Dave31

St. Peter's sq.

Pagan Destruction Chronology (314-870 C.E)

St. Peter's Sq. is a pagan sunwheel with an Egyptian obelisk serving as the gnomon of a sundial in the center. St. Peter's Square was built over the Mithraic temple. Not a single mention of that at Wiki though.

Check this out

Dave31

Well, thanks for the reluctant admission that it's not all that radical. The idea that we "can't really show anything in particular" is completely false. These religious concepts evolved over time with differences and similarities having much to do with their environment, era and culture.

The fact remains that the religious concepts of virgin birth and miraculous birth had already been around for thousands of years before Christianity. So, Christianity worked to make the entire myth of Jesus APPEAR to be more historical, so what. It's still a myth based largely on borrowed pre-xian myth. It shows that Christian inventors borrowed from earlier myth and not the other way around. It's not difficult to understand.

ISIS IS A VIRGIN MOTHER!!!

avi

Seems logical, certainly possible.

Arguing against this notion, on the other hand, are the proponents of the interpretation of the "house-church" in Dura Europos, which dates from the last half of the third century.

I have argued that this building was not a "Christian" dwelling at all, but rather, a Jewish guest house for visiting Rabbis, traveling between Damascus/Jerusalem and Baghdad. But, I think the vast majority disputes my contention, and accepts this building as evidence of "Christianity", extant already in the third century, i.e. a full century before Constantine.

It seems a bit odd to my way of thinking, that the Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Mithraists, and others including Greek "pagans", all built cathedrals, temples, or even more modest establishments, solely for the purpose of congregating and celebrating religious ceremonies, but the Christians, notwithstanding a syncretic disposition, refused to construct a place of assembly. It seems much more reasonable, in my opinion, to accept an hypothesis that Christianity did not get off the ground until the third or fourth century, at which point, temples did begin to be constructed.....

avi

stephan huller

But referencing 'the Jews' is a misnomer. What happened to Judaism after the destruction of the temple? Why were sacrifices discontinued? The standard argument has something to do with 'the destruction of the temple.' Yet the Pentateuch says nothing about the need for temples. It was a decision - an interpretation - which didn't have to be made.

The Samaritans continue sacrifices to this day and the last I checked they don't have a temple. The Dositheans had synagogues. Yet I've never heard of a 'Dosithean synagogue' being discovered by archaeologists. The only reason we know we found a Marcionite synagogue in Syria is because we found a sign that said one was there.

I can only tell you that the Egyptian church records that (a) a Christian settlement was established in Alexandria in a very early period but that (b) Christians did not establish physical structures until the reign of Theonas (d. 300 CE). If you're going to make up fairy tales why not claim that the Christians of the early period had all kinds of churches throughout Egypt?

Theonas's successor was Peter. The Acts associated with Peter make it seem as if the martyrium of St. Mark was a separate structure from the main church established in the environs (sometime after the death of Theonas presumably). Arius interestingly is said to have been presbyter of the martyrium of St. Mark. The only description we get from the Acts of Peter are that the martyrium was buried in the earth. Christians are known to have gathered in tombs, catacombs and caves. We know that the area where the martyrium was (i.e. the Boucolia on the eastern shores of Alexandria just outside of the main wall of the city) the beach is literally riddled with tombs and graves.

At the very same time our same historical source - Severus al'Ashmunein says this about Mark, that when he:

I take this as a development of Matthew 7:24-29/Luke 6:47:49:

The bottom line is that I don't think we should expect to find Christian architecture from the early period given what is preserved in the literature about the development of earliest Christianity.

aa5874

The very first point by Celsus explains why Christians had NO public places of worship.

"Against Celsus" 1.1 Christians were operating in secret in the 2nd century based on "Against Origen" because of fear of persecution.

Justin Martyr and Athenagoras in the 2nd century will make pleas for Christians against the wanton abuse.

Justin's "First Apology" 1 Athenagoras' "Plea for the Christians" 1 Theophilus of Antioch will reveal a major problem for Christians in the 2nd century.

"To Autholycus" 1.11 The abundance of evidence suggests that Christians were operating in secret for fear of persecution since they refused to worship the Deified Emperors of Rome as Gods and could not have Public places of worship.

