RyanS2

Interesting link, thanks for providing it. To your closing question, I found one by Cicero, about forty years prior to Christianity:

"How can a man be so stupid as to imagine that which he eats to be a God?"

It'd be strange to think that Cicero is talking about Christianity, it obviously hadn't been around yet. However, as mythers who don't believe in the Mithraic elements of the feast, it should be noted that the "Eucharist" was performed by several of the cults of that time.

The other was Justin Martyr, 1 Apology, Chapter 66: "that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn."

Others are The Sept/Oct issue of Biblical Archaeology Review pages 40-53, an article by David Ulansey titled, "Solving the Mithraic Mysteries". He says that the earliest literary evidence for the Mithraic mysteries is the historian Plutarch in 67 bc who said that a band of pirates in Cilicia were practicing "secret rites" of Mithras.

The big question then is that did Mithraic rites originate with Christianity, or vice versa? The way Earl Doherty puts it:

"Cults do not form overnight, nor do the ideas underlying their rites and myths spring fully into being at one moment. The basic concepts and practices of the mysteries were ancient. They undergirded much of the religious expression of the era."

If you compare the very intricate rituals of Mithrainism with the rather loosely based ones of Christianity, it's apparent which one developed over a longer period of time. In addition, it should be noted that none of the early Christian apologists stated that Mithrainism took from Christianity, rather, they almost all stated that Mithraic elements were known in advance by the Devil, who inserted them.

Lastly, to your questions on there being an original source and if so, the accuracy therein, I don't know. It would be hard for there to be a "primary source" on this one, because we have no literary remains of these groups. What we do know about them is from:

Christian apologetic writers:
Neo-Platonists:
mystical papyri:

The veracity of each of these groups is somewhat debateable. Here's another link on it:

<a href="http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/papers/vol1/491123-A_Study_of_Mithraism.htm" target="_blank">http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/papers/vol1/491123-A_Study_of_Mithraism.htm</a>

Arthur Weigall (The Paganism in Our Christianity), had another interesting observation on where this idea came from:

"We must look for the origin of its new sacrificial character in the older religions. In primitive days cannibalism had been very widely practiced so for the purpose of acquiring the virtues of the dead person by eating his flesh and drinking his blood. It was customary to eat the flesh of a sacrificial victim, either human or animal, and in the cases in which such victims were identified with the deity to whom they were offered, the flesh was eaten and the blood drunk in order to effect communion with the divinity." ... "The early Christians, in fact, must thus have been quite familiar with the idea of the sacramental eating of a god's body; and, indeed, one may say that such phrases as 'Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink. his blood . . ." could only have been written by one who had been brought up amongst rites based on an immemorial cannibalism and to whom the idea of devouring his god was perfectly normal."

lpetrich

The problem here is that the authors of the Bible often have clear ulterior motives, such as inducing people to believe in Jesus Christ; IMO, the biographies of JC must be viewed as hagiographies, like the numerous biographies of medieval saints, many of which are now considered largely or entirely fictional, and such recent examples as Parson Weems's biography of George Washington and the biography of L. Ron Hubbard at <a href="http://www.scientology.org" target="_blank">the Church of Scientology's site</a>.

(a lot of stuff on JFK...)

I'll score him here.

1. 0.5 - His mother was the daughter of a former mayor of Boston, but she had 9 children, one of them before JFK (sort-of royal, or at least noble, yes; virginal, no)
2. 1 - His father was a rich businessman (sort-of royalty, or at least nobility).
3. 0 - No sign of any close relationship.
4. 0 - Nothing unusual reported
5. 0
6. 0 - Nobody comes after him when he was a baby
7. 0
8. 0 - He was raised by his biological parents.
9. 0 - Only significant if his birth is described in detail
10. 0.5 - He returns from some rather heroic WWII service, which was not quite returning from lifelong exile.
11. 0.5 - Winning elections is not quite a heroic triumph against some great villain.
12. 1 - Jacqueline Bouvier came from a rich family (sort-of royalty, or at least nobility); she eventually became a big celebrity.
13. 1 - Becomes President.
14. 0 - The Bay of Pigs invasion, the Cuban Missile Crisis, confrontations over Berlin, and other Cold-War conflicts can hardly be called uneventful.
15. 0.5 - He gradually started to help the civil-rights movement.
16. 0 - Nothing of the sort happens.
17. 0 - He is never impeached or tried.
18. 0 - He is assassinated by some lone lunatic, though conspiracy-mongers try to make this a 1.
19. 0 - He is assassinated as he is being driven in a parade.
20. 0 - His children and various other family members stay active in politics and public life.
21. 0 - He is buried in Arlington Cemetery.
22. 0 - Only significant if he had not been buried.

