CX

I was trying to keep it simple. Although Ulansey's theory is somewhat controversial a strong case can be made that Roman Mithraism actually has little or nothing to do with the Perso-Iranian cults. No Roman Mithraic source ever makes mention of Ahura-Mazda or Ahriman or any of the primary doctrines of Zoroastrianism. On the other hand we have scant evidence to go by. It could be that the Roman's simply borrowed a name they heard while stationed in the Eastern part of the empire to give their cult an ancient feeling to it and had no actual knowledge of the Perso-Iranian pantheon came with it.

Actually I was looking for Ulansey's book the other day. Since I couldn't find it (I suppose I'll ahve to order it online) I picked up Dr. Elaine Pagels' 1995 book on the Origin of Satan. Anyway thanks for the observation.

CX

I'm certainly no expert on Conastantine, btu given what I have read about him and given the general tendancy of political figures throughout history toward using religion for political reasons I strongly suspect that Constantine's "conversion" was politically rather than religiously motivated. I could be due to Licinius' affiliation, but it could also be that Constantine was simply very shrewd and could see the writing on the wall with respect to the emergent power of the nascent Xian church. Perhaps it was a combination. In any event there is evidence that Constantine continued to practice paganism after his conversion to some degree.

CX

Mostly B.S. There's plenty of it on the web regarding Mithraism and it's relation to Xianity. Your best bet, if you are really interested in Mithraism, is to pick up a copy of Franz Cumont's landmark work on Mithraism. Some of the material is outdated (he wrote it in 1911), but it gives a good overview of the actual mythology and practices of Mithraism. I've heard that David Ulansey's book is also very good and contains mroe recent information, though it is still somewhat controversial.

Gracchus

Let us not forget that the symbolism of the Great Mother was taken over wholesale and assigned to Mary. It was this feminine component that probably enabled Christianity to subsume both cults.

Early Christians had to be aware that some Christian symbolism, ritual and dogma were very similar indeed to Zoroastrianism, Mithraism, and many other popular mystery cults of the day. It gave a nice homey feeling of familiarity to Christian converts.

Anti-Creedance Front

First of all, are you denying that Mithraism had an influence on Christianity, or are you saying it had an equal influence to the other cults of the day? I don't think Mithraism was the only belief system thrown into the mix, but I also think it had a very important role. The main reason many people like me think it had a big influence is because of its later status as the Roman state cult. Sol Invicti.

I don't usually answer long posts like that, because they're impossible to quote, but I will say that Mithra was not simply a "messenger" for Ahura Mazda, he was one of the six Amesha Spentas. And still is in surviving Zoroastrianism. Also, the blood of the bull and the blood of Jesus are the similarity, not Jesus dying on the cross. People often use the phrase "The earth is redeemed by his blood", or "Humanity was saved by Jesus' blood". That's where the similarity comes in. This is kind of blurry for me, but aren't there a lot of references to Jesus or humans going to heaven in a fiery chariot? Like the song "Swing Down Sweet Chariot"? You might not have heard the vibe now too that Paul was from the center of Mithraism in the area, Tarsus. He was also a member of the Pharisees, who proposed the idea of resurrection after death, one god, etc. What scholars are proposing (and me) is that Paul's theology won out over Peter's. Paul might not have been involved in Mithraism, but the influence was sure there.

I hate to make this post any longer, but I keep thinking up new things while looking at this page:
<a href="http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/mithraism.html" target="_blank">http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/mithraism.html</a>

I know full well about the other man-god saviors like Attis and such, but don't you think there is a common underlying story there? As if someone made a legend up and it was either copycatted or carried though different cultures? So many gods could be compared to Mithra/Jesus. The one I'm thinking of is Perseus. He was born to a mother impregnated by a God... Zeus. I can't recall the rest of the story, but like I was saying, isn't it odd there's so many of these stories that are the same?

