Bernard Muller

Attonitus:
Because Mithra, in all the legends, does not die, that can only be because Mithraism was borrowing on Christianity, isn't it?

Best regards, Bernard

Attonitus

Hi Bernard,

Good try, but what is bothering Tertullian is in fact the opposite.

Bernard Muller

Attonitus:
What opposite? Can you specify?

Why would Tertullian self-incriminate himself and his religion?
Was he so stupid or is it just your interpretation of what Tertullian wrote?

Here is the quote in question:
The prescription against heretics:
"and if my memory still serves me, Mithra there, (in the kingdom of Satan,) sets his marks on the foreheads of his soldiers; celebrates also the oblation of bread, and introduces an image of a resurrection, and before a sword wreathes a crown."

Can you explain where Tertullian says that the Christians copied all of that from Mithraism? Or that Mithra died and resurrected?

Can you prove all the beliefs we know about Mithraism came in one block and before Christianity?

What evidence do we have about what Mithra followers believed before 30-50CE?
Just curious.
For example, did they think Mithra was born from a rock and that was watched by shepherds, OR did they trusted he came from heaven before the creation of man?
Or was Mithra associated with the Greek god Helios when the religion originated in Persia?
Are you sure the Persian Mithraism was the same as the one described in the 2nd to 4th century in the Roman empire? If yes, why?

For reference, this is what I have from the on-line Wilkipedia:
"Mithra was born of a mother-rock by a river under a tree [sounds very earthly] . He came into the world with the Phrygian cap on his head (hence his designation as Pileatus, the Capped One), and a knife in his hand. It is said that shepherds watched his birth.
The hero-god first gives battle to the sun, conquers him, crowns him with rays and makes him his eternal friend and fellow; nay, the sun becomes in a sense Mithra's double, or again his father, but Helios Mithras is one god. Then follows the struggle between Mithra and the bull, the central motif of Mithraism. Ahura Mazda had created the wild bull (see aurochs), which Mithra pursued, overcame, and dragged into his cave. This wearisome journey with the struggling bull towards the cave is the symbol of man's troubles on earth. Unfortunately, the bull escapes from the cave, whereupon Ahura Mazda sends a crow with a message to Mithra to find and slay it. Mithra reluctantly obeys, and plunges his dagger into the bull as it returns to the cave. Strange to say, from the body of the dying bull proceeds all wholesome plants and herbs that cover the earth, from his spinal marrow the corn, from his blood the vine, etc.
The power of evil sends his unclean creatures to prevent or poison these productions but in vain. From the bull proceed all useful animals [I wonder what the shepherds were doing before the creation of these animals], and the bull, resigning itself to death, is transported to the heavenly spheres. Man is now created [but the shepherds were created before!] and subjected to the malign influence of Ahriman in the form of droughts, deluges, and conflagrations, but is saved by Mithra.
Finally man is well established on earth and Mithra returns to heaven. He celebrates a last supper with Helios and his other companions, is taken in his fiery chariot across the ocean, and now in heaven protects his followers. For the struggle between good and evil continues in heaven between the planets and stars, and on earth in the heart of man."

Look to me it was a very disjointed religion with many add-ons from Christian, Gnostic and Hellenistic borrowings, with likely a beginning as simple as a man living in a cave and killing a rogue bull with only a knife.
Can you prove otherwise?

Do you have a better version of Mithraic beliefs, at one time or another?
I know there are many variations, some involving the Zodiac and the bull being the astrological sign of Taurus.

Best regards, Bernard

GakuseiDon

"An image of a resurrection" is pretty vague. It can't be Mithra as he never dies, unless it is Mithra travelling to the Heavens in his fiery chariot. The Bull? Vegetation? The sun?

What does Tertullian mean, do you think?

Amaleq13

Maccoby, in The Mythmaker, says that Baal-Taraz (apparently the god namesake of Tarsus) was a dying and resurrecting deity but I have been unable to locate any confirming information on this.

Given Tarsus as Paul's hometown, it seems relevant.

Dean Anderson

I'm no expert here, but from an observer's perspective on this discussion (which gets repeated on this board fairly regularly) it always seems to follow the same format...

Someone will point out some aspects of a pre-Christian deity's story that also appear in the Christian story.

A Christian will then point out that Christianity cannot have been based on that story because not all the parts of Christianity are represented in it.

To my mind, there seems to be an option that no-one (to my knowledge) has mentioned.

Could Christianity not have taken the 'best' bits of other religions (like it has been doing since, with Easter, etc.) rather than modelling itself completely after a single one...

"So your Mithras has a bread-and-wine Eucharist - well so does our Christ!"

"So your Osiris died and came back three days later -well so did our Christ!"

"So your Orpheus was born of a virgin mother - well so was our Christ!"

Those who claim that the Christ story is a retelling of an earlier story often try to make out that it was taken as whole cloth from a single earlier story - and those who deny that it is a retelling point out that no single earlier story has all the elements of Christianity.

Both sides seem to be taking a narrow, simplistic view.

The elements that make up the Christ story do exist in the previous stories - spread throughout the Graeco-Roman and Middle-Eastern religions - just not all in the same story.

Of course, what the theological implications of this are is not for me to say.

To a Christian, this similarity can be seen as the other stories being prophecy or prefiguring (or even diabolic imitation) of the events that truly happened.

To a non-Christian, the same similarity can be seen as Christianity being a development of the other stories, rather than being inspired by real-world events.

