Archaeologica.org

2. He was considered a great travelling teacher and masters. He had twelve companions as Jesus had twelve disciples.

The idea of a religious leader being a travelling teacher and master is hardly a copy. It is a common trait of many great leaders. As for the 12 companions, I have not found a single reference to them from any historic source. Apparently J.P. Holden disagrees about Mithras as teacher and agrees with me about the lack of disciples (from: http://tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html ) "I have found nowhere any indication that Mithra was a teacher, traveling or otherwise."..."The Iranian Mithras, as we have seen, did have a single companion (Varuna), and the Roman Mithra had two helper/companions, tiny torch-bearing likenesses of himself, called Cautes and Cautopatres, that were perhaps meant to represent the sunrise and sunset" However, in his rebuttal, Holding does explain where the idea of twelve followers may have emerged.


It is tedious to continue presenting the rebuttals of Mr Holding while interspersing my own thoughts about the comparisons of Mithraism, and christianity. So I leave the reader to the remaining portions of Mr. Holdings rebuttal. I think sufficient doubt is placed on the idea based on several factors, not least of which include:

• * The references to the practices are not necessarily consistant with the practice of Mithraism at the time of the emergence of christianity. The claims are a mixture of Iranian and Roman beliefs.
  
  * The time-frame in which the beliefs are evidenced are not contemporary. Often the icons and archaeological evidence post-dates the christian era. Perhaps, some of the later elements of Roman Mithraism were borrowed from Christianity.
  
  * The sources for many of the claims are untenable and undocumented. At least Christianity has its gospels written near the period in question. Many of the claims cited in the "copyist" theory are 19th and 20th century fabrications.

Finally, the connection between Roman Mithraism and Iranian/Zorasterism is very shakey and may not be the same diety, even if some elements are common. Nevertheless, there exists certain commonalities in all religions, so there is no great revelation in this fact. Personally, I have no trouble seeing how the Christian Church later evolved as it absorbed the so-called pagan belief systems which permeated the Holy Roman Empire after the conversion of Constantine. We see it in Christmas, in Easter and in many traditions which had their origins in the decrees of the church leadership. This is one history the church can not deny, in my humble opinion. The apostolic church, on the otherhand, has never emerged from the proverbial "catacombs".

Cheers,
FM

Speaking of the written word ..........

From "Kabloona', written by Gontran de Poncins.

By the way, de Poncins travelled to the far North of Canada just prior to WWII. His interest: an ancient people.

"It was one o'clock in the morning of July 15th, and I lay sleepless in the mission house thinking these thoughts. Through the open door the light of the sun was streaming over my blanket. I could hear the native children playing on the seashore, and southward I could see through a window the brilliantly lighted hills that rose inland. This warmth, these mosquitoes born overnight on the still-present ice, mosquitoes that descend in clouds so thick that the men of the North wear veils against them - all this would be gone in a couple of weeks; and I should have to be off too.
It was almost exactly two weeks before I was able to get away. Meanwhile, I lived at the mission with Father Delalande, a priest whose religious spirit was as profound as his Parisian gaiety was infectious; and I helped him with the housekeeping. One day I came in and found him on all fours, and chanting the Ave Maria Stella. He began to soliloquize.
"What a trade ours is!" he said as he scrubbed vigorously. "We go from our breviary to dog-disease and back again, from prayers to the Primus stove, from Christian charity to a sound thwacking of the huskies because they are fighting out-of-doors and their howling annoys us. Thou shalt not kill, we repeat; and we take our 30-30 and bring down as many caribou as we can, because even a priest must eat, and so must his dogs. I tell you, it's enough to make a man die laughing." And into my boots he flung half the contents of his water bucket."


We've had half a million years of oral history, and maybe 7k years of written history. Despite written history's demands and protestations, oral history still wins. Though it cannot be "proven." Written history came up with the "unassailable" argument that "if it is written, it must be true." Which was the earliest, and still most basic, commandment of the Church of the Holy Materialism (read Religious and Secular control of economics.)

In other words, an early version of "Money for nothin', and the chicks for free." Thanks to Dire Straits.

