Freethought & Rationalism Archive

avi · 06-25-2011, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

That part is derived entirely from Vermaseren, as you have already seen, and in turn, therefore, from the medieval Arabic Christian sayings sources rather than from ancient sources about Mithras.

Thank you very much, Roger, I always profit from reading your posts, which I personally find both of scholarly dimension, and illuminating. I appreciate your efforts, and I am grateful for your having taken the time and trouble to reply to this thread, and to explain several interesting points about Mithraism.

Some folks, here on the forum, I noticed, take exception to your submissions, based upon the notion that your personal beliefs color the interpretation you offer of the evidence. I must say, in my opinion, admittedly, unlearned, I have not found your interpretations particularly colored by Christian rose colored lenses. We are all learning!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

I have always found your research reliable and useful, which are the two highest encomiums I know.

Agreed, most emphatically.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I inevitably avoid these debates because I am never sure whose side I'm on.

Excellent. A touch of humor is always welcome.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Nevertheless if we are going to look at the facts it has to be said that the two most important pieces of evidence are (1) Justin's statement that the Devil was responsible for the similarities between Christ and Mithras and (2) Celsus's statement that the Christians stole their mysteries from the Persians (Book Six from memory).

Nope.
Don't agree at all.

I sought, evidently, (according to Roger,) without success, to introduce a Persian source, not a Roman source, because of my belief, quite possibly erroneous, that Mithraism is derived from Zoroastrianism, and originated in Persia--i.e. I believe, on faith, that Mithraism had nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity.

I had thought, that the reference I provided was based upon PERSIAN, not Greek or Latin writings. Roger indicated that I erred in that regard, I hope he, or you, would clarify how we know that the Persians possess no written evidence of Mithraism, predating the arrival on the scene of Christianity.

This notion, that we must rely upon one Roman author or another, (both of them either Christians (Justin) or influenced by Christianity--not Mithraism-- (Celsus),) seems to me, to be misleading. Do we actually possess an original manuscript by Celsus, or merely a reference to his work, from someone hostile to his writing? In the latter case, it would certainly not constitute a primary source of information about Mithraism, and I would argue, that, unless Celsus were fluent in Persian, that his writing, even if we possessed an authentic, uncorrupted manuscript, must by definition, have represented secondary evidence, at best.

Surely there must be university level research on this question: i.e. the Persian, ancient Persian, or perhaps "middle" Persian sources, uncontaminated by Caesar and the Roman empire, and his successors, most notably, Constantine, regarding the original doctrines of Mithraism. Have the Muslims destroyed all the evidence then? What of the caves in XinJiang?

When Roger writes of having been obliged to conduct extensive research on this question, searching for primary sources, I suppose, (quite likely in error) that his research was LIMITED to Roman/Greek sources, not unlike those you mentioned Stephan.

I want to know which PERSIAN sources describe Mithraism. Has Roger, or anyone else, investigated those sources, or, are there none, anywhere in existence?

With regard to the discussion about other members of the forum, I personally gain nothing from reading insults and barbs about which person's research is valid, and which invalid. Let's see the evidence, as Roger has pointed out, and then we can draw our own conclusions, without trading insults. Does any forum member have a link to some PERSIAN data?

avi

Roger Pearse · 06-25-2011, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave31

Acharya's work is actually some of the best out there when you actually read it. I know many here have not read any actual books by her cover to cover and even then mostly just Christ Conspiracy, which she is apparently in the process of revising for an updated 2nd edition. If readers of this thread relied on comments from ApostateAbe, Toto and Roger Pearse about Acharya's work they would certainly be completely misled. Your opinions of her work are often flat wrong. Scholars who've actually read her work think highly of it.

I can't help feeling that Dave31 is doing Acharya no favours with comments like this.

But I would like to say that the recent books are a lot better. The Christ Conspiracy was dreadful on every level, as I think we all know.

