• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Mithras/Jesus Myth

User7597

Hyperspace Cartographer
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jun 4, 2021
Messages
110
Christmas is almost here and so tis the season for New Atheist types and misinformed people to post memes about the supposed parallels between Jesus and Mithras.

"But the idea that there are many remarkable parallels between Mithraism and Christianity and that the latter is therefore derived, at least in part, from the former maintains its imaginative hold on those who don’t bother checking these things. Unfortunately, despite their regular repetition, virtually none of these parallels stand up to critical scrutiny. Most of them come directly from the – ahem – “research” of the notorious New Age nutcase who called herself “Acharya S”. This loon, whose real name was D.M. Murdock, wrote a series of books repeating the idea that Christianity was derived entirely from earlier pagan religions based on astrological themes. Her work is a case study in bad New Age nonsense, with tenuous or even totally non-existent parallels presented as evidence of derivation, and footnotes to everything from online undergraduate essays to nineteenth century Theosophy texts based on “visions” as the supposed substantiation for her claims. Why atheists who claim to be rationalists would gormlessly accept this New Age junk pseudo history without checking it is the main “Mithraic mystery” here".

From this article: https://historyforatheists.com/2016/12/the-great-myths-2-christmas-mithras-and-paganism/
 
The idea goes back before DMM. As anyone with a rational and even marginally well researched should very possibly know.

Does the author of the article quoted have something to say which isn't slagging off people they don't agree with? :dunno:
 
The idea goes back before DMM. As anyone with a rational and even marginally well researched should very possibly know.

Does the author of the article quoted have something to say which isn't slagging off people they don't agree with? :dunno:

It's not just him:

https://jerome23.wordpress.com/2009...tmas-or-why-stephen-fry-was-wrong-on-mythmas/

https://saurthedogking.blogspot.com/2007/01/merry-mithras-this-time-qi-is-quite.html

https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2019/12/03/was-jesus-copied-off-the-greek-god-dionysos/
 

not sure what your point is?

Lots of people making similar epistemological errors doesn't absolve any of them. All points of view create their own echo chambers, especially nowadays.

The idea of Jesus/Mithras goes back to 1890 (I think) without me looking anything up . Probably can be pushed back further than that, as these things tend to develop.

Hence, the outpouring of viscious anti DMM spitting is... well. interesting.
 
Read Bart Ehrman, Jesus was probably a historical figure.
I have read Bart Ehrman. Whilst it seems likely that the Jesus Mythology arose from an actual figure it still doesn't mean that any of the claims made about him are true.

Jesus Before The Gospels: How The Earliest Christians Remembered, Changed, And Invented Their Stories Of The Savior Paperback – 8 Feb. 2017​


by Bart D. Ehrman (Author)
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0062285...e2&s=books&sp_csd=d2lkZ2V0TmFtZT1zcF9kZXRhaWw
 
Last edited:
I have read Bart Ehrman. Whilst it seems likely that the Jesus Mythology arose from an actual figure it still doesn't mean that any of the claims made about him are true.

Jesus Before The Gospels: How The Earliest Christians Remembered, Changed, And Invented Their Stories Of The Savior Paperback – 8 Feb. 2017​


by Bart D. Ehrman (Author)
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0062285...e2&s=books&sp_csd=d2lkZ2V0TmFtZT1zcF9kZXRhaWw

I've read "Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth" by him where he puts forward evidence for a historical Jesus. On page 2 he mentions scholars trained in New Testament and early Christianity studies who teach at seminaries, divinity schools, universities and colleges across the world:

"Of the thousands of scholars of early Christianity who do teach at such schools, none of them, to my knowledge, has any doubts that Jesus existed."

Is he wrong?

 
Jesus is my favourite demigod. I love Jesus. :bthumbup:
Not keen on the bit in Matthew where he's sending his disciples out telling them he's here to turn families against each other. Sort of highlights the passive aggressive nature of christianity to me. I prefer Dionysus. You know where you are with that hellraiser.
 
