Paganism, the father of religion

[Wolfborne]

Don't flame me over the title. Read first, then respond. I will not get into a fight or flamefest. I intend to be civil throughout the entirety of this post...

It is no secret that religions borrow ideas, beliefs or themes from one another. For every concept you find in whatever religion you choose, you'll find an older and very similar concept elsewhere. If you look back over recorded history (and keep an open mind) you'll see this happen time and again.

Probably the most well known copycats were the Greeks and Romans. As they conquered land and people, they would often adopt concepts of different religions throughout their empire. Remember Alexander the Great? The various Caesars? Constantine and the Council of Nicea?

Without going into every single religion in the world and the ties to paganism, let's focus on a few more prominent ones, such as Judaism, Catholicsm and Christianity. This study is merely for edcucational and comparative purposes. I am by no means "picking" on any single religion or group of people.

Jesus was the son of Mary, a virgin (or not) that gave birth to the messiah. This "virgin birth" story is actually a copy from much older pagan stories. Romulus was also the son of god, born of a virgin woman. As was Alexander the Great, Augustus, Dionysus, Scipio Africanus, and the list goes on. Every major culture throughout the world and over the course of time has a similar "god man" story. Humans tend to glorify their folk heroes.

Jesus healed a blind man and turned water into wine, yes? Vespatian also healed a blind man with his spittle, and Dionysus turned water into wine, two older pagan stories with striking similarities to Jesus.

Jesus ordered Lazarus to be raised from the dead. Apollonius raised a dead girl, in yet again, an older pagan story...and this was not the only incident of resurrection. This has happened countless times in mythology...or what we now term mythology as it could not have possible have happened, right? Are you starting to see a theme here?

To go further into ancient history (or myth...that have to start somewhere):

Pythia was a priestess who foretold of prophecies that actually came true over the course of 1,000 years!

Gilgamesh had an "arc" and flood story that long predates Noah.

Isis was the mother of God, long before Mary.

Plato was born from the virgin Amphictione, fathered by Apollo, thus giving him his divinity and mortality.

Pagans purified themselves with water, to include baptism, long before Christianity was even a thought (by 1,000s of years).

The "soul" is an original pagan idea, as is the afterlife. For many pagans, long before the time of Jesus, heaven was known as the Elysian Fields and hell was known as Hades. This, of course, depends on which culture you choose to look at. Vikings called heaven "Valhalla."

God vs. gods...the Old Testament talks about other gods, and that they should not be worshipped. That is acknowledgement that there was more than one god floating around. The Egyptian god Osiris offered his people happiness in "heaven" long before the Jewish/Christian god. Demeter's sacred rites also led people to heaven. If anything, OT hebrews were "heno-theists," which simply means they thought their god was "cooler" than everyone else's. If you actually understand the OT (not just skim over it) you'll see that.

In short, there is so much documented HISTORICAL evidence that religions evolved from simple paganistic beliefs from ancient humans. You have to be open minded, you have to actually dig into history and research, and you have to understand what was going on in the world at the time (regardless of era).

So, which religion is right or wrong? All of them.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

There is evidence of religious beliefs going back as far as 200,000 years. Primarily a few little hand carved statues. One of a mother goddes figure, the other of a man with a lion's head. From what I remember, animism is the first somewhat consistent religious theme we are aware of. different physical objects have 'spirits.' A rock where someone fell over dead for example, may be seen as a bad spirit. This may have led to pan theology and/or totemism. Totemism basically takes the sprite object and makes it a protective spirit. Maybe a rounded river stone is taken and prayed over to imbue the river spirt as a protection. The stone is then carried on a chain around the neck. I'm hardly an expert, but I agree.

I believe it is analogues to evolution of ideas. We have a need to close the gap of reason. We may never really know, but we think, talk, and interact, and we take what makes the most sense and that becomes our working model. We become very emotionally attached to these because it represents the most important aspect of survival, our understanding of the world around us. When we are introduced to new ideas, we usually reject them. This is a good thing because if we have spent much time knowing what the best model was, there is every reason to resist a new model. But over time, ideas that make more sense catch on. The evolution of religion demonstrates all over the world that beliefs change from generations to generation. That's because non of them make for an entirely coherent story, so people sit around and fill in the gaps. And what makes sense, changes from generation to generation based on our knowledge. The empirical demonstration that the earth was round in the third center BCE forced many religions to rethink their doctrine over the next 1000 years.

