Jesus was Mithra Re-Hashed?

[lamplighter]

Mithra a Persian god of light introduced to the Romans before Jesus was ever written about and yet there are a number of striking similarities between the two. For instance Mithra's birthday was on the 25th of December and as we all know Jesus was born on different date than this, though some claim it as "localization" like other things including many traditions celebrated on Christmas even though this is blasphemous according to the OT:

Jer 10:2-5
Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.
For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.
They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.
They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.

Lev 20:23,26
And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nations, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.
And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the LORD am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine.

There's also some peculiarities in the NT as well that seem to be adopted from pagan traditions:

John 6:53-54
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.


Now in the OT it says something quite differently and without the OT the NT would be rather worthless now wouldn't it?

Lev 17:10,12
And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth(consumes) any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.
Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat(consume) blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.

Now are we to believe that God who is very clear about the consumption of flesh and blood decided to change his mind? Now though in church it's all iconic but then again the OT states symbolic sin is still sin and even Jesus says this again in the NT. As well as the adoption of other customs is strictly forbidden.

Another coincidence between Jesus and Mithra are that both are born from virgin mothers and born out in the dessert. Now both take place is the same region and both virgin mothers specifically WENT out into the dessert. There is also the recognition of Sunday as the holy day even though Saturday is supposed to be the actual seventh day of the week. Mithra also required its members to be baptized as well and Mithra himself was resurrected. You also have the common theme of Sheppard and his flock in both religions.
We also have the curious thing of Mithra being a sacrifice as well:

"I created him" Ahura Mazda declares to Zoroaster, "to be as worthy of sacrifice and as worthy of prayer as myself"

Hmmm sounds a bit like another fellow we know.

 

[MaddLlama]

Correlation does not equal causation.

Jesus has a lot more in common with Zoroastrianism than with the cult of Mithras.

 

[lamplighter]

Mithra comes from Zoroastrianism Mithra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
the other source of info for this is Mithraism - MSN Encarta

 

[Popeyesays]

Or Osiris re-hashed?

I believe God sends Messengers as needed and if there is similarity between those messengers that adds proof to the pudding.

Zoroaster was a Messenger, Christ was a Messenger. there were others. If you study the circumstances of the martyrdom of the bab in 1850CE you will see many similarities to the crucifiction of Christ.

Just more proof of the truth in my estimate.

Regards,
Scott

 

[lamplighter]

Or Osiris re-hashed?

I believe God sends Messengers as needed and if there is similarity between those messengers that adds proof to the pudding.

Zoroaster was a Messenger, Christ was a Messenger. there were others. If you study the circumstances of the martyrdom of the bab in 1850CE you will see many similarities to the crucifiction of Christ.

Just more proof of the truth in my estimate.

Regards,
Scott

Either that or one religion given a face lift and adopted by a new group of people.

 

[Popeyesays]

Either that or one religion given a face lift and adopted by a new group of people.

That's only if the historical existence of the Messenger is questionable.

The Bab for instance, Muhammed and Baha`u'llah are not in question as to Their existence.

Regards,
Scott

 

[lamplighter]

I do not claim to know much as far as the texts of the Baha'i are concerned and I actually would not have much reason as to whether or not Muhammad was real or not. Though I do question whether or not Muhammad was in fact a messenger of god himself. This thread isn't about whether or not a messenger of god came to earth but, to bring in to question whether or not the NT was simply another version of somebody else's religion.

 

[Popeyesays]

I do not claim to know much as far as the texts of the Baha'i are concerned and I actually would not have much reason as to whether or not Muhammad was real or not. Though I do question whether or not Muhammad was in fact a messenger of god himself. This thread isn't about whether or not a messenger of god came to earth but, to bring in to question whether or not the NT was simply another version of somebody else's religion.

Zoroastrianism has no roots in Judaism. Christianity does. It is those roots in Judaism which make Christianity unique and I think it is pointless to wonder if Christ's revelation is just a re-hash, when the proposition is patently false.

The similarities between Zoroaster and Christ are there because They speak from the Same Source.

regards,
Scott

 

[lamplighter]

Christianity only comes from Judaism if the Bible is your only source for information. However if it can be shown that Christianity isn't an original idea then therefor it's texts are clearly created by man and not god. Should that be the case then obviously we need to look at the original texts from which it came as to have a better understanding of things. Just because someone says something is true for 2,000 years doesn't make it so. If the New Testament is the manipulation of man then some of it's dogma can be disregarded.

 

[Halcyon]

No, not close enough a correlation to be a re-hash in my opinion.

But to deny that Christianity absorbed any of the traditions and beliefs of the Roman cults is ignorant, IMHO.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Hmmm sounds a bit like another fellow we know.

This is tiresome nonsense, persistently rehashed. It's worthless ...

