please don't compare Jesus to Mithras

[Otherright]

I started reading the Atheist Camel yesterday during some free time. I thought it was fairly decent. Then, I came to section 21, Happy Easter AKA Mithras Resurrection Day. I sighed and said to myself 'well he just destroyed his credibility.'

Please stop comparing Jesus to Mithras. It instantly destroys your credibility, and you are messing it up for those of us who can properly use history, mythography, and scripture to overcome religious memes. If you want to be an apostate, be a good one and know your source. Do research every day. Just because you saw it in Zeitgeist and Religiulous does not make it fact.

1. Mithras was born from a rock, not a virgin.
2. The Mithras resurrection myth is not recorded before 150 AD, during the height of his popularity. It is a interpolation of the myth added to offset the increasing popularity of Christianity. Not the other way around.
3. Mithras was popular with Roman soldiers, but there is no evidence that he was Sol Invictus. In fact it was quite the opposite, since both appear on the same relief, so no DEC 25.

Also, the whole he had 12 apostles and traveled the land healing the sick and raising the dead just like Jesus bit is a complete and total lie.

There does appear to be a baptism and a Eucharist event during initiation. Martyr mentions it, simply acknowledging that both religions feature this. Tertullian says that they stole it from Christianity. The fact of the matter is, they may have, because we know Mithras' resurrection myth is stolen from Christianity. They were competing with one another.

But the fact still remains that the two didn't really have anything in common, so if any body here is one that compares the two please stop. There is no comparison and when someone actually puts in the effort to research it and finds out that there really is no comparison it makes it so much harder for us religion based apostates to argue our points.

 

[Hevenly Heathen]

But there is comparison, just as you find none. The art of comparing is ancient and very much in full effect today. I dislike comparison-making myself, but it does have uses. What if this comparison drives someone to question? Then it is completely worth it.

When one feels strongly about something, comparing it to something else may seem like fingernails on a chalk board, but the comparison doesn't force you in any way to change your mind, it doesn't harm you in any way, and for the sincere seeker it will only offer one more means of exploration.

So what is the point of pointing out your differences? If you find that the above comparison strains your psyche, drop it and walk away. Spending time on demonstrating how you allow it to frustrate you frustrates you further.

 

[Mehr Licht]

Some of the early Christian apologists saw enough similarities between Christianity and Mithraism to demand comment. A few made use of the theory of "demonic anticipation." That the demons purposely copied the Christian Mysteries ahead of time to confuse people. If there were not many similarities why would they waste their time in that manner? It would seem rather counterproductive.

Personally I'm not scared of the idea of other religions having similarities to mine. Truth is one the wise speak of it by many names. Some related to the Logos under the form of Mithras and others under the form of the incarnate Jesus. The later might be superior (I'm a Christian I might be a little biased here lol) but the former isn't complete folly either. Similarities don't bother me at all.

 

[Circle_One]

Horus similar to Mithra, Attis analogous to Krishna
Jesus, different name same story
All based on ancient Egyptian allegory

Whether you like it or not, there will always be comparisons in religion. It's what makes people question religion, and without questions, people will follow things blindly. Questions breed knowledge. There is no harm in that, unless you're (as in the general "you", not YOU as in Otherright) so uncertain about your religion that you fear people questioning it, for fear of proving it wrong.

 

[Student of X]

Christianity has nothing to fear from comparative religion, comparative mythology, or comparative mysticism. Fundamentalism, on the other hand, does. Be it religious fundamentalism or secular fundamentalism.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I don't think any religion should have anything to fear from comparisons to other religions. To me, the fact that so much of religious ideas can be found across the board does more, or it should do more, to unite religions rather than separate them. I personally believe that all religions are just different paths leading to the same goal, and I also believe that all of our current religions stemmed from an original source. This is why, when you really get deep into studying religion, you come across a lot of similar ideas in different religions. They're not really all that different, and instead of trying to proclaim one the "true religion", and set it up above all others, we should be cooperating in a spirit of compassion and understanding.

 

[fallingblood]

I started reading the Atheist Camel yesterday during some free time. I thought it was fairly decent. Then, I came to section 21, Happy Easter AKA Mithras Resurrection Day. I sighed and said to myself 'well he just destroyed his credibility.'

