| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Open Forums for ExChristian.Net > Old Board > Pagan Gods Copied From Christianity? |
| Posted by: sexkitten Oct 14 2004, 12:54 PM |
| Printable Version of Topic Click here to view this topic in its original format ExChristian.Net Open Forums > Debating with Christians > Pagan Gods Copied From Christianity? Posted by: extremeone Mar 10 2004, 11:09 AM As information becomes more available to wider audiences through the internet, the subject of "pagan" Gods often enters into debates about Christianity. The issue of whether or not Jesus was patterned after the stories and attributes of some pagan gods is one that produces some amazing claims by Christians. They will always deny that there were any pagan Gods who existed prior to Jesus that could have influenced how Jesus was developed in Christian writings such as the New Testament. The following essay contains identified comments from a rabid Christian writing in an Skeptic vs. Christian forum and are typical of the Christian apologetics used to debunk the idea that there may have been pagan Gods which served as templates for the Jesus story. A skeptic introduced into the debate Christmas and the name "Mithra" who was an ancient savior god of the Persians who has striking similarities to Jesus before Jesus was supposed to have been born. [Christian writes: Mithra? I have to assume that you're joking. In order to have a serious discussion about Christianity and atheism, then you have to turn aside your intense desire to disparage Christianity at every turn and instead let's talk intelligently and objectively.] Notice how the Christian starts out. He immediately dismisses the idea that Mithra may have been a role model for the Jesus story by assuming that any talk about Mithra is a joke. Then the Christian accuses the skeptic of not being objective and only interested in Christianity bashing. This is a rather obvious ploy which attempts to discredit the idea that Jesus may have been copied from prior savior gods by attempting to laugh off the idea from the start. In other words, in order to "intelligently" and "objectively" discuss Christianity, silly notions that there could have been savior gods who existed prior to Jesus and who had very similar attributes to Jesus must be put aside as nonsense. When dealing with a zealous Christian, one must always remember that there is nothing in the universe which has any "real" validity other than Jesus and the Bible. [Christian writes: Firstly, even the experts will acknowledge that there is virtually no literary evidence as to the beliefs of Mirthraism (please refer to "The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries" by David Ulansey).] The experts? Experts are a dime a dozen. The experts at the Christian Institute for Creation Research declare that the earth is only about 6,000 years old. For every Christian "expert" on pagan religions, I can cite one who isn't a Christian and establishes that Mithra was a savior God who was worshipped prior to Jesus and whose origins date long before Jesus was supposed to have been born. The real problem is that if some parts of the Jesus story were patterned after "pagan" Gods, then the validity of the New Testament as the word of God is in jeopardy and Christians can't allow that. [Christian writes: The simple reason that Mithraism could not possibly have influenced first-century Christianity (in fact, the opposite was likely true) is that the timing is all wrong. Mithraism didn't really begin to flourish until AFTER the closing of New Testament canon (see "The Mysteries of Mithra" by Franz Cumont) and in fact, no monuments to this religion can be dated any earlier than AD 90 - 100.] Here we see the mind of a Christian zealot in all it's radiant splendor. Instead of Jesus being copied from Mithra, he asserts Mithra was copied from Jesus. The Christian turns the tables by saying that pagan copycats used the Jesus story to invent Mithra. It's simply not possible in this persons mind that the Jesus story could have been influenced by stories of other god/men who existed in history prior to Jesus. Since Mithra was a Persian God who was introduced to the Romans before Jesus was ever written about, Mithra was around in some form before Jesus. Notice how the Christian dances around this by saying that Mithraism "didn't really begin to flourish" until the NT canon was closed. The issue is not when Mithraism was at it's most popular in the region, but how old it's foundations are and where they originated from. This Christian can sing and dance and quote any number of books he wants. Here's what the Encarta online research source says about Mithra: "Mithraism, one of the major religions of the Roman Empire, the cult of Mithra, the ancient Persian god of light and wisdom. In the Avesta, the sacred Zoroastrian writings (see Zoroastrianism) of the ancient Persians, Mithra appears as the chief yazata (Avestan, 'beneficent one'), or good spirit, and ruler of the world. He was supposed to have slain the divine bull, from whose dying body sprang all plants and animals beneficial to humanity. After the conquest of Assyria in the 7th century BC and of Babylonia in the 6th century BC, Mithra became the god of the sun, which was worshipped in his name (see Sun Worship). The Greeks of Asia Minor, by identifying Mithra with Helios, the Greek god of the sun, helped to spread the cult. It was brought to Rome about 68 BC by Cilician pirates whom the Roman general Pompey the Great had captured, and during the early empire it spread rapidly throughout Italy and the Roman provinces. It was a rival to Christianity in the Roman world." "Mithraism was similar to Christianity in many respects, for example, in the ideals of humility and brotherly love, baptism, the rite of communion, the use of holy water, the adoration of the shepherds at Mithra's birth, the adoption of Sundays and of December 25 (Mithra's birthday) as holy days, and the belief in the immortality of the soul, the last judgment, and the resurrection. Mithraism differed from Christianity in the exclusion of women from its ceremonies and in its willingness to compromise with polytheism. The similarities, however, made possible the easy conversion of its followers to Christian doctrine." (End quote) Also, from a web site which examines Mithraism: "Plainly, the worship of Mithras was well ahead of the worship of Jesus. In any case there is a dated pre-Christian Mithraic inscription of Antiochus I of Commagene (69-34 BC) in eastern Asia Minor. Mithras shakes hands with the King, he wears the Phrygian cap, the Persian trousers, and a cape. His hat is star speckled and rays of light emerge from his head like a halo. His torq is a serpent. This is the image of the Roman Mithras in a scene taking place 100 years before the crucifixion." "There were worshippers of Mithras in Rome in Pompey's time (67 BC)." "Christians are more defensive about Mithras than perhaps any other pre-Christian Roman god. The two religions had so much in common, it can hardly be denied although Christians will try to deny it as a first shot. Their second shot is that the followers of Mithras copied the Christians! Christians feel obliged to take silly positions on these issues because they seek to defend Christianity as a revealed religion, not one which evolved in a certain milieu and therefore has common features with contemporary