Talk:Mithraism in comparison with other belief systems

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Plagiarized, non-neutral, should be marked for deletion or severely edited[edit]

The vast majority of this article seems to have been plagurized from here http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mithras/display.php?page=mithras_and_christianity

Not only that, the entire point of it's existence appears to be to defend Christianity from charges of similarity to Mithras.

Agreed. This article has an entirely self-servicing bias towards the ill-fated idea that Christianity was an authochonous religion. There are plethora of authors, in the majority, that uphold the view that the Mithras were essential influence to the development of christianity. This article needs to be restructured. 167.1.146.100 (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever it's worth, R. Pearse's pages on Mithraism were originally taken from Wikipedia, rather than vice versa. Pearse worked here as an editor on the Mithraism pages for many years, before some sort of falling-out occurred in 2013. The pages have presumably evolved down separate paths since then, though at this page at least, there's very little difference. See Pearse's FAQ#Is_the_Wikipedia_article_reliable? JerryRussell (talk) 04:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any plagiarism at the tertulian link cited above. I read that article and no large-scale lifting of material is seen anywhere. Do you have the right link ?? Sooku (talk) 08:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

title[edit]

This article consists of material about Mithras and other cults moved from the Mithras article. I'm not sure this was a good idea.

Even if it is, the title is terrible. "Belief systems" is anachronistic -- paganism was about what you did, not what you believed. What, I wonder, is this page really about? The summary is of course a chunk from the Mithras article, rather than a summary of contents. 21:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The page is about defending against the assertion that christianity superimposed itself upon existing beliefs and rituals, of course. 124.149.177.209 (talk) 12:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though I don't really care one way or another, as I would not deign to criticize or attack another person's beliefs/opinions, I should mention that BOTH points of view are assertions.... most people who publish research on this subject conclude that Christianity, as it was eventually codified, not necessarily as it was originally characterized, was composed of a very large number of very similar rituals/rites, ideas/beliefs, and organizational/operational methodology to pre-existing AND subsequent (subsequent to 0 CE; pre-existing to the Council of Nicea) local/regional belief systems, religions, spiritual organizations, etc. On the other hand, the difficulty is that most "scholars" who "research" this idea and conclude the opposite viewpoint are immediately discountable as neutral/unbiased sources of professional analysis.... Jesuit priests, Catholic/Vatican clergy, monks, or otherwise affiliated scholars, and the host of protestant christian researchers who often go through some or all of their education, even in childhood, from christian schools.... these are the most common voices in favor of the opposite view. Unfortunately, you cant take their word as reliable on this subject.184.189.220.114 (talk) 08:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The older title was worse.

86.24.11.18 (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Gee[edit]

Hi Ari. Could you please provide an extract of what Gee has stated? Does he actually say that many take this view?-Civilizededucationtalk 10:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many do as the sources state. There seems to be little support of it being either "Mithraic" or "liturgy" in contemporary scholarship, a name that was attached early on by Albrecht Dieterich. --Ari (talk) 09:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And, could you also explain how my rendering of Meyer was off base?-Civilizededucationtalk 00:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It came across extremely polemical (quoting takes away from claims of it being an editorial pov) and it misses the basis on which Meyer was making the comparisons in that article. Furthermore, calling "Professor of X at Y" is generally unnecessary when we can easily wikilink to the profile. Finally, we should address what he means by apologists ie. Justin Martyr's comparison. --Ari (talk) 09:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. Generally, I think quoting is unnecessary unless there be some real problem in paraphrasing it. I could agree to adding something about Justin Marty's claim about Mithraism, however, I don't think that it is proper to do OR on a primary source. We should find it in some secondary source. I will be trying to do it myself too.-Civilizededucationtalk 09:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Meyer mentions the example of the Eucharist and Mithraism on p.179 if you have the text available. However, this is problematic for us as editors. (1) Meyer's reading is not universal. Other scholars point that Justin is presenting Christianity in terms of other Greaco-Roman "religions" as part of his apology along the lines of 'why set us aside as different, what we believe isn't so foreign to what you do'. (2) Most scholars believe that the tradition began with Jesus and makes sense in light of the contemporary Jewish tradition of symbolic religious meals (such as by the Qumran community). (3) Some editors push for similarity = dependence, and then postulate some OR or fringe idea that Christianity was a copy of Graeco-Roman cult. --Ari (talk) 10:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have the text. However, I don't see a problem regarding his reading not being universal. In such matters, there is always a multiplicity of views. From what I see about Justin, I think he has tried to explain the similarities by ascribing them to a devilish invention. As for editors pushing a point, I think it is the source which is saying something. I see no reason to disregard it.-Civilizededucationtalk 10:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two new Myths of Mithras?[edit]

Hello there! I've recently come across two new (possible) additions for this page and was hoping the researchers here would like them. I don't know if they are myths (miths?) or not, but they really sound like them, particularly the first one! I heard these from an editor who claims to have come from a predominantly Christian country in which the cult of Mithras was once "significant".


The claims are:

  • The followers of Mithras practised "ritual eating (in the case of the Christians the flesh of a deity, and the paintings in Mithras temples suggest the followers of that cult saw it the same way)"
  • "Sunday (rather than Saturday, for instance) as the holy day in honour of the sun god."

