' means 'voluntary submission to Gd.' A Muslim is one who submits to Gd).

We Jews are to be wrestlers with Gd, like True Friends can do with each other. THAT is how close Gd wants us to be with Him.
Source: http://www.whatjewsbelieve.org/explanation4.html

A Budding Star of Progressive Christianity

Bolz-Weber’s liberal, foulmouthed articulation of Christianity speaks to fed-up believers

By Michelle Boorstein,

AUSTIN — Nadia Bolz-Weber bounds into the University United Methodist Church sanctuary like a superhero from Planet Alternative Christian. Her 6-foot-1 frame is plastered with tattoos, her arms are sculpted by competitive weightlifting and, to show it all off, this pastor is wearing a tight tank top and jeans.

Looking out at the hundreds of people crowded into the pews to hear her present the gospel of Jesus Christ, she sees: Dockers and blazers. Sensible shoes. Grandmothers and soccer moms. Nary a facial piercing.

To Bolz-Weber’s bafflement, this is now her congregation: mainstream America.

These are the people who put her memoir near the top of the New York Times bestseller list the week it came out in September. They are the ones who follow her every tweet and Facebook post by the thousands, and who have made the Lutheran minister a budding star for the liberal Christian set.

And who, as Bolz-Weber has described it in her frequently profane dialect, “are [mess]ing up my weird.”

A quick tour through her 44 years doesn’t seem likely to wind up here. It includes teen rebellion against her family’s fundamentalist Christianity, a nose dive into drug and alcohol addiction, a lifestyle of sleeping around and a stint doing stand-up in a grungy Denver comedy club. She is part of society’s outsiders, she writes in her memoir, its “underside dwellers . . . cynics, alcoholics and queers.”

Which is where — strangely enough — the match with her fans makes sense. The type of social liberals who typically fill the pews of mainline churches sometimes feel like outsiders among fellow liberals in their lives if they are truly believing Christians; if they are people who really experience Jesus and his resurrection, even if they can’t explain it scientifically; if they are people who want to hear words from the Apostles in church, not Thich Nhat Hanh or Barack Obama.

In her body and her theology, Bolz-Weber represents a new, muscular form of liberal Christianity, one that merges the passion and life-changing fervor of evangelicalism with the commitment to inclusiveness and social justice of mainline Protestantism. She’s a tatted-up, foul-mouthed champion to people sick of being belittled as not Christian enough for the right or too Jesus-y for the left.

“You show us all your dirty laundry! It’s all out there!” the Rev. John Elford of the University United Methodist Church booms, as if he is introducing a rock star, leading the cheering crowd into an impassioned round of hymn-singing.

Bolz-Weber springs onstage to do a reading from her book, but first she addresses the language that’s about to be unleashed on the pulpit: “I don’t think church leaders should pretend to be something they’re not.”

The crowd erupts into applause.

Bolz-Weber pulls out a few kitschy items that she raffles off to raise money for a local charity. She waves a gift certificate for a free tattoo. Then she speaks to her new reality:

“You ladies over 70 dig deep, because you know you want it!”

God without answers

Bolz-Weber’s appeal is unquestionably part packaging: dramatic back story, cool appearance, super-entertaining delivery. She launched a successful church for disaffected young people and has headlined youth gatherings tens of thousands strong. For a part of American religion that’s been in a long, slow institutional decline, this gives her major credibility.

She’s on a plane nearly every week to headline church leadership gatherings because of the way she articulates the place of the religious liberal in America. Next up is Calvary Baptist Church in Washington’s Chinatown, where she will speak to an overflow crowd of more than 600 people Tuesday evening.

Her message: Forget what you’ve been told about the golden rule — God doesn’t love you more if you do good things, or if you believe certain things. God, she argues, offers you grace regardless of who you are or what you do.

Christianity, Bolz-Weber preaches, has nothing to do with rules; it is the process of things constantly dying and then being made new. Those things, she says, might be the alcoholic who emerges into sobriety, some false narrative we have about ourselves, religious institutions that no longer inspire.

“I think God is wanting to be known. And my experience of God wanting to be known is much more in the person who is annoying me at the moment rather than in the sunset,” she says. God is present in these challenging interactions, she says.

“I never experience God in camping or trees or nature. I hate nature,” she told the Austin crowd as she paced the stage. “God invented takeout and duvets for a reason.”

This emphasis on experience over rules challenges conservatives, but it also bothers progressives who have turned church into what she views as essentially a nonprofit organization.

“This isn’t supposed to be the Elks Club with the Eucharist,” Bolz-Weber said in a taxi ride before her Austin talk. Religion should be “something that’s so devastatingly beautiful it can break your heart. Instead it’s been: ‘Recycle.’ And ‘Don’t sleep with your girlfriend.’ ”

Bolz-Weber says she abhors “spirituality,” which she sees as a limp kind of self-improvement plan. She prefers a cranky, troublemaking and real God who at times of loss and pain doesn’t have the answers either.

“God isn’t feeling smug about the whole thing,” she writes about Jesus’s resurrection and the idea that the story is used as fodder for judgment. “God is not distant at the cross. . . . God is there in the messy mascara-streaked middle of it, feeling as [bad] as the rest of us.”

This very physical way of talking about God is thrilling to a lot of people who grew up in liberal Christianity.

“Here’s Nadia — boom!” said Jeff Krehbiel, a Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) pastor in the District who leads a national group on revitalizing U.S. congregations. “For her, this isn’t some metaphor, this is something real that changed the world and changed my life. How do we talk about this as people who want to use their heads? . . . I think people like her are resonating with a growing group of Christians who are asking the same kinds of questions.”

To Carmen Retzlaff, a newly ordained Lutheran pastor who came with her husband to the Austin talk, Bolz-Weber is liberating — partly because she’s “unapologetic” about her faith. “She talks a lot about JEE-sus” — Retzlaff giggles here — “which hasn’t always been a place of comfort in an increasingly secular world. I really love that.”

Some people, of course, really hate that. Her memoir’s title, in fact, comes from the nickname given to her by one of her critics who opposes female clergy. The book is called “Pastrix: The Cranky, Beautiful Faith of a Sinner and Saint.”

From drugs to the pulpit

At the core of Bolz-Weber’s five-year-old Denver church, the House for All Sinners and Saints, are people who felt hurt by religion — as she did.

Early on, she says, she was aware of hypocrisy, homophobia and sexism in her fundamentalist upbringing. As a teenager, she had a thyroid disorder that caused her eyes to bug far out of her head, and she always had the feeling that she didn’t belong. She marinated her anger in drugs and alcohol for about a decade.

Yet she never stopped believing in God. She dabbled for years with Wicca and experimented with every liberal faith group, from Unitarians to Quakers. She performed stand-up as a type of no-cost therapy.

It was going through anti-addiction recovery that finally soothed her anger. Her encounter with a tall, cute, Lutheran seminary student named Matthew Weber brought her back to church. They married in 1996 and have two children.

She first heard the call to pastor in a downtown Denver comedy club at which she and a bunch of her old runaround pals gathered in 2004 to eulogize a friend who had hanged himself. As the only religious member, she was asked to lead the service. Her vocation to her fellow outsiders was born.