Doctrine, is nothing more than the attempt to standardize and enforce the belief system and prevent the introduction of new ideas.

To answer your question, none of them.

 

[Me Myself]

Jesus was the son of Mary, a virgin (or not) that gave birth to the messiah. This "virgin birth" story is actually a copy from much older pagan stories. Romulus was also the son of god, born of a virgin woman. As was Alexander the Great, Augustus, Dionysus, Scipio Africanus, and the list goes on. Every major culture throughout the world and over the course of time has a similar "god man" story. Humans tend to glorify their folk heroes.

Why do people always feel the need to put virginity into so many mothers of gods and such? Dionysus mother Selene was not virgin. (like Zeus liked to have his children without his fun ) . I dont find anythign about alexander´s mother believed to be virgin, nor about Romulus and Remus, where sometimes Ares is thought to be the father, others Hercules, etc.

I would love any source from where you get that any of the figures you mention allegedly weere born of a virgin mother.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Regarding parrallels of Jesus and other divinities, Mithra can be traced back as far as 1500 BCE. His worship spread through much of the known world in several different variants. He was absorbed by Rome beginning 70 BCE, and gained significantly in followers throughout the middle east and eastern Europe from 80 to 120 CE when his cult reached Rome itself. His worship reached its peak around 200 CE and seems to have gone by the wayside sometime around 300 CE. While this time period covers the fall of the Maccabees to rome, through the cannonization, I would not think likely that the authors borrowed. However, the beliefs of his cults documented back to 1500 BC.

Some of he beliefs are that Mithra was born on December 25th of the virgin Anahita. The babe was wrapped in swaddling clothes, placed in a manger and attended by shepherds. He was considered a great traveling teacher and master. He had 12 disciples. He performed miracles. As the "great bull of the Unconquered Sun," Mithra sacrificed himself for world peace, his blood became the creation, and he ascended into heaven. He was called the “Good Shepherd,” the "Way, the Truth and the Light," the “Redeemer,” the “Savior,” the “Messiah.” Mithra is omniscient, as he "hears all, sees all, knows all: none can deceive him." He was identified with both the Lion and the Lamb. His sacred day was Sunday, "the Lord's Day," hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ. His religion had a Eucharist or "Lord's Supper" where his followers consumed his body and blood to cleanse their sins. Mithra "sets his marks on the foreheads of his soldiers." Mithraism required baptism (in bull’s blood).

Of note is that in 275 AD, just before the cult seems to have vanished, Emperor Aurulean formally recognized December 25 as the birthday of the Invincible Sun, as Mithra was known. It was had been the largest annual roman celebration for quite some time and included decorating the houses and public places with conifer trees and branches, feasting, and the exchange of gifts. Prior to this time there are records of celebrating the birth of jesus on January 5th, January 6th, March 25th, March 28th, April 19th, April 20th, May 20th, August 21st, November 17th and November 19th. I can’t seem to find much else, other than the worship of Mithra became a death sentence and by 345 CE (70 years) his cult was dead and calendar of Filocalus or Philocalian marks December 25 as natus Christus in Betleem Iudeae: "Birth of Christ in Bethlehem Judea."

Now that’s odd, the 27 books of the new testament weren't formallized until the Council of Trullan in 692 CE. But it does seem they came more or less universally agreed upon by around 350 CE, 5 years after Mithra's cult vanished completely and Jesus's birthday was first celebrated on December 25.

 

[Wolfborne]

...Dionysus mother Selene was not virgin...

Actually, his mother's name was Semele, not Selene, unless of course you refer to the Cretan version in which case his mother's name was Persephone. It all depends on which culture you go with and "who borrowed what from whom" in telling of the story.

Which, of course, illustrates my entire point, which is the actual focus of my post.

 

[Riverwolf]

Vikings called heaven "Valhalla."

Except Valhalla has virtually nothing in common with the Christian heaven. Valhalla is Odin's grand hall, situated in Asgard; only half of the slain go there. The other half goes to Fólkvangr, which is a field ruled over by the Goddess Freya.

 

[Sylvan]

I think the whole pagan/whateverelse division should be seen as a social tool in a historical context and nothing more. Obviously there are many possible interpretations of the data related to early christianity. But modern use of the term is loaded upon many salient factors: 1) the use to signify an opposition to civilization. This, I believe, ultimately came to our current lexicon from its use as a term in situations of colonial oppression and genocide of Africans, Native Americans, South Asians etc. Their ways were pagan generally and had to be replaced or eradicated in order to fit into the new 'economy'. 'Beliefs' tended to change as a consequence of the result of these more concrete socioeconomic forces.
2) The modern use to signify a variety of disparate countercultural religious communities and the putative values assumed to be held by them.

