The topic of this thread is also the title of an essay which can be found at http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa.htm. I’d like to know your opinions on this.
Hmmm…a lot more detail there, but the arguments were nothing I hadn’t seen before. It was also a well handled, balanced analysis of the question – I’m pleasantly surprised; such things often tend to be either polemic or quite slanted.
One quick comment: some details are strangely mispresented, for example the three shepherds. Neither gospel or legend mentions how many; three is simply the number used, originally by artists for balance when they show the (non-existent) visit of the (again supposedly three, because three gifts) Wise Men to the stable.
Finally, the site fails to address the most obvious connection: that most of the god-man or deified man imagery surrounds a man who is in some occult way identifiable with the grain crops, is cut down and comes back to life as does the grain. C.S. Lewis’s conversion to Christianity was directly linked to his interest in this doctrine of classic pagan myth – that (in his thought, and mine) what had been the stuff of myth became fact at one time and place in history.
Great stuff! Thanks for posting the link!
Expand on this, please? (A connection with Jesus’ body being bread?)
Socio-mythical study of Jesus’ life has only been done to any decent degree recently. The story of Moses or David were exhaustively analyzed long prior, but studying J.C.‘s Hero-archetype in contrast to Pagan heroes is fairly new. As to whether the Gospels came from Pagan mythology, your opinion on that depends a lot on your own religious beliefs. For an atheist like me, the common aspects between all religious myth-stories is evidence of cross-cultural transmission and deep psychological needs. For a liberal Christian, it may not be necessary to believe every story in the gospels, but I doubt that more than a handful would dispute the Resurrection based on its similarity to Osirus’ or Dionysus’ or Mithra’s death and rebirth, or dispute the Crucifixion because of its similarities to other crucified Gods, like Quetzacoatl or Odin. Some Christians seem to believe that if the Resurrection is not true than all Christianity is worthless, which seems unduly sweeping to me, but it does mean they are not very likely to throw out every shred of their religious convinctions based on some similarities to other myths.
It’s a very interesting subject, but I think the site you linked to does a poor job. My fundamental problem is that it equates all the “Godmans” of various mythological systems together, than associates a belief about one to another (usually Dionysius or Mithra) to bolster their arguments.
My favourite one is as follows:
As I parse this, the authors of the Web page attribute to Mithraism the January 6th date for JC’s birth, even though it was the alleged birthday for Aion, an Alexandrian deity, not Mithra. Furthermore, the authors at least imply that the Armenian Christians chose January 6 as JC’s birthday because of the connection to Aion, never explaining how such a practice would jump from Egypt to the Caucusus, skipping everything in between.
Another problem is the discussion of the Inner and Outer Mysteries. Those rituals were explicitly Greek, honoring Dionysus and Demeter. The authors at least make it sound like the Mysteries were part of the worship of all the Mediterranean belief systems.
Finally, the fact that many religions had (half man) demi-gods shouldn’t necessarily be connected to JC. It just means that many early religions viewed their gods as randy buggers. I mean, heck, the authors skipped a dozen or more Greek Godmen, including Hercules, Theseus, Castor and Pollux, etc.
I don’t think this debate should end. I do think, however, that we need a better starting point than this thread.
Sua
I’d be curious as to the teachings of the heroes in these other myths.
Er, I mean:
“a better starting point than that Web site.” Sorry, no insult intended.
Sua
Got into a little here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/kersey_graves/16/chap29.html
Although I would imagine that if you are interested in that, you have only to read the Sutras, the Upanishads, the Tao te Ching, etc.
What do I think about this? Well, I think at least one thing was copied from pagan mythology into the Gospels, and that is Jesus turning water into wine. I never liked that story because it seemed too “magical” and D&D-ish to be something that Jesus would really do. I mean, if you take it to its logical conclusion, you’d wonder why Jesus was a carpenter instead of opening his own liquor store. 
But for Dionysius, of course, this makes perfect sense. He is, after all, the god of wine. The thing that most interests me, though, is this:
This is not just “similar” to Christianity; this is almost an exact quote from the Bible. It’s a bit too close to be a mere coincidence. Now, I’m not saying this “proves” that Christianity is wrong. It simply suggests that at least some of Christian doctrine was copied from other sources. Even Cecil admits that Jesus Christ was most likely an actual historical figure. But did he say everything people think he said? That is the question.
