I vote for Betty Crocker. What one ummm…“lady” has done to feed sweets and cereals to billions and spread happiness to every sugar hyped kid in the land is truely incalculable.
CyberPundit, I dispute your claim that Jesus wasn’t a philosopher.
First of all, it is highly dubious to define evangelical “fervor” as positive influence on humanity.
Second of all (just so you know) the fastest growing religion in the world right now is Islam.
“I dispute your claim that Jesus wasn’t a philosopher”
So how would you characterize Jesus’s contributions to philosphy? Certainly other Christians like Augustine and Aquinas are considered important philosophers but I have not heard of Jesus himself mentioned as one.
well CyberPundit, I was reading your post with some interests (since you were debating what I had said), and then I read the above sentence. :eek: Eek! Apparently, you have never read the Bible and know zilch about Christianity, if you think Jesus was not an “important” philosopher. The entire religion is based on the philosophy that he espoused, along with his contention that he was the Son of God.
From one of Cecil’s columns on the subject: “Christianity, in brilliant contrast, offered the following propositions: God is good, God is universal, God wants you to live forever with him in paradise provided you … well, exactly what you had to do to be saved was a matter of dispute. But the point was you could be saved.”
Where did these propositions come from? The air? No, Jesus espoused them as part of his philosphy.
Your statement that Paul was the real driving force and reason Christianity survived is a red herring, even though Cecil himself gives Pauls some credit. All religious leaders have their acolytes, and Jesus was no different. Paul wasn’t the only Christian missionary plying the Mediterranean; in fact, he may not even have been the most well-travelled. He’s the most famous only because he wrote letters which survived and were incorporated into the New Testament. But the survival of his writings do not translate into major importance during his own lifetime.
Saying that Jesus wasn’t important because during his lifetime he only led a small Jewish sect is like saying Van Gogh must not have been much of a painter, because he wasn’t very popular while he was alive.
The fact is that people become wealthy, famous, or powerful as much for their affect on others than for anything they do themselves. Would Hitler have been a threat if nobody followed him? How about Gandhi? Or Muhammed and Buddha? Or Martin Luther King Jr.?
Jesus was important because, like all the above men, people believed in him and his philosophy. Paul was only the mouthpiece for that philosophy; that’s we call followers of Christ “Christians” and not “Paulians.”
Aro wrote:
Yeah, but John deferred:
“I baptize with water,” John replied, “but among you stands one you do not know. He is the one who comes after me, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie.” — John 1:26-27
Well I guess it depends on what you characterize as “philosophy”. I wouldn’t characterize "God is good, God is universal, God wants you to live forever with him in paradise provided you … " as philosopy. How much space does Jesus,himself, get in standard history of Western philosophy? Very little AFAIK. ( I might be wrong on this)
About Paul and Christianity that’s not my own opinion but that of other historians like JM Roberts in his History of the World. In any case I am not saying that Jesus is not importnat, just that he is not necessarily the most important person in history. It’s pretty clear that Christianity at the time of Jesus’s death was much less well established than either Islam or Buddhism at the time of their founder’s deaths. So the followers had a greater role in shaping Christianity than they did in the other two.
The gospels were all written well after the supposed ~30 CE crucifixion date - the first historian to mention Jesus was not a contemporary. There is no corraborating Roman data to substantiate the rumors of a Hebrew rabble rouser that the Bible calls Jesus.
As I have said before, the true hero of Christianity is Paul, not Jesus.
Go read up on the Mithras cult.
Oh? I guess you’re entitled to your opinion, although I know plenty of educated people who would disagree with you. But then, I never said evangelical fervor was positive. Something doesn not have to be “positive” to be important.
Religious fervor is something that can definitely be negative, but that is certainly NOT universal. The Puritans who settled New England moved there because of religious fervor. All over the Third World, missionaries are feeding people, building homes, and distributing medicines because of their evangelical fervor. Even in big American cities, thousands of charitable people volunteer their time and energy to feed the homeless at soup kitchens, care for the elderly, etc. because of their religious fervor. Did you even consider all the work religious organizations do and have done to help the needy before you wrote what you did about evangelical fervor?
**
So? This statement is so vague it’s meaningless. Here’s an equally pointless example: I am worth $1 million, and I’m in a room full of men each worth $999,999. I can start bragging, because I’m the richest man in the room!
Not to mention how uncertain the various measures are for calculating the speed of a religion’s growth, what exactly constitutes “growth,” etc.
About Jesus not considered a philospher:here for example is a web-site on world philosophy. There is a section on Buddhist philosophy including the teachings of the Buddha himself. But AFAI can see there is nothing on Jesus himself.
http://www.friesian.com/history.htm#late
A small correction: I said “that of other historians like JM Roberts” which makes it sound as if I am a historian which I am not. It should have been “that of historians like”
Sure, I’ll concede that. But as you said, Mohammed and Buddha were secular leaders, with the power to enforce their ideals on others. A major reason Islam spread in the Middle Ages was because of Islamic armies that gave conquered people the choice to convert or die. (I know less about Buddhism).