Not keen on the bit in Matthew where he's sending his disciples out telling them he's here to turn families against each other. Sort of highlights the passive aggressive nature of christianity to me.
Nietzsche - that fair-weather 'admirer' of Socrates - wrote that the philosopher went into perfectly content communities and stirred the people up by asking awkward questions, causing the people to examine their lives and convictions; but Nietzsche ends with something like '...and that is why Socrates was so very necessary'.
 
Nietzsche - that fair-weather 'admirer' of Socrates - wrote that the philosopher went into perfectly content communities and stirred the people up by asking awkward questions, causing the people to examine their lives and convictions; but Nietzsche ends with something like '...and that is why Socrates was so very necessary'.
I didn't mean to be Socrates. I think Jesus was a good dude generally, but that bit sticks in the craw.

EDIT I suppose we ought to get this thread back on track. I'd heard of the idea that Jesus was based on Mithra, but it never felt like the two mapped together very well. I've never actually looked deeply into it, so, for all I know, the article is correct. I also never saw it as particularly important. There have always been ways to recognise the time around the winter solstice. Why wouldn't there be? But I don't know whether I'm one of those 'rationalists' the article is talking about. All I know is I know nothing. (Hey, perhaps I am Socrates. )
 
Last edited:
I've read "Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth"
That's weird I thought that was the book I'd referenced in my post. That's what happens when you post in a hurry. To be honest I was not particularly impressed with this book I couldn't quite work out what he was up to, his arrogant dismissal of the works of mythicist scholars after the direction of his previous works was a bit of a puzzle. But hey ho that's academics for you! From what I can recall he was just rewriting the aplogetics material but minus the supernatural elements.

Anyway, I'd supposed for years even after I'd stopped being a Christian, that the Jesus character was based on a real person but after a while I came to think that it's possible that he was entirely mythical. The origins of Christianity are not entirely clear and probably never will be.

Have you read any of David Fitzgerald's books. The three volume collection of 'Jesus: Mything in Action' and 'Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that showed Jesus Never Existed at all'? Jonathan Pearce's 'The Nativity: a Critical Examination' also raises pertinent questions.

When it comes to belief it's true to say that what went in without reason can hardly be reasoned out, well only with a strong will. To be honest I've moved on from reading all that stuff although I do indulge in the occassional foray. I try not to rubbish other peoples beliefs if that's what's giving their life meaning. I only get irate when they try to tell others what to do and oh boy do some of them like to do that!
 
"Of the thousands of scholars of early Christianity who do teach at such schools, none of them, to my knowledge, has any doubts that Jesus existed."
In some cases it's because they'd get fired if they dared to go against the prevailing narrative. lol
 
Have you read any of David Fitzgerald's books. The three volume collection of 'Jesus: Mything in Action' and 'Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that showed Jesus Never Existed at all'? Jonathan Pearce's 'The Nativity: a Critical Examination' also raises pertinent questions.

Thanks for the recommendations, I'll have a look.
 
I've read "Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth" by him where he puts forward evidence for a historical Jesus. On page 2 he mentions scholars trained in New Testament and early Christianity studies who teach at seminaries, divinity schools, universities and colleges across the world:

"Of the thousands of scholars of early Christianity who do teach at such schools, none of them, to my knowledge, has any doubts that Jesus existed."

Is he wrong?

While I'm not going to say he's necessarily wrong, it is true that seminarios and divinity schools and the number of religious oriented colleges and universities does mean there's going to be a bias.
Again, not necessarily wrong but as solid an argument as he may think.

Personally I do think there was some figure who the myths are built on. And he may have even been named Yeshua. But there's too much distance between him and the character in the books to know much about him. The real figure may even be one of the real figures we have in recorded history from that time period.
Something critics of Ehrman have pointed out that while the majority of scholars he sites do agree there was a real figure they don't agree on his character. Making a completely fictional being just one other interpretation among many.

