Mithras and Christ

[Thomas]

A couple of points in support of the above post:

St Paul was a Pharisee, and in the employ of the Jewish Temple authorities. He was a Jew, through and through.

Constantine was no theologian. His choice of Christianity as the religion of state reflected his political determination to have the empire under one roof, as it were. The popular myth is that Christianity 'forced out' paganism, which is a bit of a fallacy, as up until then Christianity suffered frequent persecution. A more realistic picture is that popular polytheism had run its course, and no longer sufficed. Christianity was more popular by far. In Acts there are records of the Temple of Diana at Ephesus deserted, and the letters of the younger Pliny say the same. Simply put, Christianity made more sense.

So Constantine had a state religion that was dying on its feet, and a new religion that was young, vigorous and spreading like wildfire ... like any politician, he backed the stronger lobby.

The spread of Mithraism had much to do with its popularity among the soldierly class. It was a very macho cult, and thus with limited appeal. Christianity started at grass roots among the poor and dispossesed, and filtered up. Its high profile social programme of care and education for the poor, its strict and high-minded moral values, and remarkably its treatment of women as equal and not chattel (oh how that changed!) meant that many influential people had wives who were Christian, and servants/slaves who were able to read and write ... all this had a great appeal for an emperor who was trying to rescue an empire. The 'love thy neighbour' angle was a bit revolutionary, however ... some commanders doubted that Christian soldiers would have the spirit for a fight ... Constantine gambled on the fact that a man would fight for God, and picked the cross as his symbol.

No theologian, but no fool, either.

Thomas

[I, Brian]

It's also worth pointing out that Christianity at the time of Constantine consisted of sometimes very different interpretations - you have the camps of Arius and Athanasius, and groups such as the Donatists and Gnostics, who were all essentially claiming to be the same faith.

As a culture, the Roman's like to put things in a black and white perspective - they were founded on a system of law that made most issues of society plain and clear for everyone, and religion was no different - in fact, Roman religion before Christianity was essentially an extension of the principles of law, which is why Romans tended to be pee'd off when any group claimed to be above that.

So Constantine could be argued as simply carrying on this tradition - determining what the plain and clear principles of Christianity were, codifying them, then ensuring that everyone read from the same book. Literally. But as a process of law.

This short article may help make things clearer:
http://www.comparative-religion.com/ancient/roman.php

2c.

[bodhi_mindisfree]

As this is essentially comparing two different religious ideologies, I'll move it to the comparative section.

As for Mithras - as a quick crash course:

1. Mithras is a figure from Zoroastrianism - Mithraism is like a subset of Zoroastrianism;
2. Mithraism was popular in Roman legions, and joining involved standing underneath a bull and being baptised in its blood as it was slaughtered;
3. Mithras is often depicted killing a bull: a triumph of light over evil.
4. Mithraism is often argued to have been a formative influence on Christianity, especially via Saul of Tarsus
5. I believe that little is known of actual Mithraic practices and belief - though my understanding is that there is some exaggeration and plain misinformation on the subject.

Not much help, but hopefully a starter...

This is one reason I converted tol Buddhism. Why did Magi visit Jesus when he was born? Magi are Zoroastrian priest/astronomers (hence they saw a star and followed it) who were looking for their Messiah, I suppose is Mithra.

[bodhi_mindisfree]

As this is essentially comparing two different religious ideologies, I'll move it to the comparative section.

As for Mithras - as a quick crash course:

1. Mithras is a figure from Zoroastrianism - Mithraism is like a subset of Zoroastrianism;
2. Mithraism was popular in Roman legions, and joining involved standing underneath a bull and being baptised in its blood as it was slaughtered;
3. Mithras is often depicted killing a bull: a triumph of light over evil.
4. Mithraism is often argued to have been a formative influence on Christianity, especially via Saul of Tarsus
5. I believe that little is known of actual Mithraic practices and belief - though my understanding is that there is some exaggeration and plain misinformation on the subject.

Not much help, but hopefully a starter...

This is one reason I converted tol Buddhism. Why did Magi visit Jesus when he was born? Magi are Zoroastrian priest/astronomers (hence they saw a star and followed it) who were looking for their Messiah, I suppose is Mithra.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by bodhi_mindisfree

This is one reason I converted tol Buddhism.

Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! which, why, how, what, general confusion. Is there something "Buddhist" going on here do you mean bodhi, (which I'm missing) or did you just not fancy getting drenched in bull's blood (as per the BBC drama Rome).

s.

[Bruce Michael]

Br. Theocritus,

Yes indeed Mithra was a forerunner of our Christ. In fact you might have heard of the term Christ-Michael. "Michael" means the countenance of God, or he who goes before God. Christ manifested in the Archangel Michael before the Incarnation.

Some religions recognize this, or even think that Jesus is the Archangel Michael.

Mithra is that Michael- as is Marduk, as is Indra.

Greetings,
Br. Bruce