Who was Jesus talking to when he said...

*************
M*W: You refuted nothing! You have just shown your ignorance once again. There is nothing for us to discuss. You are incapable of it. Show me some scholarly refutation of Mithraism in peer-reviewed documentation that YOU provide.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Your own links refute you... except for some of the ones asking for donations or to buy something and even they a just mirrors of the same BS.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

*************
M*W: John, honestly, did you scroll all the way down to the end of the Evansville study to the endnotes? There were more than drawings. For god's sake, John, there was a reference that included a bunch of pictures. Surely you saw that. Go drink another one, you'll be okay.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How does that differ or challenge the statement i just made?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Let me explain it to you better. Sources earlier the 1900.

 

Hello,

I wonder if I can pop in and add some comments on the "Mithras=Jesus" business?

My hobby is ancient history. This idea has gone around the web for some years. A few years ago I got tired of seeing it, and wondered upon what -- if anything -- it was based. And I also wondered how people like us, living 2,000 years later, could know.

What I decided was that anything we knew about Mithras must come from either books written in ancient times, or inscriptions or monuments made in those days. Modern books either based themselves on those -- in which case we can simply use the modern books as a way to find the ancient evidence -- or are not, in which case they are deceptive. So I went and did a search.

All the ancient literature that mentions Mithras (aside from the Carmen ad Antonium which I only discovered last week) is compiled by me into a page here (it won't let me post the link). Have a read; if it isn't in here, it doesn't exist.

That leaves the monuments and inscriptions, which are very numerous but also not very forthcoming. For these I referenced the modern books, and then looked them up.

I'm afraid that most of what is said about Mithras online is tripe. The "Mithras=Jesus" thing is entirely bunk, and involves failing to understand just what it meant to be an initiate of Mithras -- it was not like being a Christian. Let me illustrate this by giving you the myth of Mithras. See how many of the "sources" online tell you this.

Mithras was born from the rock, carrying a dagger and a flame (images exist). He hunted the cosmic bull, caught it and dragged it into a cave (also depicted in images on the left hand side of tauroctonies). There he stabbed it with a dagger, while attended by two torchbearers, Cautes and Cautopates. A dog and a snake leaped up to lick the blood, while a scorpion seized the bull's balls. Then Mithras went to meet the sun, Helios. The sun knelt to him, and then the two shook hands and had a meal of bull parts. (All this in iconographic data). Those who chose to be initiated into the mysteries of Mithras were in seven grades.

That's pretty much what we know. And ... call me an idiot but the resemblances to the myth of Jesus are zero.

Be sceptical. Always ask to see the ancient sources. I saw linked earlier some of the Acharya S stuff, which is tosh. The Wikipedia article was better, although I've not looked at it lately.

A general suggestion: I see this discussion is getting rather confused above? It would be best, MW, if you were specific about (a) what you think is the same in the two and (b) why you think it. The reason why there is confusion is that no-one is pinning down what is being said, and what evidence (online or otherwise) there is for it.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

*************
M*W: One such comparison of Mithas to Jesus is:

"The Canaanites, as they were a sister tribe of the Mizraim [Egyptians], so they were extremely like them in thieir rites and religion. They held a heifer, or cow, in high veneration, agreeably to the customs of Egypt. Their chief Deity was the Sun, whom they worshipped together with the Baalim, under the titles of Ourchol, Adonis, Thammuz...who was the same as Thamas, and Osiris of Egypt." ~ Jacob Bryant, A New System, or An Analysis of Ancient Mythology, I (1774), Garland, NY/London, 1979.

 

*************
M*W: I just noticed on your blog where you said:

"I am a Christian. I make the occasional post here on contemporary Christian issues, particularly where I see Christians being mal-treated in the real world."
*************
M*W: If something about a group of people or their religious beliefes has been verified through research, knowledge, peer-review and publication, it is then considered to be the truth and is not intended to be "mal-treatment."

 

Two queries:

1. I did not see Mithras mentioned?

2. Do we care what someone living a thousand years after Mithras ceased to be worshipped supposes? Either what they say is based on ancient evidence -- in which case, let's see it -- or it isn't, in which case we don't care what their opinion is. Surely?

Lucky you. I wish I had. It was very tedious.

Unfortunately this confuses Mitra and Mithras. The two are distinct, and have few points in common. No evidence exists of Mithras prior to around 80 AD when Statius refers to him. The archaeology exists from ca. 100 AD.

The confusion originates with the great Franz Cumont, who naturally presumed the identity of the two. But scholars have come to a different conclusion as the archaeology has become better known. (Sorry that is brief; the Wikipedia article is good on this).

No ancient text or inscription records this, tho.