This situation is no different to certain places today where it would appear that No Christians or Christian Churches exist because Christianity is outlawed and Christians may be punishable by death.

stephan huller

Origen Contra Celsum Book VII

CHAP. LXII.

Let us now see what follows. "Let us pass on," says he, "to another point. They cannot tolerate temples, altars, or images. In this they are like the Scythians, the nomadic tribes of Libya, the Seres who worship no god, and some other of the most barbarous and impious nations in the world. That the Persians hold the same notions is shown by Herodotus in these words: 'I know that among the Persians it is considered unlawful to erect images, altars, or temples; but they charge those with folly who do so, because, as I conjecture, they do not, like the Greeks, suppose the gods to be of the nature of men.' Heraclitus also says in one place: 'Persons who address prayers to these images act like those who speak to the walls, without knowing who the gods or the heroes are.' And what wiser lesson have they to teach us than Heraclitus? He certainly plainly enough implies that it is a foolish thing for a man to offer prayers to images, whilst he knows not who the gods and heroes are. This is the opinion of Heraclitus; but as for them, they go further, and despise without exception all images. If they merely mean that the stone, wood, brass, or gold which has been wrought by this or that workman cannot be a god, they are ridiculous with their wisdom. For who, unless he be utterly childish in his simpliCity, can take these for gods, and not for offerings consecrated to the service of the gods, or images representing them? But if we are not to regard these as representing the Divine Being, seeing that God has a different form, as the Persians concur with them in saying, then let them take care that they do not contradict themselves; for they say that God made man His own image, and that He gave him a form like to Himself. However, they will admit that these images, whether they are like or not, are made and dedicated to the honour of certain beings. But they will hold that the beings to whom they are dedicated are not gods, but demons, and that a worshipper of God ought not to worship demons."

CHAP. LXIII.

To this our answer is, that if the Scythians, the nomadic tribes of Libya, the Seres, who according to Celsus have no god, if those other most barbarous and impious nations in the world, and if the Persians even cannot bear the sight of temples, altars, and images, it does not follow because we cannot suffer them any more than they, that the grounds on which we object to them are the same as theirs. We must inquire into the principles on which the objection to temples and images is rounded, in order that we may approve of those who object on sound principles, and condemn those whose principles are false. For one and the same thing may be done for different reasons. For example, the philosophers who follow Zeno of Citium abstain from committing adultery, the followers of Epicurus do so too, as well as others again who do so on no philosophical principles; but observe what different reasons determine the conduct of these different classes. The first consider the interests of society, and hold it to be forbidden by nature that a man who is a reasonable being should corrupt a woman whom the laws have already given to another, and should thus break up the household of another man. The Epicureans do not reason in this way; but if they abstain from adultery, it is because, regarding pleasure as the chief end of man, they perceive that one who gives himself up to, adultery, encounters for the sake of this one pleasure a multitude of obstacles to pleasure, such as imprisonment, exile, and death itself. They often, indeed, run considerable risk at the outset, while watching for the departure from the house of the master and those in his interest. So that, supposing it possible for a man to commit adultery, and escape the knowledge of the husband, of his servants, and of others whose esteem he would forfeit, then the Epicurean would yield to the commission of the crime for the sake of pleasure. The man of no philosophical system, again, who abstains from adultery when the opportunity comes to him, does so generally from dread of the law and its penalties, and not for the sake of enjoying a greater number of other pleasures. You see, then, that an act which passes for being one and the same--namely, abstinence from adultery--is not the same, but differs in different men according to the motives which actuate it: one man refraining for sound reasons, another for such bad and impious ones as those of the Epicurean, and the common person of whom we have spoken.

CHAP. LXIV.

As, then, this act of self-restraint, which in appearance is one and the same, is found in fact to be different in different persons, according to the principles and motives which lead to it; so in the same way with those who cannot allow in the worship of the Divine Being altars, or temples, or images. The Scythians, the Nomadic Libyans, the godless Seres, and the Persians, agree in this with the Christians and Jews, but they are actuated by very different principles. For none of these former abhor altars and images on the ground that they arc afraid of degrading the worship of God, and reducing it to the worship of material things wrought by the hands of men. Neither do they object to them from a belief that the demons choose certain forms and places, whether because they are detained there by virtue of certain charms, or because for some other possible reason they have selected these haunts, where they may pursue their criminal pleasures, in partaking of the smoke of sacrificial victims. But Christians and Jews have regard to this command, "Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve Him alone;" and this other, "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me: thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them;" and again, "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve." It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.