religions. So, no religious practices that seem in any way to be like any Christian ones could have been original--they must have been taken from Christianity!" (end quotes, ref Dr M. D. Magee AskWhy! Publications Website, www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0690Mithras.html) It seems rather clear that Mithra was introduced to Rome around 68 B.C. and existed in some form as a worshipped deity long before Jesus or the New Testament. Even in the Old Testament, the Israelites were carried off into exile to Assyria and Babylon which were captured by the Persians. This was all hundreds of years prior to Jesus. The Babylonian exile is recorded in the Old Testament. All the dancing and excuses by this Christian that Mithra was a savior God copied from Jesus is just a desperate attempt to discredit any gods which existed prior to Jesus. If certain aspects of Jesus were indeed copied from pagan gods like Mithra, the whole Jesus story and New Testament are called into question. Some dishonest Christians will always attempt to turn history on it's ear and claim that pagan Gods were copied from Jesus. Note: At this point another Christian jumps in and writes the same thing with an additional twist: [Christian #2 writes: If there was any borrowing it was the pagans from the Christians. Christianity is based on a historical person. A big difference from mythology.] Historical people are not the product of virgin births as Christians claim Jesus was. Pagan god/men in mythology are however often the products of a God mating with a human female. Christians always ignore this fact. According to this historical twist employed by Christians, it means the Persians must have borrowed the Jesus story to create their version of Mithra, the savior god who was introduced and worshipped in Rome at least 68 years before Jesus ever appeared. This is the type of spin Christians have to use to keep Jesus unique and the only true savior of the universe. The New Testament itself points out that Christianity introduced a new ritual as part of it's formula to obtain eternal life. Jesus himself tells his followers that they can have eternal life if they eat his flesh and drink his blood. John 6:53-54 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. Where did this ritual come from? Is it something that God told his people to do, or is it something pagan which became incorporated into the Jesus savior story? What's wrong with this picture? This new ritual directly contradicts the Word of God in the Old Testament. The consumption of blood, in any form, is abomination in the eyes of God. Lev 17:10,12 And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth(consumes) any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people. Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat(consume) blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood. Are people to believe that God, whose eternal law(Psa 119:152,160) is very clear about not consuming any type of blood, completely changed his mind, and then decided to advocate the drinking of blood as part of a salvation ritual? An often employed Christian rationalization is that since the blood Jesus told his followers to drink was only wine, there was no real violation of the law. This doesn't hold up to scriptural examination. Symbolic sin is still sin. Even Jesus proclaimed that symbolic sin was still sin(Matt 5:28). Drinking wine and pretending that it's really the blood of a human sacrifice makes a mockery of God's law. This new blood drinking ritual for salvation certainly didn't come from the God of the Old Testament. [Christian writes: Now that we have settled this... ] Notice the arrogance of fundamentalist Christianity on display here. This has been settled? This short burst of hubris has completely discredited Mithraism as a possible source for some of the characteristics of Jesus as described in the New Testament??? Did the basic foundation of Mithraism exist before or after Jesus was supposed to have appeared? How tightly do you want to close your eyes? This illustrates why Christians cannot allow anything to taint their spin of how history actually was. If Jesus the savior god was in any way patterned after savior gods who existed prior to him, the whole doctrine of salvation through Jesus is called into dispute. The claims of a virgin birth, blood sacrifice of a human being to redeem people, the resurrection, being the bringer of light and life, and other attributes of Jesus are not unique but may be part of belief systems that existed long before Jesus appeared. [Christian writes again: Let me chastise you on one thing: the celebration of Christmas in December has NOTHING to do with Scripture. So, telling us that it should really be celebrated in mid-year tells us nothing. It is accepted that the early Church established December 25th as the day in order to celebrate Christ's birth in order to coordinate Christianity with the local customs. Hardly blasphemous and certainly not in any way a discredit to Scripture.] The fact that this Christian acknowledges that the celebration of Christmas has nothing to do with scripture, but was simply an adopted pagan custom used by the early church to establish Dec 25th as the birthday of Jesus, points to evidence which this Christian doesn't want to have highlighted. That evidence is that Mithra's birthday was supposed to be Dec 25th (also the winter solstice). The Christian attempts to brush off this adopted custom as "hardly blasphemous." What a hypocrite!!! This Christian needs to read his Bible more carefully. Lev 20:23,26 And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nations, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them. And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the LORD am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine. The Bible God gives clear instructions not to adopt customs of other nations. Adopting the birthday/holiday of a pagan God like Mithra as the birthday of Jesus in order to, as this Christian asserts, "coordinate Christianity with the local customs" most certainly does qualify as blasphemy!!! Bringing customs of pagan gods into God's congregation is a violation of huge proportions. Deut 6:13-15 Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name. Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people which are round about you; (For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the LORD thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth. How are Christians serving God by following and adopting the custom of recognizing a pagan god's birthday as the birthday of Jesus??? Who does this Christian think he's kidding when he says that the adoption of this holiday is hardly blasphemous??? These actions laugh in the face of the instructions God gave in the Old Testament. To make matters worse, Christians pretend to observe the Sabbath on Sunday. It's probably no coincidence that Mithra who was a SUN God and whose day was SUN DAY, had his day adopted by Christians as their "Sabbath" or Lord's day. Did Christians once again "coordinate Christianity with the local customs" by adopting Sunday as their day of the Lord? The Sabbath is the 7th day of the week which is Saturday. Exo 31:15-16 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. Since Christians also deem themselves to be God's chosen people and claim that they want to worship and praise the Lord, they