Mithraism, cult of Mithra, or Mithras, an anct. Aryan god of light, whom the Zoroastrians conceived of as a champion of Ahura-Mazda in his eternal conflict with Ahriman, the prince of evil. M. was therefore a spurious development of Mazdaism (see ZOROASTBIANISM) which latter spread over most of Asia Minor, but through Gk. influences, the only part of the creed which was embraced by the people was the worship of Mithra, really a subordinate, if attractive, Zoroastrian spirit, yet chosen as an absolutely supreme god.

Mithra was early identified with the sun-god, and as such was the centre of a cult which, according to Plutarch, was introduced to Rome by Pompey's pirate-captives from Cilicia in 68 B.C. The monuments of this worship have been found wherever the Rom. legions went in Britain, thus showing how readily one religion supplants another which has not adapted itself to the developing needs of any race. On the monuments of his cult Mithra is represented as a beautiful youth driving a sword into the neck of a prostrate bull which latter at the same time is being devoured by a scorpion, a crab, and a dog; but no convincing solution has been offered to explain this symbolic representation, which was no doubt part of an elaborate dogmatic system.

M. was also an ethical system and what is extant of its ritual suggests the existence of an organized hierarchy and a worship assimilated to the Gk. mysteries. M. finally ceased to exist in the fourth century, when it was superseded by Christianity.

In the struggle of Paganism with Christianity, however, M. exercised a powerful attraction, being a pure and elevated religion, and though at first a form of sun-worship, it became modified by syncretism. Its most striking ceremony was the blood-baptism called Taurobolium.

Also see
See F. Oumont, Textes et monuments figures relatives aux mysteres de Mithre, 1896-99; and A. Schutze, Mithramysterien und Ur- christentum, 1937.

And the point of your OP is? :confused:

Mithraism, cult of Mithra, or Mithras, an anct. Aryan god of light, whom the Zoroastrians conceived of as a champion of Ahura-Mazda in his eternal conflict with Ahriman, the prince of evil. M. was therefore a spurious development of Mazdaism (see ZOROASTBIANISM) which latter spread over most of Asia Minor, but through Gk. influences, the only part of the creed which was embraced by the people was the worship of Mithra, really a subordinate, if attractive, Zoroastrian spirit, yet chosen as an absolutely supreme god.

Mithra was early identified with the sun-god, and as such was the centre of a cult which, according to Plutarch, was introduced to Rome by Pompey's pirate-captives from Cilicia in 68 B.C. The monuments of this worship have been found wherever the Rom. legions went in Britain, thus showing how readily one religion supplants another which has not adapted itself to the developing needs of any race. On the monuments of his cult Mithra is represented as a beautiful youth driving a sword into the neck of a prostrate bull which latter at the same time is being devoured by a scorpion, a crab, and a dog; but no convincing solution has been offered to explain this symbolic representation, which was no doubt part of an elaborate dogmatic system.

M. was also an ethical system and what is extant of its ritual suggests the existence of an organized hierarchy and a worship assimilated to the Gk. mysteries. M. finally ceased to exist in the fourth century, when it was superseded by Christianity.

In the struggle of Paganism with Christianity, however, M. exercised a powerful attraction, being a pure and elevated religion, and though at first a form of sun-worship, it became modified by syncretism. Its most striking ceremony was the blood-baptism called Taurobolium.

Also see
See F. Oumont, Textes et monuments figures relatives aux mysteres de Mithre, 1896-99; and A. Schutze, Mithramysterien und Ur- christentum, 1937.

From “Everyman’s Encylopeodia” 1950.

So you shown that you can copy and paste, but is there some other point that might like to comment on?:huh:

So, it's another Manicheistic belief system?

Good guys and bad guys?

Mazdaism?.......my son's into that.......he is a Mazda-trained mechanic....:)

I prefer the ramblings of the Welsh prophet Dai Hatsu.

I was soo tempted to cut and paste the entire Wikipedia page for Mithraism. with the introduction of:

This is what I feel on the subject.....................................

This is what I feel on the subject...
Religion IS a big FAKE

Thats all you have to remember, right there!