The editor went on to claim that "the miracle stories about Jesus follow a pattern of stories that were earlier reported about various Greek philosophers such as Pythagoras and Empedocles."

I hope this is helpful!

Ion Zone (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Apologetica[edit]

This article needs to be watched for neutrality. Right now it gives one-sided story giving the Christian apologists last word in each case. --99.232.204.149 (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The author is intentionally obfuscating the many similarities between the Christian Jesus and the God Mithras - specifically, the attributes, biography, and original cult as it was practiced in the Roman Empire in the period during which it overlapped with early Christianity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.8.100 (talk) 03:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

25th of December[edit]

The above issue is notable in the 25th of December section, where "It is often stated that Mithras was thought to have been born on December 25. But Beck states that this is not the case." A single 1987 journal article (by a single author, Beck) is the only source cited in support of "not the case." No sources at all have been provided for "It is often stated...". The Wikipedian arguing and documenting the anti-Dec-25 case seems to have conceded that the consensus is on the other side, but he's not willing to be a fair broker for it. Worse, he overstates Beck's argument, which is not as firm a denial as "this is not the case." Beck only charges a non sequitur, thus 'not proven':

In truth, the only evidence for it is the celebration of the birthday of Invictus on that date in Calendar of Philocalus. 'Invictus' is of course Sol Invictus, Aurelian's sun god. It does not follow that a different, earlier, and unofficial sun god, Sol Invictus Mithras, was necessarily or even probably, born on that day too.

Oh, as to "probably", why would two gods sharing the title "Sol Invictus" NOT "probably" share a birthday when the physical sun returns from darkness every year? It seems more rather than less likely.

But we needn't strain our eyes peering into the dark mists of lost antiquity. One of the world's oldest continuously practiced religions, from the homeland of Mithra, is still with us, still remembers him, and still celebrates his birthday. The present-day Iran Chamber Society's Ramona Shashaani shares traditional 'Persian' (i.e. 'Parsee' = Zoroastrian) culture and history:

While Christians around the world are preparing to celebrate Christmas on Dec. 25th, the Persians are getting ready to tribute one of their most festive celebrations on Dec. 21st, the eve of winter solstice, the longest night and shortest day of the year. In Iran this night is called SHAB-E YALDAA, also known as SHAB-E CHELLEH, which refers to the birthday or rebirth of the sun.
... YALDAA is chiefly related to MEHR YAZAT; it is the night of the birth of the unconquerable sun, Mehr or Mithra, meaning love and sun, and has been celebrated by the followers of Mithraism as early as 5000 B.C.
... But in the [Roman-controlled area's] 4th century A.D., because of some errors in counting the leap year, the birthday of Mithra shifted to 25th of December and was established as such.

Why look away from where the evidence is? Arguments from ignorance are fruitless. – •Raven  .talk 12:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the NON-opensourced Encyclopaedia Britannica firmly states: "December 25th... was also the birthday of the Indo-European deity Mithra, a god of light and loyalty whose cult was at the time growing popular among Roman soldiers." – •Raven  .talk 13:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Third- and fourth-century Christians admitted sharing the date, even if as a mere coincidence — per the Catholic Encyclopaedia, which quotes St. Cyprian of Carthage (200-258) as saying, "O, how wonderfully acted Providence that on that day on which that Sun was born.... Christ should be born". Further:

In the fourth century, Chrysostom, "del Solst. Et Æquin." (II, p. 118, ed. 1588), says:... "But Our Lord, too, is born in the month of December . . . the eight before the calends of January [25 December] . . ., But they call it the 'Birthday of the Unconquered'. Who indeed is so unconquered as Our Lord . . .? Or, if they say that it is the birthday of the Sun, He is the Sun of Justice."
Already Tertullian (Apol., 16; cf. Ad. Nat., I, 13; Orig. c. Cels., VIII, 67, etc) had to assert that Sol was not the Christians' God; Augustine (Tract xxxiv, in Joan. In P.L., XXXV, 1652) denounces the heretical identification of Christ with Sol.
Pope Leo I (Serm. xxxvii in nat. dom., VII, 4; xxii, II, 6 in P.L., LIV, 218 and 198) bitterly reproves solar survivals — Christians, on the very doorstep of the Apostles' basilica, turn to adore the rising sun.

The CE begins that section of the article by saying, "The well-known solar feast, however, of Natalis Invicti, celebrated on 25 December, has a strong claim on the responsibility for our December date."

Beck attempts to argue that the date for the birthday of Aurelian's public god Sol Invictus was set completely independently and separately from "a different, earlier, and unofficial sun god, Sol Invictus Mithras", any resemblance purely coincidental... overlooking the tiny detail of how many Roman legionaries were Mithraists. By using a slightly more generic title, Aurelian allowed NON-initiates of the mystery religion to share in the celebration, while letting Mithraists interpret the title as their own deity's or as his lord's whom he served as soldier (i.e. Ahura Mazda). – •Raven  .talk 11:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mithras in comparison with other belief systems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mithraism_in_comparison_with_other_belief_systems&oldid=1204030883"