Mithras = Christianity? (Jesus, priests, rituals, morals, virgin)

[Scott1]

I love the story of Mithras....

For a long time I was like crystalonyx and spouted off borrowed "knowledge" about Mithras to every Christian I could find. To be honest, most just blabbered all over themselves and made me feel quite superior to those that were "duped". Until one day I met a Catholic who flipped open her Catechism and quoted:
"The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."CCC 843
... and then it just kinda made sense to me what the cult of Mithras actually was: a group grasping for something that could only be truly fulfilled in Christ.

Your results may vary ,
S

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

It's sort of stylish for sophomoric authors - usually not scholars - to draw parallels between Mithras (and other mystery religions) and Christianity. The only scholars that play up the parallels between the two religions are not classicists, biblical scholars, or archaeologists, historians, or otherwise experts in the ancient world, but are English professors or other dabblers trying to make a buck on other people who don't know anything about ancient life.

Seeing how Tom Harpur's an Anglican priest and a theology professor, I'd be interested in your take on his claims in The Pagan Christ that the Gospels are largely a re-telling of Egyptian religious beliefs. On the one hand, I would normally expect that someone in his position would know what he's talking about, but on the other hand, his primary sources are a fair bit outside the normally accepted body of research on the topic.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

BTW - on the topic of weird parallels with the Bible, do you know who was born in Bethlehem and raised in Nazareth?

Michael Andretti.

[Kcnorwood]

Originally Posted by Willamena

I'm no scholar, but I have read that the Roman "mystery" cult of Mithras (that is claimed to resemble Christian mythology) is independent of the Mithra who was a part of the Zoroastrian pantheism, and is largely a Roman invention. Even the Great Wiki indicates this: If the Roman religion was an outgrowth of an Iranian one, there would have to be evidence of Mithraic-like practices attested in Greater Iran. However, that is not the case: No mithraea have been found there, and the Mithraic myth of the tauroctony does not conclusively match the Zoroastrian legend of the slaying of Gayomart, in which Mithra does not play any role at all. The historians of antiquity, otherwise expansive in their descriptions of Iranian religious practices, hardly mention Mithra at all.
Mithraic Mysteries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While I agree I do not trust a source that anyone can edit.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Kcnorwood

While I agree I do not trust a source that anyone can edit.

And that's wise, but it's no longer the case that just anyone can edit. Plus, in being an encylopedia, Wikipedia now requires its authors to quote sources. The source for this information was: Franz Cumont's Texts and Illustrated Monuments Relating to the Mysteries of Mithra published in 1894-1900.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

Seeing how Tom Harpur's an Anglican priest and a theology professor, I'd be interested in your take on his claims in The Pagan Christ that the Gospels are largely a re-telling of Egyptian religious beliefs. On the one hand, I would normally expect that someone in his position would know what he's talking about, but on the other hand, his primary sources are a fair bit outside the normally accepted body of research on the topic.

Good point. I haven't read this book... I was thinking about The Jesus Mysteries...

Anyway, historians and classicists have known about parallels in Christianity to ancient religions for quite a while now - it's the significance of the parallels that are the key..

Besides, I was specifically addressing this crap: MITHRAS = CHRISTIANITY

I don't think that Dr. Harpur would embarrass himself like that.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

Good point. I haven't read this book... I was thinking about The Jesus Mysteries...

It's worth reading, IMO. Partly for the explicit subject matter, but also for his approach.

It seems to me like a lot of the "Jesus = something else" arguments end up implying that if Christianity is derived from some earlier source, then it's worthless; a major theme of his book is that the similarities between the two sets of beliefs might be a sign that both are expressions of the same universal truths.

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

Besides, I was specifically addressing this crap: MITHRAS = CHRISTIANITY

I don't think that Dr. Harpur would embarrass himself like that.

Especially since, as I alluded to before, it's obvious that the Gospels are a foreshadowing of the Michael Andretti story.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

It's worth reading, IMO. Partly for the explicit subject matter, but also for his approach.

Thanks for the recommendation. If I happen to see it, I'll read it and get back to you.

It seems to me like a lot of the "Jesus = something else" arguments end up implying that if Christianity is derived from some earlier source, then it's worthless; a major theme of his book is that the similarities between the two sets of beliefs might be a sign that both are expressions of the same universal truths.

Well, Christianity has never been one movement. Even in its earliest stages, different bishops taught different stuff, and had differing influences over a wide geographic and long time span. So narrowing the quite eclectic sources for Christianity has to be narrowed down to a specific time and place in the history of Christianity and the history of whatever a scholar thinks may be an influence.

Also, we should keep in mind that Mithras left no texts, so everything that we know from them comes from secondary ancient sources (which may or may not know anything about Mithras) and archaeological evidence (which is interpreted through the secondary sources). Such a dearth of evidence cultivates creative interpretations that may or may not actually have any relationship to the evidence.

For example, in the case of Mithras being crucified, the only evidence is from a misinterpretation of a Christian inscription on a Roman wall in about 250CE, and obviously cannot be an early influence on Christianity. That's just one example of how screwed up that link is in the OP.

To complicate matters even more, many sources for Mithras are in Christian polemic or apologists and come very late - say, the third century CE, well into the development of Christianity. And, these apologists may have no clue what they are talking about. Combine this with the fact that most Mithraim (places of worship for Mithras) are buried under Christian churches and therefore some idiots can mistake later Christian use for earlier Mithraic use... et cetera