Grahame, is putting me out of my misery basically. Ive been moaning and carrying on for weeks about mithras :D

Cheers my man! :D

This is what I feel on the subject...
Religion IS a big FAKE

Thats all you have to remember, right there!

Don't get him started :hihi:

Grahame, is putting me out of my misery basically. Ive been moaning and carrying on for weeks about mithras :D

Cheers my man! :D

I'm sure you can get some cream from the doctor for that!

Grahame, is putting me out of my misery basically. Ive been moaning and carrying on for weeks about mithras :D

Cheers my man! :D

Ahhhh....it all makes sense now!

But it's still Manicheistic!

Are you planning on becoming a follower of Mithras as wll as Moluscology, then, Jabbers?

I wanted to know a real religious persons opinions on mithras. From what Ive... from the LITTLE Ive learned over the weeks, it would appear that christianity is a sort of copy of mithras.
All the events in christianity seem to have occurred thousands of years earlier to someone else, and started the mithras thing off. Christianlty is said to have used pagan and pre christian feasts and re named them, such as christmas and easter. It seems that the entire mithras thing, from the nativity right up to the crucifixion is also a mithras thing.
Im just interested to see what a religious person thinks of that.

Ahhhh....it all makes sense now!

But it's still Manicheistic!

Are you planning on becoming a follower of Mithras as wll as Moluscology, then, Jabbers?

Can molluscs be baited?:hihi:

God, Im getting sensible in my old age, searching for knowledge.
Im I going senile in reverse?

I wanted to know a real religious persons opinions on mithras. From what Ive... from the LITTLE Ive learned over the weeks, it would appear that christianity is a sort of copy of mithras.
All the events in christianity seem to have occurred thousands of years earlier to someone else, and started the mithras thing off. Christianlty is said to have used pagan and pre christian feasts and re named them, such as christmas and easter. It seems that the entire mithras thing, from the nativity right up to the crucifixion is also a mithras thing.
Im just interested to see what a religious person thinks of that.

The present day followers of the cult of Mithra, in order to promote their religion are doing so on the back of Christianity, while at the same time minimising it.

Mithrasism has more to do with the worship of a sun-god. It is nothing to do with Christianity, although as I say it's modern day proponents would try and make out it is, probably to gain some degree of credibility at he expense of Christianity.

Has Grahame been converted to Mithras-ism then? :confused:

Or have the Creationist Websites gone awol off the internet today, and he has a compulsive need to copy and paste something/anything about religion because it's Sunday? :cool:

Has Grahame been converted to Mithras-ism then? :confused:

Or have the Creationist Websites gone awol off the internet today, and he has a compulsive need to copy and paste something/anything about religion because it's Sunday? :cool:

Jabbers was asking for information and it took me a long time to type all that out. There's no need to be like that shoshine. :(

The present day followers of the cult of Mithra, in order to promote their religion are doing so on the back of Christianity, while at the same time minimising it.

Mithrasism has more to do with the worship of a sun-god. It is nothing to do with Christianity, although as I say it's modern day proponents would try and make out it is, probably to gain some degree of credibility at he expense of Christianity.

Theres a... I didnt know there was still a mithras thing! I thought it was a long dead cult.

I wanted to know a real religious persons opinions on mithras. From what Ive... from the LITTLE Ive learned over the weeks, it would appear that christianity is a sort of copy of mithras.
All the events in christianity seem to have occurred thousands of years earlier to someone else, and started the mithras thing off. Christianlty is said to have used pagan and pre christian feasts and re named them, such as christmas and easter. It seems that the entire mithras thing, from the nativity right up to the crucifixion is also a mithras thing.
Im just interested to see what a religious person thinks of that.

I think you've just blown your cover there, Jabbers! :o ;)

StarSparkle :)

It took me a long time to type all that out. And that is the thanks I get. :(

Well you have my thanks. Im always glad of any input you make.

It took me a long time to type all that out. And that is the thanks I get. :(

Yep, disappointing innit?:hihi:

Has Grahame been converted to Mithras-ism then? :confused:

Or have the Creationist Websites gone awol off the internet today, and he has a compulsive need to copy and paste something/anything about religion because it's Sunday? :cool:

No no no I asked him his opinions on Mithras yesterday. Hes been kind enough to start a thread about it for me!

