History of Christianity

[shawn]

Gratuitously cut and pasted from:
JUNE – JULY 2007 NEXUS Magazine
What the Church doesn't want you to know
It has often been emphasised that Christianity is unlike any other religion, for it stands
or falls by certain events which are alleged to have occurred during a short period of
time some 20 centuries ago. Those stories are presented in the New Testament, and
as new evidence is revealed it will become clear that they do not represent historical
realities. The Church agrees, saying:
"Our documentary sources of knowledge about the origins of Christianity and its
earliest development are chiefly the New Testament Scriptures, the authenticity of which
we must, to a great extent, take for granted."
(Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, p. 712)
The Church makes extraordinary admissions about its New Testament. For example,
when discussing the origin of those writings, "the most distinguished body of academic
opinion ever assembled" (Catholic Encyclopedias, Preface) admits that the Gospels "do
not go back to the first century of the Christian era" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed.,
vol. vi, p. 137, pp. 655-6). This statement conflicts with priesthood assertions that the
earliest Gospels were progressively written during the decades following the death of the
Gospel Jesus Christ. In a remarkable aside, the Church further admits that "the earliest of
the extant manuscripts [of the New Testament], it is true, do not date back beyond the
middle of the fourth century AD" (Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit., pp. 656-7). That is
some 350 years after the time the Church claims that a Jesus Christ walked the sands of
Palestine, and here the true story of Christian origins slips into one of the biggest black
holes in history. There is, however, a reason why there were no New Testaments until the
fourth century: they were not written until then, and here we find evidence of the greatest
misrepresentation of all time.
It was British-born Flavius Constantinus (Constantine, originally Custennyn or
Custennin) (272–337) who authorised the compilation of the writings now called the New
Testament. After the death of his father in 306, Constantine became King of Britain, Gaul
and Spain, and then, after a series of victorious battles, Emperor of the Roman Empire.
Christian historians give little or no hint of the turmoil of the times and suspend
Constantine in the air, free of all human events happening around him. In truth, one of
Constantine's main problems was the uncontrollable disorder amongst presbyters and their
belief in numerous gods.The majority of modern-day Christian writers suppress the truth about the development
of their religion and conceal Constantine's efforts to curb the disreputable character of the
presbyters who are now called "Church Fathers" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol.
xiv, pp. 370-1). They were "maddened", he said ( Life of Constantine, attributed to
Eusebius Pamphilius of Caesarea, c. 335, vol. iii, p. 171; The Nicene and Post-Nicene
F a t h e r s, cited as N & P N F, attributed to St Ambrose, Rev. Prof. Roberts, DD, and
Principal James Donaldson, LLD, editors, 1891, vol. iv, p. 467). The "peculiar type of
oratory" expounded by them was a challenge to a settled religious order (The Dictionary
of Classical Mythology, Religion, Literature and Art, Oskar Seyffert, Gramercy, New
York, 1995, pp. 544-5). Ancient records reveal the true nature of the presbyters, and the
low regard in which they were held has been subtly suppressed by modern Church
historians. In reality, they were:
"...the most rustic fellows, teaching strange paradoxes. They openly declared that none
but the ignorant was fit to hear their discourses ... they never appeared in the circles of the wiser and better sort, but always took care to intrude themselves
among the ignorant and uncultured, rambling around to play tricks
at fairs and markets ... they lard their lean books with the fat of
old fables ... and still the less do they understand ... and they write
nonsense on vellum ... and still be doing, never done."
(Contra Celsum ["Against Celsus"], Origen of Alexandria,
c. 251, Bk I, p. lxvii, Bk III, p. xliv, passim)
Clusters of presbyters had developed "many gods and many
lords" (1 Cor. 8:5) and numerous religious sects existed, each with
differing doctrines (Gal. 1:6). Presbyterial groups clashed over
attributes of their various gods and "altar was set against altar" in
competing for an audience (Optatus of Milevis, 1:15, 19, early
fourth century). From Constantine's point of view, there were
several factions that needed satisfying, and he set out to develop
an all-embracing religion during a period of irreverent confusion.
In an age of crass ignorance, with nine-tenths of the peoples of
Europe illiterate, stabilising religious splinter groups was only one
of Constantine's problems. The smooth generalisation, which so
many historians are content to repeat, that Constantine "embraced
the Christian religion" and subsequently granted "official
toleration", is "contrary to historical fact" and should be erased
from our literature forever (C a t h o l i c
E n c y c l o p e d i a, Pecci ed., vol. iii, p.
299, passim). Simply put, there was
no Christian religion at Constantine's
time, and the Church acknowledges
that the tale of his "conversion" and
"baptism" are "entirely legendary"
(Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed.,
vol. xiv, pp. 370-1).
Constantine "never acquired a
solid theological knowledge" and
"depended heavily on his advisers in
