Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 09-04-2007, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Quote:

So often it's bunk.

http://www.us.oup.com/us/catalog/gen...=9780199216130

Quote:

Table of Contents
1. Introduction to interpreting the mysteries: old ways, new ways
2. Old ways: the reconstruction of Mithraic doctrine from iconography
3. The problem of referents: interpretation with reference to what?
4. Doctrine redefined
Transition: from old ways to new ways
5. The Mithraic mysteries as symbol system. 1. Introduction and comparisons
6. Cognition and representation
7. The Mithraic mysteries as symbol system. 2. The mithraeum
8. Star-talk: the symbols of the Mithraic mysteries as language signs
9. The Mithraic mysteries as symbol system. 3. The tauroctony
Conclusions

the above references The Religion of the Mithras Cult in the Roman Empire: Mysteries of the Unconquered Sun (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Roger Beck, also available on google books. There is a review here (pdf) which is not exactly favorable.

Minimalist · 09-04-2007, 10:36 AM

Quote:

St. Peter's Basilica, begun in 326 C.E. by Emperor Constantine over a small Pagan shrine, was built outside the walls of Rome on Vatican Hill,

I always thought that it began as a shrine to The Cybele? Can't recall where I saw that but re-cycling was a viable option for everyone.

Amedeo · 09-04-2007, 11:50 AM

P.S. to # 40

As for the celebration of Jesus' birthday on Dec. 25, there is NO SCRIPTURAL basis for it. The Gospels that speak of the birth and resurrection ["re-birth"] of Jesus give no clues as to the time of the year when they occurred.

We know from the Church's liturgical practices, that Easter (resurrection-day) was supposed to coincide with the spring equinox [the time when nature is reborn, etc.], but as the Julian calendar computations were imperfect, eventually the Gregorian reform was made, IN ORDER TO BRING THE EASTER FEAST il line with the equinox.

We can practically infer -- aside from connections with the biography of Mithra -- that the birth day of Jesus began to be celebrated on the winter solstice, which, in the 4th century, was around the 25th of December. (It is around Dec. 21 today.... which does not coincide with January 1st of the Julian calendar.)

Why did the Church use key-times in the SOLAR calendar to celebrate the birth and resurrection of Jesus? There is not scriptural basis for this at all. Jesus is assimilated to a sun-god, but there is no basis in the Roman or Greek religion for this assimilation. The Roman calendar was particularly geared to agricultural seasons or Months, rather than solar events. If the Roman Church were influences from the Roman calendar, they would have celebrated Christmas at the spring solstice [which was the beginning of the year before the Julian reform].

So, largely from a process of elimination, and because of the fact that Mithraism was the predominant religion in the Roman empire, we can infer that the Church imitated (while replacing) the birth of the sun-god Mithra in choosing Dec. 25 as the birth of Christ. // The last Supper scene in the Gospels, where Jesus speaks of bread and wine as his body and blood, was WRITTEN by Greeks, who had the Dionysian, not Mithraic, tradition. The homophagia is well attested in rites, while Dionysus is the vine or wine demi-god....... But in view of Paul's theory of salvation, the Church never made the eucharist the prerequisite of salvation. (If Mithra ever spoke of eucharistic salvation, what kind of salvation would he be talking about???)

Clivedurdle · 09-04-2007, 12:10 PM

The Review of Beck above notes it is published by the Society of Biblical Literature which according to Wiki:

Quote:

The Society of Biblical Literature is a constituent society of the American Council of Learned Societies with the stated mission to "Foster Biblical Scholarship". Membership is open to the public, including 7200 individuals from over 80 countries. Membership benefits include access to job listings and discounts on publications.

The founding meeting took place among eight founders in the New York City office of Philip Schaff, in January 1880. Eighteen people attended the first annual meeting in June of that year.

The society's ongoing activities include an annual meeting in North America that it claims is "the largest international gathering of biblical scholars". There are annual regional meetings throughout the United States and an additional annual meeting held outside North America.

The society publishes three serials:

* an academic journal, the Journal of Biblical Literature
* a review of relevant publications, the Review of Biblical Literature
* a newsletter, the SBL Forum

Roger Pearse · 09-04-2007, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

the above references The Religion of the Mithras Cult in the Roman Empire: Mysteries of the Unconquered Sun (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Roger Beck...

One point that I would make is that we must get past the modern works on Mithras. These too are often full of unsubstantiated nonsense. One of the worst for this is the English translation of Cumont's conclusions from his Textes et Monumentes. Publishing this bit alone, without references, allowed the most far-fetched ideas to circulate detached from the data. What we want to see -- surely? -- is the ancient evidence for each statement.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Clivedurdle · 09-04-2007, 12:23 PM

I had not realised, how can I put this politely, the organised and seemingly rational arguments being put around against the concept of a connection between Mithras and Jesus by people who all assert an adherence to a 'biblical" worldview.

