From news@usenet.ins.cwru.edu Wed Nov 23 22:11:18 1994 Received: from relay2.UU.NET by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA18834; Wed, 23 Nov 94 22:11:18 EST Received: from usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu by relay2.UU.NET with ESMTP id QQxriq06525; Wed, 23 Nov 1994 22:11:15 -0500 Received: (news@localhost) by usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu (8.6.8.1+cwru/CWRU-2.1-UUCPGW) id WAA13925; Wed, 23 Nov 1994 22:11:00 -0500 (from news) To: soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net Path: po.CWRU.Edu!mjb10 From: mjb10@po.cwru.edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Mithra virgin born? Date: 24 Nov 1994 03:10:57 GMT Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Lines: 239 Message-Id: <3b1081$die@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> Reply-To: mjb10@po.cwru.edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) Nntp-Posting-Host: roo.ins.cwru.edu INTRODUCTION On another BBS, someone claimed that the virgin birth accounts in the Gospels were nothing more than myths borrowed from the competing religion of Mithraism. As many Christians know, such claims are quite common. Supposedly, all of the essential Christian doctrines were borrowed from various Hellenistic religions. However, I have found again and again that such claims are not supported by good evidence. In fact, when someone makes such a claim, chances are that they are drawing from a popularistic work commonly read among atheists or neopagans. Below is an analysis of one such claim. THE CHALLENGE It was asserted that Christianity derived its virgin birth account from the Roman mystery religion which worshipped the god Mithra. I then asked for a source for this claim. The source used was: _The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets_, by Barbara G Walker (1989, HarperCollins) Apparently, this book is popular among neopagans. The following excerpts from the book were then offered to support the initial contention. My responses (indicated by '*') are inserted at appropriate places. THE ANALYSIS Mithraism "Persian savior, whose cult was the leading rival of Christianity in Rome, and more successful than Christianity in the first four centuries of the "Christian" era. " *At this point, this source is relying on outdated and discredited theories. There is no good evidence to think that the Roman Mithras was the same as the Persian Mithras. "Clearly the Roman Mithras must be considered only a distant relative of the Persian deity, perhaps associated by name only." From _Hellenistic Religions: An Introduction_, by Luther H. Martin (1987, Oxford University Press). "These attacks on Cumont's theories by Hinnells and Gordon in 1971 marked the decisive turning point in the study of Mithraism. From that moment on, it could no longer be assumed that Roman Mithraism originated in Iran." From _The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries_, by David Ulansey (1989, Oxford University Press). "Christians copied many details of the mystery religion, explaining later with their favorite argument, that the devil had anticipated Christianity, the "true" faith and had imitated it before Christ's birth. This apparently didn't satisfy everyone, and St. Augustine even claimed that the Priests of Mithra worshipped the same God he did." *Actually, there is no good evidence to suggest that the early Christians copied anything from Mithraism (in fact, it may have been the other way around). As for some of the early church father's, I'll allow the religious scholar Everett Ferguson to explain this. Speaking of scholars like Cumont (who your source relies one): "There was a tendency to interpret one cult by another and so to construct a general "mystery theology" or common "mystery religion." Not uncommonly this was done by (unconsciously) starting with Christian ideas, using these to interpret data about the mysteries, and then finding the mysteries as the source of the Christian ideas. Early Christian authors, it seems, did this too, only their conclusion was that the similarities came from demonic imitation of Christian rites. The Christian writers of the early centuries may have exaggerated the similarities, either from defensiveness or from the same psychological process as the modern researchers, or (as seems more likely) because they could make apologetical capital for the truth of Christianity by claiming demonic imitations in paganism." (From, _Backgrounds of Early Christianity_, by Everett Ferguson). The ironic thing in this source is this: when she cites early church apologists as a source of pagan belief, it is akin to citing Josh McDowell as a source of