[hijack]
I gotta wonder if two thousand years from now people won’t be saying things like: the Atomic bomb was developed about the time of the American Civil War…
[/hijack]
If one of the Pagans on the board can chime in;
The parallel between Mithras and Jesus of Nazareth would be in the story of their birth.
Both were born of a Holy Virgin in a deplorable place (Jesus in a manger, Mithras in a cave) at the Winter Solstice and then visited by 3 Wise Men. From what little I’ve read on the subject, otherwise, there’s little in common with the Nazarene and Mithras. Given the amount of time between when the events that are depicted in the Gospels happened and when they were written down, it’s easy to seem how some influences crept in.
DITWD, while I’ll agree there’s some parallel between Jesus and Baldur, there isn’t that much in common.
Baldur was killed by Loki’s treachery; specifically by a piece of misletoe shaped as a dart and thrown by the lame/blind God; I think his name is Holdur, a brother of Baldur.
Baldur had dreams of his own death and that precipitated the events which caused it. And Baldur won’t be seen in the world again 'til after Ragnarok, when the world is made a-new after the old one has been destroyed. There’s very little in this that parallels the life of the Nazarene.
If you want a closer parallel to the dying/re-born god myth, try “The Lay of Skrynir” where Freyr (my hero) wooes the Giantess Gerd. The connection between Skrynir and Freyr and how Gerd is woo-ed is a lot closer to the “dying/reborn” god myth people are trying to get at.
If any of the Asatru are reading this, my apologies for simplifying these stories. I’m at work and doing this from memory!
DITWD,
The process, I believe, was called the Taurobolium. I would think, though, that regardless of the outward form of the ceremony, the purpose is the same as that of Christian baptism, namely the symbolic passage into and back out of the realm of death.
Nope, Paul is a bonafide historical character, atltho, it is true that most of the details come from Christian writings- who else would be that interested.
The actual date of introduction is in dispute (see Mithras… by D Jason Cooper, and see Per Beskow- Etudes Mitridates). However- note I said “came into popularity”, as opposed to 'indroduced". Persian/indian worship of Mitra was way different that the Roman worship of Mithras. Until the time of Trajan, Mitraism had not reached full acceptance & popularity, and that was in AD98. Ie the Cult was not well known or popular until after all the Gospels had been written (OK, John was written in about that time, but Mark was written in about AD 67, and Paul wrote his first Epistle in AD50). Some have even speculated that Roman Mitraism cribbed from Christianity. We DO have some evidence of the “inner mysteries”- but all from archeology.
Freyr: Umm, quoting from “Mithras” by D Jason Cooper, pp155, re his birth: “Mithras was born from a rock, a divine light a fire emanating either from him or the rock. Of his conception,we know nothing”. There is no mention of a virgin birth, or wise men. There is mention of Saturn, and/or Oceanus, plus also Mitra’s attendant dieties- Cautes & Cautopates. I will admit there is mention of shepherds.
I am saying that there was no 'cross-pollination"? no, at least the “birthday” was cribbed- but openly.
Daniel,
I didn’t mean to imply I was doubting the existence of Paul. I was merely wondering how reliable were the scanty biographical details we have on his life prior to his conversion to Christianity.
But according to
The origins of the Mithraic mysteries : cosmology and salvation in the ancient world / David Ulansey (New York : Oxford University Press, 1989) Mithraism was in existence in Cilicia by 67 BCE, at least a couple generations before Saul was born. Thus, he may well have had as good a knowledge of it as any non-Mithraic Roman subject of his time.
Certainly possible, in fact a two-way process of sharing is also plausible.
Ulansey agrees- in fact stresses this point.
If you are not rejecting the possibility of some cross-pollination, then I don’t think we are disagreeing on any substantial points. As far as any cross-pollination goes, I think Polycarp’s view of the process is most likely close to the mark. I’m certainly not intending to say one religion was a clone of the other, merely that there are some marked similarities on certain points, and that borrowing (in either direction, or both from a common source) is the most reasonible explanation for those similarities.