No ancient text or inscription records this either. What they do say is that he was born from a rock, carrying a flame and a dagger.

In view of the hostility to paganism expressed in the NT and throughout the fathers, and the lack of any evidence for such "rolling over", such a statement is very curious.

But can you document this claim from ancient sources? If not, we shouldn't make it.

I hope you were not too horribly upset by a humorous post by someone who dedicates his life to making texts available?

The statements made today about him online are mostly tripe. If you wish to disagree, we need to move to specific claims.

You note that this is a MODERN writer? I merely ask which ancient sources, specifically, record this?

Believe me, none do. It's tripe.

In general, we must base our statements about Mithras only on ancient sources.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

It does not, in fact. That was what I discovered, once I went to the ancient sources -- from whom alone we can know anything about Mithras -- and looked for them.

It was rather a shock to find that this was really a huge, honking lie -- I had not really realised that such could circulate, unchecked, without the sort of scepticism you rightly showed -- but so it proved.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

How does this relate to Mithras, which I posted about earlier?

Perhaps you might consider posting some primary data, verified through research, peer-review and publication, concerning the supposed "virgin birth of Mithras" instead, to justify the claims which you made?

But I appreciate that you may not be all that clear what such a process involves, and perhaps suppose you have done so already? If so, I regret to inform you that you have been misled; those "sources" are of no value, and indeed few if any deserve the praise you heap on them. Let's deal with evidence, not supposed authorities, hmm?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

I am not as familiar with Mithras in particular, though the references Origen made to pagan symbols today linked with Mithras would suggest that Mithras was known in the early AD time frame as a potential source for some of the Jesus story as it is known today.

More importantly, to me, would be Justin Martyr's refutation of the clear similarities between the new Jesus story and other existing religions figures (Dionysus, Horus, Orpheus, etc), accusing Satan of trying to confuse people through "plagiarism in advance" - a pretty thin claim to make. Justin Martyr does go on to claim to no pagan god was ever crucified and thus the connections are all false anyway - however, this is likewise a poor argument, given Plato's references to Orphious' torture and subsequent crucifixion. That crucifixion may have been on an X instead of a vertical T (the Italian amulet on the cover of The Jesus Mysteries being evidence for the T, but being of uncertain origin), either way it refutes Justin Martyr's claim.

edit: doing a quick lookup of Justin Martyr's First Apology, he references Mithras-based ceremony specifically. He doesn't even deny the similarities in the Eucharist ceremony, but instead claims that the followers of Mithras copied the practice from the Christians.
"For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; 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." Chapter LXVI http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html


The details of the similarities with Mithras in particular may be harder to document, but I am not impressed by the claim that they are purely new inventions. They may very well be archetypal similarities rather than sign of an evolutionary lineage, as Fraggle Rocker points out - virgin birth in particular is an important item to note, given how common it is across world religions. *People* are born via sexual reproduction. What better way to show that a religious figure is more than human than by providing them with a miraculous beginning?

 

*************
M*W: Surely you know more about it than I do. There's no point in my commenting.

 

This is much too vague, you know, and "suggesting... potential" is insinuation rather than argument (no offence; I'm discussing types of argument, not you). Perhaps if you would turn this into some form of definite argument -- evidence, deduction, etc -- then we can look at it. I must say this is a new one on me, so it would be interesting. We might start by quoting Origen, wherever in his voluminous works you have in mind, and then you can show how it justifies your comment above for us?

Why not look up Justin, quote him, and then see whether it says what you have been told it does? I note that the references to Dionysius, Horus, Orpheus, do not seem to appear in the passage you quoted below, you see.

This rather drifts off the original issue to which I was responding, tho. Do we have general agreement that the statements made about Mithras are false?

These comments are very diffuse also, which makes them frustrating to address. Please ... quote and reference what you think Justin is saying and we will look at it. Justin does not make the kind of argument you seem to suppose.

The amulet to which you refer is that depicted on the cover of Acharya S book? If so, be advised that it is probably a forgery.

Justin does say this, in the context of a rather different argument. But ... I didn't quite see how this justified the extreme claims that you were making a paragraph or two above? And with respect to your comment here, I wonder how you know that Justin was wrong in supposing that cultists of Mithras in Rome in his day were imitating Christian rituals?

Instead of this tide of argument by (again) insinuation (sorry, but it is), let's see if we can state the argument you're repeating here explicitly and rationally. Won't it be something like "Mithras cultists had ritual meals so Christians must have copied them rather than got them from Christ and the Jewish passover because ... "? (unfortunately the justification for the claim doesn't seem to be anywhere in this).

Once we state these sort of claims explicitly they mostly collapse. We should always force those putting the sort of arguments you've come across to be specific and explicit, or we'll never get anywhere.

