aa5874

These are the simple facts.

Mithraism was before Jesus by hundreds of years.

Jesus of the NT did not exist.

Justin Martyr wrote that the ritual of the Last Supper by Christians was similar to a ritual in Mithraism.

Now checK any encyclopedia and research "Mithraism", it would be noted that Mithraism had influence on the Roman Empire long before Jesus.

Mithraism have had influence on the fabricators of Jesus.

lycanthrope

but there are those who claim that Mithraism and its associated rituals and texts were copied from Judaism with the exception that Jesus fufilled all of the messianic prophecies (being from the blood of David, tribe of Judah etc) while mithra did not, mithra was juz copying the older judaism texts on the surface

http://www.carm.org/evidence/mithra.htm

and i also found this other webpage...which claims christianity influence mithraism not the other way around

http://www.comereason.org/cmp_rlgn/cmp070.asp

CHRISTIAN INFLUENCE ON MITHRAISM

Because of the above evidence, we must dismiss the claims that Christianity borrowed from Mithraism in order to codify its own set of beliefs. The ancient form of Mithraism would not have looked anything like Christianity. It in fact was a very pagan form of worship. Ronald Nash writes:
"Allegations of an early Christian dependence on Mithraism have been rejected on many grounds. Mithraism had no concept of the death and resurrection of its god and no place for any concept of rebirth - at least during its early stages.... During the early stages of the cult, the notion of rebirth would have been foreign to its basic outlook.... Moreover, Mithraism was basically a military cult. Therefore, one must be skeptical about suggestions that it appealed to nonmilitary people like the early Christians."5

Nash goes on to assert that instead of Christianity borrowing form Mithraism, it was the other way around. Mithraism tried to make its pagan rituals look and feel more Christian.

"The taurobolium was a bloody rite associated with the worship of Mithra and of Attis in which a bull was slaughtered on 'a grating over an initiate in a pit below, drenching him with blood. This has been suggested (e.g., by R. Reitzenstein) as the basis of the Christian's redemption by blood and Paul's imagery in Romans 6 of the believer's death and resurrection. Gunter Wagner in his exhaustive study Pauline Baptism and the Pagan Mysteries ( 1963) points out how anachronistic such comparisons are: The taurobolium in the Attis cult is first attested in the time of Antoninus Pius for A.D. 160. As far as we can see at present it only became a personal consecration at the beginning of the third century A.D. The idea of a rebirth through the instrumentality of the taurobolium only emerges in isolated instances towards the end of the fourth century A.D.; it is not originally associated with this blood-bath [p. 266].Indeed, there is inscriptional evidence from the fourth century A.D. that, far from influencing Christianity, those who used the taurobolium were influenced by Christianity."6

aa5874

Well, based on Nash, it would be logical to assume Catholics copied Protestants or Jews copied the Muslim religion.

It is a no-brainer.

The fabricators of the Jesus stories used information that was readily available to manufacture their Jesus, and Paganism, including Mithraism, was prevalent at the time.

And the fabricators of Jesus do not have to use every single ritual or doctrine of Mithraism to show that they were influenced by Mithraism.

jbarntt

Mithraism did predate Christianity, that is true.

That Jesus did not exist is not a fact. I am sympathetic to the view, esp. Earl Doherty, but to call it a fact is false.

Roger Pearse

The archaeology (which makes up 90% of our data about Mithras) only starts ca. 80 AD, tho, and suggests an origin in Rome ca. 50 AD, which makes the comment by Plutarch 50 years later (in his life of Pompey) that the Cilician pirates in 68 BC worshipped Mithras merely a piece of anachronism, or indeed a mistake for the similar-appearing Perseus (whom they really did worship). All this from Clauss, The Roman cult of Mithras. Not quite comfortable about ignoring Plutarch, slack as he can sometimes be, I believe. It has been argued that there is some evidence that Pompey settled people (perhaps including captured pirates) in Italy, and so that the cult might have developed from there. I dislike the lack of evidence for that one, but it's a possibility.