Four years and a seminary degree later, Bolz-Weber founded what today is casually called House. It’s a start-up of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, with an “anti-excellence, pro-participation” policy. It meets in the parish hall of an Episcopal church.

Seating is arranged around an unelevated circle, lay people can pick up a card and help run the service, and sermons by Bolz-Weber are usually 12 minutes tops. Singing is all a capella and every service has a creative, congregant-run, interactive program.

“Sometimes I ask myself, why aren’t we at 1,000 people? This church is unbelievable,” said Aram Harotunian, a former evangelical megachurch pastor who goes to House. “For 21 years, I felt I had to keep people in line, and it felt like bondage to me. House has a lot of people burned by religion, and this still holds for me. It’s the only church I can stomach.”

But House has had its own unconventional crisis in recent years, after the suburbanites started showing up.

“It was awful,” Bolz-Weber writes. It seemed as if her “precious little indie boutique of a church” might be overrun by bankers and doctors. She called her pastor friends to ask, “Have you ever had normal people take over your church?”

The church had to call a meeting that is now basic House lore. The newcomers described how they felt inspired by the liturgy, and the younger outsider-types who had been there from the beginning wound up saying it was kind of nice to see someone who looked like their moms or dads but was accepting.

Bolz-Weber characterizes herself as having had “a heart transplant.” This is typical for someone who presents herself as the “anti-pastor”: cranky, intolerant, egotistical, but always open to Jesus making her better.

Growing pains

These days, about 180 people show up each Sunday, an eclectic mix of homeless and corporate types, punk teens and suburban baby boomers sitting on stacking chairs in the rented hall. Bolz-Weber’s growing popularity has forced the questions: How deeply into convention can she stand going? Can she stomach the idea of hiring staff? Of being mega?

The congregation is “becoming big and it’s freaking her out, because that’s not her gift,” said Harotunian. “It gets to her identity — what kind of pastor does she want to be? A lot of people think she’s going to climb the ladder. But I don’t think she can do that. It’s very precarious.”

For her part, Bolz-Weber is open about wondering how long she can be a nonstop tweeting-and-traveling machine.

“Christianity is supposed to give me a mild sense of discomfort. I don’t get to be in control,” she said. “It’s always putting me into something new.”

SOURCE: 
'Progressive Christianity' is an oxymoron . . . just like 'Intelligent Liberal'

A word from Pastor Cletus


"Jesus told us that we need to become like children if we want to get into Heaven. You see, Jesus doesn't want us to get puffed up with so-called education and knowledge, which is why He has anointed Barack Hussein Obama II.  Scientists would have you believe that salvation can be found in the accumulation of knowledge. They say that "knowledge" will set you free. This is hogwash according to our Lord and Savior. Through Jesus, we know that all knowledge outside of the Holy Bible is a lie. A child could tell you that! During this time of Thanksgiving, science has yet to provide an explanation as to why there are still so many turkeys available after they were all killed last year. We will tell you why: Jesus blesses us with those turkeys, end of story. We don't need to read a book to find out where they come from! They come from Jesus!"

Wannabe Cool Christianity

The Perils of 'Wannabe Cool' Christianity

"Biblical Oral Sex" and "Pleasuring Your Spouse."  

 "Many other churches now encourage texting, Twitter and iPhone interaction with the pastor during their services."

By 
• BRETT MCCRACKEN

(Please see Corrections & Amplifications item below.)

'How can we stop the oil gusher?" may have been the question of the summer for most Americans. Yet for many evangelical pastors and leaders, the leaking well is nothing compared to the threat posed by an ongoing gusher of a different sort: Young people pouring out of their churches, never to return.

As a 27-year-old evangelical myself, I understand the concern. My peers, many of whom grew up in the church, are losing interest in the Christian establishment.

Recent statistics have shown an increasing exodus of young people from churches, especially after they leave home and live on their own. In a 2007 study, Lifeway Research determined that 70% of young Protestant adults between 18-22 stop attending church regularly.

Statistics like these have created something of a mania in recent years, as baby-boomer evangelical leaders frantically assess what they have done wrong (why didn't megachurches work to attract youth in the long term?) and scramble to figure out a plan to keep young members engaged in the life of the church.

Increasingly, the "plan" has taken the form of a total image overhaul, where efforts are made to rebrand Christianity as hip, countercultural, relevant. As a result, in the early 2000s, we got something called "the emerging church"—a sort of postmodern stab at an evangelical reform movement. Perhaps because it was too "let's rethink everything" radical, it fizzled quickly. But the impulse behind it—to rehabilitate Christianity's image and make it "cool"—remains.

There are various ways that churches attempt to be cool. For some, it means trying to seem more culturally savvy. The pastor quotes Stephen Colbert or references Lady Gaga during his sermon, or a church sponsors a screening of the R-rated "No Country For Old Men." For others, the emphasis is on looking cool, perhaps by giving the pastor a metrosexual makeover, with skinny jeans and an $80 haircut, or by insisting on trendy eco-friendly paper and helvetica-only fonts on all printed materials. Then there is the option of holding a worship service in a bar or nightclub (as is the case for L.A.'s Mosaic church, whose downtown location meets at a nightspot called Club Mayan).

"Wannabe cool" Christianity also manifests itself as an obsession with being on the technological cutting edge. Churches like Central Christian in Las Vegas and Liquid Church in New Brunswick, N.J., for example, have online church services where people can have a worship experience at an "iCampus." Many other churches now encourage texting, Twitter and iPhone interaction with the pastor during their services.

But one of the most popular—and arguably most unseemly—methods of making Christianity hip is to make it shocking. What better way to appeal to younger generations than to push the envelope and go where no fundamentalist has gone before?

Sex is a popular shock tactic. Evangelical-authored books like "Sex God" (by Rob Bell) and "Real Sex" (by Lauren Winner) are par for the course these days. At the same time, many churches are finding creative ways to use sex-themed marketing gimmicks to lure people into church.

Oak Leaf Church in Cartersville, Georgia, created a website called yourgreatsexlife.com to pique the interest of young seekers. Flamingo Road Church in Florida created an online, anonymous confessional (IveScrewedUp.com), and had a web series called MyNakedPastor.com, which featured a 24/7 webcam showing five weeks in the life of the pastor, Troy Gramling. Then there is Mark Driscoll at Seattle's Mars Hill Church—who posts Q&A videos online, from services where he answers questions from people in church, on topics such as "Biblical Oral Sex" and "Pleasuring Your Spouse."

But are these gimmicks really going to bring young people back to church? Is this what people really come to church for? Maybe sex sermons and indie- rock worship music do help in getting people in the door, and maybe even in winning new converts. But what sort of Christianity are they being converted to?

In his book, "The Courage to Be Protestant," David Wells writes:"The born-again, marketing church has calculated that unless it makes deep, serious cultural adaptations, it will go out of business, especially with the younger generations. What it has not considered carefully enough is that it may well be putting itself out of business with God.

"And the further irony," he adds, "is that the younger generations who are less impressed by whiz-bang technology, who often see through what is slick and glitzy, and who have been on the receiving end of enough marketing to nauseate them, are as likely to walk away from these oh-so-relevant churches as to walk into them."

If the evangelical Christian leadership thinks that "cool Christianity" is a sustainable path forward, they are severely mistaken. As a twentysomething, I can say with confidence that when it comes to church, we don't want cool as much as we want real.