But when I had occasion to look at some of her recent books, I found that they were much better. Indeed one of them led me to an ancient author of whom I had never heard. She referenced Antiochus of Athens, the 2nd century astrologer, and this led me to translate his calendar and so learn about Graeco-Roman astrological writings. No work that is using those sort of sources is all bad.

Unfortunately her judgement is as bad as ever. Instead of asking what the facts are, she still starts with a theory and tries to bend the facts around it. Once you read Antiochus, for instance, you quickly see that what she said based supposedly on his work was rubbish. But I enjoyed reading it anyway.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse · 06-25-2011, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

I hope he, or you, would clarify how we know that the Persians possess no written evidence of Mithraism, predating the arrival on the scene of Christianity.

Firstly, you are quite right to suppose that I am not familiar with Middle Persian literature. I can honestly say that I couldn't find a sausage in that language. (My remarks on the Garshuni text are because I *do* have some knowledge of Arabic Christian literature, so could verify the whole business).

I confess that the question of whether we have any references in Persian literature, not to Mitra, but to Roman Mithras, is one that I have never considered. I had presumed that all the references would be to Mitra, as part of Zoroastrianism. I have never researched the sources for the latter, tho. Certainly research on it exists, tho.

But I seem to remember reading that no Mithraeum -- those characteristic underground temples of Mithras -- is known from Persia. They are a Roman phenomenon.

Quote:

This notion, that we must rely upon one Roman author or another, (both of them either Christians (Justin) or influenced by Christianity--not Mithraism-- (Celsus),) seems to me, to be misleading. Do we actually possess an original manuscript by Celsus, or merely a reference to his work, from someone hostile to his writing? In the latter case, it would certainly not constitute a primary source of information about Mithraism, and I would argue, that, unless Celsus were fluent in Persian, that his writing, even if we possessed an authentic, uncorrupted manuscript, must by definition, have represented secondary evidence, at best.

Firstly, no ancient literary text survives in autograph. We cannot use the absence of an autograph as a reason to ignore a text, therefore. Celsus survives in long quotations in Origen's "Contra Celsum". I don't think the fact that it *is* so quoted is important. Fragments are always found in this form.

Celsus would be discussing the Roman cult, not Zoroastrianism, of course.

Just a word of caution: the actual text under discussion has not appeared. It's always good practice to *check* these -- any of us may have a senior moment. My own collection of literary references is here, which may help. I'd like to know which text precisely we are discussing.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

avi · 06-26-2011, 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

(My remarks on the Garshuni text are because I *do* have some knowledge of Arabic Christian literature, so could verify the whole business).
....
Just a word of caution: the actual text under discussion has not appeared. It's always good practice to *check* these -- any of us may have a senior moment. My own collection of literary references is here, which may help. I'd like to know which text precisely we are discussing.

Hi Roger!

Good Morning.

I don't know anything about Garshuni text....the reference I had cited, was, I had thought, from a Persian web site, and I imagined authored by a Persian...

Here it is again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by
Payam Nabaraz

Worship of Mithras dates back approximately 4,000 years to Persia, which is now modern Iran. He was known by his followers in Asia and Europe as Mithra, Mitra, Mihr, and other names. Romans living in the eastern part of the empire encountered Mithraism and began adopting it, especially soldiers. The height of its popularity came in the third and fourth centuries AD, after which it faded away because of a decree banning all non-Christian rituals.

The religion carries a sense of mystery today because few writings about it have survived, thanks to an oral tradition of passing its secrets only to new initiates. It never adopted its own version of the Bible, so there is no venerated text that can be the basis for research. It was likely an all-male religion, and archeologists have found the remains of many mithraea (plural; singular: mithraeum), or places of worship, scattered throughout the lands once encompassed by the Roman Empire.

Rome itself may have contained as many as 700 mithraea, although only a fraction of them have been identified, ad the city is home to over 100 Mithraic inscriptions, more than 75 pieces of sculpture, and many other signs that the religion once flourished there. Many Romans worshipped Mithras as a god of truth and honor, using the handshake as a goodwill gesture between parties who wanted to demonstrate their faith in each other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

But I seem to remember reading that no Mithraeum -- those characteristic underground temples of Mithras -- is known from Persia. They are a Roman phenomenon.