Yep, disappointing innit?:hihi:

Youre a bad bad man.

Marry me!

Youre a bad bad man.

Marry me!

In your dreams, WHELK LOVER! :hihi:

It seems that the entire mithras thing, from the nativity right up to the crucifixion is also a mithras thing.
Im just interested to see what a religious person thinks of that.

Grahame - it's appreciated! I like to see this sort of thing explored.

At the risk of being serious - the main difference is that Mithras was himself a deity in a polytheistic, Manicheistic belief system. That is, multiple deities of varying statuses, and a belief in the eternal conflict between good and evil, typically exemplified by a struggle between evenly match gods, but there being no overall omnipotent power of good.

With Christianity, the philosophy is different. The equivalent of Ariman for Christians would be the Devil, effectively a 'disloyal subordinate' subordinate of God, and who's role in the scheme of things is to lure humans away from God. Iblis, the Muslim equivalent of Satan, is also a 'deceiver' in this way. And God is regarded as the omnipotent power of good.

So...similar, but distinctly different. :)

It's sun worship vs son worship. Not much in it.

It's sun worship vs son worship. Not much in it.

Very good! :)

Has Grahame been converted to Mithras-ism then? :confused:


I would suggest that, as Christianity is an off-shoot of Mithraism, a sub-cult if you like, then one wouldn't need to convert. One could simply go back to the mother church.

I would suggest that, as Christianity is an off-shoot of Mithraism, a sub-cult if you like, then one wouldn't need to convert. One could simply go back to the mother church.

Nah, its Greek mythology not Christianity.

http://homepage.mac.com/cparada/GML/OtherDeities.html

http://users.aol.com/purging/ptp2/roman.htm

You will need to scroll down.

Nah, its Greek mythology not Christianity.



and Roman too. It still pre-dates Christianity which means, in my opinion, that Christianity is in all likelihood a derivative of Mithraism.

and Roman too. It still pre-dates Christianity which means, in my opinion, that Christianity is in all likelihood a derivative of Mithraism.

And of course the Christians loved the Romans so much for crucifying Jesus that they decided to worship their sun god.

I've heard it all now.

Now isnt this better than yelling at each other about religion? We learn something new, or at least, I learn something new, and its something everyone can add a nice opinion about.

Jabbers was asking for information and it took me a long time to type all that out. There's no need to be like that shoshine. :(

What I don't understand is why you couldn't just have PM'd the link to Jabbers, as it seems to have been a personal request for information from Jabbers to you.:huh:

I guess the Old Testament Hebrews even pinched the story of the Great Flood from the Gilgamesh or other Mesopotamian sources...

What I don't understand is why you couldn't just have PM'd the link to Jabbers, as it seems to have been a personal request for information from Jabbers to you.:huh:

There isn't a link Ann, and I did not cut and paste as you said earlier, I typed it out from a reference book. I suppose I could have PM'd the information to Jabbers but on a different thread he was implying Christians were scared of the subject, so in order to clear up the misconception I needed to post it on an open forum to clear up the misconception for all to see.

What I don't understand is why you couldn't just have PM'd the link to Jabbers, as it seems to have been a personal request for information from Jabbers to you.:huh:

Because I wanted to make it into a thread. I want differing opinions on the subject.


And what Grahame said.

I guess the Old Testament Hebrews even pinched the story of the Great Flood from the Gilgamesh or other Mesopotamian sources...
They copied and pasted it off the Environment Agency (York region) website.

I guess the Old Testament Hebrews even pinched the story of the Great Flood from the Gilgamesh or other Mesopotamian sources...

You make a good point about Christianity being Jewish and not Roman.

EDIT. To be honest, without I study it, you may have a point about the Great Flood.