religious questions" (C a t h o l i c
E n c y c l o p e d i a, New Edition, vol. xii,
p. 576, passim). According to
Eusebeius (260–339), Constantine
noted that among the presbyterian factions "strife had grown so
serious, vigorous action was necessary to establish a more
religious state", but he could not bring about a settlement between
rival god factions (Life of Constantine, op. cit., pp. 26-8). His
advisers warned him that the presbyters' religions were "destitute
of foundation" and needed official stabilisation (ibid.).
Constantine saw in this confused system of fragmented dogmas
the opportunity to create a new and combined State religion,
neutral in concept, and to protect it by law. When he conquered
the East in 324 he sent his Spanish religious adviser, Osius of
Córdoba, to Alexandria with letters to several bishops exhorting
them to make peace among themselves. The mission failed and
Constantine, probably at the suggestion of Osius, then issued a
decree commanding all presbyters and their subordinates "be
mounted on asses, mules and horses belonging to the public, and
travel to the city of Nicaea" in the Roman province of Bithynia in
Asia Minor. They were instructed to bring with them the
t e s t i m o n i e s they orated to the rabble, "bound in leather" for
protection during the long journey, and surrender them to
Constantine upon arrival in Nicaea ( The Catholic Dictionary,
Addis and Arnold, 1917, "Council of Nicaea" entry). Their
writings totalled "in all, two thousand two hundred and thirty-one
scrolls and legendary tales of gods and saviours, together with a
record of the doctrines orated by them" (Life of Constantine, op.
cit., vol. ii, p. 73; N&PNF, op. cit., vol. i, p. 518).
The First Council of Nicaea and the "missing records"
Thus, the first ecclesiastical gathering in history was summoned
and is today known as the Council of Nicaea. It was a bizarre
event that provided many details of early clerical thinking and
presents a clear picture of the intellectual climate prevailing at the
time. It was at this gathering that Christianity was born, and the
ramifications of decisions made at the time are difficult to
calculate. About four years prior to chairing the Council,
Constantine had been initiated into the religious order of Sol
Invictus, one of the two thriving cults that regarded the Sun as the
one and only Supreme God (the other was Mithraism). Because
of his Sun worship, he instructed Eusebius to convene the first of
three sittings on the summer solstice, 21 June 325 ( C a t h o l i c
Encyclopedia, New Edition, vol. i, p. 792), and it was "held in a
hall in Osius's palace" ( Ecclesiastical History , Bishop Louis
Dupin, Paris, 1686, vol. i, p. 598). In an account of the
proceedings of the conclave of presbyters gathered at Nicaea,
Sabinius, Bishop of Hereclea, who was in attendance, said,
"Excepting Constantine himself and Eusebius Pamphilius, they
were a set of illiterate, simple creatures who understood nothing"
(Secrets of the Christian Fathers, Bishop J. W. Sergerus, 1685,
1897 reprint).
This is another luminous confession
of the ignorance and uncritical
credulity of early churchmen. Dr
Richard Watson (1737–1816), a
disillusioned Christian historian and
one-time Bishop of Llandaff in Wales
(1782), referred to them as "a set of
gibbering idiots" ( An Apology for
C h r i s t i a n i t y, 1776, 1796 reprint; also,
Theological Tracts , Dr Richard
Watson, "On Councils" entry, vol. 2,
London, 1786, revised reprint 1791).
From his extensive research into
Church councils, Dr Watson
concluded that "the clergy at the
Council of Nicaea were all under the
power of the devil, and the convention was composed of the lowest
rabble and patronised the vilest abominations" (An Apology for
C h r i s t i a n i t y, op. cit.). It was that infantile body of men who were
responsible for the commencement of a new religion and the
theological creation of Jesus Christ.
The Church admits that vital elements of the proceedings at
Nicaea are "strangely absent from the canons" ( C a t h o l i c
E n c y c l o p e d i a, Farley ed., vol. iii, p. 160). We shall see shortly
what happened to them. However, according to records that
endured, Eusebius "occupied the first seat on the right of the
emperor and delivered the inaugural address on the emperor's
behalf" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. v, pp. 619-620).
There were no British presbyters at the council but many Greek
delegates. "Seventy Eastern bishops" represented Asiatic
factions, and small numbers came from other areas (Ecclesiastical
H i s t o r y, ibid.). Caecilian of Carthage travelled from Africa,
Paphnutius of Thebes from Egypt, Nicasius of Die (Dijon) from
Gaul, and Donnus of Stridon made the journey from Pannonia.
It was at that puerile assembly, and with so many cults
represented, that a total of 318 "bishops, priests, deacons,
subdeacons, acolytes and exorcists" gathered to debate and decide
upon a unified belief system that encompassed only one god (An
Apology for Christianity , op. cit.). By this time, a huge
assortment of "wild texts" (Catholic Encyclopedia, New Edition,
"Gospel and Gospels") circulated amongst presbyters and they supported a great variety of Eastern and Western gods and
goddesses: Jove, Jupiter, Salenus, Baal, Thor, Gade, Apollo,
Juno, Aries, Taurus, Minerva, Rhets, Mithra, Theo, Fragapatti,
Atys, Durga, Indra, Neptune, Vulcan, Kriste, Agni, Croesus,
Pelides, Huit, Hermes, Thulis, Thammus, Eguptus, Iao, Aph,
Saturn, Gitchens, Minos, Maximo, Hecla and Phernes ( G o d ' s
Book of Eskra, anon., ch. xlviii, paragraph 36).