This also answers your implied question about why Jesus isn’t mentioned in histories of Western philosphy. If we lived in a theocracy like most of the Middle East, he certainly would be. But a distinction has been made between religious philosophy and secular philosophy in Western thought for a long time now.
But this is an artificial distinction, since much of the principles on which the United States was founded are drawn from Biblical teachings.
In the Declaration of Independence it says: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”
“All men are created equal” is analogous to “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” Some may argue that the D of I. draws heavily on John Locke, but the Bible predates him too.
All men being created equal, and deserving “equal protection under the law” are ideas with roots in Christian teaching.
Well don’t forget the crusades, the inquisition, pogroms in eastern Europe, the genocide of the American Indian were also fueled by Christian “fervor.”
All the missionary work that you speak of would would be fine if all they did was feed people, build homes, etc. without proselytizing those whom they are helping. It is arrogant, presumtuous, ethnocentric, paternalistic and insulting to travel to another part of the world simply to inform the people who live there that their culture and religion is “wrong” and that they really should stop worshipping their own magic fairy in the sky and start worshipping yours.
I spent two years in west Africa watching sanctimonious missionaries trying to forbid people from practicing their own tribal religions, and threatening to withhold services if someone wanted to consult a witch doctor or a fortune teller. It was my experience that many people pretended to go along with the missionaries to their faces because they needed the sevices, but in the privacy of their own homes they still practiced the “magic” that the Christians despised so much. The missionaries were also constantly insinuating themselves into various tribal rituals and celebrations, making judgemental pests of themselves and whining about “false” gods. I can’t see how any of this was postive.
I threw in the statement about islam just to show that, if fervor is your barometer of greatness, then the Muslims are currently greater than the Christians.
Jesus’ greatest contribution to philosophy was His moral imperative: “Be perfect.”
Setting aside for moment the stark differences between Mithras and Christ — cough [sub]the Tauroctony[/sub] cough — I think you need to read a little more. Especially about such things as Non Causa Pro Causa fallacies.
“But as you said, Mohammed and Buddha were secular leaders, with the power to enforce their ideals on others”
Buddha was not a secular leader btw. Muhammad was but that’s part of the reason why he is more important than Jesus. Remember we are talking about historical importance not just religious importance.
“This also answers your implied question about why Jesus isn’t mentioned in histories of Western philosphy. If we lived in a theocracy like most of the Middle East, he certainly would be”
That doesn’t explain why Augustine and Aquinas are considered important philophers. And India has had a long tradition of non-religious materialistic philosophy.
“But this is an artificial distinction, since much of the principles on which the United States was founded are drawn from Biblical teachings”
This is needless to say a highly dubious statement but it’s another debate. The important point, here, is that the Bible is much than Jesus and we are talking about the personal influence of Jesus. A very large part of what we know as Christianity was developed by the followers of Jesus and not Jesus himself. This is true of most religions but it is especially true of Christianity since it was so tiny and underdeveloped at the time of Jesus’s death.
Let’s look at some similarities first, shall we.
Mithra was a Sun God who was, originally a Persian god who was later adopted by the Romans who:
*born of a virgin
*on December 25th
*This birth was witnessed by shepherds who…
*followed a star to get there.
*he was called the “light of the world.”
*He was called the “savior” of the world.
*He was part of a “trinity” (as a mediator between heaven and earth)
*Before he died he and his followers had a “last supper” with bread and wine.
*After he had been dead for three days, his tomb was found empty.
*Mithraists had a “eucharist” during which they drank wine (which was said to be Mithra’s blood) and bread (which was his body)
*They also practiced a ritual baptism after which one was said to have been “born again.”
*All of this happened at least 200 BCE
There are also many disimilarities. Lib mentioned the taurocteny, the ritual sacrifice of a bull which was a major part of the Roman version of Mithraism, and is obviously no part of Christianity.
However, it is impossible to simply dismiss out of hand all of the other striking similarities, and Mithraism is not the only pre-Christian cult to share similarities. (look at Zoroastrianism for example)
Paul never met Jesus, and did not seem to have much interest in the actual teachings of Jesus (as far as I can tell, Paul never even quoted a single saying of Jesus) His agenda was to sell Christianity as a mystery cult and he succeeded. Paul’s evangelism of gentiles was not shared by the early Christian movement in Jerusalem, and it was Pauline Christianity, specifically, which eventually became the religion of Rome, and thus the western world.
It was PAUL, not Jesus, who married Jesus to the trinity, who literalized the resurrection, who came up with the soteriological interpretations of the crucifixion, and, frankly, it was PAUL who said that Jesus was God.
Without Paul, Christianity would never have been anything other than an obscure and short-lived Jewish cult in a remote and unimportant part of the ancient world.
I also seem to recall something about a dream that Constantine had, in which he was told to put a cross on the sheilds of his soldiers. IIRC Christianity was a little known religion at the time and Constantine’s “endorsement” popularized the religion like never before. I also recall that it was a bit of a mystery why Constantine associated the cross with Christianity when Mithraism was more popular (especially among soldiers) and also used a cross.