I prefer the ramblings of the Welsh prophet Dai Hatsu.

the french philosopher cit roen is worth a look too but take it too seriously

Zoroastrianism

Zoroastrianism the ancient pre-Islamic religion of Iran that survives there in isolated areas and, more prosperously, in India, where the descendants of Zoroastrian Iranian (Persian) immigrants are known as Parsis, or Parsees. In India the religion is called Parsiism. Zoroastrianism the religion of the Persians was introduced by Zoroaster or Zarathushtra, who probably lived about 800 B.C. He was either a Mede or a Bactrian, and was evidently a man of extraordinary personality. He commenced teaching at the age of thirty, after many years spent in contemplation, and died at the age of seventy-seven. The religion he founded was the national religion of the Persians from about 550 B.C. to the middle of the seventh century A.D. At this time Persia was invaded by the Mohammedans, and the faithful followers of Zoroaster fled to India, and are now represented by the Parsis (q.v.).

In the anct. Gothic period Zoroastrianism was a monotheistic religion based on a philosophy of Dualism of good and evil spirits. The supreme Lord of the whole Universe was called by Zoroaster Ahuramazda, and the two spirits—spento-mainyush (good) and angro-mainyush (evil)—were merely tools in the hands of the Highest to work out His grand plan of the universe. Zoroastrianism was a practical, ethical doctrine inculcating active charity, kindness to animals, and moral conduct generally. The central feature of Zoroastrian ritual was fire worship, as with the Parsis, together with elaborate methods of preventing defilement. Each man, according to Zoroastrianism had a free will, conscience, and a soul, and a guardian spirit or prototype of himself who dwelt above, and was called a fravashi—being really his own character put into a spiritual body. Having the choice of good and evil, man naturally has to suffer the punishment of sin.


See M. N. Dhalla, Zoroastrian Civilisation, 1922; J. H. Moulton, Early Zoroastrianism, 1927; -A. V. W. Jackson, Zoroastrian Studies, 1928; J. D. C. Pavry, Zoroastrian Doctrine of Future Life, 1929; A. S. Wadia. The Message of Zoroaster, 1938.

************************************************** *******************

Zoroastrianism, as has been said was the religion of the Persians. One of the rulers over the Medes and Persions was King Darius about whom we read in the book of Danial in the Old Testament. He was the one who threw threw Daniel into the lions den. Daniel, who worshiped the same God as Jews and Christians came out of the ordeal unscathed causing King Darius to acknowledge the God of Daniel was the living and eternal God over and above all other gods including his own.

Danial chapter 6.

Then the king commanded, and they brought Daniel, and cast him into the den of the lions. And the king said to Daniel: Thy God, whom thou always servest, he will deliver thee. And a stone was brought, and laid upon the mouth of the den: which the king sealed with his own ring, and with the ring of his nobles, that nothing should be done against Daniel. And the king went away to his house, and laid himself down without taking supper, and meat was not set before him, and even sleep departed from him. Then the king rising very early in the morning went in haste to the lions' den: and coming near to the den, cried with a lamentable voice to Daniel, and said to him: Daniel, servant of the living God, hath thy God, whom thou servest always, been able, thinkest thou, to deliver thee from the lions? And Daniel answering the king, said: O king, live for ever: My God hath sent his angel, and hath shut up the mouths of the lions, and they have not hurt me: forasmuch as before him justice hath been found in me: yea, and before thee, O king, I have done no offence.

Then was the king exceeding glad for him, and he commanded that Daniel should be taken out of the den: and Daniel was taken out of the den, and no hurt was found in him, because he believed in his God.
And by the king's commandment, those men were brought that had accused Daniel: and they were cast into the lions' den, they and their children, and their wives: and they did not reach the bottom of the den, before the lions caught them, and broke all their bones in pieces. Then king Darius wrote to all people, tribes, and languages, dwelling in the whole earth: “PEACE be multiplied unto you. It is decreed by me, that in all my empire and my kingdom, all men dread and fear the God of Daniel. For he is the living and eternal God for ever: and his kingdom shall not be destroyed, and his power shall be for ever. He is the deliverer, and saviour, doing signs and wonders in heaven, and in earth: who hath delivered Daniel out of the lions' den.”