The rest of the article is quite interesting but you can go to this link:
Forged Origins of New Testament
to read it.

 

[bob x]

Mithraism was brought to the Roman Empire in the reign of Augustus when he ransomed back from Parthia survivors of the legions who lost the battle of Carrhae in the time of the First Triumvirate (Crassus, Pompey, Caesar: Crassus was prominent only because he had a lot of money, and wanted military glory to be like the others, tried to invade Parthia but was tricked into an ambush). By the time these soldiers came home, they had been thoroughly assimilated into Persian ways, had wives and children and probably mostly no desire to come "home".

Mithraism was first reported in Cilicia, a backwoods region in south Anatolia. The port of Tarsus is on the Cilician coast, but Mithraism probably hadn't had time to become very major when Paul was growing up. We know that Roman Mithraism diverged seriously from what the cult of Mithra had been like in Persia, but we really don't know much about the content (anybody who pretends otherwise is lying to you). It acted as a "mystery" cult, that is, did not spread its beliefs publicly; we have not one scrap of literature from them, and they may not, in fact, ever have had any books. We have shrines, with evocative iconography, but the pictures can be, and have been, interpreted in a wide variety of ways.

 

[Dream]

I think the main conclusion is that Christianity is a Pagan Religion with some Jewish names, 1700 years ago. Naturally details can be lost and records fudged to protect the guilty. The structure of Christianity is fundamentally Indo-European with only a trace of Semitic religion.

Can we back up to where you used the word 'Guilty'? Christianity has been passed from faithful to faithful, and its super unlikely to have been simply invented by somebody on a drawing table. As for being somebody's 'Fault' or invention it is not, so there is no guilt about that.

Right. History is often unreliable. It is usually written by the winners and not the losers. Many different documents can also get confused about the dates even the years. However, such things as geological chronology are remarkably reliable. We have found ash deposits from Santorini in Northeast Egypt. Isotope dating of lava from the Great Eruption on Santorini shows it erupted in 1625 BCE.

Again, it doesn't make sense that someone could just start up a religion that could last for centuries. It makes more sense to me that the lava is unrelated to the religion.

All we have is oral history written later for all of this. The only solid evidence we have is Mount Thera on Santorini in its major eruption of 1625. I try to fit facts into the Legends of the Bible.

Well its interesting to hear you and Bobx talk about it.

 

[iBrian]

That sounds a bit suspicious to me ... the implication a bit obvious?

I don't think anyone would seriously consider that Paul was a follower of Mithra, or borrow from the cult of Mithra.

Remember also that Saul was educated in Jerusalem, and apparently a 'high flyer' in Jewish circles.

According to modern scholarship, Mithraism was founded in and centred on Rome. It certainly spread with soldiers and merchants, but to Tarsus particularly? I don't know ... the tendency seems to be that it spread westward, rather than eastward.

From archaeological discoveries, it seems that Mithraism copied Christian motifs, rather than the other way round.

Thomas

I've wondered before if the claim was nothing more than an attempt at character assassination - Bob X's comments about it's presence, but limited influence, in Cilicia comes across as quite balanced:

Mithraism was brought to the Roman Empire in the reign of Augustus when he ransomed back from Parthia survivors of the legions who lost the battle of Carrhae in the time of the First Triumvirate (Crassus, Pompey, Caesar: Crassus was prominent only because he had a lot of money, and wanted military glory to be like the others, tried to invade Parthia but was tricked into an ambush). By the time these soldiers came home, they had been thoroughly assimilated into Persian ways, had wives and children and probably mostly no desire to come "home".