Written history co-opted the accumulated knowledge of a lot of different peoples, and then by various administrative methods, i.e., armies, religions, governments and piratical entities who opposed the previous, and then killed or neutralized the peoples who had generated and procreated this knowledge for a very long time.

What is astonishing to me, in the positive sense, is that "the old knowledge" still survives and thrives, despite the present and obvious disintegration of both society and environment.

What does this possibly have to do with the subject of archaeology?

Simply this -

The spearhead in Kennewick Man's pelvis, or the thousands of ivory beads interred with the Russian mammoth hunters, or the footprints in the mud of Monte Verde beat any number of hypothesized angels on the head of the written pin regarding the existence or nonexistence of j. christ. Not to speak of various other "historical" entities.

To cop a phrase from theater, written history is a "willing supension of disbelief."

"So it goes."

Kurt Vonnegut


john

Forum Monk

Thank you so much for all that. I've read through it once, but I'll read through it again and come back with further comments then, if I may.

But I just wanted to make a couple of quick points here, which also tie in with John's post on oral history.

Imho, the Zoroastrian Mithra derives from the Indian Vedic Mithra in the following way. As I understand it, Zoroaster was a descendant of the Anu tribe that migrated west from India when the Anus were pushed out of the Punjab by the Purus. Zoroaster came from the Spitama family who were part of the Bhrigus, the fire priests of the Anus. He eventually rebelled against the family religion (the Vedic religion) to form his own religion but in the process of which, came up against power blocks that he had to negotiate with. The result of these negotiiations was a compromise where a place would be found the for the most ancient Vedic god, Mithra. That's why Mithra doesn't really seem to star much in the Zoroastrian religion. He is just an add on, an after thought, brought back in to satisfy Zoroaster's critics, after the main story of the religion had already been created. (I can get you more detail on this if you want it).

So the original Mithra was Vedic and this is where we have to look to find out who he really was. But again, the Vedas doesn't help us much. He is always cited in the Rig-veda with Varuna - Mithra and Varuna - but the Vedic literature doesn't tell us much more than that. My take on this is they don't tell us more because we're expected to know. The hymns refer to him in the same way we would talk about the sun and sky. You would expect people to know about the sun and the sky without having to go into any descriptions about them.

So from all of this, I've concluded that Mithra is one of the oldest, if not the oldest, god we have. He is older than the Rig-veda, and harks back to the oral tradition which preceded the Rig-veda. It is interesting that, in the RV, the sun is referred to as the Eye of Mithra. Sun worshipping is older than gods worshipping. And in the Roman religion, he is referred to as having been born from the sun and the sun's birthday is on December 25th. This is based on the winter solstice where the sun starts to travel north again But because of changes due to the precession of the equinoxes, the solstice now falls on December 22.

David Ullansey's interpretation of the Mithraic Mysteries as astronomical (which I have read, and agree with) gives us another commonality between the Roman Mithraism and both Eastern versions, as both used allegory to describe astronomical phenomena, and they did this so that the astrologers could work out the most auspicious times to hold certain ceremonies. In fact, Babylon is often credited with being the birthplace of astrology - but that's just by those who haven't read the Vedas.

I would also like to add that religions evolve and change quite quickly, especially the further they move away from their source. So I would conclude, at this stage that there is too much linking all the Mithras (Roman and Eastern) for it just to be coincidence.

john wrote: What does this possibly have to do with the subject of archaeology?

Simply this -

The spearhead in Kennewick Man's pelvis, or the thousands of ivory beads interred with the Russian mammoth hunters, or the footprints in the mud of Monte Verde beat any number of hypothesized angels on the head of the written pin regarding the existence or nonexistence of j. christ. Not to speak of various other "historical" entities.

I'd like to add to that thought. When you're talking about the most ancient of days, you're talking about a time when man didn't see himself as so separate to God/gods as we do today. Everything he did from sowing his seed to reaping the harvest, to hunting, to procreating, even what he ate, was dictated by the movements of the seasons, the planets, the gods/spirits.

So imho in order to understand ancient man - which is surely why we dig stuff out of the ground - we have to understand how he thought. Unless it's just that we want to know what sort of urns they used in ancient Egypt so we can copy them and send them out as Christmas presents!