Either way I think calling Paganism with a capitol P as the father of religion is essentially flawed. I like the idea of pointing out that the Abrahamic religions didn't emerge from a vacuum (quite the opposite), but religion is just what religion is. Creating discussions and debates like this is what RF is all about so have at it. But I think as an inevitable result of the evolution of consciousness we will never be able to form a credible opinion about what people thought in the distant past. They simply didn't think like us. This continues, therefore many children born today will have no idea how people thought certain beliefs uncommon but still present in the generations of our grandparents.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Regarding parrallels of Jesus and other divinities, Mithra can be traced back as far as 1500 BCE. His worship spread through much of the known world in several different variants. He was absorbed by Rome beginning 70 BCE

Could you provide your source for the above? Thanks

Beck's contribution to the edited volume Religious Rivalries in the Early Roman Empire and the Rise of Christianity (vol. 18 of the edited monograph series Studies in Christianity and Judaism; 2006) is informative here: "There is, incidentally, no evidence for the existence of typical Roman Mithraism prior to the very late first century CE. Most accounts of Mithraism place its genesis in the mid-first century CE. My late foundation scenario avoids the awkward evidential silence over the interval." (p. 182).

we find in the published lectures (The Rise and Fall of the Afterlife: The 1995 Read-Tuckwell Lectures at the University of Bristol published by Routledge in 2002) of the noted specialist in Greco-Roman and early Christian religion, Dr. Jan Bremmer, the following:
"It seems, then, that early Christianity had inspired early Mithraism. In light of the most recent insights into the origin of Mithraism this conclusion is less suprising than it might seem at first." (p. 54).

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

There is evidence of religious beliefs going back as far as 200,000 years. Primarily a few little hand carved statues. One of a mother goddes figure

A few? In Gimbutas' The Living Goddesses (1999) she wrote that there were too many figurines too count. And as she herself was primarily responsible for recovering thousands of these, and also for identifying them with worship of a neolithic "mother goddess". However, Ucko's 1968 monograph Anthropomorphic figurines: Of predynastic Egypt and neolithic Crete with comparative material from the prehistoric Near East and mainland Greece was probably the first major systematic challenge to this interpretation, and in the ~40 since then I don't believe there are many specialists in any field (including women's studies, archaeology, anthropology, etc.) who believe that these figurines should be interpreted as representing a "mother goddess". By 1994, we already had Bailey's paper in World Archaeology "Reading Prehistoric figurines as individuals" which, like the title suggests, argues that these figurines were not created with any religious intent or to correspond to any goddess or goddesses.


Which is, of course, the problem with prehistory. Clearly, following Gimbutas' treatment in her later works (about which one critic asked sarcastically how it might be possible to create any symbolism which Gimbutas would not interpret as somehow supporting goddess worship) is untenable. Likewise, the application of psychoanalytic theory (pseudo-science) is equally useless. But are the comparison between ethnological and then anthropological research of "aboriginal" or tribal cultures of greater value? Even if we systematically find, for example, that 20th century figurines examined by ethnologists and then anthropologists comparable to the vast, diverse neolithic figurines have some shared nexus of interpretation, why need that mean this would hold true of cultures thousands and thousands of years ago?

From what I remember, animism is the first somewhat consistent religious theme we are aware of.

Which brings us back to the same issue above. One thing I imagine everyone would agree on is that certain prehistorical findings were intended to have some spiritual or religious meaning, whether the use of red in burials or the bull heads of Çatalhöyük or whatever, but what these were is another thing altogether. We have no descriptions, simply whatever framework of interpretation we apply.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Actually, his mother's name was Semele, not Selene, unless of course you refer to the Cretan version in which case his mother's name was Persephone. It all depends on which culture you go with and "who borrowed what from whom" in telling of the story.

Which, of course, illustrates my entire point, which is the actual focus of my post.