Attonitus

Cummont in his book The Mysteries of Mithra (pag. 161) it describes a bas-relief discovered in Konjica, Bosnia, "before two persons stretched upon a couch covered with pillows is placed a tripod bearing four tiny loaves of bread, each marked with a cross. Around them are grouped the initiates of the different orders, and one of them, the Persian, presents to the two a drinking-horn; whilst a second vessel is held in the hands of one of the Participants. These love feasts are evidently the ritual commemoration of the banquet which Mithra celebrated with the Sun before his ascension. From this mystical banquet, and especially from the imbibing of the sacred wine, supernatural effects were expected. The intoxicating liquor gave not only vigor of body and material prosperity, but wisdom of mind; it communicated to the neophyte the power to combat the malignant spirits, and what is more, conferred upon him as upon his god a glorious immortality. The sacramental collation was accompanied, or rather preceded, by other rites of a different character. These were genuine trials imposed upon the candidate. To receive the sacred ablutions and the consecrated food, the Participant was obliged to prepare for them by prolonged abstinence and numerous austerities; he played the rôle of sufferer in certain dramatic expiations of strange character and of which we know neither the number nor the succession."

This mithraic communion it was known by Justin and Tertullian, both they impute it to the Devil, both known that it is previous to the Christianity, and that bothers them. The ritual is described and dated by Hinnells, Rolof, Vermaseren, Moghdam and Ulansey among others as previous to the standard dates of Christianity (see International Congress of Mithraic Studies). I agree as for that the Tertullian quote relative to the resurrection admits several interpretations but if your main source about Mithra and Mithraism it is the wikepedia, we are possibly speaking of different things. As for the rest of statements that you impute me, thank you, but they are not mine.

TySixtus

First of all, sorry for the late reply, Gai, but my ISP went down like a broke boxer. Upon reading everyone else's posts, they pretty much said what I was going to say, and I have no wish to be redundant. However, to expound on my earlier point of how unoriginal the whole Christian mess is...

Buddah: Born of the virgin Maya, 600 B.C.
Dionysius: Greek God, born of a virgin in a stable, turned water into wine.
Quirrnus: Roman savior, born of a virgin.
Attis: Born of the virgin Nama, in Phrygia, 200 B.C
Indra: Born of a virgin in Tibet, 700 B.C
Adonis: Babylonian, born of the virgin Ishtar
Zoroaster: Born of a virgin, 1500-1200 B.C
Krishna: Hindu deity, born of the virgin Deuaki around 1200 B.C


I look at these facts (and they are just that, easily verifiable so I won't waste space with refrences. Any Joseph Campbell book will do.) and I am forced to conclude that, once again, Christianity borrows way too much from other mythologies to be considered 'unique'. The question now becomes 'Why'? Can it not stand on it's own merits, without pillaging them from others? To this I submit the following:

No, it can't.

Ty

Bernard Muller

Attonitus:
I do not think Justin imputed this mithraic communion to the Devil (implying it preceded Christianity). Instead, he blamed the Mithra worshippers "the wicked devils" to have imitated it from Christians:

1Apology: "For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, 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.'

As for Tertullian, this is not clear either:
THE PRESCRIPTION AGAINST HERETICS:
"The question will arise, By whom is to be interpreted the sense of the passages which make for heresies? By the devil, of course, to whom pertain those wiles which pervert the truth, and who, by the mystic rites of his idols, vies even with the essential portions of the sacraments of God. He, too, baptizes some--that is, his own believers and faithful followers; he promises the putting away of sins by a layer (of his own); and if my memory still serves me, Mithra there, (in the kingdom of Satan,) sets his marks on the foreheads of his soldiers; celebrates also the oblation of bread, and introduces an image of a resurrection, and before a sword wreathes a crown."

I do not see here Tertullian saying the mithraic communion preceded the Christian ones.

As for the bas-relief in Bosnia, it seems to represent Mithra's last supper (with the Persian as one of his companions). The problem: when was it carved?

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

Ty:
About virgin birth:
There was many antecedents for that, also in Jewish literature:

According to Philo Judaeus of Alexandria (20B.C.E.-50C.E):
"Tamar, when she became pregnant of divine seeds, and did not know who it was who had sown them ..." (On the Change of Names, XXIII)
"For when she [Hannah] had become pregnant, having received the divine seed ..." (On the unchangeableness of God, ch. II)
"the angels of God went in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children unto them." (On the unchangeableness of God, ch. I)
The idea of a god impregnating a mortal woman was unheard of in Jewish literature. Philo was the first one to introduce it.

The virgin birth was a way to have Jesus as "Son of God", as more than an honorific title, but without the pre-existence, rejected by many Christians then, more so the ones from Jewish origin. That what I explained in:
http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/hjes1.html

I agree changing water into wine (only in GJohn) was likely copied from Dionysius' story.

The resurrection of Jesus likely started by wishful thinking: The King could not have died without having ruled! So he must be saved in Heaven and will come back (in some angel body). Of course, immortality of the soul (believed by Philo, many Gentiles and Pharisaic Jews) must have helped considerably. And Philo wrote about Abraham & Moses spiritual ascension after death to some abode in the heavens. And the great King could be interpreted at the right hand of God (in heaven) according to the Psalms. More details in:
http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/hjes2x.html
Later, Paul, eager to reassure Christians about their dead relatives, established a close parallel between the past alleged raising/rising of Christ and the future resurrections of deceased Christians. Then the gospelers multiplied resurrections in their gospels to illustrate and "prove" the point.

I think the last supper originated with Paul, starting from a Jesus' habit of breaking the available loaf(ves) of bread in pieces (so his companions got an equal share of the available bread, taking a piece (& then eating it) at a time. Also practiced by his direct followers, the "Nazarenes" in Jerusalem (Acts) and subsequent Ebionistic sect: see the Didache) and the Gentile custom of drinking a cup of wine for thanksgiving. Paul put the two together (only to solve a big problem among the Christian of Corinth), with the possibility he was also influenced by other pagan rituals. More details here:
http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/hjes3.html

Best regards, Bernard