Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Roger Pearse · 02-03-2009, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by couch_sloth

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Can I make a plea for people to VERIFY before repeating any or all of the above hearsay? I don't know myself, but I recognise the usual suspects for bogus attribution!

How's this,

Here's the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia attributing the story of St. Josaphat to the Buddha:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02297a.htm

And the same for the Encyclopædia Britannica:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...m-and-Josaphat

Is there strong evidence that this is false?

Better than nothing, but still second-hand. Wouldn't it be best to check the story of Barlaam and Josaphat directly against... well, whatever source is being offered on the Buddhist side?

But I hope I'm not being misunderstood. I too vaguely think that there are parallels, perhaps connections. I'm being sceptical, tho, until I see something resembling first hand evidence. I'd advise everyone else to do the same.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse · 02-03-2009, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by World Builder

Need some help from the resident scholars. Can someone recommend a good source on parallels between Christian Saints and pre-existing gods? If there is any good sources, that is.

Dear WorldBuilder,

The dominant parallel between bogus christian "saints" and their non-christian Hellenistic predecessors is drawn using the evidence of architecture. The pre-existing divinities and gods had temples and shrines erected in their name. In the fourth century a process was commenced to "make-over" the pagan shrines and temples of devotion, and to replace them with the basilicas of the new state monotheistic religion now known as christianity.

The classical example is the replacement of the shrines and temples to "healing god" Asclepius, son of Apollo, son of Zeus for whom abundant archeological evidence exists. These were replaced with basilcas -- some of which were named after the two entirely bogus christian twin saints called Cosmas and Damian who then became the patron saints of medicine, until they were kicked out --- to be again replaced by Asclepius --- during the Renaissance.

Best wishes,

Pete

Dear Worldbuilder,

The idea that Christians destroying pagan cults and turning the buildings over to new uses indicates that they *adopted* the cults is one only possible to some people in a very strange state of mind.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

andrewcriddle · 02-03-2009, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Better than nothing, but still second-hand. Wouldn't it be best to check the story of Barlaam and Josaphat directly against... well, whatever source is being offered on the Buddhist side?

But I hope I'm not being misunderstood. I too vaguely think that there are parallels, perhaps connections. I'm being sceptical, tho, until I see something resembling first hand evidence. I'd advise everyone else to do the same.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

There is a 19th century book barlaam and josaphat which discusses this and prints some of the stories.
See also marco polo vol 2 for Polo's version of the Buddha's life with useful notes about Barlaam and Josaphat.

Andrew Criddle

Clivedurdle · 02-03-2009, 01:41 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianised_sites

Quote:

One aspect of Christianisation was the Christianisation of sites that had been pagan. Few Christian churches built in the first half millennium of the established Christian Church were not built upon sites already consecrated as pagan temples or as high places, the church of Santa Maria sopra Minerva (literally Saint Mary above Minerva) in Rome being simply the most obvious example. Sulpicius Severus, in his Vita of Martin of Tours, a dedicated destroyer of temples and sacred trees, remarks "wherever he destroyed heathen temples, there he used immediately to build either churches or monasteries" (Vita, ch xiii), and when Benedict took possession of the site at Monte Cassino, he began by smashing the sculpture of Apollo and the altar that crowned the height. Montmartre was the site of one of the oldest surviving Christian churches in France - Saint Pierre, and where the Jesuit movement was supposedly founded, was earlier a mercurii monte - a high place dedicated to Lugus, a major celtic deity (and one that the romans viewed as a homology of Mercury).

The conversion of pre-Christian places of worship, rather than their destruction, was particularly true of temples of Mithras, a religion that had been the main rival to Christianity during the second and third centuries, especially among the Roman legions.

In Rome the early titular churches, each protected by a patron, were sometimes adapted from the basilica, or auidience hall, of a prominent man's domus. The direct conversion of sacred sites waited for the decrees of Theodosius I at the end of the fourth century, closing the temples.

And in the interests of recycling, why not do makeovers of the true gods?

Quote:

Gregory I, Letter to Abbot Mellitus, Epsitola 76, PL 77: 1215-1216

Intro: Mellitus was about to join St. Augustine of Canterbury

on the mission to England. How to deal with a pagan culture,

and its symbols. Gregory I (590-604) recommends a policy

of acculturation.

****

Tell Augustine that he should be no means destroy the temples of the

gods but rather the idols within those temples. Let him, after he has

purified them with holy water, place altars and relics of the saints

in them. For, if those temples are well built, they should be converted

from the worship of demons to the service of the true God. Thus, seeing

that their places of worship are not destroyed, the people will banish

error from their hearts and come to places familiar and dear to them

in acknowledgement and worship of the true God.