"Angels dancing on the head of the pin" stuff, when properly examined, can sometimes give us the end of a breadcrumb trail that we can follow back into those times for which nothing is written down.

john wrote:Speaking of the written word ..........

Good post John. IMO we look at the written word as more true than the oral history because we, today, understand the unreliability of oral stories. We laugh and learn this lesson quite readily in the child's game of "telephone" and as fun as it is, shapes our perception to a degree about truth and speech.

But...could it be that emergence of writing has degraded our ability to preserve an oral story?

It could be that ancient people were also aware of the tendancy for a story to change as it passed from mouth to mouth and so developed ways of preserving the integrity of the message. Kind of like the blind man who learns to hone his sense of hearing to a greater degree; when speech is your only means of transmitting information, you hone the skill to an extraordinary degree.

Today, the mythologies are possible examples of this art, even if they are now committed to writing. Relying on written evidence, many have made the claim, for example, that the Hebrew Noah story was redacted from the earlier mythology of the Assyrians and Babylonians. I have long held that need not be the case as perhaps both have originated from a common oral source. However, since the one was committed to writing before the other, historians assume the latter is derived from the former. And odd, how even in the written account, the story changes to a significant degree. Some say because the hebrews altered the story to suit their religous/political agenda, I say because each preserved the oral tradition as they received it.

Its an interesting and important subject; oral vs. written history and as Ishtar stated - very relevent to how we interpret archaeology because it gives not only insight into the thought processes of our ancestors, but actual history as well.

Just to add to debate on oral v writing, this is from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_poetry

Poetry as an art form may predate literacy. Thus many ancient works, from the Vedas (1700 - 1200 BC) to the Odyssey (800 - 675 BC), appear to have been composed in poetic form to aid memorization and oral transmission, in prehistoric and ancient societies. Poetry appears among the earliest records of most literate cultures, with poetic fragments found on early monoliths, rune stones and stelae.

The oldest surviving poem is the Epic of Gilgamesh, from the 3rd millennium BC in Sumer (in Iraq/Mesopotamia), which was written in cuneiform script on clay tablets and, later, papyrus. The Epic of Gilgamesh is based on the historical king Gilgamesh. The oldest love poem, found on a clay tablet now known as Istanbul #2461, was also a Sumerian poem. It was recited by a bride of the Sumerian king Shu-Sin, who ruled from 2037-2029 BC.The oldest epic poetry besides the Epic of Gilgamesh are the Greek epics Iliad and Odyssey and the Indian Sanskrit epics Ramayana and Mahabharata. The longest epic poems ever written were the Mahabharata and the Tibetan Epic of King Gesar.

PS - I disagree with their dating of the Vedas, as do many others. It was transmitted orally, imho, around 3,000 BC.

Excellent point Ishtar. In fact, many of the books of the Bible contain large segments of hebrew poetry as well.

In the Celtic and Druid tradition, the poets were respected as much as the more priest type figures.

Forum Monk

Once again, thanks for giving such interesting food for thought. Here is my reply to the first of your posts on Mithraism and Christianity. I’ll reply to the others later.

Forum Monk wrote:At the start, I would like to point out that if one is to suggest that Christianity imitated or borrowed from Mithraism, one must consider the practice of Mithraism in the early centuries of the common era. Further the idea, that Iranian Mithraism was imported by the Romans is speculatory at best. It is a somewhat dated theory proposed by Franz Cumont (or at least popularized by him). In fact the connection between the Roman Mithra and Iranian of Mitra is more based upon a linguistic similarity in names but not necessarily similar attributes.

I’ve answered this point in my previous post. I think there is too much similarity for it to be a coincidence, and religions change and “evolve” the further they spread from their source.

Forum Monk wrote:Precious little is firmly known about diety in ancient Iran. In the Iranian version of Mitra, he is a god of light or illumination and in my opion more closely related to Venus.

In the Avesta, Mithra is the genius of the celestial light. He appears before sunrise on the rocky summits of the mountains; during the day he traverses the wide firmament in his chariot drawn by four white horses, and when night falls he still illumines with flickering glow the surface of the earth, "ever waking, ever watchful."

