Jesus was Mithra Re-Hashed?

[James the Persian]

In the West, the siblings of Jesus were generally explained as being his cousins; in the East, they've generally been thought of as the children of Joseph by a previous wife. Neither explanation has any dogmatic significance in any church.

True. That doesn't mean, though, that we do not consider them His siblings - we do. Legally there is no doubt that they were his siblings as legally Joseph was His father. Also, we simply do not know by what means the Incarnation occurred. It is a Mystery that we simply accept did happen. It would not effect Orthodox faith in the slightest if Christ's human nature had been made by God from the human natures of both the Theotokos and Joseph and if hence, the siblings were biologically, if miraculously, real siblings. Of course such would be rank speculation and is utterly irrelevant to the faith, but we do really mean it when we call people like St. James 'Brother of the Lord'.

However, all the historic churches -- the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian churches -- affirm the perpetual virginity of the Mother of God, and while I'm not sure about the Assyrian Church of the East, it's a point of dogma for at least the first three. A belief in her perpetual virginity was also held by the great reformers -- Luther, Calvin and Zwingli -- and by John Wesley.

Now on this we must disagree. You appear to be misremembering your Orthodox past, because we simply have no Marian dogmas at all. It is a univerasally held belief within the Church (or so close as to mean that I've never come across anyone that doubts it) that the Theotokos was perpetually virgin, but that does not make it dogma. It isn't. Questioning the belief would not put you outside of the Orthodox faith any more than St. John Chrysostom's opinion that the Theotokos sinned at Canaa put him out of the faith - and the belief in the sinlessness of the Theotokos is every bit as universally held and every bit as frequently expressed in the liturgy etc. as is her perpetual virginity.

James

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Being baptized Catholic, I have yet to hear of such a thing being official (enforced) doctine. I have never met a Catholic who subscribes to such a thing.

I spoke about Church teaching, not the beliefs of individual members. And the Catechism of the Catholic Church isn't official?

I imagine the logistical aspects of going around to every Catholic's house to check for condoms would make actual enforcement of the doctrine impractical.

The Church's stance against contraception was among the points of doctrine presented to me in my marriage preparation course, during the "what all the non-Catholics here need to know" session. The instructor didn't use the words "intrinsically evil", but he made it clear that the church did not approve of it.

 

[James the Persian]

I spoke about Church teaching, not the beliefs of individual members. And the Catechism of the Catholic Church isn't official?

I imagine the logistical aspects of going around to every Catholic's house to check for condoms would make actual enforcement of the doctrine impractical.

The Church's stance against contraception was among the points of doctrine presented to me in my marriage preparation course, during the "what all the non-Catholics here need to know" session. The instructor didn't use the words "intrinsically evil", but he made it clear that the church did not approve of it.

What you describe is a peculiarity of the western Church - both Roman Catholic and Protestant. It is not something found in the Christian east - everything God created is good. It is only misuse of His creation that is bad and we have never suffered from the almost Manichaean aversion to the material that has at times afflicted the west (probably because we pay little or no attention to the writings of that ex-Manichaean foundation of western theology Bl. Augustine of Hippo and his disciples). Yet despite this we have never doubted that the Theotokos remained perpetually virgin, so it seems that the trite answer of 'it's because Christians think sex is bad' is no answer at all - sex within marriage, for us in the east, is positively good (to the point where there are canons restricting how long married couples can deny their partner sexual relations - applying to both husband and wife equally, I hasten to add).

James

 

[Mister_T]

I spoke about Church teaching, not the beliefs of individual members.

As did I. Perhaps you misread that part from wiki which I underlined.

the official Catholic teaching regards sexuality as "naturally ordered to the good of spouses" as well as the generation of children.[12]

And the Catechism of the Catholic Church isn't official?

It is susceptable to change.

The Church's stance against contraception was among the points of doctrine presented to me in my marriage preparation course, during the "what all the non-Catholics here need to know" session. The instructor didn't use the words "intrinsically evil", but he made it clear that the church did not approve of it.

Nor do they condemn sex soley for pleasure, which is what it seemed you were getting at.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nor do they condemn sex soley for pleasure, which is what it seemed you were getting at.

I said they condemn sex for sex's sake alone... sex must always have the potential to be procreative.

 

[Mister_T]

I said they condemn sex for sex's sake alone... sex must always have the potential to be procreative.