Actually, he had a few "mothers": first Persephone, then Semele, then finally Zeus himself. All screwy.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Could you provide your source for the above? Thanks

Mithra, The Pagan Christ, Achary, S, and D.M. Murdock, Mithra the Pagan Christ | Mithraism and Christianity | Mithras the Sun God

"Chronography of 354," en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar_of_Filocalus
"Mithraic Mysteries," en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraic_mysteries
"Mithraism," Mithraism - Catholic Encyclopedia - Catholic Online
"Mithraism and Christianity," meta-religion.com/World_Religions/Ancient_religions/Mesopotamia/Mithraism/ mithraism_and_christianity_i.htm
"Mithras in Comparison With Other Belief Systems," en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithras_in_Comparison_With_Other_Belief_Systems
"Mitra," en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitra
"Yalda," en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yalda
Alvar, Jaime, and R.L. Gordon. Romanising Oriental Gods: Myth, Salvation and Ethics in the Cults of Cybele, Isis and Mithras. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2008.
Amir-Moezzi, Mohammed Ali. La religion discrète: croyances et pratiques spirituelles dans l'islam shi'ite. Paris: Libr. Philosophique Vrin, 2006.
Anonymous. The Existence of Christ Disproved. Private Printing by "A German Jew," 1840.
Badiozamani, Badi. Iran and America: Rekindling a Lost Love. California: East-West Understanding Press, 2005.
Beck, Roger. Beck on Mithraism. England/Vermont: Ashgate Pub., 2004.
Berry, Gerald. Religions of the World. New York: Barnes & Noble, 1955.
Bleeker, Claas J. The Sacred Bridge: Researches into the Nature and Structure of Religion. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1963.
Boyce, Mary. "Mithraism: Mithra Khsathrapati and his brother Ahura." Iran Chamber Society: Religion in Iran: Mithraism: Mithr Khsathrapati and his brother Ahur
—A History of Zoroastrianism, II. Leiden/Köln: E.J. Brill, 1982.
Campbell, LeRoy A. Mithraic Iconography and Ideology. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1968.
de Jong, Albert. Traditions of the Magi: Zoroastrianism in Greek and Latin Literature. Leiden/New York: Brill, 1997.
Forbes, Bruce David. Christmas: A Candid History. Berkeley/London: University of California Press, 2007.
Frazer, James G. The Worship of Nature, I. London: Macmillan, 1926.
Gordon, Richard L. "FAQ." Electronic Journal of Mithraic Studies, FAQ
—"The date and significance of CIMRM 593 (British Museum, Townley Collection)." Journal of Mithraic Studies, II: 148-174). hums.canterbury.ac.nz/clas/ejms/out_of_print/JMSv2n2/ JMSv2n2Gordon.pdf
Halsberghe, Gaston H. The Cult of Sol Invictus. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1972.
Hinnells, John R., ed. Mithraic Studies: Proceedings of the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1975.
Kosso, Cynthia, and Anne Scott. The Nature and Function of Water, Baths, Bathing and Hygiene from Antiquity through the Renaissance. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2009.
Lundy, John P. Monumental Christianity. New York: J.W. Bouton, 1876.
Molnar, Michael R. The Star of Bethlehem: The Legacy of the Magi. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1999.
The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia, VII. eds. Samuel M. Jackson and George William Gilmore. New York/London: Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1910.
Plutarch. "Life of Pompey." The Parallel Lives by Plutarch, V. Loeb, 1917; penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/ Pompey*.html#24
Porphyry. Selects Works of Porphyry. London: T. Rodd, 1823.
Prajnanananda, Swami. Christ the Saviour and Christ Myth. Calcutta: Ramakrishna Vedanta Math, 1984.
Restaud, Penne L. Christmas in America: A History. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1995.
Robert, Alexander, and James Donaldson, eds. Ante-Nicene Christian Library, XVIII: The Clementine Homilies. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1870.
Robertson, John M. Pagan Christs. Dorset, 1966.
Russell, James R. Armenian and Iranian Studies. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004.
Schaff, Philip, and Henry Wace. A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Father of the Christian Church, VI. New York: The Christian Literature Company, 1893.
Schironi, Francesca, and Arthus S. Hunt. From Alexandria to Babylon: Near Eastern Languages and Hellenistic Erudition in the Oxyrhynchus Glossary. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2009.
Srinivasan, Doris. On the Cusp of an Era: Art in the Pre-Kusana World. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2007.
Weigall, Arthur. The Paganism in Our Christianity. London: Thames & Hudson, 1923.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