Probably it is unwise to make an argument based on evidence which is "hard to document".

Or made up out of malice by a headbanger. Evidence so far points to the latter, you know.

Um, I recognise that you are here repeating a claim that you have read, but why not try to document this claim from primary sources?

When we do so, perhaps starting with a search around the headbangers sites, we find very little. (The more dishonest of these gentry then start playing games with words to try to shoe-horn mythical figures into this format, so be warned).

Finally; with all this, aren't we once again back to an insinuated argument, that if somehow there is some similarity this proves something negative about Christianity? I don't know about you but I have a deep distaste for any religious position that relies on slur and insinuation rather than evidence and reason. Do be careful - there are so many people out there feeding us arguments that don't bear examination. Clarity and explicitness are the only possible responses.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

Fair enough. I use those terms of equivocation because I don't claim to know truth, I claim to only have some limited exposure to what people might have been thinking through their writings.

In what I have read, and in those cases where the authors doesn't explicitly state that which I hope to know, such as Origen saying "I know that the worship of Mithras is a major religious movement as of 50AD, and his temples are located at X & Y streets in Rome", I have to infer that information. In the case of Origen and Mithras, I don't know of an explicit naming of Mithras by him, however he seems to be familiar with religious items now known to be used by the Mithras followers at the time; and I would be absolutely surprised if he were not familiar with one of the more notable religious movements of his own time period. I don't think I have my books on this topic anymore, I don't think I'll be able to give you a proper source for his references. Feel free to doubt this claim until such time as I remember where I read these descriptions.

I'll see about digging up the original source, however this was stuff I read in college; given my work schedule for the near future, I don't expect I'll have time to find it for a while, assuming I still even have those books. My apologies if I don't get a good source for that in a reasonable time frame.

They do not appear in the quote I gave. I was working under the assumption that these similarities were known and common, and thus did not need to be cited. In fact, my wording was also poor: I should have been more clear and stated that Justin Martyr made mention of numerous existing gods whose stories had similarities w/ the Jesus stories, in total (no one god had the same story, but all the parts of the Jesus story can be found in other religious myths), and that some gods sharing these narratives were Dionysus, Horus, Orpheus, etc. Not that Justin Martyr mentioned Dionysus, Horus, Orpheus as his examples; he uses Mercury, AEsculapius, Ferseus and other roman gods.

As for him referencing similarities to those Roman Gods, that effectively the entire point of his first apology, trying to convince Emperor Titus Caeser that Christ's story was no more difficult to believe that the current roman mythologies, by laying out how similar various stories were to Jesus', and then claiming that the Roman stories were set about ahead of time by Satan to confuse things regarding the true savior. I have read this apology many years ago, but looking it up again now doesn’t seem to have changed his point.

"CHAPTER XXII -- ANALOGIES TO THE SONSHIP OF CHRIST.

...But if any one objects that He was crucified, in this also He is on a par with those reputed sons of Jupiter of yours, who suffered as we have now enumerated. For their sufferings at death are recorded to have been not all alike, but diverse; so that not even by the peculiarity of His sufferings does He seem to be inferior to them; but, on the contrary, as we promised in the preceding part of this discourse, we will now prove Him superior--or rather have already proved Him to be so--for the superior is revealed by His actions."

No, I don't think we have. I'd say that much that is attributed to Mithras is based on secondhand evidence and limited archeological evidence; claims of absolute confidence that both Mithras and Christians had 12 followers, that they both celebrated the spring equinox as the high holiday, that they were both called Good Shepherd, etc, etc are all poorly founded claims. As such, I'd agree that these claims should not be considered academically sound. I don't think, however, that they have been shown to be *false*. Showing them to be false requires evidence to support their falseness, as it is positive claim of being able to actively refute the ideas. Lack of evidence to support or deny the claims doesn’t make them false, it makes them unlikely, and not very good points in an argument.

While the base story of Mithras has little to do with the Jesus story, the rights, rituals and legends of Mithras in Rome during the first century AD (as recorded by contemporary Christians) were similar enough to the Christian rights, rituals and legends for Justin Martyr to accuse the followers of Mithras of copying.

Not a book by her, but The Jesus Myth, by Freke and Gandy. It has been said that this is a forgery, however I've not seen good reasons as to why those people think it is a forgery (nor have I seen any good evidence to suggest it isn’t a forgery). At best I have read one claim that traced the origin of the amulet to a private collection of artifacts owned by someone who supported the Jesus as myth concept. That, by itself of course, is not proof of forgery, just of bias of the owner (possibly why he was interested in the object in the first place, and purchased it) - could you provide any references or evidence suggesting that the amulet is a fake?

Which "extreme" claims are you referring to? I have some extreme claims by academic standards, but I don't think I have presented any of them here.

I don’t ‘know’ that Mithras’ followers didn’t copy from the Christians, but neither do you. Given that Mithras worship was a major extant religion in Rome into which Christianity was introduced, had its own rights and rituals long before Christianity existed (or even before Judaic customs were heavily influencing Roman religion), and that many of the current churches in the area were built on top of Mithras' (and other pagan god's) temples, suggesting that the new kid in town was the source for myth and ceremony pre-dating his arrival is fairly specious. Maybe it’s correct, stranger things have happened. But it would seem that Justin Martyr’s conflict of interest as a historian is a much more likely reason for his claim, and that infact neither of the two religions copied each other in this area at all. Given the importance of bread and drink in all cultures of that area and time, I think a much more likely source for the similarities in ceremony are simply that they both act as already sanctified by society as critical for life, and therefore easily used as symbol for the supernatural. Correlation via the creation of sacred space/symbology, rather than causation in either direction.

The point of the quote was not to undermine the Christian Eucharist in any case, it was to show that the similarities between Christianity and Mithras worship have been known for a long time, and are not (as had been implied previously in this thread) merely an invention of the last two hundred years.

I wasn't trying to insinuate anything, to be honest. I'm saying that it is generally accepted by historical scholars that there are known similarities between existing religions and Christianity. *Justin Martyr* addresses apparently existing commentary and insinuation that the Mithras and Christ ceremonies had shared origins, and tries to then argue that these commonalities were due to copying of the newer religion by the older through time via work of the devil (see CHAPTER LIV -- ORIGIN OF HEATHEN MYTHOLOGY in the first apology).

OK, but this may depend on what it is you are looking for. I'm getting the impression from your posts that you are asking for a full one-to-one relationship between the Jesus story and a prior deity, a level of smoking-gun proof of copying which I would never claim to have. If I am incorrect in this impression, please let me know.

The academic argument is not that Jesus was a simple renaming of an existing god, but that early Christians incorporated a large number of rituals and legends from existing religions into their own. Similarities can be found in a number of world religions, mostly through the view of the archetype savior deity which, as Fraggle Rocker points out, seems to be a natural story for humans to come up with. Even religions greatly geographically divorced from the area we are discussing have them. This is not something I particularly feel interested in arguing with much greater depth, for far better minds that mine have done a much better job of it over the last few hundred years.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You are arguing that the anthropological theory of the religious archetype is maliced headbanger-ism? Really?

Now you're kidding, right? The presence of virgin birth across Native American (north and south), Indian, Chinese, African *and* European religions is a basic item found in any book on nearly any world culture's myths and legends. It is so far from unique to Christianity, I am pained at having to actually defend it.

Ignoring even Justin Martyr's own references to Greek Gods of virgin birth ('And if we assert that the Word of God was born of God in a peculiar manner, different from ordinary generation, let this, as said above, be no extraordinary thing to you, who say that Mercury is the angelic word of God...And if we even affirm that He[Jesus] was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you accept of Ferseus.'), lets go with an extremely separated example, one with whom almost certainly there was no cross-contamination with the people of Rome or the Middle East: Quetzalcoatl. While the worship of the Feathered Serpent deity extends previous to the Aztec people (carved effigies of such a being exist even in Olmec carvings as far back as 900BC/BCE), Quetzalcoatl is the name given to the Nahua incarnation of the deity. The god of wind and rain, of the morning star (Venus), and one of the major gods in the Aztec pantheon, Quetzalcoatl was born of the goddess Coatlicue, after a magical ball of feathers descended from the heavens onto her. (source: nearly any academic book on mesoamerican mythology and feathered serpent iconography, originally from verbal histories recorded by early western contact-period authors 1500-1700AD)

Why are you looking for good information at crack-pot sites? Why not google books, and search for academic and textbooks? Even Wikipedia’s reference links would be better than scouring crackpot resources for their undocumented sources.

I'm not trying to argue or slander Christianity. I'm trying to point out what I think should be obvious at this point of archeological and anthropological knowledge of world history - Christianity is not immune to outside influence, and there exists massive amounts of evidence to support that. There also exists much evidence of influence on other religions by Christianity, and there exists as well a form of homologous evolution, situations where religions have come to similar stories through no apparent sharing of information at all.

Google perhaps provides us with poor references, and is flooded with crack-pot websites of all sorts. However, this doesn't invalidate the well researched history of this topic.

 

I commented that many of the claims made in your last post were extremely diffuse, and insinuated rather than stated and evidenced.