If we are interested in Christianity in any sort of serious way, it is not because it's easy or trendy or popular. It's because Jesus himself is appealing, and what he says rings true. It's because the world we inhabit is utterly phony, ephemeral, narcissistic, image-obsessed and sex-drenched—and we want an alternative. It's not because we want more of the same.

Corrections & Amplifications

Pastor Mark Driscoll at Seattle's Mars Hill Church has talked about sexual topics in church services but says he has not delivered sermons with sex-themed titles. An earlier version of this column mistakenly used the word sermon.

SOURCE:

Newt Gingrich Visits the “Holy Ghost Bartender” Rodney Howard Browne

• Newt Gingrich Visits the “Holy Ghost Bartender”
• Post by SARAH POSNER

Newt Gingrich made an appearance at River Church in Tampa, Florida, pastored by Rodney Howard Browne. Slate's Dave Weigel tweeted that in introducing Gingrich, Browne prayed that America "will not allow the killing of unborn babies, and the takeover of Islam"and "the Constitution that we have, and your word, and Jesus is the only way we can be delivered from this plight."

Browne is no inconsequential—or uncontroversial—figure in the world of charismatic Christianity. He's been described by Christianity Today as the "often flamboyant Pentecostal preacher." He's associated with the "holy laughter" manifestation of charismatic gifts, which the same CT piece characterized as "rang[ing] from uncontrollable laughter to the noises of animals."

Here is Browne at Oral Roberts University, along with the late Oral Roberts, where the pair was consumed with holy laughter:


A 1999 profile in the Tampa Tribune described Browne and the phenomonen that is also known as the Toronto Blessing, because of a revival sparked there:

Howard-Browne is the pastor of The River at Tampa Bay, a high-energy, racially-mixed church in Temple Terrace he founded in December 1996. Nearly 1,000 people spend about four hours in a service led by "the Holy Ghost bartender,'' as he is known.

Here, he serves the new wine of Christ, and they get drunk with joy. It's not uncommon for worshipers to break into uncontrollable "holy laughter,'' shaking with mirth, dancing in the aisles or falling to the ground. They say they are "slain in the spirit.''

The movement has swept churches in Lakeland, Pensacola, southern California and Toronto. Although holy laughter has caused quite a controversy in charismatic circles, historians say it has been around for centuries.

"It's better than doing crack cocaine; it's better than drinking alcohol,'' says David Wilson, a 38- year-old carpenter and former substance abuser who now attends the River. "It's a spiritual high I never want to come off of.''

Adherents to a more orthodox brand of Christianity object to Browne's doctrine, along with his preaching of Word of Faith (or prosperity gospel), calling their views heretical and unbiblical.

Critics range from the Christian Research Institute, which aims to "provide Christians worldwide with carefully researched information and well-reasoned answers that encourage them in their faith and equip them to intelligently represent it to people influenced by ideas and teachings that assault or undermine orthodox, biblical Christianity" to televangelist watchdog Ole Anthony of the Trinity Foundation. Anthony called the high produced by Browne's revival "a phony euphoria," adding, "What happens to these converted people when the crusade packs up and leaves town? They get depressed. They get confused. So all they can do is wait for the next one so they can go back and get another fix." CRI's Hank Hanegraff, also known as the "Bible Answer Man," has called Browne's activities a "counterfeit revival," and accused him of preaching "fabrications, fantasies, and frauds."

Hanegraff has provided some detailed accounts of what it was like for him to be at a Browne revival:

When the Holy Ghost Bartender (who also refers to himself as the Holy Ghost Hitman) arrived at my seat, he began threatening to have me thrown out of the sanctuary. "I’m telling you right now," he hissed, "you’ll drop dead if you prohibit what God is doing!" Dramatically he gestured toward the crowd and warned them that those like me, who would dare question that what he was doing was of God, had committed the unpardonable sin and would not be forgiven in this world or the next.

The following day he crowed, "The last time I had a confrontation like that...was...with a bunch of Mormons... you could see their spirit, y’know...just a really religious, pharisaical spirit, that’s what it is. Amen?...And I smelt it — y’know, I can smell them religious devils from about a hundred yards —- I could smell them blindfolded, man....You could see, last night we meant business." He labeled his critics "idiots" and warned that they were about to experience either "riot or revival."

Four years ago, John McCain had a "pastor problem" because of the controversial and bigoted statements made by his endorsers John Hagee and Rod Parsley. McCain responded by rejecting their endorsements and distancing himself from them. It's hard to imagine Newt (Tyler Durden) Gingrich backing away so easily, even if other Christians have issues with Browne. Will he add "heretic hunters" to the list of "elites" attacking him?

I can't resist: here's another Browne video. "Saturate them, Jesus:" [1]

Holy Laughter - What's it all about?

By Kathie Walters

I’ve been in prayer meetings which had a very serious tone - and suddenly the spirit of laughter has descended. When we were coming into revival years ago I remember someone saying they had read an account of revival in a book- and in this revival at the time, there was a lot of weeping. Our church thought, "Well maybe we should weep because maybe God likes weeping, maybe it’s a way of being holy."

We had a "repentance" meeting and were all serious. We asked God to convict us and bring a spirit of weeping upon us. We waited for a while - nothing happened. After about 15 minutes someone began to giggle. We tried to stifle our mouths because we were there to weep. After another few minutes someone else started to giggle. We could contain it no more - we hit the floor and laughed uproariously for about 3 hours. We had been under condemnation for years because of religious spirits. We didn’t need to be weeping right then - we were getting delivered and getting to know "Abba" ( daddy).

So what happens with this laughter? What is it all about? It’s a wonderful experience but really what is happening? What is spiritual about it and what does it have to do with God?

The Bible says that "God looks on His enemies and laughs and has them in derision." So if God laughs then He must be laughing because of victory. ( Ps 2:4)

Sometimes I have been praying for someone and they are telling me really bad stuff. I start to pray and start laughing- why is that? That’s weird isn’t it? But you see I may not understand in my mind but my spirit begins to pick up on a victory that’s happening in the spirit realm for that person. When you pray then God answers and sometimes your spirit has received the answer before your mind.

I believe that the laughter (God’s laughter) brings down that victory into our experience.

Laughter eliminates fear - God is in charge - He told Job:

"At destruction and famine you shall laugh: neither shall you be afraid of the beasts of the earth." (Job 5:22)

He will still fill your mouth with laughter, your lips with shouting (Job 8:21) It’s OK to shout sometimes. People shout and scream at a little football, why don’t God’s people do some more shouting (and laughing)?

God laughs at the wicked - because God always has the final word.

"The Lord shall laugh at him: for he sees that his day is coming. ( Ps 37:13)

God causes us to laugh at those who would cause destruction.

"The righteous also shall see, and fear, and shall laugh at him..." (Ps 52:6)

There is a time to ask and a time to receive - and a time to laugh in the victories of God.

"A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance." (Eccl 3:4)

When the anointing of laughter comes - the oil flows and the enemy runs for cover. The devil knows and is afraid of the laughter because he knows he is defeated.