violate the Sabbath by not observing it on the 7th day of the week as instructed. These pious hypocrites then advertise to the world that the Bible God's laws are the moral foundation of the universe and that his laws should be followed by all "moral" societies. The very fact that the early Christian church made these "changes" and disregarded God's instructions doesn't help the case that Christianity represents a unique religion based on the "truth" of the Bible God. Since Dec 25th as the birthday of Christ is not scriptural, there is no valid reason why Christians should celebrate it. Yet, almost all Christians do. Regarding Christmas: The scriptures aren't discredited by the celebration of Christmas, but Christians who celebrate it ARE. They are celebrating the birthday of their LORD and SAVIOR on a pagan holiday. Jesus never instructed that his birthday be celebrated, nor is there any birth date given in the New Testament. Apparently Christians want an excuse to celebrate without authority to do so. They set up trees, decorate them with silver tinsel, gold balls and religious ornaments, gather around it, put up lights, put on pageants, and engage in exactly the things God told them NOT to do. Jer 10:2-5 Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not. They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good. God instructs his people NOT to learn or practice the ways of the nations around them. It's astounding how Christians will ignore what the Bible tells them when it conflicts with what they want to do. Situational ethics is the order of the day. These same religious chameleons then proclaim and advertise to the world that they want to "serve God." All of the excuses Christians employ to prop up their belief system as the only valid and true way to know God are concoctions straight out of the seemingly limitless capacity of the human mind to rationalize anything and then claim God backs them up. Let any buyer of Christian advertising beware Posted by: UV2003 Mar 10 2004, 11:25 AM I have to go back to my old stand-by line: It's true because it's true. So, stop questioning and beLIEve. This is a good site, but it is heretical: http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/getting_started_pocm.html Was Jesus a xerox copy of one particular Pagan God? Was He Mithras renamed? Or Dionysus? The answer is No. Jesus was new -- in the same way the first Honda Accord was a new car and the first Mountain Dew was a new soda pop. But the Accord wasn't the first car, and Dew wasn't the first soda. They were "new" versions of old ideas. So was Jesus. Believing scholars like to bring up differences between Jesus and the earlier Pagan godmen. Mithras was born of a rock, not a virgin, so Jesus can't be Mithras. Attis' faithful hung his likeness on a pine tree, not on a cross, so Jesus can't be Attis. Osiris died and was reborn and brings salvation -- but he lives in the afterworld, no on earth, so he wasn't really " resurrected" like Jesus (I am not making this up). Believing scholars are right, Jesus wasn't Mithras, He wasn't Attis, and He wasn't Osiris. Jesus was a "new" God, the same way the first Honda Accord was a new car. He was a "new" version of God, built from old ideas. Did you catch that? Osiris, say believing scholars, did die, he was resurrected, did go to the Egyptian heaven, where he judges the dead and lets them in or not, but Osiris is not a "dying and resurrected" god because, well, because after his resurrection he lives in Heaven and not on earth! So he's not like Jesus! Posted by: SuicydeAlley Mar 10 2004, 11:25 AM Let's see. There was Osiris, he brought salvation, circa 1300bc. Attis predated Christ and his death and rebirth was celebrated yearly in Rome. Then there is Dionysis who predates Christ by roughly 1200 years. He brought salvation, was born of a virgin and God, died on a cross and was resurected. I am sure there are more. Posted by: Skankboy Mar 10 2004, 11:40 AM Very well thought out o' Extreme One. I've encountered one other variation of this argument when speaking to christians. The idea is that the devil knew Jesus was coming so he created "false" messiahs and imperfect copies of christianity all over the world to confuse people when the "true" word was finally brought to them. Posted by: UV2003 Mar 10 2004, 12:52 PM QUOTE (Skankboy @ Mar 10 2004, 11:40 AM) Very well thought out o' Extreme One. I've encountered one other variation of this argument when speaking to christians. The idea is that the devil knew Jesus was coming so he created "false" messiahs and imperfect copies of christianity all over the world to confuse people when the "true" word was finally brought to them. Maybe they're right! Posted by: chefranden Mar 10 2004, 01:05 PM Thanks for your work,extremeone. I learned a couple of new things. The contradiction with the blood has never occured to me before. Good job. Posted by: channelcat Mar 10 2004, 01:11 PM QUOTE (Skankboy @ Mar 10 2004, 11:40 AM) Very well thought out o' Extreme One. I've encountered one other variation of this argument when speaking to christians. The idea is that the devil knew Jesus was coming so he created "false" messiahs and imperfect copies of christianity all over the world to confuse people when the "true" word was finally brought to them. The problem with this argument is : How the hell did Satan know? He is just a fallen angel, and not omniscient like God. He could'nt have just read the Old Testament and got these ideas, because the OT does'nt mention them. Christians will swear that there are over 1,500 prophecies in the OT that foretell of Jesus, but I have yet to find one! Maybe Satan had better luck and was able to read the alleged "Bible Code" that is supposed to exist within the alpha-numeric text of the Hebrew scripture. But Satan could'nt have been that smart, you see. If he really exists, then he is one dumb muther F@#%er! If he really knew all this, then he would have summoned his legions of demons and retired to Jupiter while Jesus walked the earth. This way, Judas would'nt have betrayed Jesus (as the Bible states), and there would have been no crucifixtion, and thus no resurrection. Gods plans to sacrifice His son would have been foiled, and we would all go to Hell! _____________________________________________ I personally find that Carl Jung's concept of the "collective unconscious" really explains all the paralells between myths and religions. Any thoughts? Posted by: Lokmer Mar 10 2004, 01:25 PM "Collective Unconcious" is a fancy way of saying "common inculturation." Jung's work is valuable, but in an effort to validate his construct he ignored some basic sociological commonalities (brain construction, star constellations, etc.) that go a long way towards explaining the metanarrative far better than does "the force." -Lokmer Posted by: channelcat Mar 10 2004, 02:48 PM QUOTE (Lokmer @ Mar 10 2004, 01:25 PM) "Collective Unconcious" is a fancy way of saying "common inculturation." Jung's work is valuable, but in an effort to validate his construct he ignored some basic sociological commonalities (brain construction, star constellations, etc.) that go a long way towards explaining the metanarrative far better than does "the force." -Lokmer Could you clarify that a little more please? Thanks. Posted by: Lokmer Mar 10 2004, 03:34 PM Jung believed that the collective unconscious was an actual, spiritual commonality shared by