Zoroastrianism worships Ahura Mazda and his Holy Forces, the Ameshaspands and Yazatas (concept), and these include the elements created by God such as the Holy Fire, Wind, Water, Earth, and so on. This is not the God of the Jews or Christians.

http://tenets.zoroastrianism.com/noidols33.html

morning grahame:)

God is dead" (German: "Gott ist tot"; also known as the death of God) is a widely-quoted and sometimes misconstrued statement by German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. It first appears in The Gay Science (Die fröhliche Wissenschaft), section 108 (New Struggles), in section 125 (The Madman), and for a third time in section 343 (The Meaning of our Cheerfulness). It is also found in Nietzsche's classic work Also sprach Zarathustra, which is most responsible for popularizing the phrase. The idea is stated by "The Madman" as follows:

God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?

—Nietzsche, The Gay Science, Section 125, tr. Walter Kaufmann
Contents [hide]
1 Explanation
1.1 Nietzsche and Heidegger
1.2 New possibilities
1.3 Nietzsche's voice
2 Death of God theological movement
3 Notable references in popular culture
4 See also
5 Further reading
5.1 Death of God theology
6 References
7 External links



[edit] Explanation
"God is dead" is not meant literally, as in "God is now physically dead"; rather, it is Nietzsche's way of saying that the idea of God is no longer capable of acting as a source of any moral code or teleology. Nietzsche recognizes the crisis which the death of God represents for existing moral considerations, because "When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one's feet. This morality is by no means self-evident.... By breaking one main concept out of Christianity, the faith in God, one breaks the whole: nothing necessary remains in one's hands."[1] This is why in "The Madman", the madman addresses not believers, but atheists — the problem is to retain any system of values in the absence of a divine order.

The death of God is a way of saying that humans are no longer able to believe in any such cosmic order since they themselves no longer recognize it. The death of God will lead, Nietzsche says, not only to the rejection of a belief of cosmic or physical order but also to a rejection of absolute values themselves — to the rejection of belief in an objective and universal moral law, binding upon all individuals. In this manner, the loss of an absolute basis for morality leads to nihilism. This nihilism is what Nietzsche worked to find a solution for by re-evaluating the foundations of human values. This meant, to Nietzsche, looking for foundations that went deeper than the Christian values beyond which he felt most Christians refuse to look.

Nietzsche believed that the majority of people did not recognize (or refused to acknowledge) this death out of the deepest-seated fear or angst. Therefore, when the death did begin to become widely acknowledged, people would despair and nihilism would become rampant, as well as the relativistic belief that human will is a law unto itself—anything goes and all is permitted. This is partly why Nietzsche saw Christianity as nihilistic. To Nietzsche, nihilism is the consequence of any idealistic philosophical system, because all idealisms suffer from the same weakness as Christian morality—that there is no "foundation" to build on. He therefore describes himself as "a 'subterranean man' at work, one who tunnels and mines and undermines."[2]


[edit] Nietzsche and Heidegger
Martin Heidegger fundamentally contributed to our understanding of this part of Nietzsche's philosophy by looking at it as death of metaphysics. In his view, Nietzsche's words can only be understood as referring not to a particular theological or anthropological view but rather to the end of philosophy itself. Philosophy has, in Heidegger's words, reached its maximum potential as metaphysics and Nietzsche's words warn us of its demise and that of any metaphysical world view. If metaphysics is dead that is, Heidegger warns, because from its inceptions that was its fate.[3]


[edit] New possibilities
Nietzsche believed there could be positive possibilities for humans without God. Relinquishing the belief in God opens the way for human creative abilities to fully develop. The Christian God, with his arbitrary commands and prohibitions, would no longer stand in the way, so human beings might stop turning their eyes toward a supernatural realm and begin to acknowledge the value of this world. The recognition that "God is dead" would be like a blank canvas. It is a freedom to become something new, different, creative — a freedom to be something without being forced to accept the baggage of the past.

Nietzsche uses the metaphor of an open sea, which can be both exhilarating and terrifying. The people who eventually learn to create their lives anew will represent a new stage in human existence, the Übermensch —i.e. the personal archetype who, through the conquest of their own nihilism, themselves become a mythical hero. The 'death of God' is the motivation for Nietzsche's last (uncompleted) philosophical project, the 'revaluation of all values'.


