Roger Pearse

They do say this. This is why Cumont (very naturally) supposed that Mithras was Persian. But you notice that these are all Roman sources? In other words, they are merely repeating the claim of the Mithras cultists that their rites were Persian in origin.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

aa5874

Please, WE have the writings of Justin Martyr so what you are claiming is REJECTED.

"Dialogue with Trypho" LXXVIII Based on Justin Martyr, the Mysteries of Mithra used HEBREW SCRIPTURE NOT the Gospels.

The Mysteries of Mithra PREDATED the Jesus story.

Huon

Possibly, archaeologists looking for remains of Mithraea in Persia were not lucky, or not welcome in Iran... Another possible explanation is that the partisans of the new religions (Christianity and Islam) were eager in destroying these temples.

In a town which I know well, Bordeaux, a Mithraeum was discovered in 1986, dating approximatively about 200 CE.

dog-on

Roger pretty much nailed it, from what I have been able to gather.

Roger Pearse

At that period, tho, they were. The Shah was very keen on the possibility that Mithras = Mitra.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

aa5874

How did you GATHER "Roger pretty much nailed it"? What corroborative sources of antiquity did you use?

Please, don't tell me that Roger pretty much nailed it because you believe "Roger pretty much nailed it.

We have SOURCES of antiquity that has ALREADY nailed Roger FLAWED opinion.

The Mysteries of Mithra PREDATED the Jesus story based on Justin Martyr over 1800 years ago.

And further, Roger cannot show or establish with any credible sources of antiquity that the Jesus story was WRITTEN before 80 CE and KNOWN before the Mysteries of Mithra.

dog-on

I am not sure which conversation you are reading, but regarding the discussion in this thread, your comment is a bit irrelevant.

avi

Hey Roger, thanks.

umm, this is a THICK HEADED reply, so please do not take offense.

I am trying to understand how you have impeached these several Roman authors. I am not sure that all of them were Roman, but, for sake of argument, let's suppose they were.

I still do not comprehend, even if they were simply repeating what their Roman colleagues had mumbled, over a pint of ale, why we should dismiss these several authors.

What ax did they have to grind?

What difference was it to them, if they offered the claim that Mithraism originated in Persia, RATHER THAN ROME?

It seems to me that you are arguing that, contrary to those several Latin authors, there is conclusive archaeological evidence to suggest TWO completely different cults, absolutely autonomous, and unique: one based on ancient Persian/Zoroastrianism or even earlier Hindu beliefs, and the other, more recent, based upon First Century Roman traditions, INDEPENDENT of the more ancient Persian tradition.

If I have accurately summarized your position, then, I would argue that such a scenario is improbable, based simply on factors of coincidence.

a. cave based worship in both cases;

b. bull slaying, according to the Roman sources;

c. reference to sun;

Yes, I agree with you, that a new religion COULD HAVE EMERGED, de novo, out of the Syrian Desert, having NOTHING TO DO with the ancient Persian tradition, which we call, today, Mithraism, erroneously confounding it with the exclusively Roman Empire religion, of the same name.

That certainly is one possibility.

But, why invoke such an improbable scenario? Why not follow the route of least resistance? There is too much evidence pointing the other direction:

i.e.

yes, there are perhaps some significant differences in practice between ancient Persian Mithraism, and Roman Empire Mithraism, but, those differences are minimal, when compared to other religious practices of that era.

Perhaps you could explain what, if any, relationship exists between faith in the divinity of Jesus, and a desire to observe a distinction between ancient Persian Mithraism, and more modern, Roman Empire Mithraism? How does a scenario, in which ancient Mithraism is continued by the Romans cause problems for Christianity?

I am lost here, Roger. I cannot observe any relationship between the two: why does Christianity demand, or require, or desire, a separation between ancient Persian Mithraism, and Roman Empire practice of Mithraism? How does the hypothesis, that ancient Zoroastrian influence on Mithraism represents a completely different tradition than Roman Empire practices of Mithraism, aid and assist Christian practices and beliefs, when compared with the alternative hypothesis, that ancient Zoroastrian influence on Mithraism represents a simple derivative of an even more ancient practice, which was then adapted, and further modified by Roman Legionaires, 2000 years ago?

avi

dog-on

Avi, the Romans had a penchant for using bits and pieces, as the saw fit. Heck, just look at what they made of Judaism...

avi

Thank you very much, dog-on. A wise observation, and one which I am NOT DISPUTING. I agree with your depiction, and I am sure Roger does as well.

My point is a little different.

Let's say these handful of authors were all muddlers, just repeating the same utter nonsense which they had overheard at the local tavern....

Someone, in short, not unlike me, visiting the local tavern every day.

So, ok, they were just a bunch of drunkards, blabbing away.

What is somewhat interesting, at least to me, as a fellow drunkard, is that they ALL HAVE THE SAME STORY.

Now, when I repeat a story, in stuporous fashion, I tend to embellish things a bit, maybe exaggerate a little here and a little there.

The actual event turns out to be quite different, when presented by my alcohol tuned cerebrum, compared with reality.

What is remakable, then, about these several authors, is that they present the SAME account. Maybe it is wrong. But, it is repeated over and over again. Different pubs. Different drunks, different beverages, most likely, but SAME RESULT.

So, I am asking Roger, maybe it wasn't too clear, no one ever accused me of that tendency, but, I am inquiring what evidence he has that these several authors' writings should be impeached?

For example, as dog-on suggests, maybe Plutarch, to pick one author, at random, simply copied what he had read elsewhere.

So, then, we are not dealing with five different drunks. Maybe only a couple, plus me.....

avi