A few? In Gimbutas' The Living Goddesses (1999) she wrote that there were too many figurines too count. And as she herself was primarily responsible for recovering thousands of these, and also for identifying them with worship of a neolithic "mother goddess". However, Ucko's 1968 monograph Anthropomorphic figurines: Of predynastic Egypt and neolithic Crete with comparative material from the prehistoric Near East and mainland Greece was probably the first major systematic challenge to this interpretation, and in the ~40 since then I don't believe there are many specialists in any field (including women's studies, archaeology, anthropology, etc.) who believe that these figurines should be interpreted as representing a "mother goddess". By 1994, we already had Bailey's paper in World Archaeology "Reading Prehistoric figurines as individuals" which, like the title suggests, argues that these figurines were not created with any religious intent or to correspond to any goddess or goddesses.


Which is, of course, the problem with prehistory. Clearly, following Gimbutas' treatment in her later works (about which one critic asked sarcastically how it might be possible to create any symbolism which Gimbutas would not interpret as somehow supporting goddess worship) is untenable. Likewise, the application of psychoanalytic theory (pseudo-science) is equally useless. But are the comparison between ethnological and then anthropological research of "aboriginal" or tribal cultures of greater value? Even if we systematically find, for example, that 20th century figurines examined by ethnologists and then anthropologists comparable to the vast, diverse neolithic figurines have some shared nexus of interpretation, why need that mean this would hold true of cultures thousands and thousands of years ago?



Which brings us back to the same issue above. One thing I imagine everyone would agree on is that certain prehistorical findings were intended to have some spiritual or religious meaning, whether the use of red in burials or the bull heads of Çatalhöyük or whatever, but what these were is another thing altogether. We have no descriptions, simply whatever framework of interpretation we apply.

I agree that presumption of meaning imparted to prehistoric finding is never, IMO, able to draw any conclusions. Some early historic findings can barely be trusted. I merely offered the facts of the figurines as indicating the possibility of religious beliefs.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Probably the most well known copycats were the Greeks and Romans. As they conquered land and people, they would often adopt concepts of different religions throughout their empire. Remember Alexander the Great? The various Caesars? Constantine and the Council of Nicea?

I'm not sure I follow how Alexander the Great or the Caesars and so on are indicative or related to copying other religious customs.

Judaism, Catholicsm and Christianity.

Catholics are Christians. Just an FYI.

Jesus was the son of Mary, a virgin (or not) that gave birth to the messiah. This "virgin birth" story is actually a copy from much older pagan stories.

There is almost no similarity between these stories (i.e., the Matthean and Lukean birth narratives and the older "pagan" stories). The comparison to Augustus and perhaps some other similar attempts to connect historical figures with miraculous births may be (or may not be) supportable. It's hard to tell.

Every major culture throughout the world and over the course of time has a similar "god man" story. Humans tend to glorify their folk heroes.

The problem with adopting the Frazer approach or the Jungianism of J. J. Campbell is that it misses the very important differences between different cultures' beliefs, customs, traditions, etc. There are often more differences than similarities.

Jesus healed a blind man and turned water into wine, yes? Vespatian also healed a blind man with his spittle, and Dionysus turned water into wine, two older pagan stories with striking similarities to Jesus.

Vespasian was born after Jesus, and Tacitus' Histories was written around the time the last gospel of the four "canonical" gospels was. Also, comparing a Jewish messianic figure and the story in John to the ability of the god of wine seems a bit like apples and oranges.

Jesus ordered Lazarus to be raised from the dead. Apollonius raised a dead girl, in yet again, an older pagan story

Not older. They were contemporaries, although Apollonius was born after Jesus. Also, Philostratus' work (or single source for details about Apollonius) was written even later than Tacitus'.

Are you starting to see a theme here?

Yes, but as I said I would agree with modern critics of Frazer et al. here in making sweeping generalizations which require ignoring more than the include.

Plato was born from the virgin Amphictione, fathered by Apollo, thus giving him his divinity and mortality.

We find this in the 3rd century CE writings of Diogenes Laertius some ~700 years after Plato.

The "soul" is an original pagan idea, as is the afterlife.

What are you refering to when you say "soul"? For example, in Greek we have ψυχή, θυμός, πνεῦμα all of which could be translated as "soul". Same with Latin (animus, spiritus, genius). Indo-European linguistics isn't much help here, as apart from a general word for "divine/god" and perhaps the association of "sky" and/or "father" with "god" (likewise for "goddess" and both "sky" and "daughter"), there are almost no reconstructed words which are reliable enough (either in that too few daughter languages attest to the usage or in that the semantics of the word render any kind of judgment rather useless).

