I recently came across some Nietzsche writings on these ancient religious cults that were prominent in Rome. Unlike the Roman gods, these cults were typically not accepted and their worshipers were typically slaves and laborers. There were some exceptions to these cults' prominence, however, and the main example is Mithraism. Apparently this guy, Mithras, was really awesome and did a number of miraculous things. In fact, he seems to be a copy of Jesus - except this cult existed well before the purported time of Christ. Here are some striking similarities between Christ and Mithras: 1. Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th in a cave, and his birth was attended by shepherds. 2. He was considered a great traveling teacher and master. 3. He had 12 companions or disciples. 4. Mithra's followers were promised immortality. 5. He performed miracles. 6. As the "great bull of the Sun," Mithra sacrificed himself for world peace. 7. He was buried in a tomb and after three days rose again. 8. His resurrection was celebrated every year during Spring. 9. He was called "the Good Shepherd" and identified with both the Lamb and the Lion. 10. He was considered the "Way, the Truth and the Light," and the "Logos," "Redeemer," "Savior" and "Messiah." 11. His sacred day was Sunday, the "Lord's Day," hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ. 12. Mithra had his principal festival of what was later to become Easter. 13. 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." 14. "His annual sacrifice is the passover of the Magi, a symbolical atonement or pledge of moral and physical regeneration." 15. Shmuel Golding is quoted as saying that 1 Cor. 10:4 is "identical words to those found in the Mithraic scriptures, except that the name Mithra is used instead of Christ." 16. The Catholic Encyclopedia is quoted as saying that Mithraic services were conduced by "fathers" and that the "chief of the fathers, a sort of pope, who always lived at Rome, was called 'Pater Patratus.'"
These similarities are a bit too much to ignore, especially considering that most biblical scholars do not accept that Jesus was born on Dec. 25, but this date was absorbed to convert pagans. This really demonstrates that this story was clearly made up, but the Christians under Paul absorbed the story and put their seal on it. There is a refutation of this claim here which deals with the problem from an historical perspective. I would like to point out, though, that Paul would have had considerable exposure to Mithras, as the cult was prominent in the area in which he lived and the Romans did adopt him as a god. So, what do you guys think? Does this show that Christianity is just another made up story, or is there something I'm missing?
I'm surprised that there aren't any replies to this yet.
I always thought that all religions were made up stories (I apologize if I offend anyone.)simply because there never was proof that any of it was real.
I will, however, say that this may well be a severe case of plagiarism. The same things with a different name, and slight variations in details.
Perhaps those slight vairations attracted more people to the religion and thus adopted a new name.
This is all absolutely true, but I would encourage anyone who is skeptic to read the article that refutes this claim. I didn't find the article convincing in the least, it seems like historians that are Christians are just trying to defend their faith in what is clearly (as pedspog pointed out) a plagiarized story.
If Jesus was supposed to be the reincarnation of Mithras, isn't it odd that he didn't show up in Rome, but instead in a colony? And instead of targeting Romans, targeted Jews? And that the Romans considered Christianity a cult of Judaism, and not a cult of their own gods?
As far as there being no proof, there are historians from the time who make reference to Jesus. And they aren't Christian historians, but ones that favored Rome.
Unfortunately I don't have the time to read the whole article you linked, but I would like to point out that they claim that Mithraic scholars do not generally claim that Christianity robbed from Mithras. Except, of course, for art, three to four hundred years after the religion was established. And one of the scenes would suggest that the Jews robbed from Mithras, which doesn't seem to match given the dates of the Jewish stories.
Well, Jesus isn't a reincarnation of Mithras - both of them are just made up stories. It's hard to tell what Romans saw as the roots of Christianity, although both groups believe in the same god, so I can see some confusion with that among the Romans. All of these stories have roots far deeper than the original religion and it is likely that Judaism got many stories from earlier cults.
I bet that comes from the 12 Greek Olympians which probably comes from an earlier story.
4. Mithra's followers were promised immortality. 5. He performed miracles.
Don't all religions promise immortality and talk about miracle nonsense.
8. His resurrection was celebrated every year during Spring.
Most agrarian societies had festivals of rebirth during the planting seasons.
12. Mithra had his principal festival of what was later to become Easter.
I thought Easter was originally a festival for the Saxon god, Eostre.
All modern religions are based on ancient bardic tales, they have no credibility what-so-ever. Another example is that the biblical flood comes from the much earlier Epic of Gilgamesh, or they both share an earlier ancestor; now that I think about it, you could also derive a Jesus figure from Enkidu and Gilgamesh.
I wanted to take a look at this but forgot, but here I am!
1. Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th in a cave, and his birth was attended by shepherds.
From what I understand, Jesus' birthday was not purported to be December 25th, but the celebration happens to be on that day...whether this was due to some kind of merger with some other celebration, I'm not sure. It's suggested that Jesus' birthday was in fact some months later but to my knowledge nobody knows when it really was.
I'm a little unclear on the thrust of this. What are the ramifications of what you're saying, if you believe that both of these are myths or fictional legends? Also, because I'm too tired to construct my own review for assessment, just how compelling is the evidence that this phenomenon preceded Jesus? I don't really care about the Christian refutation because in this day of apologetics, I expect there to be a lot of spurious refutation going on which to me is more like white noise.
The evidence is quite clear that this ancient mystery cult of Mithras did precede the development of Christianity. As far as the Dec. 25th thing and Easter, these celebrations were certainly an attempt to convert pagans to Christianity by having them inadvertently worshiping on a Christian holy day. The aspects of this that I find more compelling are the life details and rituals - especially the whole resurrection thing. My aim here isn't even really to defend the stance I present, but merely to present it. I do think, though, that this significantly undermines whatever evidence Christian historians might have for a real Jesus, but as you point out Strop, the apologetics that seem to just be standard now really muddy the water with as much information as people can pile together. What's funny is most of this evidence is irrelevant, but I guess it looks nice to have a big pile of refutation rather than just a puddle But yeah, to answer your question: I find the evidence extremely compelling and I hope that others might as well.
Which "this" is a total load? Mithraism or the response to Mithraism? If you're saying that Mithraism is false, then you've got a lot of history and historians to contend with.
First off most of these quotes from the bible are from the Roman Catholic version which includes the Apocrapha i think i spelt it right any way these are obvious fiction they completley contradict the bible these books were more like literature then divine writings.
There are only like one or two quotes from the bible in there - and Catholicism was synonymous with Christianity for hundreds of years. Everything else in there has nothing to do with the bible, except that it's just remarkably similar to the supposed life of this Jesus guy.
...these are obvious fiction ... more like literature then divine writings.
I dont mean to offend, but I could say the same thing about the bible.
I could write down my concepts, interpretations, and beleifs in a 1000 page book and turn that into my own 'religion.' Start recruiting people and converting others to believe in what I believe.
Just because you follow one path, doesn't mean that's the only path. Keep an open mind, you may learn something new.
(I would comment more on the original topic, but I have yet to finish reading the artical.)