CHAP. LXV.

In regard to the Persians, we have already said that though they do not build temples, yet they worship the sun and the other works of God. This is forbidden to us, for we have been taught not to worship the creature instead of the Creator, but to know that "the creation shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God;" and "the earnest expectation of the creation is waiting for the revelation of the sons of God;" and "the creation was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by; reason of him who made it subject:, in hope." We believe, therefore, that things "under the bondage of corruption," and "subject to vanity," which remain in this condition "in hope" of a better state, ought not in our worship to hold the place of God, the all-sufficient, and of His Son, the First-born of all creation. Let this suffice, in addition to what we have already said of the Persians, who abhor altars and images, but who serve the creature instead of the Creator. As to the passage quoted by Celsus from Heraclitus, the purport of which he represents as being, "that it is childish folly for one to offer prayers to images, whilst he knows not who the gods and heroes are," we may reply that it is easy to know that God and the Only-begotten Son of God, and those whom God has honoured with the title of God, and who partake of His divine nature, are very different from all the gods of the nations which are demons; but it is not possible at the same time to know God and to address prayers to images.

CHAP. LXVI.

And the charge of folly applies not only to those who offer prayers to images, but also to such as pretend to do so in compliance with the example of the multitude: and to this class belong the Peripatetic philosophers and the followers of Epicurus and Democritus. For there is no falsehood or pretence in the soul which is possessed with true piety towards God. Another reason also why we abstain from doing honour to images, is that we may give no support to the notion that the images are gods. It is on this ground that we condemn Celsus, and all others who, while admitting that they are not gods, yet, with the reputation of being wise men, render to them what passes for homage. In this way they lead into sin the multitude who follow their example, and who worship these images not simply out of deference to custom, but from a belief into which they have fallen that they are true gods, and that those are not to be listened to who hold that the objects of their worship are not true gods. Celsus, indeed, says that "they do not take them for gods, but only as offerings dedicated to the gods." But he does not prove that they are not rather dedicated to men than, as he says, to the honour of the gods themselves; for it is clear that they are the offerings of men who were in error in their views of the Divine Being. Moreover, we do not imagine that these images are representations of God, for they cannot represent a being who is invisible and incorporeal. But as Celsus supposes that we fall into a contradiction, whilst on the one hand we say that God has not a human form, and on the other we profess to believe that God made man the image of Himself, and created man the image of God; our answer is the same as has been given already, that we hold the resemblance to God to be preserved in the reasonable soul, which is formed to virtue, although Celsus, who does not see the difference between "being the image of God," and "being created after the image of God," pretends that we said, "God made man His own image, and gave him a form like to His own." But this also has been examined before.

CHAP. LXVII.

His next remark upon the Christians is: "They will admit that these images, whether they are like or not, are made and dedicated to the honour of certain beings; but they will hold that the beings to whom they are dedicated are not gods, but demons, and that a worshipper of God ought not to worship demons." If he had been acquainted with the nature of demons, and with their several operations, whether led on to them by the conjurations of those who are skilled in the art, or urged on by their own inclination to act according to their power and inclination; if, I say, he had thoroughly understood this subject, which is both wide in extent and difficult for human comprehension, he would not have condemned us for saying that those who worship the Supreme Being should not serve demons. For ourselves, so far are we from wishing to serve demons, that by the use of prayers and other means which we learn from Scripture, we drive them out of the souls of men, out of places where they have established themselves, and even sometimes from the bodies of animals; for even these creatures often suffer from injuries inflicted upon them by demons.

Roger Pearse

If we mean a *modern* Persian source, well, treat all these as likely rubbish. Some of this stuff connects to Iranian royalist ideas as well.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

mountainman

Hey avi,

It is also quite remarkable the number of these later Christian churches in Rome that have been associated with mithraea.

From here (with plenty of pics)


Best wishes


Pete

GakuseiDon

That's interesting! Thousands of years, you say? What was the earliest known depiction of the virgin birth concept, as far as you know? Can you give me a small hint? A tiny indication? A little advice?

dog-on

Virgin, my ass. The Mormons say that the big G got her doggy style and their faith is true, to boot.

Per your question, there is a Greek myth about a golden shower, that I think would count.