Diogenese wrote:
Mithra (Zoroastrianism) and Mithras (Roman paganism) are not the same, although the latter was likely “borrowed” from the former.
But like I said, saying that Christ came from Mithras is a classic Non Causa Pro Causa fallacy. Roman Mithraism was begun by Emperor Diocletian about the time of Christ. Plus, you’ve fudged some of your “similarities” and others are irrelevant.
And your 200 BC date is flat out misleading. Keep in mind that there are many varieties of Mithraism that span a lot of time. You’re mixing them all together.
You seem to be relying on retellings of conjectures by Acharya S, from her paranoid Christ Conspiracy.
There is no mention in scripture of Christ being born on December 25th. Emperor Constantine declared that date in 313 AD to appease the Roman Mithraists.
Mithra was not born of a virgin, but was born out of solid rock, leaving behind a cave. “[Mithra,] wearing his Phrygian cap, issues forth from the rocky mass. As yet only his bare torso is visible. In each hand he raises aloft a lighted torch and, as an unusual detail, red flames shoot out all around him from the petra genetrix.” (Mithraic Studies: Proceedings of the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies. Manchester U. Press, 1975.)
Christ was an infant, born of a woman. Mithra’s birth resembles that of Perseus. There is also no mention in Persian or Roman texts about any star.
It is more likely that the shepherds were borrowed by Roman Mithraists than the other way around, since the first mention of them in Mithraism is in the second century AD. (Franz Cumont. The Mysteries of Mithra. New York: Dover, 1950)
With respect to the 12 disciples, the Iranian Mithras had only a single companion (Varuna), and the Roman Mithra had two helpers, Cautes and Cautopatres. There is no documented evidence that Mithras had 12 disciples. (Roger Beck. Planetary Gods and Planetary Orders in the Mysteries of Mithras. London: Brill, 1988)
You won’t find mention anywhere in the literature, outside Acharya’s screed, that Mithras in any version was called “light of the world” or “savior”. He was called a “mediator”, but comparing mediation between heaven and earth to a three-fold single God is ridiculous.
Regarding the Last Supper comparison, the origin of that was from a medieval text, and was in fact about Zarathustra, and not Mithras. (M. J. Vermaseren, Mithras the Secret God. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1963) It was Freke and Gandy who first stretched out this invalid extrapolation only a few years ago. (Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy. The Jesus Mysteries: Was the “Original Jesus” a Pagan God? New York: Harmony Books, 1999)
And finally, there are no references anywhere in the Mithraic literature to Mithra being buried, or even dying. There was in fact “no death of Mithras”. (Richard Gordon, Image and Value in the Greco-Roman World. Aldershot: Variorum, 1996.) It was Freke and Gandy who claimed that Mithraic initiates “enacted a similar resurrection scene” (Op. Cit.) but their only reference is to a comment made by the Roman Tertullian, who lived in the second and third centuries AD.
Wynne-Tyson has refered to a fourth century writer who says that the Mithraists mourn the image of a dead Mithras, but there’s no mention of any resurrection. (Esme Wynne-Tyson, Mithras: The Fellow in the Cap. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1958.)
Many of those websites about Mithras are a lot like creationist websites. No attributions. No documentation. Except for occasional references to Acharya. Their crap just gets repeated on message boards like these. Again, with no citations.
The story about Mithra’s alleged crucifixiom comes by way of Acharya, who claimed to be quoting Dupuis. But Dupuis was talking about Attis of Phrygia.
Lib, I did not get my information from a website but in college as a religion major. Granted I was going from memory and I mixed up some of the Persian and Roman aspects of the story. Let me just say the following:
I was not trying to say that Jesus did not exist as a historical person. I was trying to show (and we can do this all day) that virtually every mystic aspect of Christian mythology existed well prior to historical Jesus. Virgin births were commonplace. The Persian version of Mithra was born of a virgin fertility goddess. Horus, Siddhartha, and Indra were all said to have been born of virgins. There are several other examples.
Trinities were also commonplace. They are found in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Rome. Many of them consisted of father/mother/child paradigms. Others were heaven/earth/man models (such as Mithra). They are not precisely analogous to Christian triunity, but they ARE trinities.
Resurrections were also plentiful. The death and resurrection of Mithra was symbolic of the winter solstice, when the sun “dies” and is reborn. Other resurrected deities include Osiris and Krishna.
Pagan eucharists definitely existed and definitely identified bread and wine as the body and blood of gods.
None of this stuff was particularly Jewish. It is not unreasonable to surmise that Paul infused his fledgling religion with the symbology of pre-existing or contemporary mystery cults. The virgin birth and the trinity are fairly late developments in Christianity. For example, Mark, the earliest gospel contains neither of these things. (nor, for that matter, the resurrection)
Regardless of the Mithras/Christ connection (or lack thereof, if you would rather) It was primarily Paul who was responsible for the establishment of Christianity as a powerful religion and not Jesus, per se, about which virtually nothing is known with any certainty.
I can’t believe nobody’s mentioned Batman yet.