So does that mean you agree that sex for just pleasure is condemned by the Catholic church?

 

[James the Persian]

I said they condemn sex for sex's sake alone... sex must always have the potential to be procreative.

I'm no Roman Catholic, but I know that this isn't true. If it were then they'd be demanding that post-menopausal women refrained from sex and outlawing 'natural' family planning, and they certainly don't. I don't agree with the Roman Catholic position (I happen to believe that it's based on a prohibition against abortion combined with certain Fathers' ignorance of reproduction) but there are some Orthodox who do. You, however, are certainly misrepresenting their position - they merely believe that men should not artificially interfere with the process. My only question would be why that doesn't equally apply to so called 'natural' family planning.

James

 

[Popeyesays]

I'm no Roman Catholic, but I know that this isn't true. If it were then they'd be demanding that post-menopausal women refrained from sex and outlawing 'natural' family planning, and they certainly don't. I don't agree with the Roman Catholic position (I happen to believe that it's based on a prohibition against abortion combined with certain Fathers' ignorance of reproduction) but there are some Orthodox who do. You, however, are certainly misrepresenting their position - they merely believe that men should not artificially interfere with the process. My only question would be why that doesn't equally apply to so called 'natural' family planning.

James

In my faith sex is unchaste outside of marriage, and marriage should not be companionate.

Family planning that prevents fertilization of an embryo (barrier, chemical) is perfectly acceptable. The use of abortion for birth control is NOT acceptable, neither, really are most IUD's since the IUD allows the formation of a fertilized egg and then "aborts" it by disallowing implantation.

Regards,
Scott

 

[James the Persian]

In my faith sex is unchaste outside of marriage, and marriage should not be companionate.

Family planning that prevents fertilization of an embryo (barrier, chemical) is perfectly acceptable. The use of abortion for birth control is NOT acceptable, neither, really are most IUD's since the IUD allows the formation of a fertilized egg and then "aborts" it by disallowing implantation.

Regards,
Scott

Your position is the same one I and many Orthodox hold. Some agree with the RCs, which is fine as we aren't dogmatic about this stuff, but I've yet to hear anyone give me a reasonable explanation as to how NFP can be OK but barrier methods not. It just seems utterly inconsistent. Of course, we all agree on one thing and that is that contraception is never the ideal and that part of the purpose of marriage is to raise children so, assuming there is no life threatening condition, we would always condemn the use of contraceptives to prevent the conception of all children in a marriage, but not for the purposes of limiting or spacing them (though some, as I said, would condemn this also).

James

 

[wizanda]

I think we are all just a bunch of murdering prophet killers my self.....only thing with Yeshua story is he set everyone a snare...
Just most people follow the lie and think it is some sort of victory.....yet guess that is teh point, that it isn’t seen until the last minute.

 

[Kcnorwood]

Coming from a christian POV O can see why christians fight so hard to disprove this theory. But Correct me If I'm wrong but Constine put the bible toghether useing alot of the myths from the Mithra cult. There is too much information showing how they used Mithra for a bases. Being born from a virgin wasn't very original & Jesus wasn't the first nor was dieing for man's sin. I won't say that Jesus is a direct copy of Mithra but he's VERY close.
I'd have to say Christany it's self has alot of Pagan ideas mixed with it, not just Mirthra.

 

[Halcyon]

But Correct me If I'm wrong but Constine put the bible toghether useing alot of the myths from the Mithra cult. There is too much information showing how they used Mithra for a bases. Being born from a virgin wasn't very original & Jesus wasn't the first nor was dieing for man's sin. I won't say that Jesus is a direct copy of Mithra but he's VERY close.
I'd have to say Christany it's self has alot of Pagan ideas mixed with it, not just Mirthra.

Youre wrong.
Constantine didn't "put the bible together", he called assemblies of bishops to define what the official version of Christianity would be.

Mithra was born of a rock, not a virgin - unless you count rocks as virgins.

Give me another God who died to wipe away man's sin.

 

[Kcnorwood]

Youre wrong.
Constantine didn't "put the bible together", he called assemblies of bishops to define what the official version of Christianity would be.

Mithra was born of a rock, not a virgin - unless you count rocks as virgins.

Give me another God who died to wipe away man's sin.

I never said he was born of a virgin but there were other Pagans Gods who were.