In the Iranian pantheon, there is no evidence that Mitra was a supreme being. In fact apart from Zoasterism, very little is really known about his nature apart from his association with light and the idea that he was suspended in the air between a higher and lower diety.

Again, as I said in the last post, this could be explained by the fact that he was a begrudged add-on to a religious story that had already been developed. That was a character from another religion that somehow had to be incorporated into this one. “Suspended in the air between a higher and lower deity”. In other words, a sort of no man’s land to stick someone in if you don’t know what else to do with them!

In the Indian Vedas, which is where the Iranians got him from, he is identified with the sun, as is the Roman Mithras.

Forum Monk wrote: Nevertheless, the possible influence of Mitra on the ever evolving pantheons of Asia Minor, and to a lesser extent, Greece is not entirely discounted, but it is clear that a strong link between Roman Mithraism and Iranian adoration of Mitra may be overstated.

I disagree for the reasons stated above. Mithras is Vedic, not Iranian – where he was merely an unwelcome gatecrasher at the party.

Forum Monk wrote: There are several competing theories about the origins of Mithraism in Rome. The once popular theory of Cumont it no longer considered viable.

Cumont's ideas, though in many respects valid, had however one serious problem with respect to the author's theory on the origins of Mithraism: If the Roman religion was an outgrowth of an Iranian one, there would have to be evidence of Mithraic-like practices attested in Greater Iran. However, that is not the case: No mithraea have been found there, and the Mithraic myth of the tauroctony does not conclusively match the Zoroastrian legend of the slaying of Gayomart, in which Mithra does not play any role at all. The historians of antiquity, otherwise expansive in their descriptions of Iranian religious practices, hardly mention Mithra at all (one notable exception is Herodotus i.131, which associates Mithra with other divinities of the morning star).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithras

This is interesting. The tauroctony (for those that don’t know) is the recurring mofit of the Roman Mithras slaying the bull. I agree with Ullansey that the slaying of the bull was probably an astrological metaphor for leaving the Taurean age.

But the Primal Bull does figure in the Iranian mythology, and the Nandi Bull is central to the Vedic mythology:

Iranian: http://www.themystica.com/mythical-folk ... of%20.html

The myth of Gayomart is the myth of the Primal Man. According to Zoroastrian tradition ,Gayomart was created immediately after the Primal Bull that was to supply him with food and help him. These two primal beings stood on the banks of the river which flowed from the center of the world, the good Daiti. Here they are attacked by Ahriman for they have withstood his attempts to spread world-wide destruction. Ohrrmazd foreseeing the Bull's death administers a soporific to ease the pain. First the Bull is killed, then Gayomart, who foretells as he dies, that despite his death the human race will be born.

Vedic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nandi_Bull

Nandi in Hinduism
1. A primary god: This can be traced back to Indus Valley Civilization, where dairy farming was the most important occupations, thus explaining the appearance of various artifacts indicating a deity much like Shiva. This deity also called as Pasupati is believed to have been worshipped as the keeper of herds. Some purans describe Nandi or Nandikeshvara as bull faced human body and that resembles Siva, but with four hands, two hands holding the Parasu (the axe) and Mruga (the antelope) and the other two hands joined together in the Anjali(obeisance).
2. Carrier of Shiva: It seems he was later converted into the present day Siva, with the bull Nandi as his primary vehicle. The Idol of Siva will be placed on an Idol of Nandi during festival processions.
3. Gate keeper of Siva's place: The close association of Shiva and Nandi explains the presence of a statue of Nandi at the gate of many temples dedicated to Siva. It also explains why the word "nandi" in the Tamil language is used as a metaphor for a person blocking the way. In Sanskrit, a bull is called "vrisha", which has another connotation - that of righteousness or Dharma. It is important to seek the blessings of Nandi before proceeding to worship Lord Siva.
4. Chief in Shiva's army: Some Puranas mention that Nandi lead the Siva Ganas, Siva's attendants.
5. A Guru of Saivism: In addition to being his mount, Nandi is Shiva's foremost disciple. In the Natha/Siddhar tradition, Nandi is the one of the primal gurus. He was the guru to Siddhar Thirumulanathar, Patanjalinathar and others.