And what are you refering to by "afterlife"?

For many pagans, long before the time of Jesus, heaven was known as the Elysian Fields and hell was known as Hades.

It isn't clear what conceptions of "hell" were present during Jesus' day, nor is there a consensus concerning the proper understanding of gehenna or similar references in the NT, 2nd temple Jewish writings in general, etc.

This, of course, depends on which culture you choose to look at. Vikings called heaven "Valhalla."

What makes something qualify as "heaven" rather than "hell" or neither?

The Egyptian god Osiris offered his people happiness in "heaven" long before the Jewish/Christian god.

Upon what are you basing this?

Demeter's sacred rites also led people to heaven. If anything, OT hebrews were "heno-theists," which simply means they thought their god was "cooler" than everyone else's. If you actually understand the OT (not just skim over it) you'll see that.

Well, you'll see a development from hints of a previous polytheism to henotheism and then monotheism.

In short, there is so much documented HISTORICAL evidence that religions evolved from simple paganistic beliefs from ancient humans.

"simple paganistic beliefs"? What characterizes them as simple, or makes the term "evolved" an appropriate one to use (and in what way)?

You have to be open minded, you have to actually dig into history and research, and you have to understand what was going on in the world at the time (regardless of era).

And have you done this?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Mithra, The Pagan Christ, Achary, S, and D.M. Murdock, Mithra the Pagan Christ | Mithraism and Christianity | Mithras the Sun God

Thanks!
Just so you know, D. M. Murdock is Acharya S. Also, she's not a reliable source. For example, she cites Herodotus (1.131), but

What does Herodotus actually say? In Greek:

τούτοισι μὲν δὴ θύουσι μούνοισι ἀρχῆθεν, ἐπιμεμαθήκασι δὲ καὶ τῇ Οὐρανίῃ θύειν, παρά τε Ἀσσυρίων μαθόντες καὶ Ἀραβίων. καλέουσι δὲ Ἀσσύριοι τὴν Ἀφροδίτην Μύλιττα, Ἀράβιοι δὲ Ἀλιλάτ, Πέρσαι δὲ Μίτραν.
"Although from the beginning they [the Persians] sacrificed to these [deities] only, they later learned to sacrifice to the heavenly [goddess], being taught by the Assyrians and Arabians. But the Assyrians call Aphrodite "Mylitta", and the Arabians, "Alilat", and the Persians "Mitra." (translation mine).

So apparently worship of a goddess mentioned in Herodotus is evidence for a god somehow. I'm not sure how, but apparently Acharya (whose work, apparently, continues to mislead no matter how many actual specialists on the Roman empire, Hellenism, or early Christianity demonstrate the problems with it) thinks that the worship of this Goddess is somehow evidence of a pre-Christian Jesus-figure.

Also, note that she cite's Beck here:

Beck, Roger. Beck on Mithraism. England/Vermont: Ashgate Pub., 2004.

I don't own that book, but I do own Beck's book The Religion of the Mithras Cult in the Roman Empire: Mysteries of the Unconquered Sun (Oxford University Press, 2006), as well has his contribution I cited in my post above on Mithras, and the paper "The Mysteries of Mithras: A New Account of Their Genesis" (The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 88). The latter is more important, as it directly bears not just on the paucity of evidence we have for the origins of the mysteries, but the speculative dating Beck gives: "Let us locate the hypothetical founding group a generation or so earlier than the earliest evidence, approximately in the third quarter of the first century A.D" (p. 118).

While she cites him (Beck) in terms of Mithra ("As concerns Mithra's identity, Mithraic scholar Dr. Roger Beck says"), his work is not on the Persian deity, and her quote doesn't contain "Mithra" but "Mithras".

Finally, as Boyce & Grenet note in vol. III of A History of Zoroastrianism (Zoroastraianism Under Macedonian and Roman Rule), not only did the worshippers of Mithra have no special place for the sun, but "the Babylonian astronomers did not concern themselves with the relative positions of the planets in spacial depth" at all. The association between Mithras and the sun was later, and primarily Hellenistic (see pp. 477ff).

 

[Wolfborne]

...Catholics are Christians. Just an FYI.

Actually there are several denominations within Christianity that do not recognize Catholics as Christians, but rather a large cult complete with idolatry, prayers to the dead, etc. Don't flame me over it, just stating a fact.