Unfortunately this enormous post merely adds to the quantity of claims made, while introducing yet more diffuseness, and introducing claims that no-one can know the facts for sure. Even worse, the context of my remarks is omitted, and I feel that the goalposts get moved. To deal with such a post in a concrete way is like trying to grasp smoke. This does not fill me with confidence that you can justify your comments, you know.

Let's be specific. You have asserted, and been understood to assert, that Christian teachings derived -- various equivocations here -- from Mithras. This is not substantiated in either post, nor attempted. Until it is, I would ask that we to refrain from making such claims, or inducing others to believe them. Why encourage rubbish? Arguing vaguely "what is truth" is not a defence of a specific claim that I would be willing to make, and you do make such a defence.

So long as you make it clear that you are speculating, I don't think anyone will object. Unfortunately you didn't, you know.

As for "truth", it's quite simple here. We're not interested in going beyond the sources, surely? We're simply asking "what is in the sources?" If a statement is not in the historical record, we need pay little attention to it, in my view.

You wrote "the references Origen made to pagan symbols today linked with Mithras would suggest that Mithras was known in the early AD time frame as a potential source for some of the Jesus story as it is known today". I wondered how this reply related to the point at issue.

Much of what follows does not seem to be replying to the points I made, or justifying the claims to which I was replying, so I must snip much of it.

Not "more difficult to believe" -- rather "no more pernicious". He was pleading not to be persecuted, not for conversion. In his case, of course, his plea was in vain. But all this seems to be off-topic to the original claim made.

As for "commonly known" -- the problem is that much of what is "commonly known" is not in fact true.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

There are rather simpler standards of evidence we may apply here. We need ask only whether any ancient source records the statement made. If it does not, we need not consider it.

If we cannot produce any ancient source for certain claims about Mithras, we need to make sure we do not make them, and discourage them when they appear.

I look forward to you documenting your claim that the rites, rituals and legends (no qualification there!) were that similar. Justin merely refers to the ritual meal of Mithras being a mockery of the Christian communion. Perhaps you can document the much larger claim you make here? No?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

My mistake - sorry.

I do know that no evidence for the claim exists, as do you. I do know that evidence against it exists, because of the hostility of the fathers to paganism, as do you. Since no evidence exists for the claim, and some against, I don't see how we can make that claim.

Um, the archaeology only dates from ca. 100 AD, and the literature from Statius, ca. 80 AD. There is actually no evidence it existed before then, aside from a statement in Plutarch which the archaeology contradicts.

This is also the view of Manfred Clauss, and it is fair to say that most ancient cults had ritual meals and ritual washings. Such broad similarities do not show connection or derivation in either direction, I agree.

But we can all have opinions; what we need to get straight is what is data and what isn't, in my view.

No offence, but you overstate your claims a lot, you know? By "similarities between Christianity and Mithras worship" you mean "Mithras cultists in Rome were accused of mocking the communion in one of their ritual meals". The latter is fact; the former a vastly larger (and unevidenced) claim.

I think you're speculating again. He doesn't say so, anyway.

This is not an academic argument. It is advanced almost exclusively online by people with no familiarity with the subject whatever. But if you want to make this claim, you get to document it -- from primary sources, of course.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You are arguing that the anthropological theory of the religious archetype is maliced headbanger-ism? Really?
[/quote]

More switching of subject, which makes you seem a little contemptible. You need not trouble to claim academic authority for these claims about Mithras. They have none; and if they did, you would still get asked to argue from evidence, rather than authority. Evidence for your claims about Mithras is not forthcoming.

Now you're kidding, right? The presence of virgin birth across Native American (north and south), Indian, Chinese, African *and* European religions is a basic item found in any book ...<snip>
[/quote]

I don't think this kind of bluster serves your purpose very well. Either document your claim about Mithras, or withdraw it.

Perseus. OK; you have one relevant example here. Carry on -- any more? Waiting for the virgin birth of Mithras with interest.

Christian origins may be pagan: "virgin birth in particular is an important item to note, given how common it is across world religions"... and you're talking about Mexico?!

Indeed so, which is why I wonder why you base your comments on such sources. You've produced nothing on Mithras except material derived from them. But as I remarked, even if you consult them, you find nothing evidenced.

I notice also repeated attempts to claim the backing of "anthropology" for your claims. This is curious. Either a statement can be found in the primary sources or it cannot. Attempts to avoid dealing with this merely waste your time and mine.

Oh dear. More claims.

Returning the point at issue, I think we've established pretty plainly that there is no justification for any of the claims about Mithras, at least as far as you know. Certainly Justin refers to the Mithras cultists of Rome in his time as mocking the Christian communion (I wondered when you were going to mention that in Mithras there were seven different types of meal, but perhaps that wasn't familiar to you). But all the general claims ... well, there's nothing there.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

Me: WTH??? I never claimed that Mithra was the source of all these stories, particularly not of virgin birth! What is going on here?