The most noticable parallel between Roman and eastern Mithraism is that they share the name of the same god, and his appearance in Roman iconographic remains is indicative of Persian origins, particularly, the Phrygian cap (which is reminiscent of the East, especially Asia Minor, where Mithraic worship strongly took hold) that he invariably wears. Also, the notion of the bull sacrifice is shared. Because Cumont's thesis of strong association can no longer be held as reasonable, an alternate explanation of the origins of Roman Mithraism must be derived.
http://www.mithraism.org/cgi-bin/displa ... =1&total=8

This doesn’t mention the Vedic Mithras, and it was one of the most common faults in most research done in the West. Most Western researchers fear delving into India and you can’t get them to venture any further east than Babylon. If only they would, they’d get answers to many of their questions.

Forum Monk wrote: Looking fully at the references cited above, including Cumont, what we see is evolution of the nature and importance of Mithra at various places and periods of time. For this reason, it is important to realize that if Christianity imitated Mithrasim, it would have been the Roman version of the practice. The Roman version being derived (as the latest theory proposes) from the Asian Minor version (where once again Mithra was not the chief among Gods) which was probably derived from a Greek influenced version of the ancient practice mixed with a healthy dose of Zoasterism. I have not bothered to detail the evolution in the interest of brevity as I am sure you also realize the cultic practices have evolved significantly. But I do concede that any documentation of the full evolution of Mithraism is speculation to a degree, since very little evidence of the origins in ancient Persia or India exists.

I agree that there is a lot of speculation, and that none of this can be proved. But there are some interesting commonalities between the Roman Mithras and the Vedic one.

Forum Monk wrote: Further it needs to be noted that Mithraism did not enjoy a wide-spread following until after the first century CE. While that does not discount the idea that Christianity borrowed from the cult of Mithra it is clear that Christianity had already established some foundational principles prior to the first century and may have swallowed Mithraism later in order to eliminate what it deemed, pagan practices.

I think that’s a good point – except that it was Constantine who adopted Christianity as the state religion, and thus would have grafted many of the features of of whatever were existing then, in the 4th century CE.

I’ll reply to your other posts anon.

Here are my answers to the rest of your points not already covered in my last two posts.

Forum Monk wrote: David Ulansey poses another interesting theory about the origins of the practice....[he] focuses on the iconography of the Roman cults and compares it to other extant evidence from other cultures.

There were, however, a number of serious problems with Cumont's assumption that the Mithraic mysteries derived from ancient Iranian religion. Most significant among these is that there is no parallel in ancient Iran to the iconography which is the primary fact of the Roman Mithraic cult. For example, as already mentioned, by far the most important icon in the Roman cult was the tauroctony.....

Thus, if the god Mithras of the Roman religion was actually the Iranian god Mithra, we should expect to find in Iranian mythology a story in which Mithra kills a bull. However, the fact is that no such Iranian myth exists: in no known Iranian text does Mithra have anything to do with killing a bull.

The problem with this of Ullansey’s, whose theories I otherwise have immense respect for, is that he doesn’t mention that there is actually an important bull slaying story in the Zoroastrian story – it’s just that isn’t carried out by Mithra, who’d been relegated by Zoroaster to a walk on part. But it is carried out instead by the baddie.

I think Zoroaster is a bit of a red herring. The breadcrumb trail of the Roman Mithras takes us to Asia Minor and the shores of the Black Sea. There is no evidence of Zoroastrianism in this area, but I’d be willing to bet there were pockets of Vedic-god worshipping tribes who had left India after being pushed out by the Purus. We know they went to all points north, north west and west.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithra

Mithra worship spread first with the empire of the Persians throughout Asia Minor, then throughout the empire of Alexander and his successors.

Many temples were erected to Mithra in Armenia, which remained one of the last strongholds of the Mazdaist cult of Mithra until it became the first officially Christian kingdom.

Royal names incorporating Mithra's (e.g. "Mithradates") appear in the dynasties of Parthia, Armenia, and in Anatolia, in Pontus and Cappadocia.

Forum Monk wrote:
As I stated, the post in which you enumerated the various similarities between Mithraism and Christianity appeared to be inconsistent with what is known about Mithraic practice in Rome at the time of the emergence of Christianity.