It’s entirely possible Jesus cribbed from Mithras. Mithras doesn’t seem to mention bread and wine in there which gives his saying a bit of an edge comparatively…
Gee, is there a gospel of Mithras on-line somewhere? Maybe I’ll convert…
What makes me a little nervous about the work linked in the OP is that all the references are explicitly supporting material, rather than balanced comparative analyses of religions. Where are the books or references that offer contradictory research?
When you start out with a handful of books that are already slanted towards a certain view, how do you achieve balance?
If I recall correctly, Jesus could perform miracles anyplace he wished, his hometown crowd simply wasn’t impressed. I believe that’s where the “A prophet isn’t welcome in his own country” comes from.
To anyone seriously interested in pursuing comparative religious study I highly recommend anything written by Mircea Eliade, who is suspiciously absent from reference in the works above.
There are many similarities in many religions. The worship of Baldur (norse) was so similar to JC, that conversion of the vikings was made simple by equating the 2. Quetzacoatl also has similaritiies. Note that we know very, very litle about the worship of Mitras- his worship apparently changed over time- it possible that the Mitradites copied some of their stuff from the early Christians, rather than the other way around.
Next, you can’t like a bunch or unrelated faiths, and show how each has some small similarity with Christianity- you can do that with nearly ANY religion. In fact, we know very little about the old celtic Gods- except what the Romans wrote about them- and the equated them with their own (the “celtic mercury” etc). Does that mean that the celts borrowed heavily from the Romans? No, it just shows there are similarities in many faiths. You must show ALL the similarites, AND differences. Sure, for example- the Mitradites did do baptism (note that the Christians got baptism from the Jewish faith- thru John the baptist)- but they baptized them in BULLS BLOOD, not water- a tiny :rolleyes: difference that they fail to make in that site (altho they allude to it later, about the “lamb” thing- a real stretch).
About that quote that sounds so similar? In Mitraism, you are eating the flesh & blood of the BULL he has provided for you (very standard pagan practice)- in Christianity you are drinking the SYMBOLIC blood of JC himself- a huge difference.
The writers of the Gospels very likely had almost no contact with Mitraism- especially Matthew & Mark. How then did they come up with the parallels? Remember- Mitraism was a SECRET religion- noboby but the faithful knew hardly anything about it. Are those writers trying to suggest that Matthew & the other Disciples were secret initiates of Mitra? For that is the only way they would have known any of that stuff. Even today, we know precious little, and some of that is by guesswork from digs.
Now, there were some very public parts of Mitraism, and indeed, one of these was his “birthday”, which coincided with the solstice. So did Saturns. Yes, those were very popular Holidays, and there is little doubt that since no-one knew for sure when JC’s actual birthday was (those things were not important in those days, except for kings, etc), and somebody (likely John) remembered it was near that time, that, yes, they did muscle in and take over that day (or 2 days later) to celebrate. This is no secret.
Next, the worship of Mitra, and that of Osirus, and that of Dionysus were all separate- they were all separate gods. They had similarities of course, as did many religions. Thus, the authors, in comparaing Christianity to a “hodge-podge” religion- is making up a religion, by taking bits & pieces of up to ten faiths, that are the most similar to Christianity, ignoring the differences, and saying : “see how similar they are?” Those are different faiths & religions entirely. You could take the various faiths of the Amerinds, take all that comes closest to Christianity, discard the rest- and show some pretty good similarities- and it would be about as relevant. Having Dionysus & osirus on both sides of the same coin means nothing- i have seen a greek coin with Athena on one side & Posidon on the other- are they the same? They take religions with which we are not familiar (altho I am quite familiar with Mitraism), cut, paste, draw conclusions from little evidence and facts from sources which contrdict each other- and say “LO, look how similar they are!”. Right. :rolleyes:
Now, later Christian MYTHOLOGY, as opposed to the Gospels themselves, did borrow several elements form the Mystery religions- but that is why is remains mythology, rather than Gospel.
Danielinthewolvesden said:
Possibly just a coincidence, but one of the earliest centers of Mithraism was supposedly Tarsus, the home city of St. Paul. Some scholars have hypothesized that Pauline theology was influenced by Mithraic themes (or perhaps both drew on some common source prevalent in Tarsus).