Do you realize the enemy hates you to get in the anointing - the Holy Spirit makes you God conscious not self conscious or sin conscious. When you are in the Spirit realm you see what He sees. Guess what? God sees the victories. God sees the end when you are just at the beginning.

When the enemy seems like a great big bear (fear) - God already sees him knocked out.

That’s why you laugh and you don’t understand why? There seems some big mountains and it looks like you can‘t get over them- but you suddenly start laughing at them.

God is the God of the mountains - we often feel threatened by them but God walks on them.

Laughter is in the empty tomb. In fact when I was in the Garden tomb one time I was trying to be very reverent. Then an angel tapped me on the shoulder and spoke to me "He certainly isn’t here." I started laughing and laughing because the angel didn’t seem to make an idol of an empty grave. [2]

Source:
[1] Religiondispatches.org

[2] http://www.sidroth.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8403&news_iv_ctrl=0&abbr=art_

Mithraism or Christianity?

Mithra: The Pagan Christ

by Acharya S/D.M. Murdock

(The following article is adapted from a chapter in Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled, as well as excerpts from other articles, such as "The Origins of Christianity" and "The ZEITGEIST Sourcebook.")

"Both Mithras and Christ were described variously as 'the Way,' 'the Truth,' 'the Light,' 'the Life,' 'the Word,' 'the Son of God,' 'the Good Shepherd.' The Christian litany to Jesus could easily be an allegorical litany to the sun-god. Mithras is often represented as carrying a lamb on his shoulders, just as Jesus is. Midnight services were found in both religions. The virgin mother...was easily merged with the virgin mother Mary. Petra, the sacred rock of Mithraism, became Peter, the foundation of the Christian Church."

Gerald Berry, Religions of the World

"Mithra or Mitra is...worshipped as Itu (Mitra-Mitu-Itu) in every house of the Hindus in India. Itu (derivative of Mitu or Mitra) is considered as the Vegetation-deity. This Mithra or Mitra (Sun-God) is believed to be a Mediator between God and man, between the Sky and the Earth. It is said that Mithra or [the] Sun took birth in the Cave on December 25th. It is also the belief of the Christian world that Mithra or the Sun-God was born of [a] Virgin. He travelled far and wide. He has twelve satellites, which are taken as the Sun's disciples.... [The Sun's] great festivals are observed in the Winter Solstice and the Vernal Equinox—Christmas and Easter. His symbol is the Lamb...."

Swami Prajnanananda, Christ the Saviour and Christ Myth

Because of its evident relationship to Christianity, special attention needs to be paid to the Persian/Roman religion of Mithraism. The worship of the Indo-Persian god Mithra dates back centuries to millennia preceding the common era. The god is found as "Mitra" in the Indian Vedic religion, which is over 3,500 years old, by conservative estimates. When the Iranians separated from their Indian brethren, Mitra became known as "Mithra" or "Mihr," as he is also called in Persian.

By around 1500 BCE, Mitra worship had made it to the Near East, in the Indian kingdom of the Mitanni, who at that time occupied Assyria. Mitra worship, however, was known also by that time as far west as the Hittite kingdom, only a few hundred miles east of the Mediterranean, as is evidenced by the Hittite-Mitanni tablets found at Bogaz-Köy in what is now Turkey. The gods of the Mitanni included Mitra, Varuna and Indra, all found in the Vedic texts.

Mithra as Sun God

The Indian Mitra was essentially a solar deity, representing the "friendly" aspect of the sun. So too was the Persian derivative Mithra, who was a "benevolent god" and the bestower of health, wealth and food. Mithra also seems to have been looked upon as a sort of Prometheus, for the gift of fire. (Schironi, 104) His worship purified and freed the devotee from sin and disease. Eventually, Mithra became more militant, and he is best known as a warrior.

Like so many gods, Mithra was the light and power behind the sun. In Babylon, Mithra was identified with Shamash, the sun god, and he is also Bel, the Mesopotamian and Canaanite/ Phoenician solar deity, who is likewise Marduk, the Babylonian god who represented both the planet Jupiter and the sun. According to Pseudo-Clement of Rome's debate with Appion (Homily VI, ch. X), Mithra is also Apollo.

In time, the Persian Mithraism became infused with the more detailed astrotheology of the Babylonians and Chaldeans, and was notable for its astrology and magic; indeed, its priests or magi lent their very name to the word "magic." Included in this astrotheological development was the re-emphasis on Mithra's early Indian role as a sun god. As Francis Legge says in Forerunners and Rivals in Christianity:

The Vedic Mitra was originally the material sun itself, and the many hundreds of votive inscriptions left by the worshippers of Mithras to "the unconquered Sun Mithras," to the unconquered solar divinity (numen) Mithras, to the unconquered Sun-God (deus) Mithra, and allusions in them to priests (sacerdotes), worshippers (cultores), and temples (templum) of the same deity leave no doubt open that he was in Roman times a sun-god. (Legge, II, 240)

By the Roman legionnaires, Mithra—or Mithras, as he began to be known in the Greco-Roman world—was called "the divine Sun, the Unconquered Sun." He was said to be "Mighty in strength, mighty ruler, greatest king of gods! O Sun, lord of heaven and earth, God of Gods!" Mithra was also deemed "the mediator" between heaven and earth, a role often ascribed to the god of the sun.

An inscription by a "T. Flavius Hyginus" dating to around 80 to 100 AD/CE in Rome dedicates an altar to "Sol Invictus Mithras"—"The Unconquered Sun Mithra"—revealing the hybridization reflected in other artifacts and myths. Regarding this title, Dr. Richard L. Gordon, honorary professor of Religionsgeschichte der Antike at the University of Erfurt, Thuringen, remarks:

It is true that one...cult title...of Mithras was, or came to be, Deus Sol Invictus Mithras (but he could also be called... Deus Invictus Sol Mithras, Sol Invictus Mithras...

...Strabo, 15.3.13 (p. 732C), basing his information on a lost work, either by Posidonius (ca 135-51 BC) or by Apollodorus of Artemita (first decades of 1 cent. BC), states baldly that the Western Parthians "call the sun Mithra." The Roman cult seems to have taken this existing association and developed it in their own special way. (Gordon, "FAQ." (Emph. added.))

"Mithra is who the monuments proclaim him—the Unconquered Sun."

As concerns Mithra's identity, Mithraic scholar Dr. Roger Beck says:

Mithras...is the prime traveller, the principal actor...on the celestial stage which the tauctony [bull-slaying] defines.... He is who the monuments proclaim him—the Unconquered Sun. (Beck (2004), 274)

In an early image, Mithra is depicted as a sun disc in a chariot drawn by white horses, another solar motif that made it into the Jesus myth, in which Christ is to return on a white horse. (Rev 6:2; 19:11)

Mithra in the Roman Empire

Subsequent to the military campaign of Alexander the Great in the fourth century BCE, Mithra became the "favorite deity" of Asia Minor. Christian writers Dr. Samuel Jackson and George W. Gilmore, editors of The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (VII, 420), remark:

It was probably at this period, 250-100 b.c., that the Mithraic system of ritual and doctrine took the form which it afterward retained. Here it came into contact with the mysteries, of which there were many varieties, among which the most notable were those of Cybele.