Much of the apologetics of any topic is explored by a handful of principle researchers and then expoused ad infinitum by a host of others, sans primary sources. Nevertheless I think it worthwhile to look at a few of the notible examples, evaluate the arguments and look at the sources. First the most prominent source for much of the comparison comes from here and in fact offers addional points not listed by Ishtar:

a leading proponent of that view, Acharya S, who, in her magnum opus The Christ Conspiracy (118-120), lays out over a dozen things that Jesus supposedly has in common with Mithras and, by extension, Christianity allegedly borrowed to create the Jesus character; some of these points she now defends further in a work titled Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled, which is presently only available in sample chapters on her Internet page

Like, me, Holding warns the reader to check sources:

be on the lookout any time a critic makes some claim about Mithraism somehow being a parallel to Christianity. Check their sources carefully. If, like Acharya S, they cite source material from the Cumont or pre-Cumont era, then chances are excellent that they are using material that is either greatly outdated, or else does not rely on sound scholarship (i.e., prior to Cumont; works by the likes of King, Lajard, and Robertson). Furthermore, if they have asserted anything at all definitive about Mithraic belief, they are probably wrong about it, and certainly basing it on the conjectures of someone who is either not a Mithraic specialist (which is what Freke and Gandy do in The Jesus Mysteries) or else is badly outdated.

Ok, perhaps he slightly exaggerates the unreliability of Cumont's work, but the point is clear snd in keeping with evidence I have already presented.

I think I don’t entirely agree here. Personally, I find Freke and Gandy to be very good because, and this relates to a previous point, they are not afraid to go to India as many so-called Mithraic specialists, as far as I can see, have so far failed to do. I think Holding, as a Christian apologist, won’t like them because they quote from the Gnostic Nag Hammadi gospels to show similarities with Greek Pagan teaching at the time.

I also notice that the other researcher being criticised by Holding is called Acharya. Acharya is the Indian name for teacher, so at least there’s a good chance she’s been there!

For the same reason, I don’t agree that Cumont was wrong. I think it’s more that we haven’t found all the bits to the puzzle yet – but there’s enough there to make an educated assumption. The Zoroastrian Mithras is a red herring, imho – look to India for the answer.

Forum Monk wrote:
1. Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th in a cave, and his birth was attended by shepherds.

Most informed people understand that Jesus was not born on the 25th of December. Clearly the later church absconded with the date to absorb the pagan winter solstice festivals which were prevalent at the time and Holding agrees: "nowhere does the NT associate this date with Jesus' birth at all." This is something the later church did, wherever they got the idea from -- not the apostolic church, and if there was any borrowing at all"

“The later church”? Surely, this agrees with my point that it was probably Constantine who established it and grafted on to existing pagan practises chief among which was the worship of Mithras.

According to Holding, he [Mithras] was not born in a cave, but rather solid rock, as a full grown adult. According to Ulansey, the rock-birth "was a likely carryover from Perseus, who experienced a similar birth in an underground cavern; Ulan.OMM, 36"

Sorry, I’m going to answer that by quoting the dreaded Freke and Gandy, from Jesus and the Goddess:


According to the Gospel of Luke, Jesus is born in a katalemna, which means ‘cave’ or similar temporary shelter. The Infancy Gospel of James gives us a vivid account of Jesus’s birth, relating: “A green light appeared in the cave so that eyes could not bear it, and then when the light withdrew, a baby appeared.”

The Pagan Godman was likewise born in a cave. The motif of the cave was popular in the ancient world. It represents the underworld which, for the Gnostics, is the material cosmos in which we presently live as the spiritually dead. Being born in a cave represents incarnation in a body in the cosmos.

According to Minucius Felix, the Goddess Persephone was imprisoned by Hades in a cavern....The Pagan sage Empedocles describes psyches falling into a cave. In The Republic, Plato famously describes the human condition as one of being imprisoned in a cave, where we mistake the shadows cast by the light outside for reality. In The Cave of the Nymphs, Porphyry decodes the allegorical teachings found in the myths of Homer, explaining: “The cave represents the cosmos. The Pythagoreans, and after them, Plato, showed that the cosmos is the cavern.” Plotinus, likewise, tells us, “In the cave of Plato and the cave of Empedocles I see the cosmos.”Writing about ‘the encavement of the psyche’, he states, “The body is the psyche’s prison or tomb and the cosmos is the cave or cavern.”