/me goes back to re-read:

Ahh, this is my fault. The virgin birth question was supposed to be an example of an item in Christianity not unique to Christianity. You are correct it appears that I was attaching it to Mithra specifically. This was completely the fault of my own, and likely the cause of much of this back and forth.

Given the way that paragraph reads, it seems that I was claiming that Mithra was the source of the virgin birth story in Christianity. That was not what I meant; I meant that virgin birth exists in religious stories from around the world, and is an example of an archetypal feature of the Jesus story that exists in other religions, and was actually thinking of Egyptian religion/histories (Amenkept III) in particular as I wrote it.

This was poor grammatical structure on my part, and I bare responsibility for the confusion it caused.

“Would suggest” and “possible” are words denoting speculation and acknowledgement of uncertainty in my mind.

There is vastly more information not in the historic record than in it, and some of that missing information can be gleened from context clues, archeology, geology, oral history, and other sources. Limiting oneself to the written histories only is not needed, and in fact detrimental to knowledge as a whole.

Surely you wouldn’t limit your knowledge of the subject to only what was recorded by possibly biased sources, and then only to those records which still survive today? Unless the question is “what was written about the subject” rather than “what is known about the subject”.

All areas of science would therefore be discounted from discussion, which seems fairly detrimental to the exercise to me. We shouldn’t consider human psychology when reading a historical document, or consider known archeological sites when considering historic city references?

I don’t need to document this claim, as I didn’t make it. I only need to document that Justin Martyr made such a claim, which I have done.

To add to this, let’s ask Tertullian if there were similarities between early Christianity and Mithras worship:
“The devil, whose business is to pervert the truth, mimics the exact circumstances of the
Divine Sacraments. He baptises his believers and promises forgiveness of sins from the Sacred Fount, and thereby initiates them into the religion of Mithras. Thus he celebrates the oblation of bread and brings in the symbol of the resurrection [the cross]. Let us, therefore, acknowledge the craftiness of the devil who copies certain things of those that be Divine.” -The Prescription Against Heretics

No good evidence for Mithras’ followers copying from Christians, I agree. That was Justin Martyr’s claim, anyway. As for evidence of Christians borrowing from Mithras, likewise I don’t think there is any worth noting, and find it more likely both arose separately from each other. That doesn’t eliminate the possibility of ceremony adoption in one direction or the other, however.

Given that Christianity *has* borrowed ceremonies from numerous other religions older than itself, I don’t see how the *possibility* that Mithras converts to Christianity brought ceremonies with them is so hard to believe. The date of Christmas is a pagan inheritance, as is nearly the entire Christmas celebration. Easter is similar. Roman churches were built on top of pagan temples, co-opting the sacred site in the name of Christianity. The good shepherd imagery of Orphues was oft used later as Jesus imagery – the classic picture of Jesus seen with a sheep held on his shoulders is often found rendered the same way with Orphius as its central figure. Constantine forced the conversion of Rome by keeping the celebrations and holidays generally the same before and after conversion – why is it so hard to think that this may have happened earlier in church history as well? (Again, I’m not claiming it did happen, I’m demanding recognition of the possibility).

The archeology in Rome itself is from roughly 100 AD, however Mithras did not originate in Rome. Exposure to Zoroastrian worship of Mithra happened prior to that time, and at least one roman legion was recorded as making dedications to Mithras as early as 71-72 AD, with contact occurring by at least 63AD (via Franz Cumont’s Mysteries of Mithra). When do the first recorded written references to Christianity in Rome proper appear?

No, I don’t mean that. There were similarities and Justin noted the existence of them; Justin’s feelings as to the purpose of them are his personal opinion on the matter. Given his bias, I will not put much stock in his feeling that it was mocking. We don’t have much evidence to suggest if the ceremony was mocking or not beyond his very biased opinion, so I’ll default to the subset of “mocking ceremony” that is “existing ceremony”, and make no claim to its intent.

Therefore, ‘similarity’.

Of course I’m speculating, as are you! As was Justin Martyr, in claiming ceremonial theft – just because he wrote something down doesn’t mean what he said was true! The question is, why would he bring up the fact that aspects of the Eucharist exist in a non-christian ceremony if it wasn’t true? How would that benefit his argument? In addition, how would demonizing those who practiced this ceremony as thieves of his religious order’s practice help his argument? Wouldn’t it in fact hurt his argument, angering Titus by attacking an existing and accepted religious order as plagiarists and thieves?

