Page 1 of 3
Who Was Mithra, And Why Such The Similarities To Jesus?
Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2005 8:13 pm
by Believer
Who Exactly Was Mithra, And Why Such The Similarities To Jesus?
Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2005 8:26 pm
by Mastermind
I don't know but the earliest surviving records of Roman Mithranism is quite a bit after Jesus lived(around 250 AD) so if there is any similarity, it is either a coincidence(the events have special meanings in their own cultural context, and this is what I believe) or Mithra ripped Jesus off.
Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2005 8:43 pm
by Kurieuo
I'd recommend reading over
http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusmyth.htm. For a more direct response to Mithraism influencing Christianity I'd recommend reading
http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html.
Kurieuo.
Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2005 8:53 pm
by Anonymous
Mithraism is much older than Christianity, Mithra is a character in the Avestas, the Zoroastrian text and those were first written around 600 b.c.
Now, the Mithraic mystery religion was in its prime around 250 AD, but Mithraism and the Mithraic mystery religion both predate Jesus
In fact, we have roman coins printed with Mithra on one side and Dionysus on the other that are from around 150 AD.
So the mystery religions surrounding both of those god-men were obviously fairly popular by then, to get coins mented after them.
I think there was also a Mithra of some sort in the baghavad-gita, and zoroastrianism was pretty heavy in India, so its probably the same character in both.
Today there are many christian apologists who claim there is no link between christianity and the mystery religions, but the church fathers such as Tertulian and Justin Martyr wrote extensively about them, and about how they were first. Justin Martyr claimed that the devil knew what Jesus would be like ahead of time, so he set up the pagan mystery religions beforehand to make Jesus look like a copy.
But the church fathers noted that christianity and the mystery religions were extremely similiar, and only used the doctrine of 'diabolical mimicry' to explain it. The gnostics, however, realized that jesus was just a new mystery religion.
Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 4:46 am
by Mastermind
There are two versions of mithr. The old one is several thousand years old, and the new mithra basically ripped off the name of the old one and came up with something vaguely similar to Christianity, except it came AFTER.
Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 4:38 pm
by Anonymous
The Mithraic mystery religions that some apologists seem to be claiming came later was documented by Justin Martyr and Tertullian as coming before Christianity. It really depends who you think is credible, but I see no reason Martyr and Tertullian would make something like that up.
Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 4:55 pm
by Mastermind
vvart wrote:The Mithraic mystery religions that some apologists seem to be claiming came later was documented by Justin Martyr and Tertullian as coming before Christianity. It really depends who you think is credible, but I see no reason Martyr and Tertullian would make something like that up.
Source?
Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 4:57 pm
by Mastermind
Actually, now that I think about it, it may have appeared before Christianity, but no records survive(earliest are around 250 AD I think), and Mithranism was constantly adapting. Unless you can produce actual evidence that Mithranism came up with even a fraction of the BS some people try to pass off as a connection to Jesus, it is a futile attempt, as no serious scholar actually believes this.
Mithras
Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2005 12:57 pm
by ongelovige
Unless you can produce actual evidence that Mithranism came up with even a fraction of the BS some people try to pass off as a connection to Jesus, it is a futile attempt, as no serious scholar actually believes this
Better reread vvart's entry - it is quite accurate. The Mithras religion is relatively well documented, it's popularity was at par with christianity at the end of the roman empire, it even spread to off beat places like London.
Stuff Mithraism and Christianity have in common - 7 sacraments vs 7 stages of initiation, monotheism, no doubt there's more.
And no - it really predates Christianity.
Interested? Try a library & read up on the subject. Really interesting.
Mithraism
Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2005 1:08 pm
by ongelovige
Re: Mithras
Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2005 1:49 pm
by Mastermind
Better reread vvart's entry - it is quite accurate.
Better reread my entry. I want evidence that of the similarities between the two, Mithranism both:
*Came up with them first
*They did not have a symbolic meaning in the Jewish religion(For example both mithra and Jesus had 12 followers, but Jesus had 12 followers because of the 12 tribes of israel while mithra's 12 followers were supposedly the signs of the Zodiac)
The Mithras religion is relatively well documented
No secret religion is "well documneted", at least not the way you seem to make it out.
it's popularity was at par with christianity at the end of the roman empire, it even spread to off beat places like London.
Not relevant.