Then, Roger, is it your opinion that the Mithraic temples excavated at Dura Europos are of Roman, not Persian origin? I thought that after Alexander's General established the city, the Persians conquered it, and ruled it for some time, before the Romans reconquered it....Maybe I am confusing Dura Europos with some other city along the Euphrates....

avi

God Fearing Atheist · 06-26-2011, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Then, Roger, is it your opinion that the Mithraic temples excavated at Dura Europos are of Roman, not Persian origin? I thought that after Alexander's General established the city, the Persians conquered it, and ruled it for some time, before the Romans reconquered it....Maybe I am confusing Dura Europos with some other city along the Euphrates....

avi

IIRC, the Dura Europos Mithraeum dates to just after the Romans wrestled it from the Parthians ca 165 CE. That's probably no coincidence.

avi · 06-26-2011, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carly Silver, writing in Archaeology

The first mentions of "Mitra" come from India and Iran. The Rig Veda is a collection of sacred Sanskrit texts composed as early as 1200 B.C. Its Hymn 66 invokes "Mitra," a protector of the law and a god of light. In Iran, Mithras continued in the same vein: the modern Farsi word for "sun" is "mehr," also the root of "Mithras." The Greek historiographer Strabo (63 B.C.-A.D. 23) corroborates this report in Book XV of his Geography, noting that the Iranians "worship the sun also, whom they call Mithras." In Hymn 10 of the Yasht, an Iranian collection of praise poems to gods dating from after 250 B.C., Ahura Mazda, the god of light, commends Mithras. He tells his disciple, Zoroaster, that Mithras respects justice and brings "down terror upon the bodies of the men who lie...to [him]."

"We pretty much know for certain he wasn't originally a sun god," says David H. Sick, chair of the Greek and Roman Studies department at Rhodes College, who uses extant literary sources to study the Iranian Mithras. He adds, "The original meaning of the god's name is 'contract', so he starts with 'contract' and, somehow, becomes the solar god. ...The reason that the contract god may become a solar god is because both contracts and the sun are related to sacrifice."

In Roman reliefs, Mithras kills a bull, an action called a tauroctony. In Indo-Iranian myths, men sacrifice cattle to please the gods. Sacrifice is an element of proper conduct in Greek mythology, which Sick argues was heavily influenced by Indo-Iranian stories. If one does not sacrifice to the gods and fulfill his part of the human-divine contract, that individual will be punished. The all-seeing sun witnesses contracts between the divine and mortal worlds and also is the master of cattle-for example, Helios's herds in Book XI of Homer's Odyssey. Though Sick maintains these cows are distinct from the bull of the tauroctony, he places great emphasis on the mythological connections that produced the Iranian Mithras and his Roman cousin.

Still no citation from a Persian written source.....

avi

avi · 06-26-2011, 12:34 PM

One cannot help wondering how Franz Cumont, back in 1920's, who led the first excavation of Dura Europos, would have responded to this news, from last year's excavation in Angers:

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAIS

Archaeologists excavating a 9,000 square metre area at Angers, in the Loire District, France, have discovered the remains of the first mithraeum – a sanctuary dedicated to the Indo-Iranian god Mithras – in the west of France.

The cave sanctuary, a rectangular building, is dated to the third century CE.