all people rather than a metaphor. Nothing he posited as evidence for that is unaccounted for by other scientific diciplines. So I tend to classify the "collective unconscious" as a useful metaphoric shorthand for "those things which all humans have in common." It's a useful metaphor, but as a literal spiritual force I find it a bit of a stretch. -Lokmer Posted by: Bruce Mar 10 2004, 04:23 PM The works of some of the early church fathers and critics is enlightening. For instance, Celsus specifically pointed out that Christian stories and claims were derived from other pagan mystery religions. Even at the time , circa 200 - 335 CE) the christian theologians could only respond in two ways. 1. Satan knew what the true religion was going to be, being an immortal, and established fake religions based upon his foreknowledge of Christianity. OR 2. So what, nothing in Christianity is any less credible than pagan stories. Origen stated, "Nothing we say about Jesus is any more fantastic than what your say about the esteemed Sons of Zeus", in his Contra Celsum. //Bruce// Posted by: kashicat Mar 10 2004, 04:31 PM QUOTE (extremeone @ Mar 10 2004, 05:09 PM) Here we see the mind of a Christian zealot in all it's radiant splendor. Instead of Jesus being copied from Mithra, he asserts Mithra was copied from Jesus. The Christian turns the tables by saying that pagan copycats used the Jesus story to invent Mithra. ------- Since Mithra was a Persian God who was introduced to the Romans before Jesus was ever written about, Mithra was around in some form before Jesus. Notice how the Christian dances around this by saying that Mithraism "didn't really begin to flourish" until the NT canon was closed. The issue is not when Mithraism was at it's most popular in the region, but how old it's foundations are and where they originated from. ------- It seems rather clear that Mithra was introduced to Rome around 68 B.C. and existed in some form as a worshipped deity long before Jesus or the New Testament. NO KIDDING!! That Christian needs to do some reading in mythology. "Mithras" comes from the ancient Aryan/Indian/Persian god Mitra, who was partnered with Varuna in Hindu mythology, in the Rig Veda (the very oldest Hindu writings, dating from aeons B.C.). Mitra was there when the Aryans both went east and south, into India, and went west into Persia. He has a Persian counterpart, also named Mitra, who predates the Persian/Roman Mithras by centuries, and had a strong tradition of worship. In India, he became the God of Contracts; you would invoke Mitra as witness to a contract, and if you broke the contract, his partner Varuna would come along and capture you in his noose, and your goose would be cooked. In Persia, he became a sun god who slays the bull to re-create life. He has the same function that every other Indo-European fertility god has had through history, indeed that every Semitic fertility god has had. To say that Mithras-worshippers "copied" from the story of Jesus is so laughable that it can only be believed by someone who has NEVER READ ANY SCHOLARLY STUDY OF MYTH. <boggled> Posted by: Outsider Mar 10 2004, 05:19 PM QUOTE (Bruce @ Mar 10 2004, 07:23 PM) 1. Satan knew what the true religion was going to be, being an immortal, and established fake religions based upon his foreknowledge of Christianity. OR 2. So what, nothing in Christianity is any less credible than pagan stories. Origen stated, "Nothing we say about Jesus is any more fantastic than what your say about the esteemed Sons of Zeus", in his Contra Celsum. I found this rebuttals of Celsus's critique interesting also. I was taught that Calvary was a victory and that Satan was not expecting it. How could it be a victory, if Satan already was already prepared for it to happen? The second argument goes against what I was taught of how Jesus was unique to other Gods. There is something about Jesus that was suppose to stand out that everyone knew that he was the real deal. The early apologists saying he is the same as the pagan Gods flies in the face of what is being taught now. Posted by: Starflier Mar 10 2004, 06:57 PM A lot of both the Jesus & Mithra myths as well, come from the former matriarchal era. One example is that of Persephone, daughter of the Triple Goddess Demeter, later changed to the xtian male trinity. Demeter aka Kore, the Virgin or Demeter-Pluto the Mother (or Preserver). These three female deities cyclically succeeded each other like the three points of a turning triangle so that Kore & Persephone were often confused & came to be considerd the same Goddess. Later in the fable Kore-Persephone was abducted by Pluto & taken to the Underworld or Hades. There she had her last supper, was hung by a nail, died & later rose again to return to the earth. But She was Queen of the Underworld long before there was a masculinized Pluto. As such She held the keys to heaven & hell (Elysium & Tartarus), thus anticipating the Mithraic "pater patrum" & his Christian counterpart Peter. Even before that though Persephone was Hecate or Hel & was much older than the Eleusinian myth telling of her underworld descent & annual return to the earth each spring. As Hecate/Hel aka Destroying Mother Kali, she ruled as Prisni, probably Persophone's Etruscan name, Persipnei, later the Roman Proserpine. It was thus that she passed into Christian tradition as a Queen of She-Demons for like Kali the Destroyer, she was the Death Goddess from the beginning. The issue of the blood shedding dates back to the female menses as well. For it was thought then that some mysterious creation magic resided in women's monthly (moon-thly) blood letting in apparent harmony with the moon. As such, they thought it somehow coagulated in the womb into a baby. The men regarded this blood with holy dread, as the life-essence, inexplicably shed without pain, wholly foreign to male experience. How could women bleed every month for seven days with little or no apparent disease or debiliation & continue to live & do it over & over again? Surely it must be sacredly magical & thus must also women be. For most words for mensturation also meant such things as incomprehensible, supernatural, sacred, spirit, deity. Like the Latin "sacer", old Arabian words for 'pure' & 'impure' both applied to menstrual blood & to that only. The indigenous Maoris, Hindus, Africans, South American Indians & even Aristotle & Pliny insisted that human souls are made of coagulated menstrual blood in the womb. In fact this idea was still taught in 18th century Europe. In the most ancient of our civilizations in Mesopotamia, the Great Goddess Ninhursag was said to have made mankind out of clay & infus ed it with her 'blood of life' which is where the original story of Adam came from based on the creation of man from clay & moon-blood. Even in pre-Islamic Arabia, Allah was the Goddess of creation, Al-Lat, which is why the Koran's creation story states Allah 'made man out of flowing blood'. So the xtian male crucifixion was an attempt to copy the female menses & to better it by fixating the idea that Jesus' male blood was more sacred than any female's, deity or not, ever was. So this was the idea of being "born again" from the blood of Christ as babies are born from the blood of woman. The drinking of the female monthly blood was considered a life-giving elixer as well. This ancient Hindu, Norse, Celtic, Persian & Egyptian practice carried over to the idea of drinking Christ's blood. Thus the holy 'blood of life' used to be feminine & real; now it is masculine & symbolic. Posted by: PriorWorrier Mar 10 2004, 07:34 PM QUOTE Deut 6:13-15 Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name. Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people which are round about you; (For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the LORD thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth. It's an odd god that gets so bent out of shape about other powerless non-existent gods. Posted by: TruthWarrior Mar 10 2004, 07:43 PM QUOTE (extremeone @ Mar 10 2004, 03:09 PM) As information becomes more available to wider audiences through the internet, the subject of "pagan" Gods often enters into debates about Christianity. Ah the internet can also make things harder to find the real truth though. Now you've got people cutting and pasting from people cutting and pasting. All from sources that probably even guessed or rewrote their own mythical god from the scant evidence available. It's the stuff urban legends are made of! How do you know your not being duped from the mythos proponents? Now here's the Christian apologist Tektonics website's "http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_04_02_04.html" with a round up of all the mythical god comparisons. http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_04_02_04_MMM.html goes into more detail on each point. Does anyone actually know anything about Mithraism? It seems there is a leap to assume every claim of Mithra is true, without going to original sources. Are there even any original sources? I mean this is ancient dead religion were talking about here! So who's telling the truth and who's fudging it all to prove a point? Maybe all sides are. The problem is that everyone is biased, and most everyone that's writing a book has ulterior motive$ that get in the way. Everything should be looked at skepticly. Nothing should be assumed, but I suppose at some point, with history, you'd have to pick sides and your favorite scholars. Now I could play uh...Jesus' advocate (pardon the pun).. and think up a couple o' arguments, since no christian seems to be debating this matter. So play with these: - With a million different gods, some are bound to be the same. Especially when we're all on the same earth, under the same god(s)/nature, with the same brains and reasoning capabilities. Everyone takes their guesses and some are bound to guess the same thing. - Many of these comparisons are vague. An apple is red, my shirt is red, therefore my shirt is an apple! Even with a bit more specific likenesses, "A" doesn't necessarily equal "B". So isn't all this assumption a fallacy? Posted by: Lokmer Mar 10 2004, 08:19 PM There are three or four difinitive works on the topic. The first is "The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries", which deals with the solar procession and the slaying of the cosmic bull, but remains agnostic as to whether Mithra was a dying/rising God prior to Christianity. There are several extant Zoroastrian texts that lead one to the conclusion that at least some of what was there was borrowed by X and not vice-versa. Frazer is another difinitive source on the topic, but most persuasive, of course, are Origin's Contra Celus and Justin Martyr (forget which particular works at the moment), both relatively early (late 2nd c.) that recognize that the Pagan's were there first with the apologetic dodge that "Satan, seeing the will of God in scripture, mocked the Messiah before he came in order to deceive the world." Martyr also said in his First Apology "When we say that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter." The third difinitive work on the subject is the very long and detailed chapter "The Christ Myth" from Robert M. Price's Deconstructing Jesus - Price is not a pure mythicist himself, but does very aptly demonstrate from whence the mythic elements came. -Lokmer Posted by: Lokmer Mar 10 2004, 08:21 PM BTW, I think you'll find that Robert Turkel (a.k.a. J.P. Holding) is among the more disreputable and intellectually dishonest of the internet apologists - and the epitome of the "cut and paste" debate mentality. Several critques of his methods and logic are available at infidels.org -Lokmer Posted by: TruthWarrior Mar 10 2004, 08:43 PM QUOTE (Lokmer @ Mar 11 2004, 12:21 AM) BTW, I think you'll find that Robert Turkel (a.k.a. J.P. Holding) is among the more disreputable and intellectually dishonest of the internet apologists - and the epitome of the "cut and paste" debate mentality. That doesn't suprise me! I forgot about that quote from Martyr though. Now that's the real kicker. Posted by: Eques Dei Mar 10 2004, 10:15 PM QUOTE (extremeone @ Mar 10 2004, 11:09 AM) As information becomes more available to wider audiences through the internet, the subject of "pagan" Gods often enters into debates about Christianity. The issue of whether or not Jesus was patterned after the stories and attributes of some pagan gods is one that produces some amazing claims by Christians. They will always deny that there were any pagan Gods who existed prior to Jesus that could have influenced how Jesus was developed in Christian writings such as the New Testament. The following essay contains identified comments from a rabid Christian writing in an Skeptic vs. Christian forum and are typical of the Christian apologetics used to debunk the idea that there may have been pagan Gods which served as templates for the Jesus story. A skeptic introduced into the debate Christmas and the name "Mithra" who was an ancient savior god of the Persians who has striking similarities to Jesus before Jesus was supposed to have been born. The epigraphic and documentary evidence we have for the Mithraic cult postdates Christianity, so you cannot argue that Mithraism influenced Christianity. End of story. Posted by: Skankboy Mar 11 2004, 05:23 AM QUOTE The epigraphic and documentary evidence we have for the Mithraic cult postdates Christianity, so you cannot argue that Mithraism influenced Christianity. End of story. Ok. I'm only going to do this once. I can see that you might be confusing the origin of Mithra with the rise of the Mithra cult in Rome. It is true that cult didn't become popular in Rome until the first century, but that does NOT mean the worship of Mithra did not exist before then. QUOTE Mithraism is the worship of the god Mithras, best known as an ancient Roman Mystery Religion. Mithras is the Roman name for the Indo-Iranian deity Mitra or Mithra, and it is by that name that he was known the Persians. Mithra was one of the minor deities under Ahura-Mazda in the Zoroastrian pantheon, from 1,500 BCE onward. Since the beginning, Mithra, or Mithras has been associated with the Light of the Sun, Truthfulness, and Mediation. Roman worship of Mithras began sometime during the 1st century CE and continued to the end of the 4th Century CE. (Emphasis mine) Here's the link if you want to check it out: http://www.mithraeum.org/history.htm Here's the listing for "Mithra" in the Encyclopedia Mythica: QUOTE Mithra by Micha F. Lindemans An old-Iranian god of light, contracts and friendship. He also maintains the cosmic order. Sometimes mentioned as the son of Ahura Mazda, he assists him in his struggle against the forces of evil, represented by Angra Mainyu. Mithra was born from a rock (or a cave). He fought with the sun and