modern pagan belief! And I don't think many pagans would like that. "Mithra was born on the 25th of December ... which was taken over by the Christians in 4 A.D." *Again, this source continues to discredit itself. There is NO evidence used Dec 25th as the birthday of Christ in 4 A.D.! In fact, almost all scholars agree that this date was adopted centuries later. To be more specific, Joseph Campbell notes that the date was adopted in 354 AD. Thus, the adoption of this date says NOTHING about the influences of Mithraism on the formation of the Gospel accounts. " Some said that Mithra sprang from an incestuous union from the Sun God and his own mother, just as Jesus, who was God was born of the Mother of God. Some claimed Mithra was born of a virgin mother..." *At this point I asked: And what is the source for this claim? Periodically, I see people make this claim and cite a populartistic source. But what is the ORIGINAL source? Every source I have seen (including Cumont) notes that Mithra was "born" by emerging from a rock with a dagger in one hand, a torch in the other hand, Phrygian cap on his head. NO mention is made of a "virgin." At this point, the following sources were cited: "Michael: here are Walker's sources for her article on Mithraism... _The Masks of God: Primitive Mythology_, Joseph Campbell, Viking Press, New York, 1959 _Sex and Power In History_, Amaury de Reincourt, Dell Publishing, New York, 1964 The sources for the virgin birth myth are Campbell (_Primitive Mythology_) and de Reincourt." I then replied: Thanks for the list. I deleted the rest because I was only interested in the source for the claim that Mithra was virgin born. Unfortunately, neither the CWRU library system nor the Cleveland public library system have the book by de Reincourt. So I can't check that one, but I must confess that I am skeptical that a book about "sex and power in history" is going to have a cutting-edge account of Mithraism. The book by Campbell should be more promising, since Campbell is a recognized authority on myth. However, I did see Campbell on PBS a year or so ago, and he did not strike me as an objective and disinterested scholar. He struck me as a mystic who was too involved with his studies. Anyway, I checked out the book Walker cites. Well...you have a problem. After consulting the index, virgin births are cited only three times. Twice, it is merely mentioned as a generic topic and once it is mentioned in the context of a religion far removed from Christianity. Mithraism is not even mentioned in the book. So what gives? Your source is citing bogus references. So I checked out some of the other volumes in the "Masks of God" series. Mithraism is discussed in some length in the "Occidental Mythology" volume. Campbell relies heavily on the work of Cumont. This was excusable in 1959, but to blindly rely on this work in 1994 is not excusable. What does Campbell say? Well, he does clearly imply that Mithra was virgin born. But before you feel validated, I should point out that Campbell cites no original source. In fact, his claim is really nothing more than a strained, subjective interpretation. He says: "Mithra...was born beside a sacred stream beneath a sacred tree. In works of art he is shown emerging as a naked child from the "Generative Rock," wearing his Phrygian cap, bearing a torch, and armed with a knife.....The earth has given birth - a virgin birth- to the archetypal Man." [pp. 260-261] I must tell you that I am thoroughly unimpressed. Put simply, there is no evidence that Mithra was born of a virgin. Instead, Campbell, is his typical dramatic style, INTERPRETS this emerging from a rock as a virgin birth! The REAL lesson from all of this is how it is easy to be hoodwinked by popular accounts which try to reconstruct things so that Christianity borrowed from the pagans. Mithra was *NOT* born of a virgin. Yet, Campbell comes up with a flippant and wild interpretation (lacking any corroboration) which he makes in passing.. Then, a writer like your Walker comes along and reads Campbell and then thinks that Mithra was born of a virgin. She then relays it as if many people believed that Mithra was born of a virgin. Then, you read Walker and try to tell us all that Mithra's "virgin birth" was the source of the "Christian myth." All the while the only thing that is true is that Campbell made a passing remark which merely reflects his subjective views of things. And that's all. No virgin born Mithra. No Christian borrowing from this myth about Mithra. In fact, one could say the true myth is the belief that Christians borrowed from Mithraism to write the nativity accounts. What's more, if Walker did cite the "Primitive