Steven Carr

I'm sure there is evidence of Mithraic artefacts before Christian artefacts.

Mithra born in a cave? With 12 followers? I have never seen any evidence for this and would be amazed if anybody produced any.

Steven Carr

I wondered why Holding regarded him so highly. I should have realised that it was because he is considered a bit of a nut.

Holding writes '.... Ulansey has led the way with the thesis that Mithra is here to be identified with Perseus [Ulan.OMM, 26ff], and that Roman Mithraism was founded upon a "revolutionary" discovery in ancient astronomy (which was closely linked to astrology in that time) that "the entire cosmic structure was moving in a way which no one had even known before" -- a process we now call the precession of the equinoxes.'

And Holding goes on to say that Mithra was chosen because it was a Persian name , because of the connection with Perseus.

Magus55

What you seem to be forgetting is all the Christian concepts surrounding Jesus come from the Old Testament, which predates Mithraism. Jews wrote the New Testament, not Christians.

http://www.carm.org/evidence/mithra.htm

Toto

We've had this discussion before: Mithraism split from Similarities between Jesus and Pagans and sources for mysteries. - see the links and books described there.

Gabe the Angel

Dear Magus55

Sorry, but the idea of the story of Jesus coming from the Old Testament is above my understanding of the entire subject. My view as already expressed is that if the Mithra story has a similar background to Jesus, then both can be regarded as stories and not a way of salvation. I have more faith in the LIFE of BRIAN, this leads me to the important issue of was it the Judaea Popular Front, or was it the Popular Front of Judaea. Magus 55 please explain your reasoning to the Mithra situation, if Mithra was before Jesus, how can Jesus be original?

Ted Hoffman

In spite of the long post, I only make two arguments here:

1. CX's the idea that "that the cult of Mithras was not accepted by the ruling elite of the Roman Empire" is not factually correct.

2. As much as it can be argued that ideas in christian scriptures were not borrowed from mithraism, elements of iconoclacism, day of worship and other practices by later christians were certainly borrowed from Mithraism.

From that thread, I have a few questions for those well-heeled in Mithras studies:

I would like to know from CX, is it his argument that even though Mithraism and Christianity emerged within the same 'empire', there was no cross-pollination whatsoever?
What are the odds?
Co-optation was never an option for winning converts?

This is related to BifftheUnclean's earlier question:
An argument seems to emerge that Mithraism was embraced by lower-class Roman (soldiers) and was not accepted by the ruling elite.

Is that the argument?

Roman soldiers, who constantly faced death in battlefields, likely embraced Mithraism because of its emphasis on victory, strength, and security in the next world.
What are the odds, of the leaders an empire rejecting the beliefs of 'their men', an empire whose chief means of conquest is by warfare, whose main strength are soldiers.
Could the social categorization maintain such an insuperable gap? How would the leaders (generals etc) 'bond' with their soldiers? What would they comfort them with as they approached battlefields?

CX,
From my reading, in 67 B.C., the first congregation of Mithras-worshipping
soldiers existed in Rome under the command of General Pompey who, with the fifteenth Apollonian Legion, between 67 and 70 CE, suppressed Jewish uprisings, destroyed the 2nd temple of and captured the Ark of the Covenant. This legion, accompanied by Emperor Titus to Alexandria and with new recruits from Cappadocia (Turkey) to replace the casualties, are said to have offered sacrifices to Mithras in Danube for their victorious campaigns.
They expanded the temple of Jupiter and this temple was later enlarged by Diocletian, Emperor from 284-305 C.E. Diocletian rededicated this sanctuary to Mithras, giving him the title "The Protector of the Empire".

Franz Cumont, Les Mystères de Mithra
Check this full-text version: THE MYSTERIES OF MITHRA, by Franz Cumont, 1903

I believe Cumont is citing Lamprid., Alexander Severus ,

In summary, I think CX's assertion above, is false.

I also got the following from a site whose reliability I cannot gauge - but whose assertions we can now easily falsify or otherwise:

"Faithful followers of Mithra included the Roman emperors Nero, Commodus, Septimus, Aurelian, Julian the Apostate, and Dioclethian. In 307AD Dioclethian made worship of Mithras the main national religion declaring the 'son of the sun-god' to be Protector of the Empire. Afterwards, Dioclethian persecuted the Christians. In 312AD Constantine claims to have seen a portent in the sky prior to winning a battle and afterwards became 'converted to Christianity'. He caused all of the shrines dedicated to Mithra to be rededicated to Christ. Actually, most of the tenants and doctrines of Mithra were transferred into the 'so called' Christian church. In 321AD Constantine wrote:

'Constantine, Emperor Augustus, to Helidus:"The 'venerable day of the sun' was the special day of the week dedicated
to the cult sun-god, Mithra as the first day of the week, Sun Day. "
http://www.truthbook.com/11061.cfm

The following link offers the following which CX may need to 'explain away'
http://www.lookandlive.com/themysteriesofmithra.html

1. Day of worship
Mithraism
'Venerable day of the sun'. Sunday, first and foremost.
Christianity
Sunday. The first and best day of the week.

2. Dec. 25
Mithraism
Sun's birthday (a high day)
Christianity
Christmas Dec 25th

Caveat Lector: We know the scriptures don't have this, but Christianity (a religion) has Dec 25th set as the day Jesus was born, so don't bother going to 'there is no scriptural support'. Just look at any calendar.

3. Queen of heaven/ Madonna
Mithraism
Ishtar, the virgin Queen of heaven, depicted with infant son Tammuz (Mithra) on her lap. Early Babylonian.
Christianity
Mary the queen of heaven depicted with infant Jesus in her arms.

And so on and so forth.

http://www.lookandlive.com/themysteriesofmithra.html
http://www.vetssweatshop.net/dogma2b.htm
http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/pirates.html

Magus55

Mithra may have been before Jesus' birth, but Mithra wasn't before Jesus was prophecized. Atheists may disagree with the OT having anything to do with Jesus, but the OT prophecizes the Messiah long before Mithraism.

CX

I should then clarify that it was not my assertion, but rather, a direct quote from Manfred Clauss. You should notice that Cumont's book is 100 years old and Mithraic scholars generally regard it as no longer valid. Also it is important to distinguish between the Sol Invicti cult and the Roman Cult of Mithras. There is a great deal of confusion because, like many theistic systems of the time, Roman Mithraism syncretistically absorbed Sol Invicti into it's beliefs and conflated Sol Invicti and Mithras. Ultimately your argument is not against my position, but rather, the position of modern Mithraic scholarship.

CX

1&2 are the result of confusing Sol Inviciti with Mithras.

3 is a result of the now rejected theory that the Roman Mithras was a direct offshoot of Perso-Iranian mythology.

CX

BTW I looked that the posted website. It's mostly crap. I really don't have the inclination to refute it at length here. I would suggest reading the Clauss book.