Jesus was Mithra Re-Hashed?

[Popeyesays]

Some archaeologists believe that Zoroastrianism and early Hinduism started around the same time, and the language used in Vedas (core Hindu scriptures) as well as the Avestas are proto-Sanskrit. They purport that Zoroastrianism broke from Hinduism or that they developed at the same time and underwent a "literature war" - calling one another's Gods as false and what not, but never actually physically fought.

For example, Indra is the chief deity of the Hindu Gods (but below Vishnu, Shiva, and Brahma), but instead, in Zoroastrianism, but one of the six demons.

Deva, in Sanskrit, means "God", but in the Avesta, is a demon.

Interesting, no?

Who is Rama Hvastra?
The name Rama is the name of an incarnation of Vishnu in the epic "The Ramayana". More similarities.

Interesting, yes. It's very hard to date Krishna, but there is little doubt that there is a commonality. Baha`u'llah refers to both as Manifestations of God.

I would think "Rama" means much the same in Persian as in Hindi. There is no doubt that Persian became a lingua franca between the Mediterranean and China, following the silk trade.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Pariah]

I would think "Rama" means much the same in Persian as in Hindi. There is no doubt that Persian became a lingua franca between the Mediterranean and China, following the silk trade.

Woah! We need to scroll back a few centuries. Zoroastrianism and Hinduism probably had their feud around 2000 B.C. Somehow I doubt the Persian language as we know it today affected Hindi in the same way Sanskrit did.

The Silk Road didn't begin until much later.

The language both groups spoke was proto-Sanskrit, an early form of Sanskrit using Aryan loan words no doubt. After Zoroastrians moved Westward, their language became Persian and proto-Sanskrit became Classical Sanskrit. Which is why we have the Indo-European chain, and why Persian, Latin, and Sanskrit are closely related.

Plus, Persian didn't really affect Hindi until the Middle Ages when Muslims invaded India and used it as their court language.

 

[Popeyesays]

The Achmaenid Kings are associated with Zarathustra and they definitely spoke Persian.

Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities (1898)

Regards,
Scott

 

[Pariah]

The Achmaenid Kings are associated with Zarathustra and they definitely spoke Persian.

Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities (1898)

Regards,
Scott

That's fine, but Zoroaster is much, much older than the Achmaenid Dynasty.

 

[Popeyesays]

That's fine, but Zoroaster is much, much older than the Achmaenid Dynasty.

Maybe, maybe not. He's older, but how much older? There is tradition that Zoroaster was accepted as a prophet by one of the earliest Achmaenids and actually lived under royal patronage for the last years of His life.

Tradition has always located Him in western Iran, but there is pretty good reason to locate Him as far away as Turkemenistan, and some opinion that He might have originated as far awau to the east as Afghanistan. The earliest surviving Avestas are in Middle Persian, not Sanskrit.

Of course, both Sanskrit and Persian are Indo European Languages so some overlap is to be expected. I would point out, however, that just because Sanskrit is so very early as a written language does not mean that Early Persian was not created at the same time or in isolation from Sanskrit the spoken language.

Regards,

Scott

 

[Pariah]

Honestly, I don't know what we're arguing about, if at all, we are arguing.

The earliest surviving Avestas are in Middle Persian, not Sanskrit.

Without sounding rude - no, they're not.
The old Avestan language of Gathas was used by Zoroaster himself, as 17 hymns of the Avesta claim to be, using a language extremely similar to proto-Sanskrit or early Sanskrit. Old Persian and Old Sanskrit are essentially the same language.

I have no doubt that they have similar words.

Of course, both Sanskrit and Persian are Indo European Languages so some overlap is to be expected.

Quite possible.

I would point out, however, that just because Sanskrit is so very early as a written language does not mean that Early Persian was not created at the same time or in isolation from Sanskrit the spoken language.

Well, Old Persian and Old Sanskrit tend to be same thing, so I have no doubt.

 

[Popeyesays]

I'm not entirely sure there are any older surviving Avestas than the Middle Persian versions. At least I have never seen any, nor heard of any.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Pariah]

I'm not entirely sure there are any older surviving Avestas than the Middle Persian versions. At least I have never seen any, nor heard of any.

Regards,
Scott

I went back and re-did some of my research.
Apparently, the oldest surviving texts come from the 13th and 4th century A.D., found in India. The Videvdad, is the oldest of them, found in India dating from the above listed dates and is written in both Old Iranian (which is similar to Old Sanskrit) and Middle Persian (Pahlavi), which you're talking about.

Showcases :: Zoroastrian lawbook, the Videvdad

 

[Popeyesays]

Do we know how it got to India in the first place? Was it there all along or was it brought there in the mass emigration of Zoroastrians in the 7th century AD as Islam swamped out the Persian religion?

Regards,
Scott

 

[Pariah]

Do we know how it got to India in the first place? Was it there all along or was it brought there in the mass emigration of Zoroastrians in the 7th century AD as Islam swamped out the Persian religion?

Regards,
Scott

The site doesn't say, but I have no doubt that Zoroastrians brought it. However, its present location cannot nullify the language in which it is written, that is, Old Iranian, or the Old Avestan language.

 

[Popeyesays]

You know there are some historians who speculate there were two Zarathustras historically. I don't think it is the most obvious truth, but one cannot discount it.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Pariah]

You know there are some historians who speculate there were two Zarathustras historically. I don't think it is the most obvious truth, but one cannot discount it.