His Lord Raglan score: 5, or at most 6. I think that Rimstalker was being too literal-minded here; I think it's reasonable to count rich people as de facto nobles, even if a society has no de jure nobles (the US Constitution forbids the granting of titles of nobility).

(a lot of Metacrock's verbiage snipped for brevity)

It does not seem to me that Metacrock is really saying anything; much of the rest of his verbiage is like that.

However, there were lots of others named Jesus back then, so it's not exactly clear that he is referring to the Jesus Christ of the New Testament. And that reference is so scanty that it does not really tell very much about him. To my mind, this is grasping at straws.

A great multiplicity of later copies. Does the multiplicity of copies of the Koran prove its divine inspiration? However, the various JC biographies show significant differences; John differs significantly from Matthew, Mark, and Luke, such as how long JC stayed in Jerusalem (a whole year rather than a few weeks), how provocative his temple temper tantrum was (MML: it provoked the authorities; J: it did not), etc. In addition, Paul's Christ is a more heavenly sort of personage.

An emotional comment that deserves little response.

Only if one does Clintonian hairsplitting, such as saying "The Christian God did not have sexual relations with that woman, Mary". Miraculous conceptions are a common legendary feature, even if they do not quite result in virgin births; for that reason, "virgin birth" may be a misnomer.

GunnerJ

I stand by my statement, and I think you're a dingbat, so take back that "conspiracy-monger" crack!

Seriously, rich people can count as a de facto nobility, but counting JFK's dad as any kind of royalty, or King, seems somehting of a stretch to me. Oh, and had I known that Jackie was from a rich family, I might have upped it by a half point. My not giving points for (10) has to do with the fact that he was returning to America, he was never exiled from his homeland by evil forces.

BTW, that biography of L Ron Hubbard on the Scientolgy website is amazing. Just stunning.

Anunnaki

Just want to go on the record to say that my "Havent got a clue" jibe was poorly aimed and ReasonableDoubt is the undeserving victim of verbal friendly fire.

I think reading all metacrocks posts has put some kind of insanity spell on me and I`ve already got enough problems as it is. I`m gonna try and ignore these infuriating forums for a little while as well as TV,the newspaper,god bless america billboards and bumper stickers,that freaky Christian fellowship cult down the street from my house,morons who wear crucifixes but know nothing at all about the religion they claim to believe in,god,jebus and any other misc religious nonsense I come across on a daily basis.

Jayhawker Soule

Thank you - although I thought your aim was excellent.

Reactor

lpetrich, you said IMO after this, but isn't this your own opinion too? Or, maybe I misunderstand you here. What do you mean by inducing? Convincing?

lpetrich

I meant "convincing"; I recall something in the Gospel of John which states something of that sort.

Photocrat

You should try Hannibal next :]

What is "mysterious" about death on a cross, BTW? Doesn't the papacy claim to continue as a "successor" of sorts? Teaching == laws? Well, maybe. What about the [non-cannonical] infancy gospels?

BTW, how about the whole notion that he was a "hero" back when this was first written? You realize that death by crucifixion carried a social stigma--it'd be looked on about the way people worshipping Marilyn Manson [if there were any such people] would be looked on today [e.g. it was considered absurd to worship a lawfully crucified felon]

I realize that that stigma has long since dissappeared for us, but for the logic of that time, Jesus would not have been considered any kind of "hero" dying what they considered a shameful death then. I mean, when the Greeks see Jesus as an executed criminal (and, perhaps, a seditionist) while the Jews see Jesus as being "accursed of God" (in expounding on the Torah, they considered crucifixion a form of being "hung on a tree" and anyone who died that was was considered "accursed of God" -- this is even referenced in the NT)

So, using the criterion of embarassment, why would they put these sorts of things; all of which could've been made more acceptable in any number of ways (e.g. what if Jesus had died heroically fighting off the mob that came to get Him instead of going quietly??) if they wanted some sort of *hero* figure?

[edited for length - mt]

[ January 24, 2002: Message edited by: turtonm ]</p>

Reactor

lpetrich, can you find that passage in John for me? I don't mean to sound rude, but I don't go by people's recallings.

Amen-Moses

At a guess John 1:7.

Virtually the same thing is said at the beginning of Luke too.

Amen-Moses