Please stop comparing Jesus to Mithras. It instantly destroys your credibility, and you are messing it up for those of us who can properly use history, mythography, and scripture to overcome religious memes. If you want to be an apostate, be a good one and know your source. Do research every day. Just because you saw it in Zeitgeist and Religiulous does not make it fact.

1. Mithras was born from a rock, not a virgin.
2. The Mithras resurrection myth is not recorded before 150 AD, during the height of his popularity. It is a interpolation of the myth added to offset the increasing popularity of Christianity. Not the other way around.
3. Mithras was popular with Roman soldiers, but there is no evidence that he was Sol Invictus. In fact it was quite the opposite, since both appear on the same relief, so no DEC 25.

Also, the whole he had 12 apostles and traveled the land healing the sick and raising the dead just like Jesus bit is a complete and total lie.

There does appear to be a baptism and a Eucharist event during initiation. Martyr mentions it, simply acknowledging that both religions feature this. Tertullian says that they stole it from Christianity. The fact of the matter is, they may have, because we know Mithras' resurrection myth is stolen from Christianity. They were competing with one another.

But the fact still remains that the two didn't really have anything in common, so if any body here is one that compares the two please stop. There is no comparison and when someone actually puts in the effort to research it and finds out that there really is no comparison it makes it so much harder for us religion based apostates to argue our points.

I completely agree with this.


For me, I have nothing wrong with comparative religion. I do quite a bit of it myself, and have taken many courses that are comparative.

However, when it comes to comparing Jesus with other "god-men," I do have a problem. Primarily for the reason outlined in the OP. The comparison simply is ridiculous, is not based on actual stories concerning the actual individual but on made up stories that have nothing to do with the traditions.

In the case of Jesus, it is usually just an illogical argument trying to show the Jesus didn't exist, yet the information presented is just shoddy at best.

 

[michaelsherlock]

I completely agree with this.


For me, I have nothing wrong with comparative religion. I do quite a bit of it myself, and have taken many courses that are comparative.

However, when it comes to comparing Jesus with other "god-men," I do have a problem. Primarily for the reason outlined in the OP. The comparison simply is ridiculous, is not based on actual stories concerning the actual individual but on made up stories that have nothing to do with the traditions.

In the case of Jesus, it is usually just an illogical argument trying to show the Jesus didn't exist, yet the information presented is just shoddy at best.

So you see no similarities between the mythical Christ and earlier gods and godmen?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There sure are very many similarities between Jesus and other god-figures, such as virgin birth, performing miracles, death/descent to the underworld to battle evil/resurrection, and so on. Because we can compare, we know Jesus was not the first religious figure in his situation or to do the things he did.

However, when it comes to comparing Jesus with other "god-men," I do have a problem. Primarily for the reason outlined in the OP. The comparison simply is ridiculous, is not based on actual stories concerning the actual individual but on made up stories that have nothing to do with the traditions.

But never the less the comparisons are valid. Jesus' story is far from unique, and far from the first. And it's not the only Biblical story that is not original, such an example is how we know Gilgamesh came long before Noah.

 

[michaelsherlock]

There sure are very many similarities between Jesus and other god-figures, such as virgin birth, performing miracles, death/descent to the underworld to battle evil/resurrection, and so on. Because we can compare, we know Jesus was not the first religious figure in his situation or to do the things he did.


But never the less the comparisons are valid. Jesus' story is far from unique, and far from the first. And it's not the only Biblical story that is not original, such an example is how we know Gilgamesh came long before Noah.

Excellent points. Not only that, but even many of his alleged teachings can be traced back into antiquity.

 

[blackout]

1. Mithras was born from a rock, not a virgin.

neither rocks nor virgins can concieve children.



EDIT: I'm also willing to bet that the rock was indeed (also) a virgin.

 

[McBell]

I started reading the Atheist Camel yesterday during some free time. I thought it was fairly decent. Then, I came to section 21, Happy Easter AKA Mithras Resurrection Day. I sighed and said to myself 'well he just destroyed his credibility.'

Please stop comparing Jesus to Mithras. It instantly destroys your credibility, and you are messing it up for those of us who can properly use history, mythography, and scripture to overcome religious memes. If you want to be an apostate, be a good one and know your source. Do research every day. Just because you saw it in Zeitgeist and Religiulous does not make it fact.

