seeker

Gabe - My apology, in looking over my answer I noticed I hadn't really addressed part of your question.

There could be several reasons why there would be no publicity. We could start wth the Catholic Church which spent over a thousand years killing off all manner of people who questioned doctrine. Early on Christian priests such as Mark of Arethusa or Cyrill of Heliopolis were famous as "temple destroyer, Roman law in 365 CE made pagan services punishable by death and by the 6th century pagans were declared 'void of all rights'. Now imagine, in that environment, openly questioning whether Christianity started out as a 'pagan' religion.

Gabe the Angel

Although I can appreciate the historic reasons for not publicising the copying of christianity from pagan ideas, the fact is the "Born Again" and many other similar movements put a great emphasis on Jesus "saving". What you have highlighted is that it is improbable that the Jesus aspect is unlikely to have any real factual basis. This is the publicity I refer to, it is irresponsible to have this religious base were so many people are unaware through documented history that the Jesus story is just a story, not a way of salvation.

seeker

Gabe - You are discounting over a thousand years of repression of anything that spoke against religious doctrine as well as a great deal of peer pressure on biblical scholars, archaeologists, anthropologists etc. If you consider archaeology there has only been question about the historical accuracy of the OT in the last 100 years and that has only been taken seriously in the last fifty years.

Look at the stir the Jesus Seminar findings created just last year with their relatively mild suggestions that all the supernatural and extraordinary elements of the gospels was unlikely. Just three hundred years ago they'd have been burned at the stake. One hundred years ago they'd have been ridiculed and forced from the country.

Amaleq13

Maybe I'm not understanding what is meant here but we do have early "publicity". We have early critics declaring that the Jesus stories are just like the myths of the Greeks and we have early Church Fathers claiming that earlier similar myths are the work of Satan.

Also, even assumed to be ultimately a myth, the story of Jesus was never "just a story" to believers.

Last, "documented history" shows faith in Jesus Christ (literally "God's Salvation Messiah") preceding the story by decades and the story preceding assertions that it is history by nearly a century.

Gawen

Since my interests lie mostly in Romano-Britian, I still may be able to add more confusion here....*grinnin*

Mithraic temples were built from the early second century Britain; a time when Christianity started to become known in the Greco-Roman world. They were used until sometime in the fourth century. Due to archeological finds at several forts, Hadrians Wall and around London, we know that it wasn't just a lowly cult, as some inscriptions and dedications come from high ranking Legonaries.

It seems to make sense that Mithraism was alive and well all over the Empire before Christianity came about, or at least was budding. I have no clue as to who borrowed from who...or if in fact any 'borrowing' happened. We do know that Celtic/Roman cults often blended together. I see no reason why early Christianity couldn't 'blend' with some of Mithraism...and any other cult at the time. Just try to find the evidence though.

seeker

That is my understanding as well but they always been discounted as dissenting views and never recieved the widespread distribution pro-doctrinal statements recieved.

Gabe the Angel

Dear Seeker

Would it be fair to say that modern day thinking on religion is "organised superstition", not any real difference than voodoo, I accept that the Bible has been the foundation of morals in most peoples eyes. To try and build all things around the Bible, as many do, is ridiculous, some religious groups really believe that all knowledge comes from the bible, and those who question this are part of some global conspiracy. But the Jesus story, can be shown to be the result of a mish mash of previous tales. If the Mithra legend could be more prominent in education, im sure the brainwashing that happens to people in later life by the "Born Again" groups would be reduced. I not saying religion is bad, in fact it still has its benefits to many who are facing death, and there you have the open ended conclusion of introducing Mithra and the like, would this take away the comfort to the ones who face death.

seeker

I may be a bit more militant about my atheism. I like your descript of religion as 'organised suprestition'. I would argue that morals don't come from the bible but from society. The bible just made a poor atempt to codify them.

As to death that may be religion's only real benefit but it so distorts life that I'm not sure its worth it. People waste their whole lives preparing for the promise of the next. Christians justify all manner of poor behavior with the notion that this life isn't the important one.

Knowing about Mithra, Attus etc. might help people live better lives by helping them evaluate their beliefs.

Gabe the Angel

Dear Seeker

The knowledge of Mithra and the like would help stop the problem that religion can bring to some of us; spending ones life spreading the word of Jesus only to find out several years later you have been duped being the main one. Not also forgetting those who have self indulged into thinking they are Jesus and so on, please let me know if I have left out anything else that Mithra history can bring on the positive side to peoples lives. You have hit the nail on the head though, to use Mithra to evaluate ones religion is the key aspect to this debate.

seeker

I's interesting, when you really study it, how many outside influences made it into the bible. From Sumerian myths (Genesis) to duality (the concept of heaven and hell, good vs evil, god vs Satan came from the Babylonians) to Jesus (mystery religions) and others. In a way the bible represents the greatest achievement of early Psychology.