To me the most telling point is that the early church fathers did not deny that those similarities existed- they claimed they were Satanic deceptions. Seems to me that if the parallels were not obvious to the people at the time Christian apologists would not have conceded their existence…but that’s just MHO.
As for “borrowing”- i feel the Gospels are likely to be totally free from any Mitraic influence. Nearly every thing in Matthew (not strictly historical)can be traced to an OT verse somewhere, or to Jewish beliefs around those times. Certainly, later Xian mythologies & beleifs were influenced. The Nestorian “heresies” for an EG. If Matthew can be accused of “cribbing”- it is from the OT- and that pretty heavily.
But articles like nicks- where they mix & match some dozen mythologies and cosmologies- many incorrectly or out of context (like that quote about eating). And pull out the few things most like Christainity from each- and then say- “look, nothing original in Christianity”- pure garbage. You can go to any cultures mythologies- even those without contact- and if you pull out only the similarities- and make up a few, and take many out of context-then compare to another mythology… Aha!! “Look how very close they are!!” :rolleyes:
Daniel, please provide cites illustrating OT or other Jewish sources where the following themes were used:
1- A human who is both God and man simultaneously
2- Eating the body and drinking the blood of God
3- God dying
I agree with your assessment, but that does not mean “everything in Christianity not from Jewish roots is original.”
**nebuli **:
This isn’t the answer that Daniel will give you, but Matthew doesn’t outline any of your three themes. The concept that Jesus is God is not based on the gospels. The gospels assume that Jesus is the Messiah not a demigod.
In a similar vein, Freyr’s “Jesus and Mithras both born of Holy Virgins” point also doesn’t hold up because the gospels do not state that Mary was a virgin.
That is not to say that these points aren’t worthy of consideration. I am just pointing out that these “core” themes of Christianity aren’t old enough to have been included in the most sacred Christian texts.
You don’t think “Son of God” covers this?
Er, well, except chapter 1 of both Luke and Matthew. Or do you have a different gloss you would like to share?
Eve, I think you have confused several myths.
Zeus impregnated Leda, the wife of King Tyndareus. She bore two sets of twins. The girls were Clytemnestra and Helen of Troy. The boys were Castor and Pollux.
Hercules was the son of Alcmena (I think). Zeus took the form of her husband, the general Amphytriton (hope the spelling is correct), and impregnated her. Their child was Heracles.
Dionysos (the son of Semele) was the chiid of Zeus who died, came back from the dead and went to Olympus.
Heracles was admitted to Olympus immediately after his death, but he never came back to the mortal world after dying (at least in any of the myths that I am familiar with)
I think Castor and/or Pollux also came back after dying, but that myth confuses the hell out of me, even if I have Hamilton’s “Mythology” to refer to.
Freyr, who or what are the Asatru? Could you provide any references?
jmullaney
No, it doesn’t. The term was not used as a title of godhood. There are numerous place in the OT where the term “sons of God” is used. Do these refer to a plurality of dieties? In fact, in Job, Satan is included with these “sons of God”. And in Luke, Adam is called the Son of God as well. So should we think that both Adam and Satan were part of the godhead as well?
I don’t believe Jesus ever referred to himself as this title either, although he did call God “Father”. And he said his “Father” was greater than he was. How can God be greater than himself? ::Insert joke about making rocks too heavy to lift::
His title for himself was “son of man”. And Numbers 23:19 clearly shows why Jesus, who supposedly knew the scriptures, would not think of himself of some kind of diety.
He was under the assumption that he was the messiah, not God.
**jmullaney **:
If I am to take “Son of God” literally then what am I to make of “Son of Man” or “Son of David”?
As for the virgin dispute, I thought that is was widely known that passages such as Luke 1:27 (“To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.”) must be mistranslations due to the fact that the word almah denotes an unmarried woman not a physical virgin.
I certainly spend a lot less time than you in these Christian threads but that is my understanding.