There are weaknesses in all arguments but the continuous attaking of this proposed connection is very interesting. Why might that be? What is it about Mithras that is so threatening?

Why is xianity as an evolution of Pagan ideas so unreasonable?

Roger Pearse · 09-04-2007, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Why did the Church use key-times in the SOLAR calendar to celebrate the birth and resurrection of Jesus? ...

Well, perhaps a summary of what the fathers actually say would be helpful to answer this question objectively?

Quote:

So, largely from a process of elimination, and because of the fact that Mithraism was the predominant religion in the Roman empire, we can infer that the Church imitated (while replacing) the birth of the sun-god Mithra in choosing Dec. 25 as the birth of Christ.

Can you produce any evidence that the "birth of the sun-god Mithra" was celebrated in antiquity on this date?

If not, why are you repeating this nonsense for the second time? I asked you for evidence last time; you couldn't produce any.

And, can you produce any evidence that "Mithraism was the dominant religion in the Roman empire"? Particularly when it wasn't?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Minimalist · 09-04-2007, 02:25 PM

http://www.theosophical.ca/EsotericChristianity.htm

Quote:

These events are reproduced in the lives of the various Solar Gods, and antiquity teems with illustrations of them. Isis of Egypt like Mary of Bethlehem was our Immaculate Lady, Star of the Sea, Queen of Heaven, Mother of God. We see her in pictures standing on the crescent moon, star-crowned; she nurses her child Horus, and the cross appears on the back of the seat in which he sits on his mother's knee. The Virgo of the Zodiac is represented in ancient drawings as a woman suckling a child—the type of all future Madonnas with their divine Babes, showing the origin of the symbol. Devakî is likewise figured with the divine Krshna in her arms, as is Mylitta, or Istar, of Babylon, also with the recurrent crown of stars, and with her child Tammuz on her knee. Mercury and Aesculapius, Bacchus and Hercules, Perseus and the Dioscuri, Mithras and Zarathustra, were all of divine and human birth.

The relation of the winter solstice to Jesus is also significant. The birth of Mithras was celebrated in the winter solstice with great rejoicings, and Horus was also then born: "His birth is one of the greatest mysteries of the [Egyptian] religion. Pictures representing it appeared on the walls of temples. . . . He [Page 139] was the child of Deity. At Christmas time, or that answering to our festival, his image was brought out of the sanctuary with peculiar ceremonies, as the image of the infant Bambino is still brought out and exhibited at Rome".[Bonwiok. Egyptian Belief, p. 157. Quoted in Williamson's The Great Law (or via: amazon.co.uk), p. 26 ]

On the fixing of the 25th December as the birthday of Jesus, Williamson has the following: "All Christians know that the 25th December is now the recognised festival of the birth of Jesus, but few are aware that this has not always been so. There have been, it is said, one hundred and thirty-six different dates fixed on by different Christian sects. Lightfoot gives it as 15th September, others as in February or August. Epiphanius mentions two sects, one celebrating it in June, the other in July. The matter was finally settled by Pope Julius I, in 337 A. D., and S. Chrysostom, writing in 390, says : ' On this day [.i.e., 25th December] also the birth of Christ was lately fixed at Rome, in order that while the heathen were busy with their ceremonies [the Brumalia, in honour of Bacchus] the Christians might perform their rites undisturbed.' Gibbon in his Decline and Fall of the Roman [Page 140] Empire, writes: ' The [Christian] Romans, as ignorant as their brethren of the real date of his [Christ's birth] fixed the solemn festival to the 25th December, the Brumalia or winter solstice, when the Pagans annually celebrated the birth of the Sun.' King, in his Gnostics and Their Remains, also says: ' The ancient festival held on the 25th December in honour of the birthday of the Invincible One,[The festival "Natalia Solis Invicti", the birthday of the Invincible Son. ] and celebrated by the great games at the Circus, was afterwards transferred to the commemoration of the birth of Christ, the precise date of which many of the Fathers confess was then unknown;' while at the present day Canon Farrar writes that 'all attempts to discover the month and day of the nativity are useless. No data whatever exist to enable us to determine them with even approximate accuracy.' From the foregoing it is apparent that the great festival of the winter solstice has been celebrated during past ages, and in widely separated lands, in honour of the birth of a God, who is almost invariably alluded to as a ' Saviour,' and whose mother is referred to as a pure virgin. The striking resemblances, too, which have been instanced not only in the birth but in the life of so many [Page 141] of these Saviour-Gods are far too numerous to be accounted for by any mere coincidence". [Williamson. The Great Law, pp. 40-42, Those who wish to study this matter as one of Comparative Religion cannot do better than read The Great Law, whose author is a profoundly religious man and a Christian. ]

Of course, it also seems that early christians ran about destroying as much of the Sol Invictus cult as they could in their zeal to eliminate the competition. I hope you are not suggesting that they be rewarded for their book-burning activities?