I find it curious that one is able to excavate a third century Mithraeum in France, but not a Christian temple, despite the prominence of "Irenaeus", who supposedly lived in Lugdunum (the city we call, today, Lyon), about the same period of time. The oldest church, as far as I am aware, in France, (in Metz) dates from the end of the fourth century, i.e. well after Constantine.

avi

stephan huller · 06-26-2011, 01:29 PM

Avi

I've been thinking about that for some time. I think the explanation has something to do with Christian opposition to anything man made. Read what Origen reports about Celsus. Christianity was a reaction - not only to Jewish sacrifices - but Judaism straying from the desert tabernacle concept. Reread Stephen's speech in Acts. I am fairly certain that Clement is describing the existence of a replica desert tabernacle in Alexandria (ekklesia refers to the congregation not a physical building originally - again see Acts use of this word). The Samaritan sect the Dositheans (who happen to be listed first among the heresies in Hippolytus's original syntagma according to Photius) were the first to insist upon a building-less veneration of God. I think Christianity either took this over or was indeed as Hippolytus's lost text implies - was a sect of Dositheanism. Abu'l Fath's list of Dosithean sects seems to include various traditions shared by the Christian heresiological texts.

stephan huller · 06-26-2011, 01:32 PM

There is no doubt that according to Severus Al'Ashmunein at least there were no physical structures in Egyptian Christianity until the turn of the fourth century. One cannot wonder why a sect developed in association with Stephen's speech in Acts 6:8 - 8:1

Quote:

They seized Stephen and brought him before the Sanhedrin. They produced false witnesses, who testified, “This fellow never stops speaking against this holy place and against the law. For we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs Moses handed down to us.”

All who were sitting in the Sanhedrin looked intently at Stephen, and they saw that his face was like the face of an angel. Then the high priest asked Stephen, “Are these charges true?” To this he replied: “Brothers and fathers, listen to me! The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham while he was still in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Harran. 3 ‘Leave your country and your people,’ God said, ‘and go to the land I will show you.’

“So he left the land of the Chaldeans and settled in Harran. After the death of his father, God sent him to this land where you are now living. He gave him no inheritance here, not even enough ground to set his foot on. But God promised him that he and his descendants after him would possess the land, even though at that time Abraham had no child. God spoke to him in this way: ‘For four hundred years your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own, and they will be enslaved and mistreated. But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves,’ God said, ‘and afterward they will come out of that country and worship me in this place.’ Then he gave Abraham the covenant of circumcision. And Abraham became the father of Isaac and circumcised him eight days after his birth. Later Isaac became the father of Jacob, and Jacob became the father of the twelve patriarchs.

“Because the patriarchs were jealous of Joseph, they sold him as a slave into Egypt. But God was with him and rescued him from all his troubles. He gave Joseph wisdom and enabled him to gain the goodwill of Pharaoh king of Egypt. So Pharaoh made him ruler over Egypt and all his palace.

“Then a famine struck all Egypt and Canaan, bringing great suffering, and our ancestors could not find food. When Jacob heard that there was grain in Egypt, he sent our forefathers on their first visit. On their second visit, Joseph told his brothers who he was, and Pharaoh learned about Joseph’s family. After this, Joseph sent for his father Jacob and his whole family, seventy-five in all. 15 Then Jacob went down to Egypt, where he and our ancestors died. Their bodies were brought back to Shechem and placed in the tomb that Abraham had bought from the sons of Hamor at Shechem for a certain sum of money.

“As the time drew near for God to fulfill his promise to Abraham, the number of our people in Egypt had greatly increased. Then ‘a new king, to whom Joseph meant nothing, came to power in Egypt.’ He dealt treacherously with our people and oppressed our ancestors by forcing them to throw out their newborn babies so that they would die.

“At that time Moses was born, and he was no ordinary child.[d] For three months he was cared for by his family. When he was placed outside, Pharaoh’s daughter took him and brought him up as her own son. Moses was educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians and was powerful in speech and action.

“When Moses was forty years old, he decided to visit his own people, the Israelites. He saw one of them being mistreated by an Egyptian, so he went to his defense and avenged him by killing the Egyptian. Moses thought that his own people would realize that God was using him to rescue them, but they did not. The next day Moses came upon two Israelites who were fighting. He tried to reconcile them by saying, ‘Men, you are brothers; why do you want to hurt each other?’