Mythologies" volume, it means she is just padding her Bibliography with titles that may have nothing to do with her claims. Put simply, it's shoddy scholarship, and I would take all of her claims with a huge grain of salt. CONCLUSION Mithra was a pagan deity who was not born of a virgin (BTW, neither was he a dying and rising god). Yet this claim if often made by those critical of Christianity. When you hear such claims, be sure to ask for the source of the claim. Don't be satisfied with a popularistic source. Ask for the original myth. If it is not offered, ask for the sources behind the popularistic source and check them out. Experience has taught me that, most of the time, the claim can be shown to be nothing more than someone's subjective interpretation. As Ferguson notes, many of these claims stem from outdated scholarship which attempted to use the Christian paradigm to understand the Mysteries (as we don't really know that much about these religions). Then, after using Christian beliefs to interpret the Mysteries, we are told how similar the Mysteries are to Christianity. That is, you first put Christianity INTO the Mystery religions, then you are surprised to find that the Mysteries are so much like Christianity. It's a classic case of arguing in a circle. -- Path: christian Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian From: mjb10@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) Subject: Virgin Birth/ Mithras (was Re: NT Contradictions - Part 1) Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) References: <3r0gh4$oqi@farside.rutgers.edu> Reply-To: mjb10@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Reply to Paul Carlson (pjcarlsn@ix.netcom.com): Being somewhat pressed for time, I'll respond to a few of these. Concerning the geneaolgies, Paul says: > Matthew and Luke give two contradictory genealogies for > Joseph (Matthew 1:2-17 and Luke 3:23-38). They cannot > even agree on who the father of Joseph was. Of course, this contradiction exists IF the two genealogies are those of Joseph. > Church > apologists try to eliminate this discrepancy by > suggesting that the genealogy in Luke is actually Mary's, > even though Luke says explicitly that it is Joseph's > genealogy (Luke 3:23). Allow me to repost an old reply to this purported contradiction: 65. The father of Joseph, Mary's husband was Jacob The father of Mary's husband was Heli It is distinctly possible that Luke's account traces Jesus' lineage through Mary, and not Joseph. Some of the circumstantial evidence in support of this is as follows: 1. Luke's birth narrative is through the eyes of Mary, while Matthew's is through the eyes of Joseph. Thus, Luke could have received his material through Mary (or somone close), which means it is quite possible that he received her genealogy. 2. Luke 3:23 reads, "Jesus...being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Heli, etc." Luke certainly draws attention to the fact that Jesus was not truly Joseph's son, so why would he then go to all the trouble in listing Joseph's genealogy? 3. After considering the Greek of Luke 3:23, Robert Gromacki (a professor of Greek) believes it should be translated as follows: "being the son (as was supposed of Joseph) of Heli, of Matthat, etc." Gromaki states: "Since women did not appear in direct genealogical listings, Joseph stood in Mary's place, but Luke was careful to note that there was no physical connection between Joseph and either Jesus or Heli." 4. Luke's genealogy also lists Adam as "the son of God." This would indicate that one would have no grounds for insisting that the term "son" meant only the direct, biological offspring. Thus, one could think of Jesus as the "son of Heli." 5. The writings of Ignatitius (ca. 100 AD) indicate that the early church thought that Mary was a Davidic descent. For example, he writes: ""Under the Divine dispensation, Jesus Christ our God was conceived by Mary of the seed of David and of the spirit of God; He was born, and He submitted to baptism, so that by His Passion He might sanctify water." -- Ignatius to the Ephesians "Christ was of David's line. He was the son of Mary; He was verily and indeed born.." -- Ignatius to the Trallians Since Ignatius believed in the virgin birth, it clearly follows that he would believe that she was "of the seed of David." Since Ignatius teaches this in such a "matter of fact" manner, one would assume that this belief is quite old, otherwise, he would have tried to justify this belief. Other apocryphal gospels and Justin Martyr also believed Mary to have been a descendent of David. The net result is this: if so many early Christian's believed Mary to be the descendent of David, they must have interpreted Luke's genealogy as belonging to her. Objections to these claims are basically of two types: A. The Jews did not typically trace genealogies through women. Reply: This is true, but a virgin birth is not a typical birth. Thus standard practices would not be expected to hold. B. There is no explicit mention that the genealogy is Mary's. Reply: This is true again, but the reason for this is probably due to point A. The genealogy would lose all appeal if it was explicitly cited as Mary's. However, it does seem to be implied. Thus, one could discern this truth after they had converted and studied the text. This would account for the early church's belief about Mary's Davidic descent. Whatever one makes of such reasoning, it is certainly possible that the above explanation might be true, thus a contradiction has not been proved. > 2. Why genealogies of Joseph? > Both the genealogies of Matthew and Luke show that Joseph > was a direct descendant of King David. But if Joseph is > not Jesus' father, then Joseph's genealogies are > meaningless as far as Jesus is concerned, and one has to > wonder why Matthew and Luke included them in their > gospels. The answer, of course, is that the genealogies > originally said that Jesus was the son of Joseph and thus > Jesus fulfilled the messianic requirement of being a > direct descendant of King David. Thus, Paul assumes Joseph's genealogy was included for apologetic value. But what was the intention behind such apolegtics? To show that Jesus was a descendent of David. However, this would be relevant only to the Jews and it is at this point the apologetic hypothesis fails. Why? Because the same author teaches that Jesus was born of a virgin. This claim not only had no apolgetic value in the eyes ot the Jews, it would be reason to REJECT such teachings. > Long after Matthew and Luke wrote the genealogies the > church invented (or more likely borrowed from the mystery > religions) the doctrine of the virgin birth. There is NO evidence for this claim. First, there was no "virgin birth" motif to borrow from. This claim itself is akin to a myth and stems from past claims which interpreted supernatural births through the filter of Christian belief. Secondly, there is NO evidence to suppose that the virgin birth account was added after the genealogies were formed. > The apostle Paul says that Jesus "was born of the seed of > David" (Romans 1:3). This is an important point, for it shows that Paul and the early church accepted Jesus' Davidic lineage. If this was something that was invented, we would expect the Jewish opponents to have disputed this claim (a relatively easy way to shoot down Christian claims of Jesus as Messiah). But there is no evidence of such dispute as Paul simply passes this on rather than defend/justify it. >Here the word "seed" is literally > in the Greek "sperma." This same Greek word is > translated in other verses as "descendant(s)" or > "offspring." The point is that the Messiah had to be a > physical descendant of King David through the male line. > That Jesus had to be a physical descendant of David means > that even if Joseph had legally adopted Jesus (as some > apologists have suggested), Jesus would still not qualify > as Messiah if he had been born of a virgin - seed from > the line of David was required. I have already quoted Ignatius: Jesus Christ our God was conceived by Mary of the seed of David and of the spirit of God. This clearly suggests that the early Christians thought Mary to be of the seed of David. > Women did not count in reckoning descent for the simple > reason that it was then believed that the complete human > was present in the man's sperm (the woman's egg being > discovered in 1827). The woman's womb was just the soil > in which the seed was planted. Just as there was barren > soil that could not produce crops, so also the Bible > speaks of barren wombs that could not produce children. This is a faulty speculation. Ignatius also writes something that many commentators consider to be a much earlier creed: "Very Flesh, yet Spirit too; Uncreated, and yet born; God-and-Man in One agreed, Very-Life-in-Death indeed, Fruit of God and Mary's seed; At once impassible and torn By pain and suffering here below: Jesus Christ, whom as our Lord we know. Note that Ignatius clearly refers to Mary's "seed." The notion that the pre-scientific mind knew nothing about the woman's seed is also refuted by Genesis 3:15 - "Between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed." > 3. Why do only Matthew and Luke know of the virgin birth? > Of all the writers of the New Testament, only Matthew and > Luke mention the virgin birth. Had something as > miraculous as the virgin birth actually occurred, one > would expect that Mark and John would have at least > mentioned it in their efforts to convince the world that > Jesus was who they were claiming him to be. Given John's Logos theology, it is quite understandable why he passed over this. As for Mark, he doesn't mention the resurrection appearances either. Perhaps he considered the virgin birth and the resurrection appearances to be too "sacred" for his work. Who knows? > The apostle Paul never mentions the virgin birth, even > though it would have strengthened his arguments in > several places. Instead, where Paul does refer to Jesus' > birth, he says that Jesus "was born of the seed of David" > (Romans 1:3) and was "born of a woman," not a virgin > (Galatians 4:4). Paul's silence is not that significant either, as he is silent about much of Jesus' ministry. For example, he says nothing about Jesus' miracles in his letters. > B. THE LORD'S SUPPER - INSTITUTED BY JESUS OR PAUL? > In Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus institutes the Lord's Supper > during the Passover meal (in John's gospel the Lord's Supper > is not instituted - Jesus was dead by the time of the > Passover meal). > In 1 Corinthians 11:23 the apostle Paul writes, "For I > received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, > that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed > took bread..." Here Paul claims that he got the instructions > for the Lord's Supper directly from Jesus (evidently from one > of his many revelations). That's a matter of interpretation. In C.K. Barrett's commentary on First Corinthians, he shows that the best interpretation is that where Paul is passing on a historical tradition which originated with the Lord as the first link in the chain. > Paul writes these words about > twenty years after Jesus' death, and had the church already > been celebrating the Lord's Supper he certainly would have > been aware of it and would have had no need to receive it > from the Lord. Clearly the Lord's Supper predates Paul's letter, as Paul is writing to the Corinthians about their abuse of the Lord's Supper! There are also many clues which enable us to detect that Paul is passing on a tradition: 1. Paul introduces the teaching with the "recieve/pass on" formula. These are technical terms associated with sacred tradition. 2. Paul's teaching closely parallels Luke's, but differs from Mark/Matthew. This clearly shows the existence of at least two traditions. 3. Paul writes, in passing, "on the night he was betrayed." No where does he explain who betrayed Jesus and how he was betrayed. Thus, he is assuming the Corinthians know of this betrayal. Thus, they must have known of other traditions, and it is easier to believe Paul was reminding them of something that they previously recieved than inventing something out of thin air. After all, he introduces this whole teaching by saying he passed (past tense) this on. > Some apologists try to play games with the > text to make it seem like Paul actually received the > instructions from the other apostles, but one thing Paul > stresses is that what he teaches he receives from no man > (Galatians 1:11-12). Not quite. Paul says that he received the Gospel from no man. That is, he is claiming he learned of Jesus' salvation from Jesus. He is teaching that man did not invent the Gospel. But this was only the first step. He did go to see the apostles twice, and they gave him the right hand of fellowship. Clearly, there are many places where Paul passes on traditions and creeds (ie, 1 Cor.15:3-8; Rom.1:3-4; Phil.2:6-11; etc.) > The Lord's supper was not invented by Paul, but was borrowed > by him from Mithraism, the mystery religion that existed long > before Christianity and was Christianity's chief competitor > up until the time of Constantine. Really? This is the old Cumontian view and there really isn't any good evidence for it. The fact remains that we can date Roman Mithraism very well since it was closely associated with Mithriac monuments. At this point, we should note that only _four_ Mithriac monuments have been found in Asia Minor and none date before 150 A.D. While Mithraic monuments are commonly found throughout what was once the Roman Empire, only five have been found in Syria and one in Palestine. Of those found in Syria, none date prior to A.D. 100 and the one in Palestine dates to the third or fourth century A.D. In fact, one Mithraic scholar, R. Gordon, observes: "The first evidence for Mithraea is around 140-150 A.C. In contrast to the situation of Christianity, the building of Mithraic mysteries is important in cultic and symbolic terms. It is therefore reasonable to argue