managed to capture the divine bull and slayed it before he ascended to heaven. From the blood of the bull came forth all the plants and animals beneficial to humanity. With the emerging of Zoroastrianism, he was reduced to the status of Yazata. In the Avesta he was portrayed as having ten thousand ears and eyes, and he rides in a chariot pulled by white horses. In the 4 century BCE his popularity rose and again he held a high position in the Persian pantheon. Eventually his cult spread beyond Iran and Asia Minor and gradually became a mystery cult. The ascetic religion of Mithraism (to which only men were allowed) became increasingly popular among the Roman soldiers around 100 CE and at that time Mithra was known in Rome as 'Deus sol invictus' ("the unconquered sun"). Even the Roman emperor Commodus was initiated into Mithra's cult. When Constantine the Great was converted to Christianity in 312 CE, Mithraism started to decline and after a temporary revival under Julius the Apostate (331-363) the cult disappeared for good. Mithra was worshipped in Mithraea, artificially constructed caves that represented his birth-cave. The ceiling looked like the starry sky and at the sides benches where placed for the ritual meals. In the center of the Mithraea was a niche which held a relief of the god, dressed in Phrygian clothing (short tunic and cloak, long trousers and a hat with a curled tip), who kills a bull. The Mithraea were spread all over the Roman empire and some 50 of these caves still exist in Rome today. He is also known as Mitra in the Indian Veda. And again the link: http://www.pantheon.org/areas/mythology/asia/persian/articles.html?/articles/m/mithra.html Posted by: Eques Dei Mar 11 2004, 08:28 AM QUOTE Ok. I'm only going to do this once. I can see that you might be confusing the origin of Mithra with the rise of the Mithra cult in Rome. It is true that cult didn't become popular in Rome until the first century, but that does NOT mean the worship of Mithra did not exist before then. No, I am not confused. I am well aware that Mithra predates the Roman/Phrygian cult. Just because the Roman/Phrygian cult worshipped a Mithra does NOT mean that the details of their worship (the evidence of which is late) can be projected back to the "original" Mithra. Posted by: Starflier Mar 11 2004, 09:04 AM I see this argument as shortsighted to say the least. There's way more than just the Mithra myth that influenced the Jesus myth or vice versa. Or even if they were concurrent. The literary facts are that the anthropomorphic dying/reborn god or goddess in ALL global ancient myths are all the models for either/or the Jesus or Mithra myth. These aren't much different than all the previous ancient ones for either a female or male divine/human deity. Only some details of their individual life stories differ. And then that depends on which culture absorbed which myths from former or comingled cultures. Posted by: channelcat Mar 11 2004, 09:15 AM QUOTE (extremeone @ Mar 10 2004, 11:09 AM) Jer 10:2-5 Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not. They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good. Interesting! I wonder if this is where the Christmas Tree originates? I have always heard that Dec.25 was the birthday of Mithra, but I have never read the above passage. Does anyone have any insight into this? Could the Mithra cult have flourished in the time of Jeremiah? Speaking about mythological elements woven into Xtianity, there is a story about the "Pool of Bethesda" in the gospel of John. In this story, an angel descends from heaven and stirs this certain pool, and the first among the lame or sick that touch the water after it is stirred receive healing. Now of course this trickster type teasing of sick people that would congregated around this pool does'nt fit the loving, caring God that Christians define, but that's not really my point. I was just wondering if anyone of you know where this story came from? I either read another story like this somewhere in mythology, or maybe someone told me that there exists a similar story; I can't remember. Anyone? Posted by: Rational_One Mar 11 2004, 09:20 AM QUOTE No, I am not confused. I am well aware that Mithra predates the Roman/Phrygian cult. Just because the Roman/Phrygian cult worshipped a Mithra does NOT mean that the details of their worship (the evidence of which is late) can be projected back to the "original" Mithra. Um...from my understanding of history and mythology, it actually does require some basis that can be projected back to the original Mithra. In other words, it is very difficult and unlikely that a deity of similar name and type would be picked up in a new location and time without having at least some basis on the previous incarnations of said deity. Also, considering the long history of Mithra, and the similarities between Mithra and Jesus, it is very likely that his stories influenced the shaping of the Christ stories, which appear to borrow from a lot of other older god/men stories floating about that area at that time. One would have to be crazy to state that those stories had no influence on the formation of early Christianity, especially considering the amount of gentiles Paul was insistent on converting. Posted by: extremeone Mar 13 2004, 12:33 AM QUOTE (Skankboy @ Mar 10 2004, 11:40 AM) Very well thought out o' Extreme One. I've encountered one other variation of this argument when speaking to christians. The idea is that the devil knew Jesus was coming so he created "false" messiahs and imperfect copies of christianity all over the world to confuse people when the "true" word was finally brought to them. i've heard that too... but the thing that makes no since.. is if they were here to "distract" you from the "real", wouldnt they do bad things and not good... sounds like to methese other god/men that predate jesus were here to do good,but jesus is the only god/man that contrdicts himself through his whole life,and is the only one to ever call himself lucifer "I AM THE MORNING STAR!" NEW TESTAMENT SHOCKER! JESUS' FINAL REVELATION IS Revelation 22:16 MORNING STAR IS HEBREW FOR “LUCIFER!" look it up if you dont trust me.. Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 Mar 13 2004, 02:10 PM Do people just ignore the foundation of this site? Oh well, found the link on thee front page: The Pagan Origins of Jesus http://home.earthlink.net/~pgwhacker/ChristianOrigins/ Posted by: Matthew Mar 13 2004, 02:59 PM This was an excellent post! I wanted to insert my own commentary on it in a point-by-point manner! QUOTE As information becomes more available to wider audiences through the internet, the subject of "pagan" Gods often enters into debates about Christianity. The issue of whether or not Jesus was patterned after the stories and attributes of some pagan gods is one that produces some amazing claims by Christians. Of course. Christians will go out of their way to discredit any theory of borrowing from pagan savior myths. QUOTE They will always deny that there were any pagan Gods who existed prior to Jesus that could have influenced how Jesus was developed in Christian writings such as the New Testament. Christians will always deny that there could be pagan influences. But a skeptic need not establish a definite "copycat" influence. Richard Carrier pointed this out in a http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/carrier_on_osiris.htm