“But the man who was mistreating the other pushed Moses aside and said, ‘Who made you ruler and judge over us? Are you thinking of killing me as you killed the Egyptian yesterday?’ When Moses heard this, he fled to Midian, where he settled as a foreigner and had two sons.

“After forty years had passed, an angel appeared to Moses in the flames of a burning bush in the desert near Mount Sinai. When he saw this, he was amazed at the sight. As he went over to get a closer look, he heard the Lord say: ‘I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.’ Moses trembled with fear and did not dare to look.

“Then the Lord said to him, ‘Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground. I have indeed seen the oppression of my people in Egypt. I have heard their groaning and have come down to set them free. Now come, I will send you back to Egypt.’

“This is the same Moses they had rejected with the words, ‘Who made you ruler and judge?’ He was sent to be their ruler and deliverer by God himself, through the angel who appeared to him in the bush. He led them out of Egypt and performed wonders and signs in Egypt, at the Red Sea and for forty years in the wilderness.

“This is the Moses who told the Israelites, ‘God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your own people.’ He was in the assembly in the wilderness, with the angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our ancestors; and he received living words to pass on to us.

“But our ancestors refused to obey him. Instead, they rejected him and in their hearts turned back to Egypt. They told Aaron, ‘Make us gods who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who led us out of Egypt—we don’t know what has happened to him!’ That was the time they made an idol in the form of a calf. They brought sacrifices to it and reveled in what their own hands had made. But God turned away from them and gave them over to the worship of the sun, moon and stars. This agrees with what is written in the book of the prophets:

“‘Did you bring me sacrifices and offerings
forty years in the wilderness, people of Israel?
You have taken up the tabernacle of Molek
and the star of your god Rephan,
the idols you made to worship.
Therefore I will send you into exile’beyond Babylon.

“Our ancestors had the tabernacle of the covenant law with them in the wilderness. It had been made as God directed Moses, according to the pattern he had seen. After receiving the tabernacle, our ancestors under Joshua brought it with them when they took the land from the nations God drove out before them. It remained in the land until the time of David, who enjoyed God’s favor and asked that he might provide a dwelling place for the God of Jacob. But it was Solomon who built a house for him.

“However, the Most High does not live in houses made by human hands. As the prophet says:
“‘Heaven is my throne,
and the earth is my footstool.
What kind of house will you build for me?
says the Lord.
Or where will my resting place be?
Has not my hand made all these things?’

“You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit! 52 Was there ever a prophet your ancestors did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him— you who have received the law that was given through angels but have not obeyed it.”

When the members of the Sanhedrin heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”
At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul.

While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” Then he fell on his knees and cried out, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” When he had said this, he fell asleep. And Saul approved of their killing him.

Dave31 · 06-26-2011, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Roger Pearse: This does not seem to address what I said.

It does from where I stand, however, I am making quick posts. You seem to saying 'what has that got to do with it' no matter what I respond so, I'll stop wasting my time trying to explain the calendar/ Dec 25th issue because you're obviously going to pretend you don't understand regardless of what I post.

Quote:

"The 25 December was observed as his birthday, the natalis invicti, the rebirth of the winter-sun, unconquered by the rigours of the season." "But Our Lord, too, is born in the month of December ... the eight before the calends of January [25 December] ..., But they call it the 'Birthday of the Unconquered'. Who indeed is so unconquered as Our Lord ...? Or, if they say that it is the birthday of the Sun, He is the Sun of Justice."

Catholic Enc: Christmas

* Notice the word "re-birth" ???

Quote:

Natalis Invicti:

"The well-known solar feast, however, of Natalis Invicti, celebrated on 25 December, has a strong claim on the responsibility for our December date. For the history of the solar cult, its position in the Roman Empire, and syncretism with Mithraism..."

Catholic Enc: Mithraism

If you have a problem with this then you'll need to take it up with the Catholic Encyclopedia.