Thanks for the references to Ahriman and whatnot. I would like to see some sources, though. Don't get me wrong, I trust you, I just want to look further into them. I probably won't be around, so if you could e-mail them to me at ralien@charter.net I'd appreciate it.

[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: Anti-Creedance Front ]

[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: Anti-Creedance Front ]</p>

LuckyCharm

Excuse me for jumping into this lively discussion, but could somebody tell me how it logically follows that, if some similarities can be shown between a myth and a historical event, that the historical event cannot have happened as recorded?

Or that wherever similar themes can be found in different belief systems, it is evidence of "borrowing"?

Seems like a lot of bandwidth is being wasted here on a logical fallacy.

~~Cheryl

Yellum Notnef

What historical event do you have in mind?

Vorkosigan

Excuse me for jumping into this lively discussion, but could somebody tell me how it logically follows that, if some similarities can be shown between a myth and a historical event, that the historical event cannot have happened as recorded?

The question is framed wrong here. If a "historical event" can be shown to have great similarity to a myth, then the "historicity" of the event becomes difficult to prove. This doesn't mean that it wasn't historical, just that you can't prove it with the evidence you have.

CX

Hi Cheryl, you've hit the proverbial nail right on the head. Just because two contemporary mythological systes have similar themes is not evidence of borrowing. Given the absolute dearth of information we have about early Xianity and Roman Mithraism it would be impossible to draw any conclusion about borrowing. FACT: Roman Mithraism is NOT equivalent to ancient Zoroastrianism, but developed and enjoyed prominence in the first three centuries of the common era right alongside Xianity. Several modern scholars have presented strong cases that RM is not even related to the Perso-Iranian religion. FACT: Roman Mithraism was NOT the state cult in this period, but rather Caesar worship was. Roman Mithraism was popular mostly among the members of the Roman Legion though it did have a few adherents among prominent Roman senators. FACT: Mitra was NOT a primary deity in the Zoroastrian pantheon but was one of several yazatas, or minor deities, and there is no evidence that he ever had exclusive worship in ancient Persia. FACT: there are no surviving texts of Roman Mithraism and everything we know comes from enigmatic inscriptions and stone reliefs found in various Mithraeum, the iconography of which is found nowhere in the ancient Perso-Iranian cults.

CX

I'm saying how do you determine who influenced whom? Furthermore there is almost no similarity between Roman Mithraism and Xianity to begin with.

I believe that is incorrect. According to an essay I read (which I posted part of here) Mitra was simply a yazata or minor deity in the Zoroastrian pantheon.

This is about as unsimilar as I can imagine. Both use blood imagery but that is the extent of it. The blood of the bull in Roman Mithraism (based on the imagery in the Tauroctony) figures into the creation story. From the blood and semen of the slain bull comes all life on earth. There is no relation to salvation or sacrifice or atonement. Those themes are coopted by Xianity directly from Judaism NOT Roman Mithraism.

I'm not sure what you're referring to. Constantine was ambivalent about his religious belief to the very end and coins struck immediately after his death show him ascending to heaven in a fiery chariot, but this is pagan and ahs nothing to do with Xianity.

True, but the Mithras figure from the Roman cult is not one of those. Mithras was not the savior of mankind but the indirect creator of life on earth. Mithras was born before the existence of mankind and his struggle with the bull only symbolizes man's struggle on earth.


Of course. Almost all human religious themes share something in common. I'd attribute that to the reason religion develops to begin with not necessarily copying. We see similar themes in totally isolated groups of aboriginal peoples today who ahve no knowledge of the ancient world. Religion is a reaction to essentially three things all humans grapple with: 1)Where did we come from, 2)Why do bad things happen, 3)What happens when we die? The answers are often very similar. 1)God or gods made us supernaturally, 2)Bad things happen because God or gods are mad at us, 3)We go back to god when we die unless he's still mad at us in which case we're screwed.

It is that last aspect of 3 that generates the concept of salvation. How do we make sure god isn't mad at us when we die. A natural conclusion is that a mediator between god and man comes along and saves us from ourselves.