According to the Roman historian Plutarch (c. 46-120 AD/CE), Mithraism began to be absorbed by the Romans during Pompey's military campaign against Cilician pirates around 70 BCE. The religion eventually migrated from Asia Minor through the soldiers, many of whom had been citizens of the region, into Rome and the far reaches of the Empire. Syrian merchants brought Mithraism to the major cities, such as Alexandria, Rome and Carthage, while captives carried it to the countryside. By the third century AD/CE Mithraism and its mysteries permeated the Roman Empire and extended from India to Scotland, with abundant monuments in numerous countries amounting to over 420 Mithraic sites so far discovered.

"By the third century AD/CE Mithraism and its mysteries permeated the Roman Empire and extended from India to Scotland."

From a number of discoveries, including pottery, inscriptions and temples, we know that Roman Mithraism gained a significant boost and much of its shape between 80 and 120 AD/CE, when the first artifacts of this particular cultus begin to be found at Rome. It reached a peak during the second and third centuries, before largely expiring at the end of the fourth/beginning of fifth centuries. Among its members during this period were emperors, politicians and businessmen. Indeed, before its usurpation by Christianity Mithraism enjoyed the patronage of some of the most important individuals in the Roman Empire. In the fifth century, the emperor Julian, having rejected his birth-religion of Christianity, adopted Mithraism and "introduced the practise of the worship at Constantinople." (Schaff-Herzog, VII, 423)

Modern scholarship has gone back and forth as to how much of the original Indo-Persian Mitra-Mithra cultus affected Roman Mithraism, which demonstrates a distinct development but which nonetheless follows a pattern of this earlier solar mythos and ritual. The theory of "continuity" from the Iranian to Roman Mithraism developed famously by scholar Dr. Franz Cumont in the 20th century has been largely rejected by many scholars. Yet, Plutarch himself (Life of Pompey, 24) related that followers of Mithras "continue to the present time" the "secret rites" of the Cilician pirates, "having been first instituted by them." So too does the ancient writer Porphyry (234-c. 305 AD/CE) state that the Roman Mithraists themselves believed their religion had been founded by the Persian savior Zoroaster.

In discussing what may have been recounted by ancient writers asserted to have written many volumes about Mithraism, such as Eubulus of Palestine and "a certain Pallas," Gordon (Journal Mithraic Studies, v. 2, 150) remarks: "Certainly Zoroaster would have figured largely; and so would the Persians and the magi." It seems that the ancients themselves did not divorce the eastern roots of Mithraism, as exemplified also by the remarks of Dio Cassius, who related that in 66 AD/CE the king of Armenia, Tiridates, visited Rome. Cassius states that the dignitary worshipped Mithra; yet, he does not indicate any distinction between the Armenian's religion and Roman Mithraism.

It is apparent from their testimony that ancient sources perceived Mithraism as having a Persian origin; hence, it would seem that any true picture of the development of Roman Mithraism must include the latter's relationship to the earlier Persian cultus, as well as its Asia Minor and Armenian offshoots. Current scholarship is summarized thus by Dr. Beck (2004; 28):

Since the 1970s, scholars of western Mithraism have generally agreed that Cumont's master narrative of east-west transfer is unsustainable; but...recent trends in the scholarship on Iranian religion, by modifying the picture of that religion prior to the birth of the western mysteries, now render a revised Cumontian scenario of east-west transfer and continuities once again viable.

In his massive anthology, Armenian and Iranian Studies, Dr. James R. Russell, professor of Armenian Studies at Harvard University, essentially proves that Roman Mithraism had its origins in not only Persian or Iranian Mithraism and Zoroastrianism but also in Armenian religion, dating back centuries before the common era.

The Many Faces of Mithra

Mainstream scholarship speaks of at least three Mithras: Mitra, the Vedic god; Mithra, the Persian deity; and Mithras, the Greco-Roman mysteriesicon. However, the Persian Mithra apparently developed differently in various places, such as in Armenia, where there appeared to be emphasis on characteristics not overtly present in Roman Mithraism but found as motifs within Christianity, including the Virgin Mother Goddess. This Armenian Mithraism is evidently a continuity of the Mithraism of Asia Minor and the Near East. This development of gods taking on different forms, shapes, colors, ethnicities and other attributes according to location, era and so on is not only quite common but also the norm. Thus, we have hundreds of gods and goddesses who are in many ways interchangeable but who have adopted various differences based on geographical and environmental factors.

Mithra and Christ

Over the centuries—in fact, from the earliest Christian times—Mithraism has been compared to Christianity, revealing numerous similarities between the two faiths' doctrines and traditions, including as concerns stories of their respective godmen. In developing this analysis, it should be kept in mind that elements from Roman, Armenian and Persian Mithraism are utilized, not as a whole ideology but as separate items that may have affected the creation of Christianity, whether directly through the mechanism of Mithraism or through another Pagan source within the Roman Empire and beyond. The evidence points to these motifs and elements being adopted into Christianity not as a whole from one source but singularly from many sources, including Mithraism.

"The evidence points to these motifs and elements being adopted into Christianity..."

Thus, the following list represents not a solidified mythos or narrative of one particular Mithra or form of the god as developed in one particular culture and era but, rather, a combination of them all for ease of reference as to any possible influences upon Christianity under the name of Mitra/Mithra/Mithras.

Mithra has the following in common with the Jesus character:

• Mithra was born on December 25th of the virgin Anahita.
• The babe was wrapped in swaddling clothes, placed in a manger and attended by shepherds.
• He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.
• He had 12 companions or "disciples."
• He performed miracles.
• As the "great bull of the Sun," Mithra sacrificed himself for world peace.
• He ascended to heaven.
• Mithra was viewed as the Good Shepherd, the "Way, the Truth and the Light," the Redeemer, the Savior, the Messiah.
• Mithra is omniscient, as he "hears all, sees all, knows all: none can deceive him."
• 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.
• His religion had a eucharist or "Lord's Supper."
• Mithra "sets his marks on the foreheads of his soldiers."
• Mithraism emphasized baptism.

December 25th Birthday

The similarities between Mithraism and Christianity have included their chapels, the term "father" for priest, celibacy and, it is notoriously claimed, the December 25^th birthdate. Over the centuries, apologists contending that Mithraism copied Christianity nevertheless have asserted that the December 25^th birthdate was taken from Mithraism. As Sir Arthur Weigall says:

December 25^th was really the date, not of the birth of Jesus, but of the sun-god Mithra. Horus, son of Isis, however, was in very early times identified with Ra, the Egyptian sun-god, and hence with Mithra...

Mithra's birthday on December 25th has been so widely claimed that the Catholic Encyclopedia ("Mithraism") remarks: "The 25 December was observed as his birthday, the natalis invicti, the rebirth of the winter-sun, unconquered by the rigours of the season."

Yet this contention of Mithra's birthday on December 25th or the winter solstice is disputed because there is no hard archaeological or literary evidence of the Roman Mithras specifically being named as having been born at that time. Says Dr. Alvar:

There is no evidence of any kind, not even a hint, from within the cult that this, or any other winter day, was important in the Mithraic calendar. (Alvar, 410)

In analyzing the evidence, we must keep in mind all the destruction that has taken place over the past 2,000 years—including that of many Mithraic remains and texts—as well as the fact that several of these germane parallels constituted mysteries that may or may not have been recorded in the first place or the meanings of which have been obscured.