We can see more of your hand waving dismissals on Mithra here in this thread: Mithra: The Pagan Christ

Re: the last supper

You may have misunderstood or you've purposely selected the 4th citation that was discussing the BETRAYAL between Osiris and Typhon, which is a major part of the last supper. How convenient that you failed to notice. If it was a snake it would've bitten you. So you proudly quoted the evidence only to then claim Acharya provided no evidence? It certainly is a pattern around here to claim she doesn't provide the evidence when she most certainly does.

Quote:

"...Typhon contrived a treacherous plot against him..."
Plutarch, "Isis and Osiris," Moralia, V, 13, 356 C

Quote:

Roger Pearse: Where in this is stuff about a "last supper"?

It's also important to point out that while you demand to see an ancient sources saying the words "last supper," there's no mention of those same words in the canonical gospels. This demonstrates a hypocritical double-standard. You and others here have created an impossibly high set of standards only for Acharya S. It's just not fair and people with a conscience would be ashamed but, it's the norm here.

This blog addresses some last supper issues:

Does Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians reveal a 'historical' Jesus?

Re: triduum

Quote:

Concerning the three-day period before resurrection, Mettinger remarks:

"The idea of a three-days span of time between death and return, a triduum, seems to be at hand in Hosea 6:2 in a context where the imagery ultimately draws upon Canaanite ideas of resurrection… Apart from Hosea 6:2 one should remember also Jonah 2:1…where Jonah is in the belly of the fish three days and three nights. I understand the belly of the fish as a metaphor for the Netherworld."

From this illuminating paragraph we discover a number of facts: 1. The three-day period is a motif recognized by scholars and given the Latin name of triduum; 2. There were “Canaanite ideas of resurrection,” preceding the common era by centuries; and 3. Jonah’s interment in the “whale” constitutes a triduum in the netherworld, the same place where Osiris was said to reside. Furthermore, reflecting his own three-day sojourn in the underworld in the gospel story, Jesus is made to raise the tale of Jonah, saying: “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” (Mt 12:40)

- Christ in Egypt, 383/4

There's an Easter triduum and a Christmas triduum.

People here such as yourself constantly make disparaging remarks about Acharya's work, which are usually flat false and then others have to try to correct it, which takes up far more time. There's so much of that going on here that I simply don't have the time to keep up with it. So, you've just helped me prove my point in my previous comment:

Quote:

"Acharya's work is actually some of the best out there when you actually read it. I know many here have not read any actual books by her cover to cover and even then mostly just Christ Conspiracy, which she is apparently in the process of revising for an updated 2nd edition. If readers of this thread relied on comments from ApostateAbe, Toto and Roger Pearse about Acharya's work they would certainly be completely misled. Your opinions of her work are often flat wrong. Scholars who've actually read her work think highly of it."

Your comprehension of her work is quite selective and biased. You consistently assume the worst and work from there, such as with Antiochus of Athens. Some here are incapable of acknowledging that she may be right about anything.

The same thing can be done with the rest of your disparaging remarks against Acharya S in your other posts - I simply don't have the time to spoon-feed you. From where I stand you're just being facetious. Just stop assuming the worst just because Acharya S is mentioned and you'll go far.

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

06-26-2011, 01:29 PM	#58
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Avi I've been thinking about that for some time. I think the explanation has something to do with Christian opposition to anything man made. Read what Origen reports about Celsus. Christianity was a reaction - not only to Jewish sacrifices - but Judaism straying from the desert tabernacle concept. Reread Stephen's speech in Acts. I am fairly certain that Clement is describing the existence of a replica desert tabernacle in Alexandria (ekklesia refers to the congregation not a physical building originally - again see Acts use of this word). The Samaritan sect the Dositheans (who happen to be listed first among the heresies in Hippolytus's original syntagma according to Photius) were the first to insist upon a building-less veneration of God. I think Christianity either took this over or was indeed as Hippolytus's lost text implies - was a sect of Dositheanism. Abu'l Fath's list of Dosithean sects seems to include various traditions shared by the Christian heresiological texts.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.