Regardless of attempts to make Mithraism the plagiarist of Christianity, the fact will remain that Mithraism was first, well established decades before Christianity had any significant influence. If Christian apologists will not yield to the well-attested assertion that Christianity "borrowed" from Mithraism in specific, they simply cannot deny that both copied from Paganism in general, from one or more of the numerous religions, cults and mysteries of the pre-Christian world. Hence, the effect is the same: Christianity took its godman and tenets from Paganism.
And Lucifershammer if you want to have a serious discussion, I suggest you stop copycatting Ivanhoe's techniques.
Originally posted by no1marauder Actually you debunk nothing: the author attempts to use prior legends concerning a very ancient God as proof of what was believed in the first century AD. This is poor, biased scholarship; it is unsurprising that the worship of an ancient God would change over centuries in different areas. I'll get to the other claims later, but the genesis of the Twelv ...[text shortened]... an inheriting this motif from earlier Pagan religions.
http://www.truthbeknown.com/mithra.htm
The link you've provided is essentially Acharya's book - which is one of the sources debunked in the article I cited.
Regarding the Twelve Apostles and the Last Supper:
I have seen this claim repeated a number of times, almost always (see below) without any documentation. (One of our readers wrote to Acharya asking for specific evidence of this one...she did not reply, although she had readily replied to a prior message.) The Iranian Mithras, as we have seen, did have a single companion (Varuna), and the Roman Mithra had two helper/companions, tiny torch-bearing likenesses of himself, called Cautes and Cautopatres, that were perhaps meant to represent the sunrise and sunset (whereas "Big Daddy" Mithra was supposed to be noon), spring and autumn, the stars Albedaran and Antares [Beck.PO, 26] or life and death. (Freke and Gandy absurdly attempt to link these twins to the two thieves crucified with Jesus! - Frek.JM, 51 - because one went to heaven with Jesus [torch up] and one went to hell [torch down]! Why not link instead to Laurel and Hardy, because one was repentant [torch down] and the other was a bully [torch up]!) Mithra also had a number of animal companions: a snake, a dog, a lion, a scorpion -- but not 12 of them...
His religion had a eucharist or "Lord's Supper," at which Mithra said, "He who shall not eat of my body nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved."
This saying is appealed to also by Freke and Gandy [Frek.JM, 49], and it took me some digging to discover it's actual origin. Godwin says that the reference is from a "Persian Mithraic text," but does not give the dating of this text, nor say where it was found, nor offer any documentation; that I found finally in Vermaseren [Verm.MSG, 103] -- the source of this saying is a medieval text; and the speaker is not Mithras, but Zarathustra! Although Vermaseren suggested that this might be the formula that Justin referred to (but did not describe at all) as being part of the Mithraic "Eucharist," there is no evidence for the saying prior to this medieval text. (Freke and Gandy, and now Acharya, try to give the rite some ancestry by claiming that it derives from an Iranian Mithraic ceremony using a psychadelic plant called Haoma, but they are clearly grasping at straws and adding speculations of meaning in order to make this rite seem similar to the Eucharist.) This piece of "evidence" is far, far too late to be useful -- except as possible proof that Mithraism borrowed from Christianity! (Christianity of course was in Persia far earlier than this medieval text; see Martin Palmer's Jesus Sutras for details.)
The closest thing that Mithraism had to a "Last Supper" was the taking of staples (bread, water, wine and meat) by the Mithraic initiates, which was perhaps a celebration of the meal that Mithra had with the sun deity after slaying the bull. However, the meal of the initiates is usually seen as no more than a general fellowship meal of the sort that was practiced by groups all over the Roman world -- from religious groups to funereal societies. [MS.348]
In any case, even if Mithra (Persian or Roman version) had Twelve Companions, it means little. The number Twelve has a spiritual significance in most cultures (e.g. the Zodiac, the Twelve Tribes of Israel etc.) That in itself does not prove that the account of the Twelve Disciples is fictional - Christ chose twelve for precisely that reason.
Originally posted by no1marauder The conclusion of my sited article is as follows:
Regardless of attempts to make Mithraism the plagiarist of Christianity, the fact will remain that Mithraism was first, well established decades before Christianity had any significant influence. If Christian apologists will not yield to the well-attested assertion that Christianity "borrowed" ...[text shortened]... if you want to have a serious discussion, I suggest you stop copycatting Ivanhoe's techniques.
And Lucifershammer if you want to have a serious discussion, I suggest you stop copycatting Ivanhoe's techniques.
And what techniques would those be?
Let me ask you a serious question - do you ever admit you've just been mistaken/wrong about something?
Originally posted by lucifershammer The link you've provided is essentially Acharya's book - which is one of the sources debunked in the article I cited.
Regarding the Twelve Apostles and the Last Supper:
[quote]I have seen this claim repeated a number of times, almost always (see below) without any documentation. (One of our readers wrote to Acharya asking for specific evidence o ...[text shortened]... as a spiritual significance in most cultures (e.g. the Zodiac, the Twelve Tribes of Israel etc.)
Your last sentence is the whole point; most of the alleged details of Christ's life and ministry are warmed over versions of ancient pagan myths. Assuming that Christ actually was a real person, it certainly appears an amazing coincidence that his life details should so closely parallel various myths from prior cultures.
You don't know what "debunk" means if you think that the article you cited, which is obviously poorly researched, written in an unscholarly manner and clearly biased, is successful in "debunking" the work of actual scholars.