If bringing up the item in question would likely hurt his case, then why bring it up unless it were both true, and already known by the recipient of the letter?

Your lack of knowledge of the academic argument does not mean it doesn’t exist. What are your thoughts on the Golden Bough, the works of Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell?

Please provide the purely Christian source for the celebration of Christmas on December 25th. If this cannot be found, I will hold to the more likely source of the celebration – conversion of the existing Roman holiday celebrating Apollo’s birthday to one celebrating Christ: in other words adoption of a pagan holiday into the Christian religion.

As far as I understood your point, you were claiming that Fraggle Rocker’s mention of religious archetypes was the creation by headbangers due to malice. If you were referring to unfounded claims about Mithras-Jesus connections specifically, I misunderstood. In that case, I wouldn’t disagree that anti-christian and anti-mainstream influences have likely played a role in perpetuation of these claims in the public media and online.

And Justin Martyr. And now also Tertullian.

Given that I have not used a crackpot/headbanger website as a source, where do you base your claim that they are from which I have derived my information?

Claims which should require no backing whatsoever beyond pointing to a World Religion 101 course. Christianity is rife with non-Judaic and non-new-testament activities and ceremonies; saying that Christianity is not immune from influence is like saying people need food to live. It’s not something that needs sourcing, it is blatantly obvious to anyone without massive bias on the topic.

There is NO reason that Christmas is held on Dec. 25 and is celebrated with the decoration of trees, other than Pagan ones. Therefore I can say with as much certainty as can be said about any human behavior: Christianity has adopted pagan rituals and is not immune from outside influence.

 

I wonder if you would clarify a couple of things for the forum.

You wrote (a):

This would be read by almost anyone as saying that Origen's comments are evidence for Mithras being a source for the gospels.

I queried this, and you wrote (b):

Would you explain why you made such a definite statement (a) when you admit (b)?

You go on to explain:

Would you then explain how this justifies "the references Origen made to pagan symbols today linked with Mithras would suggest that Mithras was known in the early AD time frame as a potential source for some of the Jesus story as it is known today"?

Now let us move on to another comment.

I wrote (a):

To which you 'replied' (b):

Could you clarify why you supposed that I used "headbanger" as a term of approval?

Could you clarify which of the Wikipedia reference links on the article on Mithras you have read? If the answer is none, as I suspect, would you explain to me why you refer me to material which you have not read?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

Sorry, but I'm afraid that you have confused yourself here a bit. The rhetoric is clouding the distinction between data and non-data. Let me explain.

As far as I can see, there are only four possible sources of factual information available to us about any event in Roman history:

1. A literary text that tells us about it.
2. An inscription or other epigraphic source that tells us about it.
3. Something in the archaeology that tells us about it.
4. Someone in modern times made it up.

I admit to preferring history to be based on #1-3. Do you think that someone using #4 is supplying "knowledge"? Surely not.

It's a common mistake, but a very basic one. Unless we keep this clear in our minds, we will get nowhere.

It is, of course, true that these sources cannot give us nearly as much information as we would get if we lived in Rome in 15 AD. Indeed five minutes in that Rome would utterly change our perspective, I'm sure. But ... we don't have that option. We can write history based on what solid information has reached us (and using ALL the information transmitted, so we can assess the better sources from the less good); or we can fantasise and use a selection of the data to decorate our fairy-story. Those are the two choices available. There are no others.

We are discussing the humanities, not the sciences, and a question of ancient history specifically - sorry.

Did you not write: "While the base story of Mithras has little to do with the Jesus story, the rights, rituals and legends of Mithras in Rome during the first century AD (as recorded by contemporary Christians) were similar enough to the Christian rights, rituals and legends for Justin Martyr to accuse the followers of Mithras of copying."

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Not that I saw. He didn't discuss rites, rituals and legends at all. He said the devils imitated elements of the communion in their initiation ritual. We did talk about ritual meals, you recall? It's a very limited link.

No no, I think we have quite enough issues to resolve already without adding more to a very lengthy post!

None at all. Pagans did copy, as was natural; but there is no specific info on this.

Given? Erm, we have to actually make this argument, and offer evidence for it!

You perhaps are not that familiar with Christianity. Christians object to paganism. They always have. That's why they were illegal for three centuries; because of their refusal to adopt a meaningless pagan ritual. Surely you know this? After all, the jeer "mithras=jesus" only has a point if the Christians are hostile to syncretism?

One thing at a time! (I am horribly well-informed on the data on Roman celebration of Dec. 25, so you may not want to go there).

Incidentally, if the ancient sources are biased rubbish, how do you know? Or are they only biased rubbish when convenient?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The archaeology suggests that it did, or so I gather; it fans out from Rome, and the dedications are from people emanating from Rome. I can't comment; read Clauss.