over a debate between Farrell Till and Christian apologist Mark McFall: QUOTE On the one hand, whether Christians did get the idea from some particular religion or religions is not something we can likely ever know; rather, what is significant is that the idea was "in the air" and thus not novel. A skeptic might ask why a God would enact a plan of salvation that assembles syncretically the ideas of false religions actively practiced at the time. Such a syncretic assembly is the hallmark of human invention, not divine plan. On the other hand, it is quite easy (and has happened again and again) for a religious movement to unconsciously adopt, and in the process mold and transform, a popular notion in the surrounding culture. Rather than conscious borrowing, the existence of potent ideas in the broader culture will affect what people expect, what they believe to be possible, and how they will interpret strange events or escape a psychological crisis. The first Christians may have had no idea of the influence of pagan ideas on their interpretation of the events surrounding and following the death of their beloved leader. Number two. McFall overplays just a bit the "x is not enough like y" card. By finding differences between Christianity and other myths, like that of Osiris, he claims there could therefore be no influence. That does not follow. Every religion is unique. It is not therefore true. You would struggle in vain to find the precedent for the Attis cult's practice of self-castration and the carrying of trees all over Italy. People invent novel, even wildly strange religions all the time. Appeals to popular hatred of the novel are also in vain, since despite the almost universal disgust the Greeks and Romans felt toward castrated men the Attis cult nonetheless flourished, even in the heart of Italy itself. Likewise, the Attis cult's notion of a God dying and then being resurrected with the agricultural cycle is obviously a borrowing from the numerous agricultural-resurrection cults of the day, yet it is entirely novel for the cause of death: castration. It would be quite wrong to say, perhaps, "No other pagan gods died that way, so those dying-and-rising gods are not parallels inspiring the Attis myth." That is obviously not true. Thus, finding differences between Christ and Osiris carries little weight. It still remains that a dying-and-rising god motif exists in both cases and thus the Christian belief is not entirely novel. It remains worth exploring just how novel it is, and why, but we cannot dismiss obvious similarities simply because there are differences. When we revisit the issue of syncretism we see that while the most popular pagan notions of divine and personal resurrection appear to be metaphorical or to relate to events that are real but carried out in some other sphere beyond that of earth, the Jews had already brought the resurrection idea down to earth in a purely physical form. It is not hard to see how a simple uniting of the two ideologies produces Christianity: the ethereal resurrection of a single divine man combined with the physical, mass resurrection eagerly expected by the Jews. It makes too much sense to dismiss too easily. As Carrier puts it, it need not be established wether borrowing occured in either direction. Thus it doesn't matter if Christianity borrowed directly from Mithra or wether both of them crystalized their common beliefs from ideas that were loosely in circulation but not necessarily in the form of a organized theology. What's important is that such ideas were in circulation and it's possible that Christianity merely assimilated such ideas wether directly from Mithra or indirectly from the same sources that Mithra did. The same is true of the Mythic Hero Archetype. Thus, any skeptic need not ever establish or identify a definite "copycat" process, a skeptic only need to point out that such ideas were common and in circulation and were bound to be formalized in Christian theology. Christianity need not copycat any particular mythic hero biography but just assimilate elements from the overall theme that all of them have in common, more or less. QUOTE The following essay contains identified comments from a rabid Christian writing in an Skeptic vs. Christian forum and are typical of the Christian apologetics used to debunk the idea that there may have been pagan Gods which served as templates for the Jesus story. A skeptic introduced into the debate Christmas and the name "Mithra" who was an ancient savior god of the Persians who has striking similarities to Jesus before Jesus was supposed to have been born. Where was this debate held at? QUOTE [Christian writes: Mithra? I have to assume that you're joking. In order to have a serious discussion about Christianity and atheism, then you have to turn aside your intense desire to disparage Christianity at every turn and instead let's talk intelligently and objectively.] Notice how the Christian starts out. He immediately dismisses the idea that Mithra may have been a role model for the Jesus story by assuming that any talk about Mithra is a joke. Then the Christian accuses the skeptic of not being objective and only interested in Christianity bashing. This is a rather obvious ploy which attempts to discredit the idea that Jesus may have been copied from prior savior gods by attempting to laugh off the idea from the start. I have noticed that too and all so often. The Christian smugly dismisses the suggestion out of hand. The assumption, of course, is that any skeptic who dares bring up a suggestion only has an anti-Christian agenda to pursue and is interested in bashing the faith. I, too, have noticed the arrogance in this apologist's assumptions ( I have to wonder if this apologist is Robert Turkel who writes under the pseudo-name "James Patrick Holding".) This apologist seems, of course, to be missing the boat. It need not be established that copycatting occured in any definite direction, as my quote of Carrier makes clear. Apologists can howl and bicker about differences all they want to. Differences at best illustrate that there is no definite copycat tendencies, not that Christians didn't assimilate such common themes and crystalize ideas in circulation at the time. Thus Mithra and Christianity can have common elements cut from the same mythic cloth, not that one necessarily borrowed from the other. QUOTE In other words, in order to "intelligently" and "objectively" discuss Christianity, silly notions that there could have been savior gods who existed prior to Jesus and who had very similar attributes to Jesus must be put aside as nonsense. When dealing with a zealous Christian, one must always remember that there is nothing in the universe which has any "real" validity other than Jesus and the Bible. What is also presumptuous is that this particular Christian makes it sound as though Christians are the only ones capable of being "intelligent" and "objective". It reminds me of arrogant "scientific" apologists like Jonathan Sarfati who act like only scientists who are devoted to Jesus Christ and recent creationism are the only scholars capable of getting their facts right because "misotheistic bigots" cannot honestly get their facts right in regards to origin studies. It's arrogant elitism to be sure but you can't tell apologists that. QUOTE Christian writes: Firstly, even the experts will acknowledge that there is virtually no literary