As far as putting the bible toghether man put what he wanted to in it, which I think makes it flawed but thats not the issue here. Lets not forget that Christiany is very young compared to other religions. The teachings of Budda even pre-date Jesus & if you read the parables of Budda & the teachings of Christ they both read alomost the same, only Budda came some 400 B.C.. Even the other Pagan christs healed the sick.
Sorry but once again too much in common.

 

[Halcyon]

I never said he was born of a virgin but there were other Pagans Gods who were.

As far as putting the bible toghether man put what he wanted to in it, which I think makes it flawed but thats not the issue here. Lets not forget that Christiany is very young compared to other religions. The teachings of Budda even pre-date Jesus & if you read the parables of Budda & the teachings of Christ they both read alomost the same, only Budda came some 400 B.C.. Even the other Pagan christs healed the sick.
Sorry but once again too much in common.

You still haven't given me that God who died for man's sins.

 

[Kcnorwood]

You still haven't given me that God who died for man's sins.

The Roman mythology of Mithras says Mithras was born of an egg not a rock & then later on dies in a cave & is resurrected which os what Jesus is said to have done. I've heard that Mithras died for mans sins & theres another but I'll have to look it up. I have no problem admitting that I might be wrong here but I do have to say that sin is a christian idea not a Pagan idea, so you might be right on that part.

 

[Pariah]

Actually, this idea stems from the Hindu God Mithra, a very minor deity in India, which after Alexander went Westwards to Rome.

Everyone always forgets about India.

 

[Popeyesays]

There's a lot of mention of Mithra in Zoroastrianism

"1.
O Maker of the material world, thou Holy one! Which is the
first place where the Earth feels most happy? Ahura Mazda answered:
'It is the place whereon one of the faithful steps forward, O
Spitama Zarathushtra! with the log in his hand, the Baresma in
his hand, the milk in his hand, the mortar in his hand, lifting
up his voice in good accord with religion, and beseeching Mithra,
the lord of the rolling country-side, and Rama Hvastra.'
(The Zend-Avesta, Avesta - Vendidad)

54.
Down there the pain for that deed shall be as hard as any
in this world: to wit, the deed of a man, who knowingly lying,
confronts the brimstoned, golden, truth-knowing water with an
appeal unto Rashnu and a lie unto Mithra.
(The Zend-Avesta, Avesta - Vendidad)

15.
Zarathushtra imitated my words from me, (and said): 'I invoke
the holy creation of Ahura Mazda.
'I invoke Mithra, the lord of the rolling countryside, a god armed
with beautiful weapons, with the most glorious of all weapons,
with the most victorious of all weapons.
'I invoke the holy, well-formed Sraosha', who wields a club in
his hand, to bear upon the heads of the fiends'.
(The Zend-Avesta, Avesta - Vendidad)

28.
Ahura Mazda answered: 'When the man is dead, when his time
is over, then the wicked, evil-doing Daevas cut off his eyesight.
On the third night, when the dawn appears and brightens up, when
Mithra, the god with beautiful weapons, reaches the all-happy
mountains, and the sun is rising:
(The Zend-Avesta, Avesta - Vendidad)

6. We sacrifice to the immortal, radiant, swift-horsed Sun. We
sacrifice to Mithra of wide cattle pastures,
Whose word is true, who is of the assembly,
Who has a thousand ears, the well-shaped one,
Who has ten thousand eyes, the exalted one,
Who has wide knowledge, the helpful one,
Who sleeps not, the ever wakeful.
7. We sacrifice to Mithra
The lord of all countries,
Whom Ahura Mazda created the most glorious
Of the supernatural yazads.
So may there come to us for aid
Both Mithra and Ahura, the two exalted ones.
We sacrifice to the immortal,
Radiant, swift-horsed Sun.
(The Zend-Avesta, Khorda Avesta - Book of Common Prayer pt. 1)


There are about four hundred other mentions in the Avestas.

regards,
Scott

 

[Pariah]

Those passages make sense. Mithra, in Hinduism, is in charge of rain, the seasons, and the harvest in old Hinduism.

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?

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

 

[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.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Pariah]

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.

Regards,
Scott

Rama and Krishna are technically two different individuals. Krishna appears at a far later date in the Mahabharata, another epic, and Rama far before him, in the Ramayana.

Vishnu is the source of both of them.

Which two does Baha'u'llah refer to as Manifestations of God?