I agree. Whatever our opinions, I feel that all the bad scholarship that I have ever seen invariably arises from treating a theory as if it was a piece of data; and the best course is to keep clear in our mind which is which.

Don't waste time on books like Doherty, tho.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

It's possible. Pagan cults were syncretic, and modifying things to attack a target audience was always possible. I don't know a great deal about Manichaeism, for instance, but I believe that the versions known in Egypt, at the Western end of its range, included pseudo-Christian material, and claims by Mani to be the apostle of Christ; but that Manichaean material from the borders of China contains no such stuff.

Christianity is about beliefs, dogmas, right thinking, not deviating from the apostolic teaching; this is why there are all these councils, all these handbooks of heresies, etc.

But it is a gross mistake to suppose that paganism is like that. It's about doing the right things, making the right sacrifices, and never mind what you personally believe. The myths could and did change freely.

I don't recall any evidence associating this rite with Mithras, tho.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

Well, I'm merely an amateur but I can tell you what I think...

The first imperative in ancient history is to assemble the data base on which any statements must be based. Get all of the statements about Mithras in the ancient literature -- a couple of dozen is usually all we have on most things -- in front of you. Get all the inscriptional, archaeological, numismatic evidence in front of you. Don't theorise a bit until you know what this stuff -- the historical record -- actually says.

Once you have all the data, leave your preconceptions at the door, and READ IT. See what it says, in its own terms. Don't use it as material to prop up a theory. See what it SAYS; and what it does not.

Now that we have a clear idea of what the data is, we can construct some kind of narrative that summarises and explains the data. Note that this does not mean inventing some fairy-story about alien astronauts and finding excuses to ignore whichever data doesn't fit. It means very conservatively saying in our own words what the data gives us.

We might then tie that summary into some larger narrative. We are also then in a position to evaluate theories.

Data first; theory last if anywhere. We're lucky; in our days, so much is online.

For any statement you find in a web page, look for the reference to the ancient sources. Then follow that reference up. The garbage stuff either has no references, or has references to non-scholarly literature, or references that don't say what the author implies they do.

It does mean work. Intelligent scepticism does mean work, which is why there is so little of it. But do we have anything else to do?

I don't believe it is that hard to pinpoint truth in history, once you ignore all the people with a political or religious position to advance or abuse. The worst bias, of course, is the stuff inside one's own head!

Hope that's coherent; I'm typing against the clock, as it's late here and will have to sign off until Monday, but I've tried to help as best I can with a few quick posts. Some of this needs qualification, of course. No doubt others will pick up my mistakes.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

aa5874

So what are the facts? Scholars reject the Jesus of the NT.

You do not know the facts.

Here are the facts.

No actual person called Jesus ever did these things:

• Was conceived of the Holy Ghost

• Had no earthly father

• Was baptised and the Holy Ghost entered into him like doves

• Was on a high mountain looking at the kingdoms of the world

• Used spit on people to make them see

• Raised a man from the dead after four days

• Was transfigured and his face shone like the sun

• Brought back Moses and Elijah from being dead after hundreds of years

• Was resurrected or ascended through the clouds

Now tell me what you know as facts about your Jesus? What did he REALLY do?

Jeffrey Gibson

Not according to Arrain and Plutarch who are our porimary sources for the history of Pompey and the Cilician Pirates. Arrian tells us that "Those pirates who had evidently fallen into this way of life not from wickedness, but from poverty consequent upon the war, Pompey settled in Mallus, Adana, and Epiphanea, or any other uninhabited or thinly peopled town in Rough Cilicia". Plutarch also mentions Soli as a place of resettlement.


Jeffrey

jbarntt

Hi Roger,

Doherty and other mythicists are interesting, that's all.

As to whether Mithraism predates Christianity, you are correct to point out that it might well not. The subject is controversial. I tend to think it did, at least in some form, but I wouldn't bet anymore than $5 on that proposition.