[edit] Nietzsche's voice
Although Nietzsche puts the statement "God is Dead" into the mouth of a "madman" in The Gay Science, he also uses the phrase in his own voice in sections 108 and 343 of the same book. In the madman's passage, the man is described as running through a marketplace shouting, "God is dead! God remains dead!" He arouses some amusement; no one takes him seriously. Frustrated, the madman smashes his lantern on the ground, crying out that he has come too soon: people cannot yet see that they have killed God. He goes on to say:

This prodigious event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time, the light of the stars requires time, deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than the most distant stars—and yet they have done it themselves.

—trans. Walter Kaufmann, The Gay Science, sect. 125
Earlier in the book (section 108), Nietzsche wrote "God is Dead; but given the way of men, there may still be caves for thousands of years in which his shadow will be shown. And we—we still have to vanquish his shadow, too." The protagonist in Thus Spoke Zarathustra also speaks the words, commenting to himself after visiting a hermit who, every day, sings songs and lives to glorify his god:

'And what is the saint doing in the forest?' asked Zarathustra. The saint answered: 'I make songs and sing them; and when I make songs, I laugh, cry, and hum: thus do I praise God. With singing, crying, laughing, and humming do I praise the god who is my god. But what do you bring us as a gift?' When Zarathustra had heard these words he bade the saint farewell and said: 'What could I have to give you? But let me go quickly lest I take something from you!' And thus they separated, the old one and the man, laughing as two boys laugh.
But when Zarathustra was alone he spoke thus to his heart: 'Could it be possible? This old saint in the forest has not yet heard anything of this, that God is dead!'

—trans. Walter Kaufmann, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Prologue, sect. 2.

[edit] Death of God theological movement
The cover of Time magazine April 8, 1966 and the accompanying article concerned a movement in American theology that arose in the 1960s known as the "death of God". The death of God movement is sometimes technically referred to as "theothanatology" (In Greek, Theos means God and Thanatos means death.)

The main protagonists of this theology included the Christian theologians Gabriel Vahanian, Paul van Buren, William Hamilton and Thomas J. J. Altizer, and the Jewish rabbi Richard Rubenstein.

In 1961 Vahanian's book The Death of God was published. Vahanian argued that modern secular culture had lost all sense of the sacred, lacking any sacramental meaning, no transcendental purpose or sense of providence. He concluded that for the modern mind "God is dead", but he did not mean that God did not exist. In Vahanian's vision a transformed post-Christian and post-modern culture was needed to create a renewed experience of deity.

Both Van Buren and Hamilton agreed that the concept of transcendence had lost any meaningful place in modern thought. According to the norms of contemporary modern thought, God is dead. In responding to this collapse in transcendence Van Buren and Hamilton offered secular people the option of Jesus as the model human who acted in love. The encounter with the Christ of faith would be open in a church-community.

Altizer offered a radical theology of the death of God that drew upon William Blake, Hegelian thought and Nietzschean ideas. He conceived of theology as a form of poetry in which the immanence (presence) of God could be encountered in faith communities. However, he no longer accepted the possibility of affirming belief in a transcendent God. Altizer concluded that God had incarnated in Christ and imparted his immanent spirit which remained in the world even though Jesus was dead (contrary to New Testament writings like 1 Peter 1:2).

Unlike Nietzsche, Altizer believed that God truly died. He is considered to be the leading exponent of the Death of God movement.

Rubenstein represented that radical edge of Jewish thought working through the impact of the Holocaust. In a technical sense he maintained, based on the Kabbalah, that God had "died" in creating the world. However, for modern Jewish culture he argued that the death of God occurred in Auschwitz. In Rubenstein's work, it was no longer possible to believe in the God of the Abrahamic covenant. He felt that the only possibility left for Jews was to become pagans or to create their own meaning.

