so where does the followers' story say that? That's not how it goes. The Mithras story may have been from an old pagan festival which then was manipulated AFTER Christ--not before. Do they claim their god lived among them within 500 years? And where is the Casper religion where people are willing to die rather than deny the ghost? Irrelevant. At least YOU are trying to stay on topic. Thanks.
As has already been pointed out; Worship does not mean a person existed. ALL New Testament Texts were written after Iesous' supposed death. None of the writers actually knew such a person.
Paul did. He was there and persecuted Jesus and Christians. He also was in close contact with Peter and the Apostles.
That is incorrect. The church fathers knew Mithra and his baptism, god meal, etc were first! The devil led the heathen to anticipate Christ with respect to several things, as the mysteries of the Eucharist, etc. "And this very solemnity (says St. Justin) the evil spirit introduced into the mysteries of Mithra." (Reeves, Justin, p. 86) Since the waters are getting muddied by Christian groups trying to disprove certain historians I decided to look for Christian info, and ancient quotes. Most of these are from Christian Church Fathers. The ancient historian Plutarch mentioned Mithraism in connection with the pirates of Cilicia in Asia Minor encountering the Roman general Pompey in 67 BC. Tertullian Praescr, ch 40 - says that the followers of Mithra practiced baptism by water, and made a sign on the forehead of the baptized person. He appears to have lived an incarnate life on earth, and in some unknown manner to have suffered death for the good of mankind, an image symbolizing his resurrection being employed in his ceremonies [Tertullian, /Praescr/., ch. 40.]. Mithras cave-temple on the Vatican Hill was seized by Christians in 376 A.D. (John Holland Smith, The Death of Classical Paganism at 146) . Christian bishops of Rome pre-empted even the Mithraic high priests title of Pater Patrum, which became Papa, or Pope. (Homer Smith, Man and His Gods at 252). Mithras statue at Vatican. http://www.timelessmyths.com/classical/gallery/mithra.jpg Catholic Encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10402a.htm As Mithraism passed as a Phrygian cult it began to share in the official recognition which Phrygian worship had long enjoyed in Rome. The Emperor Commodus was publicly initiated. Its greatest devotee however was the imperial son of a priestess of the sun-god at Sirmium in Pannonia, Valerian, who according to the testimony of Flavius Vopiscus never forgot the cave where his mother initiated him. In Rome, he established a college of sun priests and his coins bear the legend "Sol, Dominus Imperii Romani". Diocletian, Galerius, and Licinius built at Carnuntum on the Danube a temple to Mithra with the dedication: "Fautori Imperii Sui". But with the triumph of Christianity Mithraism came to a sudden end. Under Julian it had with other pagan cults a short revival. The pagans of Alexandria lynched George the Arian, bishop of the city, for attempting to build a church over a Mithras cave near the town. There were seven degrees of initiation into the mithraic mysteries. The consecrated one (mystes) became in succession crow (corax), occult (cryphius), soldier (miles), lion (leo), Persian (Perses), solar messenger (heliodromos), and father (pater). On solemn occasions they wore a garb appropriate to their name, and uttered sounds or performed gestures in keeping with what they personified. "Some flap their wings as birds imitating the sound of a crow, others roar as lions", says Pseudo-Augustine (Quaest. Vet. N. Test. In P.L., XXXIV, 2214). The chief of the fathers, a sort of pope, who always lived at Rome, was called "Pater Patrum" or Pater Patratus." The members below the degree of pater called one another "brother," From a chance remark of Tertullian (De Praescriptione, xl) we gather that their "Pater Patrum" was only allowed to be married once, and that Mithraism had its virgines and continentes; The Mitharic festival of Epiphany, marking the arrival of the sun-priests or Magi at the Saviors birthplace, was adopted by the Christian church only as late as 813 A. D. Brewster, 55.