Paul, before he was Paul, was Saul- a Jew’s Jew, a “Hebrew of the Hebrews”, a Pharisee, a student of Gamaliel. He would not be caught DEAD in a Mithraicum. As for actually becoming an initiate, which is the only way he could have learned any actual facts, or religous theories- it would literally have “been over his dead body”. <OK, my Talmudic brethren, back me on this- I am right?> YOU HAD TO HAVE THE BLOOD FROM A LIVING ANIMAL POURED OVER YOUR BODY!! It would be unlikely for him to even consort with those of that faith.
Again, Mitraism was a SECRET religion, and altho they had a few public ceremonies- none outside the faith knew any of it’s “mysteries”, which would include all those “facts” brought out in that site. It would be as likely for a “Father of the Sun” to leak his secrets to a Jew as it would be for the High Preist to lead guided tours of the “Holy of Holies” for goys.
Also note that Mitra did not die, was not crucified, etc- he directly ascended into heaven, without dying. He did not return. Osirus was killed, true, but by being chopped into bits by his brother, Set. He was turned into a living mummy by his wife Isis <but without his penis, which was eaten the great beast>. And how does that parallel JC?
Next, Mitraism came into popularity about the time Christianity did. It is unlikely that the Mitraicum in tarsus had even been built by the time of Paul.
I don’t buy the idea that things like sacrificing bulls could be kept such a major secret.
Healthy bull goes in, bloodless carcass goes out. Bull goes in, carcass goes out, Bull goes in… gee, what the heck do you think they do in the ceremonies of that religion anyway? Oh well, it is a secret so I guess we will never know. 
Precisely. The Attis/Adonis stories, when not focusing on the death-of-the-youth Housmanic-pathos aspect, had some mystic equating of the body of the hero/god/man/whoever with the (bread made from the) grain that dies in the field and comes back to life in the seed. The almost exact parallel to Jesus equating his body, soon to be sacrificed on the Cross, with the bread he gave his disciples at the last supper, are too blatant to overlook.
And quite explicitly, as Adonis/grain comes again in the fields after it is cut down, so Jesus rises from the dead – the metaphor goes even to that extent.
However, while all this comparative mythology is absolutely fascinating to anyone not afraid to learn the truth about religions, there is one key point to keep in mind:
Anyone attempting to explain an idea, particularly a tenet of mysticism that communicates well only in metaphor, to someone else, is well advised to use analogies familiar to that someone else. If one were attempting to explaing the Bush/Gore election just past to a !Kung tribesman, one would need, along with a stiff shot of the alcoholic beverage of one’s choice, an understanding of the social structure of the !Kung. One would then attempt to find parallels in !Kung custom to what happened and what it means to Americans.
Assume for the sake of argument that the four Gospels, suitably accommodated to each other in those minor details where they appear contradictory, are literal truth. Now attempt to explain the story’s significance to a Syrian merchant, a Greek student of philosophy, a Roman minor functionary, etc. You’re going to use the imagery popular at the time, the common philosophical base of Hellenistic thought, and so on.
Just as John did.
Ever read your “Bullfinch’s Mythology?” One of the stories is about a god (Zeus) who impregnates a virgin (Leda) who gives birth to his son (Hercules). The son is killed and comes back from the dead, to rise to Olympus and live with his father. Sound familiar?
The early Christians were no fool—when they were inventing their new religion, they took bits and pieces of the religion most people of the time already believed in, and also put their holidays (Christmas, Easter) at times when there were already long-established celebrations.
Presto! New religion.
Danielinthewolvesden said:
The only possible parallels between Mithraism and Christianity being discussed are those found in Mithraism’s “Outer Mysteries”, those revealed to the general public. There is a very simple reason for this- nobody today knows what the “Inner Mysteries” were. Thus it would not have required Saul to have been an initiate to have been aware of several Mithraic themes.
And a tangential quibble here also- what independent confirmation to we have on any of Saul’s prior life anyhow? Isn’t all our knowledge of his early life dependent on his writings and those of his followers.
See above.
Mithtaism was first introduced to Rome when brought back from Cilicia (the province in which Tarsus was located)by Pompey’s legions in 67 BCE.