Biff the unclean

No, I don't. I think that there were 12 tribes (although some seem to have been misplaced) because that was the magical zodiac number

Rick Sumner

You seem to be confusing me for an apologist, which I find amusing. All I was doing was correcting the misinformation you were presenting. You can draw whatever conclusion from that you like, though I'd recommend you supplement it with some research.

Am I to presume that you don't, in fact, have a shred of evidence that Persian Mithra slew a bull?

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

I'd be interested in seeing you show that line of dependence, but it's really quite irrelevant either way. You stated that Jesus' 12 apostles were based on the zodiac. We've just agreed that this is false. They were based on the twelve tribes, which you think were based on the zodiac.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Epictetus

I certainly do not claim to be a Mithraic scholar. However, seeing as the Romans had legions stationed in Babylon and the eastern provinces for centuries (entire cities founded and flourished), and that they came into contact with the Parthians (Persians) over and over again, would it not make logical sense that they adopted Iranian religions and altered them to their own purposes? Religions do this all the time - change with the cultures that glom onto them.

It is really irrelevant if is occured in 67 BC or 100 AD. Sharing took place.

Your question is a bit like saying show me a legitimate link between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Of course they are related. Quite different in their final forms, but the source is the same. Mithraism is no different. I am sure ancient belief systems were interchanged ALL THE TIME. We tend to think these cultures were isolated little kingdoms. Rome made commerce and intellectual exchange widespread. I wouldn't be surprised that this sharing of religions, ideas wasn't even going on in China and the far east with Mediterranean cultures.

Amlodhi

Hello Epictetus,

Certainly they were.


Amlodhi

Epictetus

I must be dense because I'm ignorant of the story of Tammuz and its relevence to Mithraism. :huh:

Eazy

Ah, I see. Thanks. I took one of his comments about how he couldn't find a link and thought that was his final verdict. But it wasn't, and I didn't know that he was the founder of that actual movement to find the link to begin with, either.

Eazy

Look Moose, there is this customary thing called 'citing your sources'(I know it's a hard thing for mythers to grasp, but just read on). It is something that one must do in order to prove their hypothesis, or claims. Unless you're a journalist, there is no such thing as an anonymous source. Also, unless your hypothesis or claim can be proven through logic and reasoning(ex: mathematics, arguments) within the post area, then one doesn't need sources to prove their claims. But if one wants to prove their claims independent of reasoning and logic(like right now), then they need to cite a source of scholarly consensus or work.

I've provided my sources. Is it so disingenuous to ask that you provide yours?

Maybe you were taught that white is black.

Eazy

How was Jesus based on Mithras? Is all you have number friggin' 12? Because that's all the "parallels" that I can find. How about a source, so that I can consider your clams.

Amlodhi

Sorry for any confusion, Epictetus. It isn't directly relevant to Mithraism itself, but it is relevant to your statement as quoted:

Tammuz is just another rendering of the Sumerian god Dumuzi. A version of which was incorporated into Akkadian and Babylonian belief systems.

Then the concept of this "adoption" or "interchange", (if not outright syncretism), is further evidenced when we read Ezekiel's lament that the women of Jerusalem were also practicing some form of ritual obeisance to this (originally) Sumerian deity.


Amlodhi