Toto · 09-04-2007, 02:46 PM

I like the Theosophists on one level. I enjoyed Mead's Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.?, which made more sense that most historical Jesus books. But then I learned that the Theosophists accepted as evidence stuff that was channeled by the spirits.

I'm going to try wait for a professional historian to revise the field of comparative religions and bring it up to date, and separate out the nonsense from what can actually be known, before I wander into it. There are much more defensible reasons to oppose fundamentalist Christianity than some copy cat argument.

In the meantime -

The Great Law: A Study Of Religious Origins And The Unity Underlying Them (or via: amazon.co.uk) by W. Williamson can also be previewed on google books.

Quote:

Book Description
1899. A study into the origin and growth of human thought. This volume consists of three books, which cover the following: The Symbolism; History and Ethics; and The Interpretation. Partial Chapter Contents include: Birth of the Savior; Death and Resurrection; Solar Symbols; Sacraments and Blood-Covenants; Early Races of Man; Ideas of God; The Cosmic Origin of Solar Myths; and The Real Meaning of the Trinity.

Just glancing through the table of contents indicates that this is not a source I would want to rely on, since he brings Krishna into the comparison. Williams appears to be one of those who would like to see a unity of all religions as a good thing.

Roger Pearse · 09-04-2007, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

http://www.theosophical.ca/EsotericChristianity.htm

I'm afraid that I don't think that we need take any interest in claims made by people who were not alive during antiquity. They have no sources that we do not. If they repeat those sources, then let us see the sources, and let them get out of the way; their opinions are irrelevant. If they say anything else, the hell with them.

I noted the reference to Sol Invictus. I have yet to meet anyone online who has bothered to determine what if anything we actually know about this cult. This ignorance doesn't seem to stop people talking as if they did, tho.

Sorry if the last is a bit irritable. But after listening long enough to people who have never bothered to learn the first thing about Mithras gleefully shouting "Jesus is Mithras" -- posts endlessly on the subject, containing not a single piece of useful information on Mithras -- , a certain impatience with this kind of behaviour creeps in.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-04-2007, 11:50 AM	#43
Amedeo Banned Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: US Citizen (edited) Posts: 1,948	P.S. to # 40 As for the celebration of Jesus' birthday on Dec. 25, there is NO SCRIPTURAL basis for it. The Gospels that speak of the birth and resurrection ["re-birth"] of Jesus give no clues as to the time of the year when they occurred. We know from the Church's liturgical practices, that Easter (resurrection-day) was supposed to coincide with the spring equinox [the time when nature is reborn, etc.], but as the Julian calendar computations were imperfect, eventually the Gregorian reform was made, IN ORDER TO BRING THE EASTER FEAST il line with the equinox. We can practically infer -- aside from connections with the biography of Mithra -- that the birth day of Jesus began to be celebrated on the winter solstice, which, in the 4th century, was around the 25th of December. (It is around Dec. 21 today.... which does not coincide with January 1st of the Julian calendar.) Why did the Church use key-times in the SOLAR calendar to celebrate the birth and resurrection of Jesus? There is not scriptural basis for this at all. Jesus is assimilated to a sun-god, but there is no basis in the Roman or Greek religion for this assimilation. The Roman calendar was particularly geared to agricultural seasons or Months, rather than solar events. If the Roman Church were influences from the Roman calendar, they would have celebrated Christmas at the spring solstice [which was the beginning of the year before the Julian reform]. So, largely from a process of elimination, and because of the fact that Mithraism was the predominant religion in the Roman empire, we can infer that the Church imitated (while replacing) the birth of the sun-god Mithra in choosing Dec. 25 as the birth of Christ. // The last Supper scene in the Gospels, where Jesus speaks of bread and wine as his body and blood, was WRITTEN by Greeks, who had the Dionysian, not Mithraic, tradition. The homophagia is well attested in rites, while Dionysus is the vine or wine demi-god....... But in view of Paul's theory of salvation, the Church never made the eucharist the prerequisite of salvation. (If Mithra ever spoke of eucharistic salvation, what kind of salvation would he be talking about???)

09-04-2007, 12:23 PM	#46
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	I had not realised, how can I put this politely, the organised and seemingly rational arguments being put around against the concept of a connection between Mithras and Jesus by people who all assert an adherence to a 'biblical" worldview. There are weaknesses in all arguments but the continuous attaking of this proposed connection is very interesting. Why might that be? What is it about Mithras that is so threatening? Why is xianity as an evolution of Pagan ideas so unreasonable?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.