 

[Guitar's Cry]

There are certainly recurring themes in mythology. The human experience is a shared one.

 

[Booko]

Mithra comes from Zoroastrianism Mithra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithra

Uh, no, not really.

Mithra comes from pro-Zoroastrian times and was retained as a subordinate of Ahura Mazda and at times just another name for Ahura Mazda. There are Vedic roots as well, which isn't Zoroastrianism, but Hinduism.

And then there's the version from Manichaenism, which is yet another use.

And the Mithraism practiced as a mystery religion by the Romans might have had some origin with Persian beliefs, but it wasn't a form of Zoroastrianism, despite what the followers claimed for it. Mithra's name is never even mentioned in the gathas.

As for the significant of Dec. 25th, don't make too much of that.

The Eastern Christians celebrate on January 6th, not Dec. 25th. If the Roman Church happened on the 25th in order to compete with a popular mystery religion, that doesn't signify anything other than an astute sense of politics.

 

[Booko]

Christianity only comes from Judaism if the Bible is your only source for information. However if it can be shown that Christianity isn't an original idea then therefor it's texts are clearly created by man and not god.

Your conclusion does not follow.

It is also possible that the ideas common to religions are common because either 1) God was speaking to all of them, or 2) humanity figured out these things worked and the ideas keep recurring because of that.

There is no cause to assume copying ideas just because ideas are similar.

If you're going to assume that sort of thing, then you will also need to explain how indigenous American religions "copied" from Old World religions, or vice versa, because there are "nonoriginal" ideas there too.

Should that be the case then obviously we need to look at the original texts from which it came as to have a better understanding of things. Just because someone says something is true for 2,000 years doesn't make it so. If the New Testament is the manipulation of man then some of it's dogma can be disregarded.

How in heaven's name do you look at the "original texts"??? We don't have original texts for Christianity because no one wrote it down at the time. Entire sections of Avestan literature have been lost on the Zoroastrian side.

As for dogma, some of might be discarded anyway, either because it can be examined and determined to be a manmade tradition, or because (in my belief anyway) God sent another Prophet who said "OK, we don't need that anymore -- that was a solution for a problem we don't have now."

 

[Booko]

No, not close enough a correlation to be a re-hash in my opinion.

But to deny that Christianity absorbed any of the traditions and beliefs of the Roman cults is ignorant, IMHO.

There would appear to be some influence from Zoroastrianism as well, but to claim it was copied is taking things much farther than the evidence allows.

 

[Booko]

This is tiresome nonsense, persistently rehashed. It's worthless ...

There are days, Jay, when I wish you could record your thoughts in some detail and put them out in an article. This is one of them.

 

[Popeyesays]

Mithra is mentioned heavily in the Avestas (prayer books and hymns) of Zoroastrianism

Regards,
Scott

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Your conclusion does not follow. ...

Very good post.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There are days, Jay, when I wish you could record your thoughts in some detail and put them out in an article. This is one of them.

From Manfred Clauss ...

It should be emphasized that the purpose of this summary account is not to suggest that such ideas were taken over directly into the Roman mystery-cult. On the contrary, no direct continuity, either of a general kind or in specific details, can be demonstrated between the Perso-Hellenistic worship of Mitra and the Roman mysteries of Mithras. The oft repeated attempts to trace a seamless history of Mythras from the second millennium BC to the fourth century AD simply tells us something quite general about the relative stability, or, as it may be, flexibility, of religious ideas. We cannot account for Roman Mithras in terms borrowed from Persian Mitra.

< ... snip ... >

There is another reason too for thinking that it makes little sense to treat the mysteries of Mithras as but one stage in a longer evolution. The mysteries cannot be shown to have developed from Persian religious ideas, nor does it make sense to interpret them as a fore-runner of Christianity. Both views neglect the sheer creativity that gave rise to the mystery-cult. Mythraism was an independent creation with its own unique value within a given historical, specifically Roman, context.

[ and later, in a chapter titled Mithras and Christ ]

Most of the parallels between Mithraism and Chritianity are part of the common currency of all mystery cults or can be traced back to common origins in the Graeco-oriental culture of the Hellenistic world.

- see Roman Cult of Mithras: The God and His Mysteries

Roman Cult of Mithras: The God and His Mysteries

 

[Smoke]

Another coincidence between Jesus and Mithra are that both are born from virgin mothers and born out in the dessert. Now both take place is the same region and both virgin mothers specifically WENT out into the dessert.

Where are you getting that from? There's no Christian tradition that Mary went out into the dessert, or even the desert, to give birth.

It's no secret that Christianity has been influenced to some extent by Zoroastrianism and paganism. So what? There are a lot of things that bother me about Christianity, but that's not even in the top ten; in fact, I might like Christianity more if it had been more influenced by paganism.