It's uncertain. The iconography is unclear on that matter. Archeologists have not yet found any written documentation of their narrative, though it is strongly suspected that the followers of Mithras did believe he walked among men. Mithraism certainly predates Christianity, possibly by centuries. Pick a religion. Virtually any religion tells a story of revelation by the deity, often with either a prophet or son of that deity walking around proclaiming "the truth". Then the prophet or demigod dies. So what if Christians had the twist of saying their messianic figure was god rather than merely a messenger of god? Irrelevant from a structural standpoint, and not indicative of special faith. Almost all religions have fanatics willing to die rather than deny their religion, no matter how absurd that religion seems to outsiders.
No Biblical historians believe ANY of the texts "with apostle names" where actually written by them. They were written later.
Interesting that you would ENTIRELY IGNORE the last section of your link that describes the relationship of Mithraism to Christianity. What--did you think I wouldn't click on your source or read it? Relation to Christianity A similarity between Mithra and Christ struck even early observers, such as Justin, Tertullian, and other Fathers, and in recent times has been urged to prove that Christianity is but an adaptation of Mithraism, or at most the outcome of the same religious ideas and aspirations (e.g. Robertson, "Pagan Christs", 1903). Against this erroneous and unscientific procedure, which is not endorsed by the greatest living authority on Mithraism, the following considerations must be brought forward. (1) Our knowledge regarding Mithraism is very imperfect; some 600 brief inscriptions, mostly dedicatory, some 300 often fragmentary, exiguous, almost identical monuments, a few casual references in the Fathers or Acts of the Martyrs, and a brief polemic against Mithraism which the Armenian Eznig about 450 probably copied from Theodore of Mopsuestia (d. 42 who lived when Mithraism was almost a thing of the past these are our only sources, unless we include the Avesta in which Mithra is indeed mentioned, but which cannot be an authority for Roman Mithraism with which Christianity is compared. Our knowledge is mostly ingenious guess-work; of the real inner working of Mithraism and the sense in which it was understood by those who professed it at the advent of Christianity, we know nothing. (2) Some apparent similarities exist; but in a number of details it is quite probable that Mithraism was the borrower from Christianity. Tertullian about 200 could say: "hesterni sumus et omnia vestra implevimus" ("we are but of yesterday, yet your whole world is full of us"). It is not unnatural to suppose that a religion which filled the whole world, should have been copied at least in some details by another religion which was quite popular during the third century. Moreover the resemblances pointed out are superficial and external. Similarity in words and names is nothing; it is the sense that matters. During these centuries Christianity was coining its own technical terms, and naturally took names, terms, and expressions current in that day; and so did Mithraism. But under identical terms each system thought its own thoughts. Mithra is called a mediator; and so is Christ; but Mithra originally only in a cosmogonic or astronomical sense; Christ, being God and man, is by nature the Mediator between God and man. And so in similar instances. Mithraism had a Eucharist, but the idea of a sacred banquet is as old as the human race and existed at all ages and amongst all peoples. Mithra saved the world by sacrificing a bull; Christ by sacrificing Himself. It is hardly possible to conceive a more radical difference than that between Mithra taurochtonos and Christ crucified. Christ was born of a Virgin; there is nothing to prove that the same was believed of Mithra born from the rock. Christ was born in a cave; and Mithraists worshipped in a cave, but Mithra was born under a tree near a river. Much as been made of the presence of adoring shepherds; but their existence on sculptures has not been proven, and considering that man had not yet appeared, it is an anachronism to suppose their presence. (3) Christ was an historical personage, recently born in a well-known town of Judea, and crucified under a Roman governor, whose name figured in the ordinary official lists. Mithra was an abstraction, a personification not even of the sun but of the diffused daylight; his incarnation, if such it may be called, was supposed to have happened before the creation of the human race, before all history. The small Mithraic congregations were like masonic lodges for a few and for men only and even those mostly of one class, the military; a religion that excludes the half of the human race bears no comparison to the religion of Christ. Mithraism was all comprehensive and tolerant of every other cult, the Pater Patrum himself was an adept in a number of other religions; Christianity was essential exclusive, condemning every other religion in the world, alone and unique in its majesty. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10402a.htm
Baloney--they ar letters DIRECTLY written to congregations set up in various cities facing specific issues. Hence--the name "The letter to the Ephesians" or "The Epistle to the Romans." What are you talking about? That's basic information.
Again - that is not correct. He never met Iesous - he claimed to have a vision of him after his death. Acts 9:1-40.
You are being incredibly vague when asked for specifics. Do you think the guy Mohammed didn't live? Why do you think Jesus didn't live?
You are moving the goal post. You didn't say "met" him. Jesus was a contemporary of Paul. They lived at the same time. So what if he never "met" Jesus in person. Paul wrote a goodly portion of the New Testament and he "knew" Jesus in that they were both alive at the same time and later had friends in common. I "know" our president, though I've never met him.
LOL! I gave you the actual words of those ancient historians and church fathers - and they obviously say Mithra was before them. The link was extra material for newer church ideas.
I'm not sure why you except Mohammed -- the objections being made would apply to him also -- but few if any professional historians would agree with these claims that there is no evidence for the founders of "great" religions. The evidence of Zoroaster is pretty scanty; but I doubt anyone would say there was NO evidence. Unfortunately this is mistaken. No ancient source records Mithras as a man, walking among men. The idea that Mithras was "very similar" to Jesus is a mistake. All the best, Roger Pearse
Perhaps you would specify which monuments show Mithras as a man and which professional Mithras specialists "strongly suspect" this? Neither is attested, to the best of my knowledge. If so, it is curious that no ancient source dating before AD 80 mentions him. This is, I suspect, a confusion between Persian Mitra and Roman Mithras. Including your own? All the best, Roger Pearse
Interesting ... let's see this. The devil led the heathen to anticipate Christ with respect to several things, as the mysteries of the Eucharist, etc. "And this very solemnity (says St. Justin) the evil spirit introduced into the mysteries of Mithra." (Reeves, Justin, p. 86) [/quote] I'm not sure what I am looking at here, but it is not a quotation from Justin. Ancient sources are always the right thing to seek. Indeed he did. But since all the archaeology from the area relates to Mithra, rather than Mithras, modern scholars consider that he was confused about the difference between the two. Plutarch himself was writing ca. 110 AD. This is not a quotation from Tertullian. Nor is this, and Tertullian says nothing of the kind. This is not an ancient source, and there is no Mithraeum on the Vatican hill. This is not an ancient source, and you do not indicate why we should consider this person a reliable source. You mean, in the modern Vatican museum? (The link does not seem to work) This is a 1911 publication. Mithraic studies changed radically in 1971, after half a century of archaeology. How much of this is in fact from the Catholic Encyclopedia article? Not all, I think. Perhaps we might have some clearer indication? Always verify your facts. Those with animosity towards Christianity will believe almost anything, however absurd, it seems, so long as it suits them. All the best, Roger Pearse
The ancient evidence -- by the people who lived in antiquity -- on the other hand is unanimous that they were. I'm not sure how you know that "no biblical historians believe...", but if it is so, I'm not sure why we would believe an appeal to authority of people living 2,000 years later and writing about a controversial subject, over the evidence of the historical record.
Peter also wrote at least one of the books: 1 Peter. There is no "fudging"--that's how I read your post--as contemporaries--because you claimed the books were written long after Jesus. That is not true. Paul was a contemporary, and Peter was close friends with the man Jesus of Nazareth. Your statement is in ERROR.
And I said the story was there, but the parts that seem to mirror Jesus are AFTER or at least contemporary. Your source says so.
Or just Google "dates of New Testament texts." In fact here is a Christian site that has them and the dates on the first page. http://www.freebeginning.com/new_testament_dates/
And...Jesus died around 33 AD, so it was written approximately 3o years after his death... Seems you are supporting my position that the books are by people who lived during the time of Jesus.
So you claim to be a bigger expert than people who study the Bible for a living? Biblical scholars confirm that the Apostles did NOT were the books that are named for them. They weren't even written down for decades after Jesus's death.
