Mystery of Mysteries?

Question

Some say Christianity borrowed from other religions, particularly Mithraism. Here's an excerpt from a scholarly article:

The Roman cult of Mithraism flourished throughout the Roman Empire from the END of the first until the end of the fourth century A.D. Although a profusion of architectural and iconographic remains have been discovered from numerous sites documenting this widely distributed religion, ITS CHARACTER HAS PROVED OPAQUE to historians since NO TEXTS SURVIVE FROM THIS CULT, and few that report on it. Given the TEXTUAL BIAS OF HISTORIANS, consequently, the study of Mithraism has been largely characterized by historiographic ATTEMPTS TO IMAGINE A CORPUS OF MITHRAIC DOCTRINE on the basis of its material remains. [emphasis added]
source: http://www.pucsp.br/rever/rv4_2005/t_martin.htm

If the NT can be shown to be older than the end of the first century, why trust the Mithras plaigerism myth? visit: http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/gospelsreliable.htm#sep2805

Toopregnant: touché! You correctly point out that the article merely states that it FLOURISHED at the end of the 1st century, not that it didn't exist prior to that. What remains to be seen is the doctrines of Mithraism which the article plainly desribes as being imagined. None of you have addressed this point.

As for the existence of Mithraism in Persia, I will concede that this is probably true, yet none of you gave me a credible source to investigate. In fact, most of what I see in the responses appears to be a rehash of the atheist/liberal theologian party line. I can read that anytime I want on sites like the Skeptics Annotated Bible and others, but I am looking to see if any of you have conducted actual research and can direct me to the same. In particular I am looking for scholarly university level, peer-reviewed articles to compare and contrast. Absent this, I can only conclude that research has NOT been done and that most of you are merely parroting hearsay.

Answer 1

If, if, if ... the fact is, the NT CANNOT be shown to be older than the 1st Century. In fact, most historians and scholars believe the second half of Mark was written several years after Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. The rest of Mark was tacked on later. Then Paul's epistles were written; since he died in 63 AD, this seems to extinguish the possibility of a later date than that. Finally, a tiny fragment of Mark (6:52-53), called "7Q5," was found within the Dead Sea Scrolls and was dated between 30 and 60 AD.

Answer 2

Good day Tom :)

Great question.

One of the central motifs of Mithraism is the tauroctony, the myth of the slaying of a sacred bull. It is thought that the bull represents the constellation of Taurus. However, in the period we are considering, the sun at the Vernal Equinox had left Taurus two thousand years before, and was in the process of moving from Aries to Pisces. In light of this interpretation, it has been suggested in recent times that the Mithraic religion is somehow connected to the end of the astrological "age of Taurus," and the beginning of the "age of Aries," which took place about the year 2000 BCE. It has even been speculated that the religion may have originated at that time. After all, it only FLORISHED in Rome from the 1st to the 4th Centuries....it had existed in Persia for at least 2K years...

So, it comes down to speculation - much like the discovery of the tomb of King Herod this week - did you know that no bones were found, neither were any inscriptions?? So, this is all speculation...

Also, you state "Why trust the Mithras plagerism MYTH". Is this truly a myth, because one source (most likely biased) says that Mithraism existed in the first century CE? Does calling this a myth lessen the fact that that the Egyptian god Horus also appears to have been plagerised for the myth of Jesus?? The Babylonian story of King Noah was plagerised for the Biblical flood story as well...

Again, good question.

Julio

Answer 3

The NT was set down between the fourth and fifth century, much, much later than the 1st century.

Also, the fact that Mithraism is so opaque is actually evidence that it was absorbed into something else. Archeologically, very little that is known so well disappears as mithriasm apparently has. The only available religion/philosophy that fits the bill for this is Pauline Christianity.

It's funny... the original followers of Jesus called themselves, "The Followers of the Way" and were strict Jews, until Paul rejected the Great Commissioning and preached to the Gentiles. The religion Jesus founded was utterly obliterated before the 2nd century CE.

Answer 4

I'm not sure you actually understood your quotation. Mithras was a god (in Persia) long before the first century bce and his worship was picked up by Roman soldiers and FLOURISHED from the first century ce through the fourth century ce. The NT cannot be shown to predate Mithras as he existed as a god in Persia long before Joseph and Mary were born let alone Jesus. Your quotation seeks to explain that we don't know intimately the manner in which Mithras was worshiped in Rome as there were no texts. History favors texts because it is the writing of someone of the time and not inference and guess from a later time. Your quotation has nothing to do with your contention that the New Testament was not influenced by the cult of Mithras.

Answer 5

There are certain texts that do prove the similarities, and that do predate Christianity. According to Persian legends, Mithra was born of a rock and a virgin mother called the "Mother of God" and was first attended by shepherds. Mithra was called "the Light of the World." They believed in a heaven and hell and the dualism of good and evil, a final day of judgment, the end of the world as we know it and a general resurrection. Long before Jesus, Dec. 25th was celebrated as the date of Mithra's birth. Mithra was also associated with the sun, and his followers marked Sunday as his day of worship, they called it the Lord's Day. A few of the extra-biblical traditions seem to have found its way to Christianity through Roman Mithraism. Among the milder ceremonies of the followers of Mithra were baptism in holy water and a partaking of a sacred meal of bread and wine. After passing several ordeals the converts were "reborn" as a new man in Mithra. Though Mithra had ascended into heaven he had promised to return and bring life everlasting to his loyal followers.

Answer 6

That's a pretty big "IF" as the earliest christian manuscripts are dated well into the second century. This is not to say that Christianity is derived from Mithra-ism, simply that there are very limited, if any, same time period collaborations of the NT, nor does it follow with the Roman or Jewish customs of that time - for instance, the Jews had the authority to kill Jesus without appealing to the Romans and they would have allowed 40 days for any to speak for him before execution.

Answer 7

People like to believe a lot of trash. If Mithraism had any merit, had it the same message (at all) then it would have survived. Unfortunately, seeing as how it didn't survive, logically it can be inferred that it did not. All anyone can do is conjecture, I am yet to see a credible source cited.

Answer 8

Hmmm. I briefly saw an answer that contradicted your article. There are hundreds of ancient Greek stories that share a massive amount of literature and philosophy in common with Christianity but they, of course, pre-date it. Also, I have come across a few mentions that the Old Testament has much in common with Hindu texts and Egyptian mythology. Keep studying. Very interesting.

Answer 9

Because the Nt cannot be shown to be older. Myths can not be proven. Chritianinity has stolen from many myths, not just Mitrhras.

Answer 10

Nope you lost me