Plotinus describes Greek philosophy as teaching “the ascent from the cave and the gradual advance of the psyche to a truer and truer vision’. He tells us that the Christians also teach ‘the ascent from the cave’ but in an unnecessarily complex way.

So no wonder the Christian apologists don’t like what Freke and Gandy are saying! But they are quoting Greek philosophers of the time – they’re not making it up.

Forum Monk wrote:
Finally, we are told of the "largest near-eastern Mithraeum [which] was built in western Persia at Kangavar, dedicated to 'Anahita, the Immaculate Virgin Mother of the Lord Mithras'."

So there we have our virgin birth, and thank you for pointing out my original faulty reference.

I agree with you that Holding, the Christian apologist, in attempting to refute the claims seems to give us even more grist to our mill, which I’m sure was not his intention!

I agree with you about Mithra probably not being a teacher and having 12 disciples. There’s no evidence for that. The ‘good shepherd’ motif is a recurring one, though, in the ancient world, throughout the East and Mesopotamia.

Finally (phew!) this is from the Rig-veda, Book 3, 59.1

Mitra, when speaking, stirreth men to labour: Mitra sustaineth both the earth and heaven.
Mitra beholdeth men with eyes that close not. To Mitra bring, with holy oil, oblation. (trans. Griffith)

Holy oil and oblation – in other words, anointing with oil. Now what is that other thing I’ve heard about anointing with oil? Oh yes! The Messiah.

I think I’ve answered all your main points. If I’ve missed any others that you think are important, please let me know.

Oops, I think you misunderstood. He was saying Mithra was born from solid rock...not Jesus. If he claimed anything other than a virgin birth for Jesus, in a stable in Bethlehem, he would not be a Christian apologist. The other Christian apologists would crucify him. (pun intended).


I'll comment more later, perhaps...

Thanks for that clarification, FM. I've edited out those bits now.

I'm very inclined to see a Mithra/Venus connection. Venus is a very impressive sight in the predawn or after sunset, always following or leading the sun and casting a light so brilliant, it can produce shadows.

I am a little disturbed about Ulansey's zodiac, however. I don't believe the zodiac is ancient. By this I mean, I don't think it predates the third millenium BC. Although its diffcult to find accurate information about this, because the astrologers and pseudo-scientists have reputations to protect.

Forum Monk wrote:I'm very inclined to see a Mithra/Venus connection. Venus is a very impressive sight in the predawn or after sunset, always following or leading the sun and casting a light so brilliant, it can produce shadows.

I agree - Venus is an impressive sight. But that in itself cannot lead us to determine that Mithras was Venus.

The Roman Mithras is identified with the sun, as is the Vedic one. The only reason there's speculation about which planet he's identified with in the Zoroastrian story is because he was never intended to be in that story in the first place, and so he doesn't fit in.

Forum Monk wrote:
I am a little disturbed about Ulansey's zodiac, however. I don't believe the zodiac is ancient. By this I mean, I don't think it predates the third millenium BC. Although its diffcult to find accurate information about this, because the astrologers and pseudo-scientists have reputations to protect.

Yes, 3rd millennium BC is the first attested evidence of astrology, in the Vedas.

There are also recorded solstices dating to 8,000 BC in the Surya Siddhantha, the Vedic astronomy records. But we don't know if they were added in retrospect.

So astrology could be older...but even 3,000 BC is old enough to support Ulansey's claims.

So I don't follow you in either of your points here.

Relief from Taq-i Bostan in Kermanshah, Iran, showing Ardashir I of Sassanid Empire at the center receiving his crown from Ahura Mazda. The two stand on a prostrate enemy. Here at the left is Mithra as a priest, wearing a crown of sun-rays, holding a priest's barsam, and standing on a sacred lotus.

In the [Indian Vedic] Shatapatha Brahmana, Mitravaruna is analyzed as "the Counsel and the Power" — Mitra being the priesthood, Varuna the royal power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithra