Acharya S and the real Christ Conspiracy

[bcedaifu]

Even if we accept this lie to be the truth, the reality is that they are very similar.

I am confused, and not trying, with this message, to challenge you or Roger, or anyone else.

Here's what I think I understand:

Ancient Persian religion: Zoroastrianism, one important feast day is Mihragen, a part of which involves sacrifice of a bull, tauroctony, performed by Mithra, according to H. Lommel (1949).
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/mithraism

Prayers are spoken by Zoroastrians while facing either the sun, (outdoors) or fire (caves). Temples to this religion are found in ancient Roman fortresses, along the Euphrates river, at least 2000 years old, dating from before the conquest of Greece by Rome.

The Roman version of this religion, else, if Roger is right, and I err, (not the most unlikely scenario!) a completely different religion, which however retains by mere coincidence an important religious figure, Mithras, who shares the same five phonemes comprising the IndoEuropean Persian name Mithra. One could argue, if one knew Greek, better than I do, that addition of a final “s”, generates a more natural sounding name to Koine Greek writers, than Mithra, without an “s”. The Roman version of Mithraism, or separate religion, if one chooses to believe that scenario, ALSO has a bull sacrifice performed by Mithras. Curiously enough, the Persian word, Mitra means: tada: COVENANT.

[outhouse]

I just caught two of her followers in a blatant case of intellectual dishonesty regarding the 12 tribes.

outhouse "caught me" saying that Philo and Josephus were ancient Jews, which his brilliance seems to think is untrue.

NO

You were caught using these two much later Hellenist as a source, when these two gentlemen are removed 500-600 years from the actual event.

And the Israelite sources from the right time period some 500-600 years before that make no mention of anything at all tied to astrology.


So you use a later source just because it says what you want despite it not even being relevant to the original meaning or intent.


You have showed the world exactly how dishonest your teacher is. You blatantly admit to the dishonesty of your teacher .

[beowulf]

Even if we accept this lie to be the truth, the reality is that they are very similar.

I am confused, and not trying, with this message, to challenge you or Roger, or anyone else.

Here's what I think I understand:

Ancient Persian religion: Zoroastrianism, one important feast day is Mihragen, a part of which involves sacrifice of a bull, tauroctony, performed by Mithra, according to H. Lommel (1949).
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/mithraism

Prayers are spoken by Zoroastrians while facing either the sun, (outdoors) or fire (caves). Temples to this religion are found in ancient Roman fortresses, along the Euphrates river, at least 2000 years old, dating from before the conquest of Greece by Rome.

The Roman version of this religion, else, if Roger is right, and I err, (not the most unlikely scenario!) a completely different religion, which however retains by mere coincidence an important religious figure, Mithras, who shares the same five phonemes comprising the IndoEuropean Persian name Mithra. One could argue, if one knew Greek, better than I do, that addition of a final “s”, generates a more natural sounding name to Koine Greek writers, than Mithra, without an “s”. The Roman version of Mithraism, or separate religion, if one chooses to believe that scenario, ALSO has a bull sacrifice performed by Mithras. Curiously enough, the Persian word, Mitra means: tada: COVENANT.

I have cited from the catholic encyclopaedia and from first rate Christian academics, Frend, Baird et al.

The sources these Catholic and Christian academics use are the same for everyone. A first rate academic will make use of the best evidence, everyone of them. The interpretation and all that will be different.
You are not challenging me whatever you may say, I am not challenging anybody.
The subject of Mithraism suddenly appeared and I have offered my contribution ,that is all.

[neilgodfrey]

So you intellectually dishonestly use a later source just because it says what you want despite it not even being relevant to the original meaning or intent.

I don't think they are being "intellectually dishonest". Let them be the ones to make those sorts of accusations. They are simply unaware and incompetent and so zealous to prove their case that they do not notice their logical flaws. I addressed this same fallacious reasoning and the way they gradually change word-meaning as they progress in their argument to make it sound like they have proven what they set out to do -- but lately it seems Maximos and Robert Tulip have chosen not to engage with any post now that point by point dissects their faulty reasoning. Still waiting, for example, for a reply to viewtopic.php?f=3&t=396&start=60#p6826 and Roger is noticing the same: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=396&start=70#p6835

They have said that we "refuse" to understand or see what is supposedly before our eyes -- they treat us like damned sinners rejecting their enlightened saviours. They do not play by the same rules of evidence, logical rules, or scientific methods.

[Roger Pearse]

This is well said.

A lot of people who come online for the first time tend to insinuate their point rather than actually make it. It's like the way the Soviets jeered that Gagarin, the first man in space, "had not found God up in space". This involved a series of dubious propositions, unstated, along the lines of "God is a physical body who lives above the sky". As was said at the time, the really disturbing thing would have been if Gagarin HAD found such a "god"!

I think we've seen here the Acharyaites make the same kind of failure, failing to actually make their case. This "12 months must mean 12 apostles must mean 12 of anything else" argument wouldn't be made if its author actually thought about it, and tried to pin it down to either statements of fact, axioms, or unavoidable deductions from the first two.

Their basic argument is "this looks like that, if we define 'looks like' sufficiently broadly, so this must be connected to that, or copied from that, or be the same as that." It fails, as all these types of "parallels" arguments do, from the failure to check for false positives; that the argument wouldn't 'prove' a great deal more than just the point at issue.

It's the same argument made by Atlantis cultists. There are pyramids in Egypt and pyramids in Mexico; this 'must' show connection! And therefore that Atlantis existed. But in fact it only shows that gravity causes people piling up blocks of stone to discover that they assume the same shape, naturally.

What they are unaware of, of course, is that we have seen any number of people make arguments which are "obvious", always using the same failure to actually pin it down to the boring, detailed, facts and deductions. Their argument is merely one of a host of mutually contradictory theories.

[Roger Pearse]

“The most complex case, however, is that of Mithras. In the midst of the second century AD two philosophers Numenius and Cronius, drawing upon earlier treatises of the cult, discussed Mithraism in the context of their own (Platonic and Pythagorean) philosophical views. These discussions have not survived; but they were used by the later philosopher Porphyry and are known to us through him.

Is there any reference to a specific primary source (presumably in Porphyry) linking Numenius and Cronius to Mithras? It all sounds rather dubious to me.

In Porphyry Cave of Nymphs we have

...Caves, therefore, in the most remote periods of antiquity were consecrated to the Gods, before temples were erected to them. Hence, the Curetes in Crete dedicated a cavern to Jupiter; in Arcadia, a cave was sacred to the Moon, and to Lycean Pan; and in Naxus, to Bacchus. But wherever Mithra was known, they propitiated the God in a cavern. With respect, however, to the Ithacensian cave, Homer was not satisfied with saying that it had two gates, but adds that one of the gates was turned towards the north, but the other which was more divine, to the south. He also says that the northern gate was pervious to descent, but does not indicate whether this was also the case with the southern gate. For of this, he only says, "It is inaccessible to men, but it is the path of the immortals."

10. It remains, therefore, to investigate what is indicated by this narration; whether the poet describes a cavern which was in reality consecrated by others, or whether it is an enigma of his own invention. Since, however, a cavern is an image and symbol of the world, as Numenius and his familiar Cronius assert, there are two extremities in the heavens, viz., the winter tropic, than which nothing is more southern, and the summer tropic, than which nothing is more northern...

There is a circumstantial argument that the idea asserted by Numenius and Cronius of a cavern being an image and symbol of the world comes from a discussion of Mithraism.

Compare Eubulus according to Porphyry.

For, as Eubulus says, Zoroaster was the first who consecrated in the neighbouring mountains of Persia, a spontaneously produced cave, florid, and having fountains, in honour of Mithra, the maker and father of all things; a cave, according to Zoroaster, bearing a resemblance of the world, which was fabricated by Mithra. But the things contained in the cavern being arranged according to commensurate intervals, were symbols of the mundane elements and climates.

Andrew Criddle

Thank you very much for this! In my collection of testimonia I snipped the quote from De antro nympharum before this point. The rest of the material I recognised alright.