Stuff Mithraism and Christianity have in common - 7 sacraments vs 7 stages of initiation
There is absolutely nothing similar between sacrements and stages of initiation. The fact that there are 7(assuming mithranism actually had 7 stages of initiation) is not enough.
monotheism
So? Christianity spawned from a monotheistic religion, which predates mithranism...
no doubt there's more.
There is, most of which either has deep ties in the Jewish religion or predates mithranism.
And no - it really predates Christianity.
Yes, it does. But that's not what I'm intersted in. I'm interested in whether mithranism as vvart portrays it predates christianity. Mithranism was constantly adapting to new influences, and since we have no real surviving records that predate Christianity, there is no proof they came up with it first.
Interested? Try a library & read up on the subject. Really interesting.
I have, actually, thanks to Acharya S.'s BS list spreading around the internet like wildfire.
Looks okay too.
Umm, it's written by a STUDENT, and his professor states neither him nor the student are to be taken as experts. Since it has such a blantant error:
According to Persian mythology, Mithras was born of a virgin(He was born of a ROCK, as depicted in one of his own "temples"), I see no reason to take it seriously. His source, cumont, is severely outdated and no longer an authority on mithra. I recommend you read this for starters:
http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html
Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2005 6:12 pm
by AttentionKMartShoppers
Well, guess what, I'm gonna quote Chesterton, my hero....at the moment.
Chesterton was a very deep thinker. Many of his works reveal this. A man by the name of Mr. Blatchoford wrote a book by the name of God and My Neighbor. In it, he attacks Christianity. Chesterton, reading what he said, took Mr. Blathford's arguments against Christianity, turned them around, and used them as arguments for Christianity in one of the essays in a collection of essays by the name The Doubts of Democracy.
The first of all the difficulties that I have in controverting Mr. Blatchford is simply this, that I shall be very largely going over his own ground. My favourite text-book of theology is God and My Neighbour, but I cannot repeat it in detail. If I gave each of my reasons for being a Christian, a vast number of them would be Mr. Blatchford's reasons for not being one.
For instance, Mr. Blatchford and his school point out that there are many myths parallel to the Christian story; that there were Pagan Christs, and Red Indian Incarnations, and Patagonian Crucifixions, for all I know or care. But does not Mr. Blatchford see the other side of the fact? If the Christian God really made the human race, would not the human race tend to rumours and perversions of the Christian God? If the centre of our life is a certain fact, would not people far from the centre have a muddied version of that fact? If we are so made that a Son of God must deliver us, is it odd that Patagonians should dream of a Son of God?
The Blatchfordian position really amounts to this--that because a certain thing has impressed millions of different people as likely or necessary, therefore it cannot be true. And then this bashful being, veiling his own talents, convicts the wretched G.K.C. of paradox . . .
The story of a Christ is very common in legend and literature. So is the story of two lovers parted by Fate. So is the story of two friends killing each other for a woman. But will it seriously be maintained that, because these two stories are common as legends, therefore no two friends were ever separated by love or no two lovers by circumstances? It is tolerably plain, surely, that these two stories are common because the situation is an intensely probable and human one, because our nature is so built as to make the theme almost inevitable . . . . (Ward 172-173).
First part is part of my own paragraph...the rest is quotation. Anyways, if you don't read, he basically says, "Well, there are other religions with someone like Jesus? Well duh that's what you'd expect to see if Christianity were right."
Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2005 7:13 pm
by Anonymous
However Christians are claiming Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. That is false as the christian definition and understanding of the Messiah isn't one Jew's have had for thousands of years. In fact the Jewish concept of the Messiah is unlike that of any other religion as it should be.
Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2005 4:49 am
by Mastermind
vvart wrote:However Christians are claiming Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. That is false as the christian definition and understanding of the Messiah isn't one Jew's have had for thousands of years. In fact the Jewish concept of the Messiah is unlike that of any other religion as it should be.
Yeah, I've heard it before, yet no back up for these words.
Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2005 5:54 pm
by Anonymous
I can't help but laugh because your using circular reasoning. See christians assume Jesus is the messiah then the go back to the Tanach and say oh yeah that's gotta be talking about Jesus. Really the evidence to show Jesus being the Messiah has to be on Christians.
Jewish people since Muslims were the only people in history to have the concept of a formless non-corporeal God. Also not just that, but the Jewish Messiah is unlike that of any religion EVER. See Jesus isn't that special, in fact he's similar to figures like Buddha, Mithra and many others throughout pagan history who supposedly "save" humanity. However the Jewish messiah has nothing to do with saving people, that's not his role nor will it ever be.