evidence as to the beliefs of Mirthraism (please refer to "The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries" by David Ulansey).] Beware of apologetic appeals to authority or consensus. Often when Christians say that "scholarship", "experts", or "scholars" have debunked this idea or shattered that idea, it may be no more than smug Christian apologists who have taken a few shots at a particular idea or theory and then arrogant strut off like they are hot stuff. It makes me sick of how arrogant and smug these Christians can be. Apologetic appeals to experts and authorities may be just to other Christian apologists because often Christians act like their apologists are the only true scholars capable of getting their facts right. QUOTE The experts? Experts are a dime a dozen. The experts at the Christian Institute for Creation Research declare that the earth is only about 6,000 years old. For every Christian "expert" on pagan religions, I can cite one who isn't a Christian and establishes that Mithra was a savior God who was worshipped prior to Jesus and whose origins date long before Jesus was supposed to have been born. Agreed. This supports the point I just made. Of course some Christians like that of Bill Craig have come to realize that the old McDowell method of quoting authorities who agree with your position doesn't seem affective and therefore try to quote authorities who don't agree with your conclusion or position but never-the-less seem prepared to surrender facts that are helpful to your case. QUOTE The real problem is that if some parts of the Jesus story were patterned after "pagan" Gods, then the validity of the New Testament as the word of God is in jeopardy and Christians can't allow that. Agreed. If Christianity has enough elements in common either with pagan mythologies, mythic hero stories, or anything else, then that can go quite some ways to establishing that Christianity merely assimilated elements that were in circulation without copycatting in any particular direction and from any particular source. Christianity need not directly copycat from Zoroaster or Mithra but just assimilate the ideas that were in circulation that also became crystalized in similar mythologies. In other words, Christianity can be cut from the same mythic cloth that both Mithra and Zoroaster and thus all of them got their ideas from the same source or the same myth-making tendencies are at work in all of these cults. QUOTE [Christian writes: The simple reason that Mithraism could not possibly have influenced first-century Christianity (in fact, the opposite was likely true) is that the timing is all wrong. Mithraism didn't really begin to flourish until AFTER the closing of New Testament canon (see "The Mysteries of Mithra" by Franz Cumont) and in fact, no monuments to this religion can be dated any earlier than AD 90 - 100.] Non-sequitur (I hope I spelled that right). Just because Mithraism may not have flourished until after the closing of the New Testament canon doesn't mean that no influencing occured at all. I think this apologist is conflating the origin of Mithraism with its success. Did Mithra originate before Christianity or after it? Even if Mithra originated and flourished after Christianity did, it could be that both crystalized their common mythic elements from common mythic ideas in circulation. Maybe Christianity did borrow from Mithraism or both of them were cut from the same mythic cloth and Christianity adopted certain elements that made it more attractive and more prone to spread than Mithraism. QUOTE Here we see the mind of a Christian zealot in all it's radiant splendor. Instead of Jesus being copied from Mithra, he asserts Mithra was copied from Jesus. The Christian turns the tables by saying that pagan copycats used the Jesus story to invent Mithra. Of course. And if Mithra copied from Christianity, so what? What if Mithra copied from Christianity which copied from some other source(s). The apologist is over-reaching here. The apologist seems intent on reversing the copy-cat influence. But this again misses the boat for the fact that a definite direction need not be established. This alone renders all copycat critiques superfluous. QUOTE It's simply not possible in this persons mind that the Jesus story could have been influenced by stories of other god/men who existed in history prior to Jesus. Right on target! Very sad. QUOTE Since Mithra was a Persian God who was introduced to the Romans before Jesus was ever written about, Mithra was around in some form before Jesus. Notice how the Christian dances around this by saying that Mithraism "didn't really begin to flourish" until the NT canon was closed. The issue is not when Mithraism was at it's most popular in the region, but how old it's foundations are and where they originated from. Bullseye! Add to this fact, Carrier's comments above. The apologist that was quoted is simply a fish out of water on the issue of syncretism. QUOTE This Christian can sing and dance and quote any number of books he wants. Here's what the Encarta online research source says about Mithra: "Mithraism, one of the major religions of the Roman Empire, the cult of Mithra, the ancient Persian god of light and wisdom. In the Avesta, the sacred Zoroastrian writings (see Zoroastrianism) of the ancient Persians, Mithra appears as the chief yazata (Avestan, 'beneficent one'), or good spirit, and ruler of the world. He was supposed to have slain the divine bull, from whose dying body sprang all plants and animals beneficial to humanity. After the conquest of Assyria in the 7th century BC and of Babylonia in the 6th century BC, Mithra became the god of the sun, which was worshipped in his name (see Sun Worship). The Greeks of Asia Minor, by identifying Mithra with Helios, the Greek god of the sun, helped to spread the cult. It was brought to Rome about 68 BC by Cilician pirates whom the Roman general Pompey the Great had captured, and during the early empire it spread rapidly throughout Italy and the Roman provinces. It was a rival to Christianity in the Roman world." "Mithraism was similar to Christianity in many respects, for example, in the ideals of humility and brotherly love, baptism, the rite of communion, the use of holy water, the adoration of the shepherds at Mithra's birth, the adoption of Sundays and of December 25 (Mithra's birthday) as holy days, and the belief in the immortality of the soul, the last judgment, and the resurrection. Mithraism differed from Christianity in the exclusion of women from its ceremonies and in its willingness to compromise with polytheism. The similarities, however, made possible the easy conversion of its followers to Christian doctrine." (End quote) Also, from a web site which examines Mithraism: "Plainly, the worship of Mithras was well ahead of the worship of Jesus. In any case there is a dated pre-Christian Mithraic inscription of Antiochus I of Commagene (69-34 BC) in eastern Asia Minor. Mithras shakes hands with the King, he wears the Phrygian cap, the Persian trousers, and a cape. His hat is star speckled and rays of light emerge from his head like a halo. His torq is a serpent. This is the image of the Roman Mithras in a scene taking place 100 years before the crucifixion." "There were worshippers of Mithras in Rome in Pompey's time (67 BC)." "Christians are more defensive about Mithras than perhaps any other pre-Christian Roma |