For God to be dead, he must have been alive, so you are moving in the right direction John. What of course is meant is that for atheists God is dead and unfortunately he is also dead in the hearts of modern men; he has been killed by rationalism and science. This same God however, formed the foundation of Christianity, which is correct as you know, providing Christians with a promise of sins forgiven and eternal life in the presence of God who is very much alive in the hearts and life’s of Christians today.

Grahame - it's appreciated! I like to see this sort of thing explored.

At the risk of being serious - the main difference is that Mithras was himself a deity in a polytheistic, Manicheistic belief system. That is, multiple deities of varying statuses, and a belief in the eternal conflict between good and evil, typically exemplified by a struggle between evenly match gods, but there being no overall omnipotent power of good.

With Christianity, the philosophy is different. The equivalent of Ariman for Christians would be the Devil, effectively a 'disloyal subordinate' subordinate of God, and who's role in the scheme of things is to lure humans away from God. Iblis, the Muslim equivalent of Satan, is also a 'deceiver' in this way. And God is regarded as the omnipotent power of good.

So...similar, but distinctly different. :)

Mithra was not a part of a Manicheistic belief system. The first mention of Mithra is 257 BC (Ref) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithra), Mani on the otherhand lived around 210–276 A.D (Ref) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism#Influence_on_Christianity).

Admittedly the mystery religion of Mithraism as practiced in Rome is not necessarily exactly the same and the linkages are disputed. But there are datings for Mithraic worship sites at Nida-Hedderhiem in Germany (c. 85) and at Caesarea Maritima in Israel (latter half of first century). Well before Mani.

The date of Christmas undeniably comes from Mithras, similarly the move of the Sabbath to Sunday.

But where people link Mithras with influence over Paul (and hence the earliest Christian scriptures) based on him coming from Tarsus, this I think is mostly considered doubtful. I can't find any direct references except for Plutarch and a coin from 238-244 (Ref) (http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/corpus-paul/19990424/000405.html).

You make a good point about Christianity being Jewish and not Roman.

EDIT. To be honest, without I study it, you may have a point about the Great Flood.

Christianity certainly was Jewish. It was only with Paul (at least 20 years after the death of christ) that conversion to Judaism was not a requirement of Christianity. Whilst much of Paul is in conflict with with the Judaizing teachers, he does not break with Mosaic traditions that get in his way, his contemporary Barnabas as viewed via the Epistle traditionally authored by him does. (Ref) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_of_Barnabas)

However, the influence of Rome on Christianity is undeniable. Christianity in the first few centuries was a mix of different influences and beliefs as were the other beliefs of the time. Until Irenaeus the 4 Gospels were never referenced, dating them to around 180 (but not necessarily their definitive contents. (An interesting discussion on dating) (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-129153.html)

Christianity was a mix of influences that were only partly resolved by the Emperor Constantine convening the First Council of Nicaea, where the Trinity was accepted as orthodoxy. The dates of the Sabbath and Christmas were moved to conform with the existing Mithraism festival dates.

Wow, this really takes the breath away ! I thought Harry Potter was deep and significant and interesting until I read about Mithras ! We can now begin to understand how the world REALLY works. Mithras gives us all the answers to the puzzles of the universe. We can all rest easily in our beds now, thank the Lord-------or thank Mithras.

I think I'm going to become a Zoroastrian. It sounds like fun.

Mithraism, cult of Mithra, or Mithras, an anct. Aryan god of light, whom the Zoroastrians conceived of as a champion of Ahura-Mazda in his eternal conflict with Ahriman, the prince of evil. M. was therefore a spurious development of Mazdaism (see ZOROASTBIANISM) which latter spread over most of Asia Minor, but through Gk. influences, the only part of the creed which was embraced by the people was the worship of Mithra, really a subordinate, if attractive, Zoroastrian spirit, yet chosen as an absolutely supreme god.

Mithra was early identified with the sun-god, and as such was the centre of a cult which, according to Plutarch, was introduced to Rome by Pompey's pirate-captives from Cilicia in 68 B.C. The monuments of this worship have been found wherever the Rom. legions went in Britain, thus showing how readily one religion supplants another which has not adapted itself to the developing needs of any race. On the monuments of his cult Mithra is represented as a beautiful youth driving a sword into the neck of a prostrate bull which latter at the same time is being devoured by a scorpion, a crab, and a dog; but no convincing solution has been offered to explain this symbolic representation, which was no doubt part of an elaborate dogmatic system.