Originally posted by lucifershammer [b]And Lucifershammer if you want to have a serious discussion, I suggest you stop copycatting Ivanhoe's techniques.
And what techniques would those be?
Let me ask you a serious question - do you ever admit you've just been mistaken/wrong about something?[/b]
Is this comment one by someone who wishes a serious discussion of issues:
I'll stop the copy-paste now and wait for no1's ranting and raving.
I admit I'm wrong if I'm wrong, but I'm still waiting for you and Ivanhoe to show me I was wrong about anything. And BTW, diverting the discussion into one about me personally is one of Ivanhoe's favorite techniques.
Originally posted by no1marauder Your last sentence is the whole point; most of the alleged details of Christ's life and ministry are warmed over versions of ancient pagan myths. Assuming that Christ actually was a real person, it certainly appears an amazing coincidence that his life details should so closely parallel various myths from prior cultures.
You don't know what "de ...[text shortened]... scholarly manner and clearly biased, is successful in "debunking" the work of actual scholars.
Your last sentence is the whole point; most of the alleged details of Christ's life and ministry are warmed over versions of ancient pagan myths.
Let's just look at the Twelve Apostles. Is it simpler to believe that Christians just made up Twelve Apostles based on pagan myths, named them, had real Churches established by them all around the world - all in the space of a few decades?
Or is it simpler to believe that Christ chose exactly Twelve Apostles (we know there were many more disciples) because twelve is a number with spiritual significance?
Assuming that Christ actually was a real person, it certainly appears an amazing coincidence that his life details should so closely parallel various myths from prior cultures.
And some of those myths (e.g. miracles) would be associated with just about any religious leader (like Buddha, for instance). There is nothing "amazing" about the coincidence.
Originally posted by no1marauder Is this comment one by someone who wishes a serious discussion of issues:
I'll stop the copy-paste now and wait for no1's ranting and raving.
I admit I'm wrong if I'm wrong, but I'm still waiting for you and Ivanhoe to show me I was wrong about anything. And BTW, diverting the discussion into one about me personally is one of Ivanhoe's favorite techniques.
Marauder: "And BTW, diverting the discussion into one about me personally is one of Ivanhoe's favorite techniques .... "
Marauder, your annoying insults are, of course, never personal ..... right ? .... but if I adress them and your other manipulating techniques you accuse me of becoming personal ..... are you for real ?
Marauder's shadow: "Please don't adress the fact that I am insulting and manipulating you, otherwise I will accuse you of becoming personal."
Marauder's manipulation continues ...... it has now entered the fase of sheer ridiculousness.
Originally posted by ivanhoe [b/]Marauder: "And BTW, diverting the discussion into one about me personally is one of Ivanhoe's favorite techniques .... "
Marauder, your annoying insults are, of course, never personal ..... right ? .... but if I adress them and your other manipulating techniques you accuse me of becoming personal ..... are you for real ?
Marauder ...[text shortened]...
Marauder's manipulation continues ...... it has now entered the fase of sheer ridiculousness.
Please cite ANY insults I've used in this thread, Ivanhoe.
Originally posted by ivanhoe ..... in this thread ...... ha ha ha ..... now, you are becoming hilariously funny, marauder .....
Your usual TACTIC; ignoring the subject of the thread and going off into your silly personal vendetta. Don't you ever get sick of being such a child, Ivanhoe?
Originally posted by no1marauder Your usual TACTIC; ignoring the subject of the thread and going off into your silly personal vendetta. Don't you ever get sick of being such a child, Ivanhoe?
Are you sure you sobered up after your drinking spree last night ?
Originally posted by no1marauder Your usual TACTIC; ignoring the subject of the thread and going off into your silly personal vendetta. Don't you ever get sick of being such a child, Ivanhoe?
I will be contented if you stop your insults, your manipulation, your innuendo, your accusations, your personal attacks, your intimidations, your lies and your degrading comments. In short ...... if you grow up.
Originally posted by ivanhoe I will be contented if you stop your insults, your manipulation, your innuendo, your accusations, your personal attacks, your intimidations and your degrading comments. In short ...... if you grow up.
I don't hold my breath however.
I would appreciate it if you stop trolling every thread I post in and parroting the same crap over and over again. Everybody has heard it about a million times. If you have anything to actually add to the discussion of the similarities between the "life" of Jesus and prior pagan "mythical" figures, go ahead. Otherwise, shut up.
Originally posted by lucifershammer [b]Your last sentence is the whole point; most of the alleged details of Christ's life and ministry are warmed over versions of ancient pagan myths.
Let's just look at the Twelve Apostles. Is it simpler to believe that Christians just made up Twelve Apostles based on pagan myths, named them, had real Churches established by them all ar ...[text shortened]... eligious leader (like Buddha, for instance). There is nothing "amazing" about the coincidence.[/b]
Of course, that is also the point; there is really nothing "amazing" or even very original about the "miraculous" aspects of Jesus' "life". Virtually all of the are reflections of prior "myths" regarding other figures who their followers claimed were divine. It seems likely that early Christians added various themes to the "life" of Jesus to make him as "big" of a God as the competing pagan ones. Thus, the "miraculous" aspects of Christianity must be the least important, if Christianity has any type of valid claim to be more "true" than other religions.`
HO! HO! HO! Merry Mithramas!
29 Nov '05 18:14
Back to Top