1. Mithras was born from a rock, not a virgin.
2. The Mithras resurrection myth is not recorded before 150 AD, during the height of his popularity. It is a interpolation of the myth added to offset the increasing popularity of Christianity. Not the other way around.
3. Mithras was popular with Roman soldiers, but there is no evidence that he was Sol Invictus. In fact it was quite the opposite, since both appear on the same relief, so no DEC 25.

Also, the whole he had 12 apostles and traveled the land healing the sick and raising the dead just like Jesus bit is a complete and total lie.

There does appear to be a baptism and a Eucharist event during initiation. Martyr mentions it, simply acknowledging that both religions feature this. Tertullian says that they stole it from Christianity. The fact of the matter is, they may have, because we know Mithras' resurrection myth is stolen from Christianity. They were competing with one another.

But the fact still remains that the two didn't really have anything in common, so if any body here is one that compares the two please stop. There is no comparison and when someone actually puts in the effort to research it and finds out that there really is no comparison it makes it so much harder for us religion based apostates to argue our points.

Just as they are cherry picking to make the comparison, you are cherry picking out the differences.

Other than being the polar opposite, how is what you doing any different?

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

neither rocks nor virgins can concieve children.



EDIT: I'm also willing to bet that the rock was indeed (also) a virgin.

Are you sure that rock wasn't a virgin? Did you check?

 

[blackout]

Are you sure that rock wasn't a virgin? Did you check?

I'm pretty sure the rock was a virgin. :cover:

But equally strange things have been known to happen.
(in mythos) so......

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I'm pretty sure the rock was a virgin. :cover:

But equally strange things have been known to happen.
(in mythos) so......

See, that's what I'm saying. You never know about them rocks, they're shady characters. That's why I never had pet rocks, I don't trust them.

 

[blackout]

See, that's what I'm saying. You never know about them rocks, they're shady characters. That's why I never had pet rocks, I don't trust them.

Rocks have been known to Cry Out
in some circles.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Roman Cult of Mithras.

Edited to add:

Those who wish to make strained and/or shallow comparisons could save themselves some embarrassment by actually reading some of the relevant scholarship on the matter rather than googling for drivel that reinforces their presupposition. The book referenced above is readily accessible and worth reading in its own right.

 

[Kathryn]

As a Christian, I enjoy discovering the similarities in religious stories - for instance the flood stories, the concept of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," etc. To me it VALIDATES my faith rather than threatens it.

That being said, I always chuckle a little when I realize that a newbie atheist or whatever has stumbled across a website that supposedly parallels, step for step, the stories of Mithras and Jesus. So many of those "comparisons" are a stretch at best, and have been thoroughly discredited.

There are enough true similarities between various Messiahs and god men to be interesting, without exxagerating.

 

[fallingblood]

So you see no similarities between the mythical Christ and earlier gods and godmen?

Yes, there are some similarities. Those similarities, much fewer than are claimed, can also apply to Alexander the Great or Augustus. And many times, even the similarities that are there are very stretched, or based on later traditions.

 

[fallingblood]

There sure are very many similarities between Jesus and other god-figures, such as virgin birth, performing miracles, death/descent to the underworld to battle evil/resurrection, and so on. Because we can compare, we know Jesus was not the first religious figure in his situation or to do the things he did.


But never the less the comparisons are valid. Jesus' story is far from unique, and far from the first. And it's not the only Biblical story that is not original, such an example is how we know Gilgamesh came long before Noah.

I agree that Jesus is not wholly unique. We can just compare Jesus to say Augustus even, and see many of the same similarities. However, Jesus was not a perfect fit for the god-men, as many of their similarities are either greatly stretched, or based on later tradition.

For instance, the virgin birth. That is actually more unique to Jesus. First, most instances, we don't actually see an actual virgin birth, as in the woman having been a virgin before hand (or at least it isn't suggested). More importantly though, in the case of Jesus, there is no sexual intercourse, which is quite unique. There is no physical contact at all. Mary stays a virgin even after conception.

Jesus descending into hell is also a later tradition. So I don't really think it is a fair comparison. And the resurrection idea, we don't really see that in the form in which it happened to Jesus. For Jesus, it wasn't part of a cycle of birth, death, and rebirth. He wasn't raised from the dead by anyone. And it wasn't meant to be something special for Jesus.