Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ted Hoffman · 07-27-2004, 05:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ichabod crane

Hello Jacob, just a quick question. Can you give me a reference for this information where it is argued in detail? I'd be most grateful.

Thanks!

Ichabod.

Nowhere I know. Maybe you could check Doherty's long reviews.

Casper · 09-19-2004, 06:07 AM

This may not be important, especially since I would like to be one of the "initiates" who gets to glean something from the final product of this FAQ, but here goes: :huh:

As far as cattle are concerned, most people wouldn't be able to tell one breed from another; hence Gateway and Chick-filet and the Dairy council and just about every cow-related marketing scheme relies on a holstien. A kind of "conceptual cow" if you will.

Bulls are of course the masculine counterpart, both genetically and conceptually. Cows give milk and eat grass, the feminine nurturer. Bulls crash through gates, trample the unwary, snort steam from their nostrils and impale the unfortunate with their horns; the masculine warrior. Taurus handguns and Bull's Eye barbecue sauce (originally branded for the urban male weekend grillmeister) use this conceptual image. Obviously (for a marketer) Bulls have horns and cows have spots. Anything else narrows their core audience.

But in viewing pictures of art presented as Mithraic or otherwise ancient, where a "bull" is being fought, slayed, chased, etc, it seems to me that the subject is an Auroch. That is a huge and terrifying beast. And it would only be right that a hero engage in something more dangerous than what goes on in a rodeo or bullfight.

Thus, I think the tauroctony is probably derived from earlier European roots, not Asian.

Incidentally, the Romans pitted animals against one another for entertainment. Lions were inferior to Aurochs, even if they outnumbered them. Bears fared no better. I have never heard of a Roman contest involving a Russian bore, but it is, in my mind, about the only animal that might have stood a chance. What better iconography for the local shriner's hall in a Roman town?

Its all about marketing in the long run...

andrewcriddle · 09-19-2004, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

There doesn't seem to be much doubt that Cybelle and Attis practiced it, (The Taurobolium-AC) there's just no evidence that it was related to Mithraism before the early twentieth century CE.

I absolutely agree that the taurobolium is not part of early Mithraism, but IIUC some 4th century Mithraic inscriptions of a syncretistic nature do seem to refer to the taurobolium. The earliest is probably 313 CE.

(Source Corpus Inscriptionum et Monumentorum Religionis Mithriacae ed MJ Vermaseren 1956 as cited by G Wagner Pauline Baptism and the Pagan Mysteries 1962 (Eng Trans 1967))

Andrew Criddle

JERDOG · 09-19-2004, 04:15 PM

I'm not sure how relevant this is, but I do think that it deserves some looking into. Plus I would like to hear what you guys have to say about it since you all seem to be knowledgeable in this area. And this area would be the apologies from Justin Martyr. Here are a few interesting quotes from him. ( emphasis added by me )

Quote:

If, therefore, on some points we teach the same things as the poets and philosophers whom you honour, and on other points are fuller and more divine in our teaching, and if we alone afford proof of what we assert, why are we unjustly hated more than all others? (First Apology, 20).

Quote:

For while we say that all things have been produced and arranged into a world by God, we shall seem to utter the doctrine of Plato; and while we say that there will be a burning up of all, we shall seem to utter the doctrine of the Stoics ... And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter (First Apology, 20-21).

Quote:

He said, "This is My blood; "and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn (First Apology, 66).

Quote:

In imitation, therefore, of what is here said of the Spirit of God moving on the waters, they (the devils) said that Proserpine [or Kore] was the daughter of Jupiter. And in like manner also they craftily feigned that Minerva was the daughter of Jupiter, not by sexual union, but, knowing that God conceived and made the world by the Word, they say that Minerva is the first conception (First Apology, 64).

Quote:

And if we even affirm that He (Jesus) was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you accept of Perseus. And in that we say that He made whole the lame, the paralytic, and those born blind, we seem to say what is very similar to the deeds said to have been done by Aesculapius. (First Apology 22).

I find it interesting, in the last quote that I posted, that Justin seemingly confirms that some other god was born of a virgin beforehand.

I look forward to hearing your comments.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/justin.html

Ted Hoffman · 09-19-2004, 09:55 PM

Jerdog,
Read about diabolical mimmicry.

Quote:

...craftily feigned that Minerva was the daughter of Jupiter, not by sexual union...

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

09-19-2004, 06:07 AM	#12
Casper Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Texas Posts: 430	This may not be important, especially since I would like to be one of the "initiates" who gets to glean something from the final product of this FAQ, but here goes: :huh: As far as cattle are concerned, most people wouldn't be able to tell one breed from another; hence Gateway and Chick-filet and the Dairy council and just about every cow-related marketing scheme relies on a holstien. A kind of "conceptual cow" if you will. Bulls are of course the masculine counterpart, both genetically and conceptually. Cows give milk and eat grass, the feminine nurturer. Bulls crash through gates, trample the unwary, snort steam from their nostrils and impale the unfortunate with their horns; the masculine warrior. Taurus handguns and Bull's Eye barbecue sauce (originally branded for the urban male weekend grillmeister) use this conceptual image. Obviously (for a marketer) Bulls have horns and cows have spots. Anything else narrows their core audience. But in viewing pictures of art presented as Mithraic or otherwise ancient, where a "bull" is being fought, slayed, chased, etc, it seems to me that the subject is an Auroch. That is a huge and terrifying beast. And it would only be right that a hero engage in something more dangerous than what goes on in a rodeo or bullfight. Thus, I think the tauroctony is probably derived from earlier European roots, not Asian. Incidentally, the Romans pitted animals against one another for entertainment. Lions were inferior to Aurochs, even if they outnumbered them. Bears fared no better. I have never heard of a Roman contest involving a Russian bore, but it is, in my mind, about the only animal that might have stood a chance. What better iconography for the local shriner's hall in a Roman town? Its all about marketing in the long run...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.