 

[Me Myself]

Actually there are several denominations within Christianity that do not recognize Catholics as Christians, but rather a large cult complete with idolatry, prayers to the dead, etc. Don't flame me over it, just stating a fact.

Call it as you may, if they say they are christian, why say they are not? practically every christian denomination says it is the only christian denomination.

Big surprise there?

I do appreciate the correction about Dionysus mother´s name, but you didn´t give me any of the sources I asked for.

From where did you get the info about the alleged "virgin birth" versions?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Actually there are several denominations within Christianity that do not recognize Catholics as Christians, but rather a large cult complete with idolatry, prayers to the dead, etc. Don't flame me over it, just stating a fact.

How did I "flame" you? Or, to put it differently, is this:

Catholics are Christians. Just an FYI.

constitutes "flaming", in what way could one disagree, correct, or otherwise state that another's claim is in some way untrue/inaccurate without it being "flaming"?

Why would you use the categorization methods of "several demoninations within Christianity" to seperate out the single largest group of individuals who believe in Jesus Christ, and who call themselves Christians, from Christianity? And as Eastern Orthodox (the second largest) also do not adhere to the most basic, defining characteristics of the various Protestant denominations (e.g,. sola scriptura), and would therefore also not be called "true" Christians by the denominations you mention, we have more people who call themselves Christians and whom the denominations you mention would say are not Christians than we have Protestants. It seems to me that using what "several denominations within Christianity" would say about Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism as a meaningful categorization criterion is odd to say the least.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Thanks!
Just so you know, D. M. Murdock is Acharya S. Also, she's not a reliable source. For example, she cites Herodotus (1.131), but

Also, note that she cite's Beck here:

Beck, Roger. Beck on Mithraism. England/Vermont: Ashgate Pub., 2004.

I don't own that book, but I do own Beck's book The Religion of the Mithras Cult in the Roman Empire: Mysteries of the Unconquered Sun (Oxford University Press, 2006), as well has his contribution I cited in my post above on Mithras, and the paper "The Mysteries of Mithras: A New Account of Their Genesis" (The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 88). The latter is more important, as it directly bears not just on the paucity of evidence we have for the origins of the mysteries, but the speculative dating Beck gives: "Let us locate the hypothetical founding group a generation or so earlier than the earliest evidence, approximately in the third quarter of the first century A.D" (p. 118).

While she cites him (Beck) in terms of Mithra ("As concerns Mithra's identity, Mithraic scholar Dr. Roger Beck says"), his work is not on the Persian deity, and her quote doesn't contain "Mithra" but "Mithras".

Finally, as Boyce & Grenet note in vol. III of A History of Zoroastrianism (Zoroastraianism Under Macedonian and Roman Rule), not only did the worshippers of Mithra have no special place for the sun, but "the Babylonian astronomers did not concern themselves with the relative positions of the planets in spacial depth" at all. The association between Mithras and the sun was later, and primarily Hellenistic (see pp. 477ff).

She does point out that the Mithras myth's have 3 distinct centers of worship. She also points out that not all of the similarities between Mithras and Jesus are shared by all three lines of the Mithras cult. Again she mentions that the Persian sect has been suggested to represent some other deity. What is significant, is that all these beliefs existed well before Christ. Just becasue the persion version did not venerate the sun has little import. All of these views began to merge, as you reference, during the hellenistic period. Pretty much showing the premis of the thread to be true, that beliefs mixed, borrowed, and merged. Most significant is that his birthday was on the 25th, and chrisians stole that, and destroyed anyone refusing to convert along with all writings regarding their beleifs they could get their hands on. While you don't accept her as authoritative, I merely review the literature and provide it. It certainly seems like a lot of references. And there are numerous more.

 

[Me Myself]

I want paganism to be the MOTHER of religion

 

[Wolfborne]

As for my sources, I am my own source!

In all seriousness, I am almost 40 and have studied history for the better part of my life. A lot of what I say is from memory, as history is one of the most fascinating things that interests me. I can't say exactly which source I learned something from (they have become countless over the years) but feel free to check me on anything I do say. My co-workers will kid me and say I am one of those people that have a ton of "useless knowledge," and should go on Jeopardy.

Keep in mind there's always going to be more than one interpretation, and details may vary source to source. Heck, the Bible itself is interpreted differently depending on who you ask about it!

Besides, any given source is just someone else's opinion.