that Western Mithraism did not exist until the mid-second century A.C., at least in a developed sense, since there certainly is some earlier scattered evidence for a cult or cults of Mithra in the West. The question is whether the early evidence actually relates to the mysteries, and, if so, how." Sorry, but there is just NO good evidence to suppose that the Mithraism which would come to compete with Christianity dated much earlier than Christianity. > In Mithraism, the central > figure is the mythical Mithras, who died for the sins of > mankind and was resurrected. You are relying on bad information. Mithra was *NOT* a dying and rising god. And he certainly did not "die for the sins of mankind." As Mircea Eliade, the renowned scholar of compararive religions, noted: "Mithra is the only god who does not suffer the same tragic destiny as the gods of the other Mysteries, so we may conclude that the scenario of Mithraic initiation did not include ordeals suggesting death and resurrection." Walter Burkert, who is Professor of Classical Philology at the University of Zurich states: "even if we grant the importance of the "suffering god" myth for mysteries, it is virtually impossible to include Mithras in this company." Or consult Marjorie Leach's book, "Guide to the Gods." This book has almost 900 pages of the various gods categorized into several groups. Mithra is NOT placed among the 'Resurrection/Rejuvenation Deities. If it is a FACT that Mithra was not a dying and rising god, why is it that so many repeat this misinformation? Well, it all goes back to Cumont. Cumont used Persian sources (dating around 1000 A.D.) to interpret the meaning of the bull-slaying as some kind of incarnation. Alas, Cumont's interpretation is plagued with problems and today's Mithraic scholars are very skeptical of attempts to understand the Roman Mithras in the light of Iran. > Believers in Mithras were rewarded with eternal life. Again, this is a Cumontian claim and relies heavily on Iranian mythology. However, by itself, it is hardly significant as most religions promise some form of reward in the afterlife. > Part of the Mithraic communion > liturgy included the words, "He who will not eat of my body > and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me > and I with him, the same shall not know salvation." Another bogus Cumontian claim. At the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies, scholar J.P. Kane gave a paper entitled, "The Mithraic cult meal in its Greek and Roman environment." After surveying all the evidence, Kane concludes: "I have found no support for a 'haoma ceremony', the existence of which is the basic assumptions of Cumont's theory of a sacremental Mithraic meal....Nor can I find any support for Vermaseren's assumption that Mithraic initiates ate the flesh of a bull and drank its blood so as to be born again, whether from Mithraic iconography and archeaology, Avestan texts, the Greek and Graeco-Roman milieu." I don't know where Paul got this quote, but apparently it is bogus. > The early Church Fathers Justin Martyr and Tertullian tried > to say that Mithraism copied the Lord's Supper from > Christianity, but they were forced to say that demons had > copied it since only demons could copy an event in advance of > its happening! They could not say that the followers of > Mithras had copied it - it was a known fact that Mithraism > had included the ritual a long time before Christ was born. Kane points out that too much has been made of these obscure texts. Concerning Tertullian, he notes: "the manuscript evidence for Tertullian's text is mixed, and one cannot be sure that he is referring to Mithraism." For this reason, Kane says this text "can never be used for an argument of any substance." Concering Justin's text, Kane states: "Clearly, Justin is comparing only the ceremony, the fact that bread and water are used, with the Christian eucharist. It would be quite wrong to say that he is comparing the Mithraic theology with the Christian one that the bread and cup represent the body and blodd of Christ." Thus, things are not as clear as Paul assumes they are. Furthermore, there are two other facts worth mentioning. How many neo-pagans would think Josh McDowell is a good source for their beliefs? Not many. So why should we uncritically trust ancient Christian apologists to accurately convey ancient pagan beliefs/rituals? Again, Kane says: "Finally, in using a hostile Christian source for Roman Mithraism, one must ask how far the information is presented in a distorted context, carelessly or deliberately; and whether the unnamed source is reliable." In other words, Justin many have been confused about Mithraic