Mayor:
Let’s not forget the New Testament calling Adam “the Son of God.” [Luke 3:38]
There is a mistranslation in the gospels, but it is from Hebrew to Greek, not Greek to English. Matthew misinterprets (or deliberately distorts) Is. 7:14 into a virgin-birth prophecy. This is pretty well accepted. But, Matthew and Luke both clearly intend to portray Mary as a virgin.
**Opus1 **:
Yes, I am aware of the attempt in Matthew 1:23 “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us” to make a messianic prophesy out of Isaiah 7:14 "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. This attempt fails for a couple of reasons but this isn’t a general “poke holes in the Bible” thread.
The quote from Luke ( indeed all of my quotes here ) is from the King James Version. The KJV is not a direct translation from Greek. It’s not really a direct translation from anything but it is largely based on the Latin Vulgate. I don’t know what the word translated in the KJV as “virgin” is in Greek but Jerome translated it as virgo in the Latin Vulgate. The Latin word virgo means the same thing as almah does: umarried woman. A physical virgin in Latin is called a virgo intacta.
I would be happy if someone could enlighten me on the Greek term.
The KJV is mostly based upon the septuagint, the first really big & authoritive assembly & translation of the OT into Greek. In the Septuagint, which was also very likely Matthews source, the word in Isaiah, which alhto “young woman” or 'almah" in the Hebrew- is “parthenos” in the Greek. Although the OT was very carefully copied, the meaning of words can sometimes drift. (ie the english word “maiden”). It appears that in 250BC, when the Septuagint was translated into the greek, the Hebrew translators felt that the word “parthenos”, ie literal virgin, was the closest translation of 'almah". True, they were some 500 years later than Isaiah, but the later editors & compilors in AD90 were some 350 years later.
nebuli: Matthew makes clear that JC is the “Messiah”, a completely Jewish concept. Yes, the Messiah has divine aspect & powers, but is not a god. John does seem to lean more on the “godhood” of JC (I will agree to some strong hints of "Mystery religions’ in John). Christian theologians came up with the “Trinity”, where JC is Man, and G-d, and the Spirit. It was the Man who died. A king who dies for his nation is in the OT. The “Trinity”, however, was post Gospels, altho certainly the root is there.
2sense- right, but for the wrong reason. It is Mitra who is not born of a virgin. See my earlier post. JC was clearly born to a virgin- even if the original Hebrew word does not exactly mean virgin. The Gospels were written mostly in greek, and the word is “parthenos”, which cannot be mistranslated.
Daniel:
Thank you for the gentle correction.
My problem with your quote (“parthenos”, which cannot be mistranslated) is that, as I pointed out, it was mistranslated. By Jerome, no less.
I am not going to take the position that Jerome, as a saint, couldn’t have made a mistake but he was no dummy. The contemporary complaint about his translation was not that it was poorly done but rather that it favored the orthodox interpretations.
**DITWD wrote:
There is no mention of a virgin birth, or wise men. There is mention of Saturn, and/or Oceanus, plus also Mitra’s attendant dieties- Cautes & Cautopates. I will admit there is mention of shepherds.**
I’ll concede the point. My knowledge of Mithras mythology is sketchy at best. I do agree with the general point that beyond the basic concept of the “dying and reborn god” there’s hardly any pagan mythology in the Gospels.
**The Peyote Coyote wrote:
Freyr, who or what are the Asatru? Could you provide any references?**
The Asatru at those who are “true to the Aesir.” It’s a group of modern pagans who are reviving Germanic/Norse paganism. I believe Margot Adler talks of them in her excellent book; Drawing Down the Moon. Tho most of the book is about Wicca, check out pg. 273 of the 1986 edition for information on the Asatru.
Or just put “asatru” into any good websearch engine and you’ll find more material.
For good books on Norse mythology, check out: The Poetic Edda as translated by Lee Hollander. It’s considered an excellent translation of the Norse myths. Be warned, wrapping your mind around Old Norse style poetry isn’t easy. For a more read-able translation, try The Norse Myths by Kevin Crossley-Holland. Very readable and fun!
Well, I don’t know about that, but if you are planning on buying stock in a company which sells only pink wedding dresses, good luck! Or are you suggesting some woman you have never met was an adulterer?