The claim about the Roman Mithras's birth on "Christmas" is evidently based on the Calendar of Filocalus or Philocalian Calendar (c. 354 AD/CE), which mentions that December 25th represents the "Birthday of the Unconquered," understood to refer to the sun and taken to indicate Mithras as Sol Invictus. Whether it represents Mithras's birthday specifically or "merely" that of Emperor Aurelian's Sol Invictus, with whom Mithras has been identified, the Calendar also lists the day—the winter solstice birth of the sun—as that of natus Christus in Betleem Iudeae: "Birth of Christ in Bethlehem Judea."

Moreover, it would seem that there is more to this story, as Aurelian was the first to institute officially the winter solstice as the birthday of Sol Invictus (Dies Natalis Solis Invicti) in 274 AD/CE. (Halsberghe, 158) It is contended that Aurelian's move was in response to Mithras's popularity. (Restaud, 4) One would thus wonder why the emperor would be so motivated if Mithras had nothing whatsoever to do with the sun god's traditional birthday—a disconnect that would be unusual for any solar deity.

Regardless of whether or not the artifacts of the Roman Mithras's votaries reflect the attribution of the sun god's birthday to him specifically, many in the empire did identify the mysteries icon and Sol Invictus as one, evidenced by the inscriptions of "Sol Invictus Mithras" and the many images of Mithras and the sun together, representing two sides of the same coin or each other's alter ego. Hence, the placement of Mithras's birth on this feast day of the sun is understandable and, despite the lack of concrete evidence at this date, quite plausiblywas recognized in this manner in antiquity in the Roman Empire.

Persian Winter Festivals

In addition, it is clear that the ancient peoples from whom Mithraism sprang, long before it was Romanized, were very much involved in winter festivals so common among many other cultures globally. In this regard, discussing the Iranian month of Asiyadaya, which corresponds to November/December, Mithraic scholar Dr. Mary Boyce remarks:

...it is at this time of year that the Zoroastrian festival of Sada takes place, which is not only probably pre-Zoroastrian in origin, but may even go back to proto-Indo-European times. For Sada is a great open-air festival, of a kind celebrated widely among the Indo-European peoples, with the intention of strengthening the heavenly fire, the sun, in its winter decline and feebleness. Sun and fire being of profound significance in the Old Iranian religion, this is a festival which one would expect the Medes and Persians to have brought with them into their new lands... Sada is not, however, a feast in honour of the god of Fire, Atar, but is rather for the general strengthening of the creation of fire against the onslaught of winter. (Boyce (1982), 24-25)

This ancient Persian winter festival therefore celebrates the strengthening of the "fire" or sun in the face its winter decline, just as virtually every winter-solstice festivity is intended to do. Yet, as Dr. Boyce says, this "Zoroastrian" winter celebration is likely pre-Zoroastrian and even proto-Indo-European, which means it dates back far into the hoary mists of time, possibly tens of thousands of years ago. And one would indeed expect the Medes and Persians to bring this festival with them into their new lands, including the Near East, where they would eventually encounter Romans, who could hardly have missed this common solar motif celebrated worldwide in numerous ways.

"The Mithraists believed that this night is the night of the birth of Mithra, Persian god of light and truth."

The same may be said as concerns another Persian or Zoroastrian winter celebration called "Yalda," which is the festival of the Longest Night of the Year, taking place on December 20th or the day before the solstice:

Yalda has a history as long as the Mithraism religion. The Mithraists believed that this night is the night of the birth of Mithra, Persian god of light and truth. At the morning of the longest night of the year the Mithra is born from a virgin mother....

In Zoroastrian tradition, the winter solstice with the longest night of the year was an auspicious day, and included customs intended to protect people from misfortune.... The Eve of the Yalda has great significance in the Iranian calendar. It is the eve of the birth of Mithra, the Sun God, who symbolized light, goodness and strength on earth. Shab-e Yalda is a time of joy.

Yalda is a Syriac word meaning birth. Mithra-worshippers used the term "yalda" specifically with reference to the birth of Mithra. As the longest night of the year, the Eve of Yalda (Shab-e Yalda) is also a turning point, after which the days grow longer. In ancient times it symbolized the triumph of the Sun God over the powers of darkness. ("Yalda," Wikipedia)

It is likely that this festival does indeed derive from remote antiquity, and it is evident that the ancient Persians were well aware of the winter solstice and its meaning as found in numerous other cultures: To wit, the annual "rebirth," "renewal" or "resurrection" of the sun.

"'Christmas' is the birth not of the 'son of God' but of the sun."

In the end the effect is the same: "Christmas" is the birth not of the "son of God" but of thesun. Indeed, there is much evidence—including many ancient monumental alignments—to demonstrate that this highly noticeable and cherished event of the winter solstice was celebrated beginning hundreds to thousands of years before the common era in numerous parts of the world. The observation was thus provably taken over by Christianity, not as biblical doctrine but as a later tradition in order to compete with the Pagan cults, a move we contend occurred with numerous other "Christian" motifs, including many that are in the New Testament.

Mithra the 'Rock-Born'

Mithra's genesis out of a rock, analogous to the birth in caves of a number of gods—includingJesus in the apocryphal, non-canonical texts— was followed by his adoration by shepherds, another motif that found its way into the later Christianity. Regarding the birth in caves likewise common to pre-Christian gods, and present in the early legends of Jesus, Weigall relates (50):

...the cave shown at Bethlehem as the birthplace of Jesus was actually a rock shrine in which the god Tammuz or Adonis was worshipped, as the early Christian father Jerome tells us; and its adoption as the scene of the birth of our Lord was one of those frequent instances of the taking over by Christians of a pagan sacred site. The propriety of this appropriation was increased by the fact that the worship of a god in a cave was commonplace in paganism: Apollo, Cybele, Demeter, Herakles, Hermes, Mithra and Poseidon were all adored in caves; Hermes, the GreekLogos, being actually born of Maia in a cave, and Mithra being "rock-born."

As the "rock-born," Mithras was called "Theos ek Petras," or the "God from the Rock." As Weigall also relates:

Indeed, it may be that the reason of the Vatican hill at Rome being regarded as sacred to Peter, the Christian "Rock," was that it was already sacred to Mithra, for Mithraic remains have been found there.

Mithras was "the rock," or Peter, and was also "double-faced," like Janus the keyholder, likewise a prototype for the "apostle" Peter. Hence, when Jesus is made to say (in the apparent interpolation at Matthew 16:12) that the keys of the kingdom of heaven are given to "Peter" and that the Church is to be built upon "Peter," as a representative of Rome, he is usurping the authority of Mithraism, which was precisely headquartered on what became Vatican Hill.

"Mithraic remains on Vatican Hill are found underneath the later Christian edifices, which proves the Mithra cult was there first."

By the time the Christian hierarchy prevailed in Rome, Mithra had already been a popular cult, with pope, bishops, etc., and its doctrines were well established and widespread, reflecting a certain antiquity. Mithraic remains on Vatican Hill are found underneath the later Christian edifices, a fact that proves the Mithra cult was there first. In fact, while Mithraic ruins are abundant throughout the Roman Empire, beginning in the late first century AD/CE, "The earliest church remains, found in Dura-Europos, date only from around 230 CE."