practices! Secondly, Paul assumes that Justin is desperately trying to explain away Mithraic practice. On the contary, Justin may be exaggerating similarties FOR apologetic reasons. That is, he may be trying to show the truth of Christianity by appealing to demonic imitations! It's the ol' "counterfeit implies the real" argument. > Where did Mithraism come from? The ancient historian > Plutarch mentioned Mithraism in connection with the pirates > of Cilicia in Asia Minor encountering the Roman general > Pompey in 67 BC. Yes, but how well-developed was this Mithraism? The fact remains that very few Mithraic monuments have been found in Asia Minor and none date earlier than 150 A.D. > More recently, in 1989 Mithraic scholar > David Ulansey wrote a book, The Origins of the Mithraic > Mysteries, in which he convincingly shows that Mithraism > originated in the city of Tarsus in Cilicia. Not quite. What Ulansey does is to equate Perseus with Mithra. Was this early form of Mithraism the same as the Roman Mithraism that competed with Christianity much later? I doubt it. What Ulansey shows is that Perseus/Mithra was an astrological religion. He says: "I have argued that Mithraic iconography was a cosmological code created by a circle of religious-minded philosophers and scientists to symbolize their possession of secret knowledge: namely, the knowledge of a newly discovered god so powerful that the entire cosmos was completely under his control." That is, there is no reason to think this primitive form of Mithraism had anything to do with dying/rising gods, sacrifices for sin, and sacrements which represented personal salvation. > That this is > also the home town of the apostle Paul cannot be a > coincidence. Why not? Tarsus was a big city. Why should Paul have known about Mithraic theology? He was a zealous Jew, not someone who was curious about pagan religions. Furthermore, you forget that Mithriam was a MYSTERY religion. Ulansey draws out the significance of this in a Scientific American article: "Like a number of ancient religions..Mithraism limited its membership to those who had passed through a secret initiation ritual. Initiates were forbidden to speak to outsiders about cult secrets, and hence, they were named mysteria, a word whose root means to keep silent...The cult's secrecy meant that no written record of Mithraic doctrine survives." Even IF a fully-developed Mithraism existed in Tarsus during the time of Paul (a BIG assumption), cult beliefs were NOT widely known. Thus, there is no reason to think Paul knew of Mithraic beliefs! > Paul admits that he did not know Jesus during Jesus' > lifetime. He also says that his gospel was not taught to him > by any man (Galatians 1:11-12). All of Paul's theology is > based on his own revelations, or visions. This is simply false. Paul's theology was based not only on his revelations, but also on previous traditions and knowledge of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. What's more, the apostles gave him the right hand of fellowship. > Like dreams, > visions or hallucinations do not come from nowhere, but > reveal what is already in a person's subconscious. It is > very likely that the source of most of Paul's visions, and > therefore most of his theology, is to be found in Mithraism. Your argument collapses for many reasons: 1. Paul's theology is not based solely on his visions. He incorporates previous tradition (1 Cor.15:3-8). 2. There is no good evidence of Christian borrowing from Mithraism. 3. There is no good evidence for a fully-developed Mithraism which predates Paul. 4. Given the secrecy which surrounded Mithraism, Paul could not have known about this cult's theology/practices even IF there existed a fully-developed Mithraism. > That we find Jesus at the Last Supper saying more or less the > same thing Paul said to the Corinthians many years later is > another example of the church modifying the gospels to > incorporate the theology of Paul, which eventually won out > over the theology of Jesus' original disciples. There is NO good evidence to think that Paul's theology differed significantly from Jesus' original disciples, and there is good evidence to think that the original disiples agreed with Paul's theology. Paul began his article by claiming that a critical look at Christianity was part of his rejection of Christianity. I would suggest that he now take a critical look at some of his beliefs which caused him to reject Christianity. When one claims that Mithra was a dying and rising god, they haven't looked very closely at the evidence. In fact, it looks more as if they have naively accepted the first arguments to come around which purport to refute Christianity. --