Can you document that claim?

But ... surely you know that Mithra is not Mithras? That Cumont's theories are not held today?

You have peppered your posts with sneers at my education (which I found very funny -- you evidently don't know who you're talking to), which I have ignored. I would only comment that if you had troubled to consult the scholarly literature on Mithras in any way, you would hardly be repeating the obsolete theories of Cumont.

No such monument can be dated so early; sorry. Cumont wrote over a century ago. I did rather a search myself for the earliest dateable monument, and found nothing so early.

OK, I'm not sure whether I can post a link to the text, but I will try (nope):

"And this food is called among us Eu0xaristi/a143 [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; 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."

That's it. And from this we get "similarities between Christianity and Mithras worship have been known for a long time"? I don't see it. It's a flat statement comparing the Christian eucharist with a ritual meal during the initiation.

I think we agreed that ritual meals are a commonplace. But we cannot jump from that to "similar worship". We don't even know that "worship" took place in a Mithraeum, you know.

Do you see that Justin does not say that there was worship? -- he tells us that in an *initiation* ceremony -- not in "worship" -- bread and water are involved. This is correct -- the mosaics in the Ostia Mithraeum record it. Why he feels that this is similar to the eucharist he does not say. I presume he meant that someone told him they were behaving as if it were so. Speculation on my part -- quite wrong, I agree.

I'm afraid your ignorance of what is or is not academic has amused me in both your posts.

Attempting to change the discussion from a fact-based argument based on evidence -- which you disdain -- into a medieval-style appeal to authorities rather gave the game away, you see. Academics don't do that.

We're discussing ancient history. None of these authors has any claim to academic authority on that subject. I doubt any of them has much claim to authority in anthropology either today (Frazer was an authority in his day). I wonder, indeed, whether you have read them? You might consider just when the Golden Bough was written; and that rather a lot of material has appeared since. Frazer's arguments about the corn-king are not exactly news, you know? (Or perhaps you do not; but I do).

As it happens I do have all the primary data about the dies natalis solis invicti at my fingertips. But one thing at a time. Mithras please.

You're right; I was purely interested in the Mithras angle.

Claim not accepted, I'm afraid. You have yet to display any knowledge not from those sources, you see.

I appreciate that you may believe that an elementary course in religion at some minor US university would be the ultimate authority.

I prefer evidence. Sorry.

This is to move the goalposts again, tho, from "Christianity is derived from paganism" to "Christianity can be influenced sometimes by outside events". The latter is true, and the reason why things like heresies arise.

Does a request for evidence discomfort you quite so much?

You see, I'm not as trusting as you are, and I don't find convenience a reliable guide to the world. I suggest you get in the habit of being sceptical about conclusions that would be convenient. It's a good habit to adopt.

In view of your statements about how unreliable ancient sources are, how on earth do you know? A time machine?

We cannot have our cake here and eat it. Either the ancient sources are reliable, or they are not. One or the other. If the former, then we need to show them for our claims or else make the claims very tentatively (not as you do here). You seem strangely reluctant to do so for your claims about Mithras, if this is your view! But if the latter is the case, then your claims -- and everyone else's -- are merely lies expressed because the author finds them convenient. In which case, how dare you state so certainly what you know to be just an opinion which probably isn't true?

The same applies to us all, of course. One or the other.

Not that I suppose for a moment that you know anything much about the origins of Christmas, but more importantly ... this relates to Mithras how?

Again a love of rhetoric has betrayed you here. The first suggestion was that Christmas is held on the date it is because a pagan festival was held on that date. (Not that we have agreed this; but suppose it's so). From that we make the massive logical leap that this means Christians adopt pagan rituals!

And... what has this to do with Mithras?

Let's sum up. The suggestion is that elements of Christian belief and practice in antiquity are derived, not from the bible or Judaism or the teachings of Jesus, but from paganism; and specifically the cult of Mithras, because the two are identical or very similar. This I have challenged. At the moment all that is being produced for any kind of similarity is that both cults had ritual meals and ritual washings (I don't recall if you did mention that, but it is true); and we have already agreed that such things are far wider than just Mithras and Christ and are no evidence of connection or derivation. So ... what remains of the argument?

I think we're done, surely? (Because I don't see why we should let this turn into a rambling disagreement) If anyone wants to pursue the falsehood about how Christians get their doctrine, it will have to be done from something other than Mithras.

Do you agree? If not, could you specify which further elements of the cult of Mithras you believe are identical, how you know that Christians borrowed from Mithras, with the ancient evidence?

All the best,

Roger Pearse