Paul & Mitraism

[Buddha Dharma]

@sandy whitelinger to expound some on what I'd think the point of the Bible was if it was something I could accept- since I've given the matter thought:

I'd accept the Hebrew Bible with an emphasis on the social justice of the latter prophets, as something that sums up the actual point of the Torah, and not hard literalism. I may even accept Jesus among these prophets because he cared about social justice and taught in much the same sense- the same idea.

I'll say with Gandhi that I like Jesus, but do not necessarily see his followers as reflecting him.

 

[fallingblood]

To sum up I disagree with your sources and extreme bias toward justifying a Christian agenda,

I don't have a Christian agenda. You could hardly even call me a Christian. I reject both the miraculous birth of Jesus, as well as the resurrection. So I'm not sure you could call me Christian, and thus I have no reason to justify a Christian agenda. My bias would be towards a historically accurate portrayal. I'd admit that. I'm also not sure what sources your are criticizing here. It seems to me that you've made some hasty generalizations.

First, There is sufficient documentation that the Gods the Sun were celebrated on the Winter Solstice in many cultures at least from Persia to Rome. The day was later changed to December 25th fro reasons of bad calendar math. Roman emperor Aurelian made the official pagan holiday before Constantine based on earlier Roman religious traditions celebrating the Winter Solstice were dedicated to several Roman Gods including Saturnalia.

Sure. Gods associated with the sun were celebrated during the Winter Solstice. Never said otherwise. My response was basically, so what. Jesus wasn't said to be born on Christmas, it was simply the day his birth was observed. The reason for that was that there were already other pagan festivals occurring during that time, so it was a way to give converts some familiarity. It was a political move. Again though, Jesus wasn't said to have been born then, his birth was simply observe then.

Second, Sunday was indeed a pagan day of the Sun God, and Constantine changed the Christian sabbath to Sunday. It was the pagan sabbath before Jesus Christ.

You moved the goal post here. We were talking about Mithras, and I pointed out that it wasn't until after the time of Jesus that Sunday also became significant for Mithraism. In the Persian view of Mithras, Sunday didn't mean anything. So your claim was false.

Sunday was chosen by Christians for two reasons. One, it was the day of resurrection. Two, many came from a pagan background, and Sunday simply worked. It had nothing to do with Mithraism. And again, it was more political than anything.

Third, the inscriptions on all Constantine's coins 'Soli Invicto Comiti' are very real and indicate the devotion to the traditional pagan Sun God.

So? There was a devotion to the sun god in Rome. Never said anything about that. You've really jumped around here.

More to follow. I can see now, because of your agenda it will be unlikely we will agree.

I'm a historian. My agenda is historical accuracy. You've jumped to a conclusion about my agenda based on false assumptions.

 

[Augustus]

The reason for that was that there were already other pagan festivals occurring during that time, so it was a way to give converts some familiarity. It was a political move.

Might be interested in this which argues against the idea that it was specifically chosen to appeal to Pagans.

Steven Hijmans, "Sol Invictus, the Winter Solstice, and the Origins of Christmas"

tl;dr

The cult of Sol Invictus is overstated in its importance and the idea that there was a massively important festival in his honour on Dec 25 is not supported by the evidence.

Romans (and many others) did acknowledge cosmological significance in the equinoxes, although theses were not inexorably bound to Sol Invictus. These are tangible astrological events after all, not simply religious constructs.

As such, based on cultural perception of the equinox as significant, Christian dates became attached to these relating to both Jesus and John the Baptist because they were the equinoxes, not because they were trying to appropriate pagan festivals to win converts.

The similarity is based on the similar cultures rather than direct imitation.

Sunday was chosen by Christians for two reasons. One, it was the day of resurrection. Two, many came from a pagan background, and Sunday simply worked. It had nothing to do with Mithraism. And again, it was more political than anything.

Did Sunday even have any special significance in Roman paganism though? It wasn't a 'rest day'. They were using an 8 day week until the 1st C (and possibly beyond in parallel with a 7 day one).

The Sun was simply one of many gods, rather than a henotheistic supreme god. Sunday was also noted as a day for Christian religious duty in the early 2nd C.

It's not something I've read much about so am not really sure, but what was the significance of Sunday to Roman pagans that made it pertinent for early Christians to adopt it (at the same time as they were consciously distancing themselves from other pagan practices and being persecuted for it)?