M. was also an ethical system and what is extant of its ritual suggests the existence of an organized hierarchy and a worship assimilated to the Gk. mysteries. M. finally ceased to exist in the fourth century, when it was superseded by Christianity.

In the struggle of Paganism with Christianity, however, M. exercised a powerful attraction, being a pure and elevated religion, and though at first a form of sun-worship, it became modified by syncretism. Its most striking ceremony was the blood-baptism called Taurobolium.

Also see
See F. Oumont, Textes et monuments figures relatives aux mysteres de Mithre, 1896-99; and A. Schutze, Mithramysterien und Ur- christentum, 1937.

Don't stop me now,
I'm having such a good time
I'm having a ball.
Don't stop me now,
if you wanna have a good time,
just give me a call.

Mithra was not a part of a Manicheistic belief system. The first mention of Mithra is 257 BC (Ref) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithra), Mani on the otherhand lived around 210–276 A.D (Ref) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism#Influence_on_Christianity).

Admittedly the mystery religion of Mithraism as practiced in Rome is not necessarily exactly the same and the linkages are disputed. But there are datings for Mithraic worship sites at Nida-Hedderhiem in Germany (c. 85) and at Caesarea Maritima in Israel (latter half of first century). Well before Mani.

The date of Christmas undeniably comes from Mithras, similarly the move of the Sabbath to Sunday.

But where people link Mithras with influence over Paul (and hence the earliest Christian scriptures) based on him coming from Tarsus, this I think is mostly considered doubtful. I can't find any direct references except for Plutarch and a coin from 238-244 (Ref) (http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/corpus-paul/19990424/000405.html).

Are you sure about the 257BC date Wildcat?

The Wikipiedia source you give has 1400BC.

"The first extant record of Mitra/Mithra is in the inscribed peace treaty between Hittites and the Hurrian kingdom of the Mitanni in the area southeast of Lake Van, c. 1400 BCE."

Are you sure about the 257BC date Wildcat?

The Wikipiedia source you give has 1400BC.

"The first extant record of Mitra/Mithra is in the inscribed peace treaty between Hittites and the Hurrian kingdom of the Mitanni in the area southeast of Lake Van, c. 1400 BCE."

You are right I misread the article... I knew it was before Mani anyway :D

I notice in your post that slimsid quotes above you give more detail of the Plutarch reference than I saw on my investigations. The additional detail does support Mithraism being around in Tarsus at the time of Paul, and the possibility that some of his introductions might have been influenced by Mithraism.

I gave the more conservative view because you do have to be careful with ancient history because of the number of, as a friend calls them, "pyramidiots". For example there is a website I found arguing that Jesus studied buddhism in egypt (in his youth) and that either after the time he supposedly died he went off to India....:huh: It is plausibly argued but then these sorts of theories often are :D (Ref) (http://www.tombofjesus.com/2007/home.html)

You are right I misread the article... I knew it was before Mani anyway :D

Cheers. :)

Cheers. :)

By the way, do you see any similarities between the Old Testament law and Islam?

I do see a similarity and think that the reason is they both source the Old Testament. In Islam an eye for an eye is qualified by asking that people be virtuous and accept compensation as well. (Another point that I don't think has previously been made is that Hudud rules only apply to muslims). I am not aware of similar in Judaism. That said I am not denigrating anyone. One twist with Judaism is finding myself more sympathetic with the ultra orthodox haredim when it comes to Zionism. Which says to me that there must be a lot more good in the core principles of Judaism than I am aware of.

I do think the majority of people regardless of their religion see the value of "turning the other cheek". Admittedly, Christianity expresses it better and more explicitly than the other Abrahamic religions. But perhaps that is the buddhist influence on Jesus :D

Well, I saw this site on Orthodox Judaism which is not quite what I expected I have to admit

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/80/story_8053_1.html

and I can’t fault Buddhism for their peaceful way of life, but for me Christianity offers everything.