[Roger Pearse]

What was Mithraism? Part 3 continued.

The Christian cult is so similar to the cult of Mithras that the question of who was first and who was second is very important to some; did the Christians imitate Mithras? Was Mithraism imitating the Christians?

“Mithraic temples seem to have had a particular role in the cult symbolic system. They were not simply replicas of Mithras’ cave in Persia; some had a complex symbolism which turned the temple into ‘a map of the universe’. ...
Astronomical learning is also on display in the Mithraic sanctuary- as a way it seems of showing the celestial journey of the human soul through fixed stars...

Many of the new cults as we have already seen proclaimed the superiority of one single supreme deity: Jupiter Dolichenus was described in the Aventine sanctuary as ‘protector of the whole world’; Isis was believed was believed to be the supreme power in the universe and the origin of civilization. The cult of Mithras focused on the mediating exploits of Mithras”
Page 285-88 , of the same book

Are you claiming that "The Christian cult is so similar to the cult of Mithras that the question of who was first and who was second is very important to some; did the Christians imitate Mithras? Was Mithraism imitating the Christians?" is a statement from the Beard book?

Did anyone suppose it states this?

The other statements don't look evidenced to me in the primary data.

[Roger Pearse]

Mithraism
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10402a.htm

(2) Some apparent similarities exist; but in a number of details it is quite probable that Mithraism was the borrower from Christianity. Tertullian about 200 could say: "hesterni sumus et omnia vestra implevimus" ("we are but of yesterday, yet your whole world is full of us"). It is not unnatural to suppose that a religion which filled the whole world, should have been copied at least in some details by another religion which was quite popular during the third century. Moreover the resemblances pointed out are superficial and external. Similarity in words and names is nothing; it is the sense that matters. During these centuries Christianity was coining its own technical terms, and naturally took names, terms, and expressions current in that day; and so did Mithraism. But under identical terms each system thought its own thoughts. Mithra is called a mediator; and so is Christ; but Mithra originally only in a cosmogonic or astronomical sense; Christ, being God and man, is by nature the Mediator between God and man. And so in similar instances. Mithraism had a Eucharist, but the idea of a sacred banquet is as old as the human race and existed at all ages and amongst all peoples. Mithra saved the world by sacrificing a bull; Christ by sacrificing Himself. It is hardly possible to conceive a more radical difference than that between Mithra taurochtonos (lambochtonos) and Christ crucified. Christ was born of a Virgin; there is nothing to prove that the same was believed of Mithra born from the rock. Christ was born in a cave; and Mithraists worshipped in a cave, but Mithra was born under a tree near a river. Much as been made of the presence of adoring shepherds; but their existence on sculptures has not been proven, and considering that man had not yet appeared, it is an anachronism to suppose their presence.
(3) Christ was an historical personage, recently born in a well-known town of Judea, and crucified under a Roman governor, whose name figured in the ordinary official lists. Mithra was an abstraction, a personification not even of the sun but of the diffused daylight; his incarnation, if such it may be called, was supposed to have happened before the creation of the human race, before all history. The small Mithraic congregations were like masonic lodges for a few and for men only and even those mostly of one class, the military; a religion that excludes the half of the human race bears no comparison to the religion of Christ. Mithraism was all comprehensive and tolerant of every other cult, the Pater Patrum himself was an adept in a number of other religions; Christianity was essential exclusive, condemning every other religion in the world, alone and unique in its majesty.

Very little of this is actually to be found in the ancient sources. It is generally unwise to rely on 1911 secondary sources.

[Roger Pearse]

Ancient Persian religion: Zoroastrianism, one important feast day is Mihragen, a part of which involves sacrifice of a bull, tauroctony, performed by Mithra, according to H. Lommel (1949).
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/mithraism

I do not see the word "Mihragen" in that article... In fact I don't see any of this in that article.

Ahem.

[Roger Pearse]

I have cited from the catholic encyclopaedia and from first rate Christian academics, Frend, Baird et al.

You are appealing to authority, not to data. Your "authorities" are rubbish: the Catholic Encyclopedia is a century old and the academics are not Mithras specialists.

Use proper sources.