Regards,
Scott

Good stuff.
As always with ancient sources, it is always a possibility.

 

[logician]

Parallels between Jesus and other mythical gods:

Prophesied birth

Sun​

Jesus

Buddha




[Earthly] father was a carpenter

Jesus




Krishna

Was given gifts at birth

Jesus

Buddha


Krishna

Birth was accompanied by "wise men" and/or angles
Sun /
Mushroom
Jesus

Buddha

Horus / Osiris
Krishna
Mithra
Birth was signaled by a star
Sun
Jesus

Buddha

Horus / Osiris
Krishna

Born of a virgin
Sun /
Mushroom
Jesus
Attis of Phrygia
Buddha
Dionysus / Baccaus
Horus / Osiris
Krishna
Mithra
Born on Dec. 25th
Sun
Jesus
Attis of Phrygia
Buddha
Dionysus / Baccaus
Horus / Osiris
Krishna
Mithra
Born under poor conditions
Sun
Jesus


Dionysus / Baccaus
Horus / Osiris

Mithra
Crush serpents head
Mushroom
Jesus

Buddha


Krishna

Was both Divine Son and Father

Jesus
Attis of Phrygia





Came to fulfill the Law.

Jesus

Buddha

Horus / Osiris


Was of royal decent

Jesus

Buddha

Horus / Osiris


Taught in a temple at 12
Sun
Jesus

Buddha

Horus / Osiris


Had 12 deciples
Sun
Jesus



Horus / Osiris

Mithra
Baptized with water
Mushroom
Jesus

Buddha

Horus / Osiris


Disappeared at a young age and returned, preaching, when he was in early 30s
Sun
Jesus



Horus / Osiris


Used mostly parables in his teachings
Mushroom
Jesus




Krishna

"Body as Bread" eaten by worshipers
Mushroom
Jesus
Attis of Phrygia

Dionysus / Baccaus


Mithra
Performed miracles
Mushroom
Jesus

Buddha

Horus / Osiris
Krishna

Healed the sick
Sun /
Mushroom
Jesus

Buddha


Krishna

Fed masses, with a small amount of bread
Mushroom
Jesus

Buddha




Walked on water
Sun
Jesus

Buddha

Horus / Osiris


Followers took vows of poverty
Mushroom
Jesus

Buddha




Gave a sermon on he Mount
Mushroom
Jesus



Horus / Osiris


Was transfigured on a Mount
Mushroom
Jesus

Buddha

Horus / Osiris


Died on a cross

Jesus
Attis of Phrygia
Buddha
Dionysus / Baccaus
Horus / Osiris
Krishna

Died on a cross between two thieves
Sun
Jesus



Horus / Osiris
Krishna

Died for all mankind
Sun
Jesus
Attis of Phrygia

Dionysus / Baccaus

Krishna
Mithra
Descended into the underworld (hell)
Sun
Jesus
Attis of Phrygia





Buried for three days.
Sun
Jesus
Attis of Phrygia


Horus / Osiris

Mithra
Tomb opened by supernatural powers
Mushroom
Jesus

Buddha




Resurrected from the dead
Sun
Jesus

Buddha
Dionysus / Baccaus
Horus / Osiris
Krishna
Mithra
Ascended into Nirvana (heaven)

Jesus

Buddha


Krishna

Was the second person in the trinity
Sun
Jesus






Will someday return to return order and judge the dead.
Sun
Jesus

Buddha


Krishna

Said to reign for 1000 years

Jesus

 

[Popeyesays]

There is no evidence at all that Jesus was born on the 25th of December.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Kcnorwood]

Thanks for those I wasn't able to find my links to my information cats walked all over my keyboard & deleated some things! :sad4:

 

[Kcnorwood]

There is no evidence at all that Jesus was born on the 25th of December.

Regards,

Scott[/quote Your right but they placed it just close enough to the Pagan holiday's to make it there's

 

[logician]

There is no evidence at all that Jesus was born on the 25th of December.

Regards,
Scott

Or any other day for that matter.

 

[Pariah]

I cannot speak for many of the other deities listed, but Krishna does not fit many of those.

1. Krishna was not born of a virgin. He was the eighth son of Devaki through sex.

2. Krishna's father was not a carpenter. His father, Vasudeva, was a high-ranking officer in the army.

2. Krishna is not considered to have been born on December 25th. The celebration of Krishna in India, is Krishna Janmashtami, and generally takes place in August-September.

3. Krishna was born under poor conditions. He was born in an underground prison cell.

4. Krishna danced on a serpents head to kill it. I doubt anyone else did that.

5. Krishna was of royal descent.

6. Krishna was not resurrected from the dead. His death is the last event in that particular scripture. He didn't come back.

And this takes the cake:
For Vishnu's sake, Krishna did not die on a cross, let alone between two thieves!

Personally, this vast separation in stories shows only the shoddiness of your research. I cringe to accept any of the others considering this.

 

[Popeyesays]

Or any other day for that matter.

There is no reason to assume there was NOT an historical Jesus.

Regards,
Scott

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is no reason to assume there was NOT an historical Jesus.

Really?

Despite any problems with logician's list, there are a crazy number of similarities between Jesus and characters in earlier religious stories... enough that, IMO, the chances that a person literally existed who actually matched them are so slim as to be effectively zero.