The Virgin Mother Anahita

Unlike various other rock- or cave-born gods, Mithra is not depicted in the Roman cultus as having been given birth by a mortal woman or a goddess; hence, it is claimed that he was not "born of a virgin." However, a number of writers over the centuries have asserted otherwise, including several modern Persian and Armenian scholars who are apparently reflecting an ancient tradition from Near Eastern Mithraism.

"The worship of Mithra and Anahita, the virgin mother of Mithra, was well-known in the Achaemenian period."

For example, Dr. Badi Badiozamani says that a "person" named "Mehr" or Mithra was "born of a virgin named Nahid Anahita ('immaculate')" and that "the worship of Mithra and Anahita, the virgin mother of Mithra, was well-known in the Achaemenian period [558-330 BCE]..." (Badiozamani, 96) Philosophy professor Dr. Mohammed Ali Amir-Moezzi states: "Dans le mithraïsme, ainsi que le mazdéisme populaire, (A)Nāhīd, mère de Mithra/Mehr, est vierge"—"In Mithraism, as in popular Mazdaism, Anahid, the mother of Mithra, is a virgin." (Amir-Moezzi, 78-79) Comparing the rock birth with that of the virgin mother, Dr. Amir-Moezzi also says:

...il y a donc analogie entre le rocher, symbole d'incorruptibilité, qui donne naissance au dieu iranien et la mère de celui-ci, Anāhīd, éternellement vierge et jeune.

(...so there is analogy between the rock, a symbol of incorruptibility, giving birth to the Iranian god and the mother of that (same) one, Anahid, eternally virgin and young.)

In Mithraic Iconography and Ideology (78), Dr. Leroy A. Campbell calls Anahita the "great goddess of virgin purity," and Religious History professor Dr. Claas J. Bleeker says, "In the Avestan religion she is the typical virgin." (Bleeker (1963), 100)

One modern writer ("Mithraism and Christianity") portrays the Mithra myth thus:

According to Persian mythology, Mithras was born of a virgin given the title "Mother of God."

The Parthian princes of Armenia were all priests of Mithras, and an entire district of this land was dedicated to the Virgin Mother Anahita. Many Mithraeums, or Mithraic temples, were built in Armenia, which remained one of the last strongholds of Mithraism. The largest near-eastern Mithraeum was built in western Persia at Kangavar, dedicated to "Anahita, the Immaculate Virgin Mother of the Lord Mithras."

Anahita, also known as "Anaitis"—whose very name means "Pure" and "Untainted" and who was equated in antiquity with the virgin goddess Artemis—is certainly an Indo-Iranian goddess of some antiquity, dating back at least to the first half of the first millennium prior to the common era and enjoying "widespread popularity" around Asia Minor. Indeed, Anahita has been called "the best known divinity of the Persians" in Asia Minor. (de Jong, 268)

Moreover, concerning Mithra Schaff-Herzog says, "The Achaemenidae worshiped him as making the great triad with Ahura and Anahita." Ostensibly, this "triad" was the same as God the Father, the Virgin and Jesus, which would tend to confirm the assertion that Anahita was Mithra's virgin mother. That Anahita was closely associated with Mithra at least five centuries before the common era is evident from the equation made by Herodotus (1.131) in naming "Mitra" as the Persian counterpart of the Near and Middle Eastern goddesses Alilat and Mylitta. (de Jong, 269-270)

Moreover, Mithra's prototype, the Indian Mitra, was likewise born of a female, Aditi, the "mother of the gods," the inviolable or virgin dawn. Hence, we would expect an earlier form of Mithra also to possess this virgin-mother motif, which seems to have been lost or deliberately severed in the all-male Roman Mithraism.

Well known to scholars, the pre-Christian divine birth and virgin mother motifs are documented in the archaeological and literary records, as verified by Dr. Marguerite Rigoglioso in The Cult of the Divine Birth in Ancient Greece and Virgin Mother Goddesses of Antiquity.

For more information, see:

 

Mithra and the Twelve

The theme of the teaching god and "the Twelve" is found within Mithraism, as Mithra is depicted as surrounded by the 12 zodiac signs on a number of monuments and in the writings of Porphyry (4.16), for one. These 12 signs are sometimes portrayed ashumans and, as they have been in the case of numerous sun gods, could be called Mithra's 12 "companions" or "disciples."

Regarding the Twelve, John M. Robertson says:

On Mithraic monuments we find representations of twelve episodes, probably corresponding to the twelve labors in the stories of Heracles, Samson and other Sun-heroes, and probably also connected with initiation.

The comparison of this common motif with Jesus and the 12 has been made on many occasions, including in an extensive study entitled, "Mithras and Christ: some iconographical similarities," by Professor A. Deman in Mithraic Studies.

Early Church Fathers on Mithraism

Mithraism was so popular in the Roman Empire and so similar in important aspects to Christianity that several Church fathers were compelled to address it, disparagingly of course. These fathers included Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Julius Firmicus Maternus and Augustine, all of whom attributed these striking correspondences to the prescient devil. In other words, anticipating Christ, the devil set about to fool the Pagans by imitating the coming messiah. In reality, the testimony of these Church fathers confirms that these various motifs, characteristics, traditions and myths predated Christianity.

"Christianity took a leaf out of the devil's book when it fixed the birth of the Saviour on the twenty-fifth of December."

Concerning this "devil did it" argument, in The Worship of Nature Sir James G. Frazer remarks:

If the Mithraic mysteries were indeed a Satanic copy of a divine original, we are driven to conclude that Christianity took a leaf out of the devil's book when it fixed the birth of the Saviour on the twenty-fifth of December; for there can be no doubt that the day in question was celebrated as the birthday of the Sun by the heathen before the Church, by an afterthought, arbitrarily transferred the Nativity of its Founder from the sixth of January to the twenty-fifth of December.

Regarding the various similarities between Mithra and Christ, as well as the defenses of the Church fathers, the author of The Existence of Christ Disproved remarks:

Augustine, Firmicus, Justin, Tertullian, and others, having perceived the exact resemblance between the religion of Christ and the religion of Mithra, did, with an impertinence only to be equalled by its outrageous absurdity, insist that the devil, jealous and malignant, induced the Persians to establish a religion the exact image of Christianity that was to be—for these worthy saints and sinners of the church could not deny that the worship of Mithrapreceded that of Christ—so that, to get out of the ditch, they summoned the devil to their aid, and with the most astonishing assurance, thus accounted for the striking similarity between the Persian and the Christian religion, the worship of Mithra and the worship of Christ; a mode of getting rid of a difficulty that is at once so stupid and absurd, that it would be almost equally stupid and absurd seriously to refute it.

"It is good practice to steer clear of all information provided by Christian writers: they are not 'sources,' they are violent apologists."

In response to a question about Tertullian's discussion of the purported Mithraic forehead mark,  Dr. Richard Gordon says:

In general, in studying Mithras, and the other Greco-oriental mystery cults, it is good practice to steer clear of all information provided by Christian writers: they are not "sources," they are violent apologists, and one does best not to believe a word they say, however tempting it is to supplement our ignorance with such stuff. (Gordon, "FAQ")

He also cautions about speculation concerning Mithraism and states that "there is practically no limit to the fantasies of scholars," an interesting admission about the hallowed halls of academia.