All that said, yes the comparisons between him and Mithras (as well as similar comparisons to Horus and Vishu and others) are not historical. At least the explicit one to one comparisons, you can make thematic comparisons.
 
Obviously the question of whether Jesus really existed is extremely important (fundamental) to the beliefs of many people, as an atheist, I have a different approach. Anyone talked about in texts as ancient as that essentially exist in the same way to us now. We have only those texts to tell us what they were like. They're outside of living memory, and a mythical character described to us is as real as an actual person who is described to us. So, I don't care whether Jesus was mythical, was a real guy, or is a character based on multiple people. What we know of him doesn't come from our own direct experience of him, but from how he's described in the texts. In the end, that is the Jesus we have, regardless of his origins. Not very helpful, I know. I jokingly said above my favourite demigod is Dionysus, but right now, to my mind, Dionysus is as real to me as Jesus, or Socrates, or Sherlock Holmes come to think of it. They're all characters that exist on the page, and however real they may have been, what's on the page is all we have of them.
 
(I think I may have posted this previously: if so, apologies for its second apparition)

Graves' main list in time order:

Thulis of Egypt, 1700 B. C.
Krishna of India, 1200 B.C.
Crite of Chaldea, 1200 B.C.
Atys of Phrygia, 1170 B.C.
Thammuz or Tammuz of Syria, 1160 B.C.
Hesus or Eros 834 B.C.
Bali of Orissa, 725 B.C
Indra of Thibet (Tibet), 725 B.C.
Iao of Nepaul (Nepal), 622 B.C.
Buddha Sakia (Muni) of India, 600 B.C.
Mitra (Mithra) of Persia, 600 B.C.
Alcestos of Euripides, 600 B.C.
Quezalcoatl of Mexico, 587 B.C.
Wittoba of the Bilingonese, 552 B.C.
Prometheus or Æschylus of Caucasus, 547 B.C.
Quirinus of Rome, 506 B.C.

(In addition to the key "16 Christs" listed above, remembering that the term 'Christ' is actually role, not a name)

Salivahana of Bermuda
Zulis or Zhule of Egypt
Osiris of Egypt
Oru of Egypt
Odin of the Scandinavians
Zoroaster of Persia
Baal of Phoenicia
Taut, "the only Begotten of God" of Phoenicia
Bali of Afghanistan
Xamolxis (Zalmoxis) of Thrace
Zoar of the Bonzes
Adad of Assyria
Deva Tat of Siam (Thailand)
Sammonocadam (Sommona-Codom) of Siam (Thailand)
Alcides of Thebes
Mikado of the Sintoos
Beddru of Japan
Bremrillah of the Druids
Thor son of Odin of the Gauls/Norse
Cadmus of GreeceHil/Feta of the Mandaites
Gentaut of Mexico
Universal Monarch of the SibylsIschy of Formosa (Taiwan)
Divine Teacher of Plato
Holy One of Xaca (Fohi) of China
Tien of China
Adonis son of the virgin
Io of Greece
Ixion of Rome
Mohamud or Mahomet of Arabia
 
Loki is a full god though. Jesus is only half-divine.

no, confusingly he is 100% divine and 100% human. I know, please don't shoot the messenger!

@PeteByrdie
whether Jesus really existed is extremely important (fundamental) to the beliefs of many people

agreed. However, there are a non-trivial number of us (no, I won't estimate a number) who believe that our own personal experience, the gnosis, supercedes the question of historical fact. What you'd see if you could time travel would be seen through your own filters of course.
There's a really good bit about it in a crime novel about an old book/picture being taken from a british monastery. Robert Hardy played a senior monk in a tv adaptation... can anyone id from that? I may be able to find the quotation if you can!


"Of the thousands of scholars of early Christianity who do teach at such schools, none of them, to my knowledge, has any doubts that Jesus existed."

Is he wrong?

What is he using that statement to argue? :)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top