Further, since it has been their custom to slaughter oxen in

sacrifice, they should receive some solemnity in exchange. Let them

therefore, on the day of the dedication of their churches, or on the

feast of the martyrs whose relics are preserved in them, build themselves

huts around their one-time temples and celebrate the occasion with

religious feasting. They will sacrifice and eat the animals not any

more as an offering to the devil, but for the glory of God to whom,

as the giver of all things, they will give thanks for having been satiated.

Thus, if they are not deprived of all exterior joys, they will more

easily taste the interior ones. For surely it is impossible to efface

all at once everything from their strong minds, just as, when one

wishes to reach the top of a mountain, he must climb by stages

and step by step, not by leaps and bounds....

Mention this to our brother the bishop, that he may dispose of the matter

as he sees fit according to the conditions of time and place.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sourc...1-mellitus.txt

mountainman · 02-03-2009, 05:06 PM

Dear Clive,

Outstanding references.
Many thanks for new ideas.

Caption: An image from the necropolis under the vatican in which Jesus = Mithras.

What is the date of this one? Has this a name of its own? Fascinating artistic motifs....

THE BIG QUESTION:

Was Jesus depicted as Mithras ..... or ....

was Mithras presented as Jesus?

In answering this question examine with care the extensive series of psychological tests which have been conducted concerning the matrix of responses given to images such as the one below. The results of these tests tend to indicate that when evidence is produced and placed directly in front of peoples' eyes, what they see in the evidence is highly related to preconceptions and conditioning and expectations of their own. There is not just "one way at looking at certain "evidence".....

Sourced from Mathworld:

Quote:

A famous perceptual illusion in which the brain switches between seeing a young girl and an old woman (or "wife" and "mother in law"). An anonymous German postcard from 1888 (left figure) depicts the image in its earliest known form/

Best wishes

Pete

Toto · 02-03-2009, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...
Caption: An image from the necropolis under the vatican in which Jesus = Mithras.

Er - no. Jesus is portrayed as Sol Invictus, with sun rays and a chariot.

That makes the rest of your post a little irrelevant.

Didymus · 02-03-2009, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

...the church of Santa Maria sopra Minerva ...being simply the most obvious example...

The conversion of pre-Christian places of worship, rather than their destruction, was particularly true of temples of a religion that had been the main rival to Christianity during the second and third centuries, especially among the Roman legions.

Yes, Santa Maria SM is an example of a Christian church being built over a pagan shrine. It is not an example of pagan iconography re-constituted for Christian purposes. The use of pagan sites for churches doesn't suggest in any way that Christianity adopted pagan divinities.

You'll have to do better than that to make a convincing case.

Didymus

Didymus · 02-03-2009, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

An image from the necropolis under the vatican in which Jesus = Mithras.

"Presented as Jesus"? By whom? Are you talking about early church iconography or modern church RC hucksterism?

Sure looks like Sol Invictus to me!

Ddms

mountainman · 02-03-2009, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...
Caption: An image from the necropolis under the vatican in which Jesus = Mithras.

Er - no. Jesus is portrayed as Sol Invictus, with sun rays and a chariot.

That makes the rest of your post a little irrelevant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Didymus

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

An image from the necropolis under the vatican in which Jesus = Mithras.

"Presented as Jesus"? By whom? Are you talking about early church iconography or modern church RC hucksterism?

Sure looks like Sol Invictus to me!

Ddms

Dear Toto and ddms,

I cited the caption (hyperlinked above) as presented on the page referenced in Clivedurdles post. The caption states Mithras, the discussion states Sol Invictus. The caption looks to be incorrect. But the comparison is just shifted:

Was Jesus depicted as Sol Invictus..... or ....

was Sol Invictus presented as Jesus

Best wishes

Pete

Roger Pearse · 02-04-2009, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...
Caption: An image from the necropolis under the vatican in which Jesus = Mithras.

Er - no. Jesus is portrayed as Sol Invictus, with sun rays and a chariot.

That makes the rest of your post a little irrelevant.

Yes, that looks nothing like Mithras!

But... do we know this is Jesus? I'm not sure that we can say Sol Invictus; the iconography is incomplete, isn't it? It could be Helios here?

I read recently that when Christianity became fashionable in the fourth century, the workshops had to adjust to produce new items like Moses etc, and tended to adapt stock images from their existing pattern books. If so, and it would be natural enough, it would indicate some serious problems with arguments about beliefs from use of iconography.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.