Priority: Mithraism or Christianity?

It is obvious from the remarks of the Church fathers and from the literary and archaeological record that Mithraism in some form preceded Christianity by centuries. The fact is that there is no Christian archaeological evidence earlier than the earliest Roman Mithraic archaeological evidence and that the preponderance of evidence points to Christianity being formulated during the second century, not based on a "historical" personage of the early first century. As one important example, the canonical gospels as we have them do not show up clearly in the literary record until the end of the second century.

Mithra's pre-Christian roots are attested in the Vedic and Avestan texts, as well as by historians such as Herodotus (1.131) and Xenophon (Cyrop. viii. 5, 53 and c. iv. 24), among others. Nor is it likely that the Roman Mithras is not essentially the same as the Indian sun god Mitra and the Persian, Armenian and Phrygian Mithra in his major attributes, as well as some of his most pertinent rites.

Moreover, it is erroneously asserted that because Mithraism was a "mystery cult" it did not leave any written record. In reality, much evidence of Mithra worship has been destroyed, including not only monuments, iconography and other artifacts, but also numerous books by ancient authors. The existence of written evidence is indicated by the Egyptian cloth "manuscript" from the first century BCE called, "Mummy Funerary Inscription of the Priest of Mithras, Ornouphios, Son fo Artemis" or MS 247.

As previously noted, two of the ancient writers on Mithraism are Pallas, and Eubulus, the latter of whom, according to Jerome (Against Jovinianus, 2.14; Schaff 397), "wrote the history of Mithras in many volumes." Discussing Eubulus and Pallas, Porphyry too related that there were "several elaborate treatises setting forth the religion of Mithra." The writings of the early Church fathers themselves provide much evidence as to what Mithraism was all about, as do the archaeological artifacts stretching from India to Scotland.

These many written volumes doubtlessly contained much interesting information that was damaging to Christianity, such as the important correspondences between the "lives" of Mithra and Jesus, as well as identical symbols such as the cross, and rites such as baptism and the eucharist. In fact, Mithraism was so similar to Christianity that it gave fits to the early Church fathers, as it does to this day to apologists, who attempt both to deny the similarities and yet to claim that these (non-existent) correspondences were plagiarized by Mithraismfrom Christianity.

"Regardless of attempts to make Mithraism the plagiarist of Christianity, the fact will remain that Mithraism was first."

Nevertheless, the god Mithra was revered for centuries prior to the Christian era, and the germane elements of Mithraism are known to have preceded Christianity by hundreds to thousands of years. Thus, regardless of attempts to make Mithraism the plagiarist of Christianity, the fact will remain that Mithraism was first, well established in the West decades before Christianity had any significant influence.

For more information and citations, see The Christ Conspiracy, Suns of God, "Origins of Christianity," "The ZEITGEIST Sourcebook" and The Christ Myth Anthology. See also the"Mithra: Pagan Christ" forum discussion.

Bibliography

"Chronography of 354," en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar_of_Filocalus
"Mithraic Mysteries," en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraic_mysteries
"Mithraism," www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=8042
"Mithraism and Christianity," meta-religion.com/World_Religions/Ancient_religions/Mesopotamia/Mithraism/ mithraism_and_christianity_i.htm
"Mithras in Comparison With Other Belief Systems," en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithras_in_Comparison_With_Other_Belief_Systems
"Mitra," en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitra
"Yalda," en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yalda
Alvar, Jaime, and R.L. Gordon. Romanising Oriental Gods: Myth, Salvation and Ethics in the Cults of Cybele, Isis and Mithras. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2008.
Amir-Moezzi, Mohammed Ali. La religion discrète: croyances et pratiques spirituelles dans l'islam shi'ite. Paris: Libr. Philosophique Vrin, 2006.
Anonymous. The Existence of Christ Disproved. Private Printing by "A German Jew," 1840.
Badiozamani, Badi. Iran and America: Rekindling a Lost Love. California: East-West Understanding Press, 2005.
Beck, Roger. Beck on Mithraism. England/Vermont: Ashgate Pub., 2004.
Berry, Gerald. Religions of the World. New York: Barnes & Noble, 1955.
Bleeker, Claas J. The Sacred Bridge: Researches into the Nature and Structure of Religion. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1963.
Boyce, Mary. "Mithraism: Mithra Khsathrapati and his brother Ahura." www.iranchamber.com/religions/articles/mithra_khsathrapati_ahura.php
—A History of Zoroastrianism, II. Leiden/Köln: E.J. Brill, 1982.
Campbell, LeRoy A. Mithraic Iconography and Ideology. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1968.
de Jong, Albert. Traditions of the Magi: Zoroastrianism in Greek and Latin Literature. Leiden/New York: Brill, 1997.
Forbes, Bruce David. Christmas: A Candid History. Berkeley/London: University of California Press, 2007.
Frazer, James G. The Worship of Nature, I. London: Macmillan, 1926.
Gordon, Richard L. "FAQ." Electronic Journal of Mithraic Studies, www.hums.canterbury.ac.nz/clas/ejms/faq.htm
—"The date and significance of CIMRM 593 (British Museum, Townley Collection)." Journal of Mithraic Studies, II: 148-174). hums.canterbury.ac.nz/clas/ejms/out_of_print/JMSv2n2/ JMSv2n2Gordon.pdf
Halsberghe, Gaston H. The Cult of Sol Invictus. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1972.
Hinnells, John R., ed. Mithraic Studies: Proceedings of the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1975.
Kosso, Cynthia, and Anne Scott. The Nature and Function of Water, Baths, Bathing and Hygiene from Antiquity through the Renaissance. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2009.
Lundy, John P. Monumental Christianity. New York: J.W. Bouton, 1876.
Molnar, Michael R. The Star of Bethlehem: The Legacy of the Magi. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1999.
The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia, VII. eds. Samuel M. Jackson and George William Gilmore. New York/London: Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1910.
Plutarch. "Life of Pompey." The Parallel Lives by Plutarch, V. Loeb, 1917; penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/ Pompey*.html#24
Porphyry. Selects Works of Porphyry. London: T. Rodd, 1823.
Prajnanananda, Swami. Christ the Saviour and Christ Myth. Calcutta: Ramakrishna Vedanta Math, 1984.
Restaud, Penne L. Christmas in America: A History. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1995.
Robert, Alexander, and James Donaldson, eds. Ante-Nicene Christian Library, XVIII: The Clementine Homilies. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1870.
Robertson, John M. Pagan Christs. Dorset, 1966.
Russell, James R. Armenian and Iranian Studies. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004.
Schaff, Philip, and Henry Wace. A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Father of the Christian Church, VI. New York: The Christian Literature Company, 1893.
Schironi, Francesca, and Arthus S. Hunt. From Alexandria to Babylon: Near Eastern Languages and Hellenistic Erudition in the Oxyrhynchus Glossary. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2009.
Srinivasan, Doris. On the Cusp of an Era: Art in the Pre-Kusana World. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2007.
Weigall, Arthur. The Paganism in Our Christianity. London: Thames & Hudson, 1923. 

SOURCE: http://www.truthbeknown.com/mithra.htm