Mithraism was first reported in Cilicia, a backwoods region in south Anatolia. The port of Tarsus is on the Cilician coast, but Mithraism probably hadn't had time to become very major when Paul was growing up. We know that Roman Mithraism diverged seriously from what the cult of Mithra had been like in Persia, but we really don't know much about the content (anybody who pretends otherwise is lying to you). It acted as a "mystery" cult, that is, did not spread its beliefs publicly; we have not one scrap of literature from them, and they may not, in fact, ever have had any books. We have shrines, with evocative iconography, but the pictures can be, and have been, interpreted in a wide variety of ways.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Brian —

Bob's account is new to me, but interesting, and would then support the thesis of its presence in the East, and again, he suggests that Roman Mithraism was very much its own thing.

What is evident is that the assertion that Christianity modelled itself on Mithraism is a fiction, and nothing more than the usual propaganda.

Tarsus is interesting, and a place I'd like to know more about. It was an intellectual centre in its own right, and Paul seemed quite proud of his heritage.

As for Paul himself, a Pharisee, son of a Pharisee, sent to Jerusalem and educated under Gamaliel (who seems far more liberal than his student), Paul became a 'zealot' and a persecutor of Christians ... the notion that Paul was a closet Mithraist seems laughable to me.

I would have thought a more scholarly and realistic critique of Pauline Christianity would consider the issue of Pauline and Stoic ethics. Indeed, the apocryphal 'Letters of Paul and Seneca' are interesting not from the point of canonicity, but purely from the standpoint of why someone would write them.

Seneca was highly regarded by the Fathers, and Dante has him among the good who wait in limbo, having not been justified by the salvivic grace of Christ. The letters are mentioned by the Fathers quite favourably, and there can be no doubt that there are many profound correspondences between Christian ethics and Stoic philosophy (and Logos was a Stoic term).

The Christian-Mithras thing is, like the gnostic debate, more populist, and soon often betrays its anti-established-church polemic. Likewise the assertion that the Ebionites, Nazoreans, etc., all believed 'differently' to the institutional church is a meaningless statement, as they, like the gnostic sects, all believed differently to each other as well ... the general popular line seems to be that any doctrine which differs from, or better still was condemned by, the church is therefore 'good' and 'authentic'.

Thomas

 

[Penelope]

Amergin:
I think the main conclusion is that Christianity is a Pagan Religion with some Jewish names, 1700 years ago. Naturally details can be lost and records fudged to protect the guilty. The structure of Christianity is fundamentally Indo-European with only a trace of Semitic religion.

Amergin, I am indifferent to whether this is true or false. (I have no stake, in the final vote count.) But I am enjoying this discussion, which you initiated, immensely!

& & &

I have some knowledge of Christian history during the First Century, but next to no knowledge from then to Constantine. And sparse knowledge (outside of a general familiarity with the history of western civilization) from him till the present day.

I suspect that Constantine's "conversion" is, in truth, an extremely complicated affair, socially-politically-theologically. Nicaea too. And it would be fascinating reading if someone were able to fit all the relevant historical pieces together in a credible, coherent manner. What a picture it would paint!

& & &

I like your play of ideas, but I do not feel the grit and jostle of lived human context.

& & &

Rabbinic Judaism, during this same era, formulated itself into the Judaism of today. There were the theological beliefs which the community honed down into a system which it could ascribe to. But it was more than just an ongoing communal argument being worked out. Rabbinic study and commentary was the core, but not the only element of a system of education, in Diaspora communities. But beyond this (very male-centered) education, was a code of behaviors which informed every moment of everyday Jewish life (effecting women of the community as well as men). The tenets of faith and the everyday actions of individuals within the community ... were integral to each other.

There was not ... Judaic belief-structures off to the left and everyday-conduct off to the right. People in the community lived their religious ideas. No separation.

And this has to be true for each of the cult-factions of Christianity, too.
And your idea about Christianity becoming a branch of "Indo-European" paganism has yet to feel real, to me, via the terms you have used to describing it.
I do not feel that grit and jostle of lived human context.

& & &

You have posited "Indo-European paganism" as a generalized, idealized concept. But what is its reality?
(Not just as "ideas" but as day-to-day ritual practice?)

There is a similar root-language, connecting ancient Indo-European cultures. Yes. But, Amergin, are there cultural traits in-common between, say, the Indo-Europeans who invaded India and the Celts who spread across western Europe? Are there religious practices that - detail for detail - demonstrate a high degree of commonality (rites not found in pagan religions of non-Indo-European origin)? Or had too much changed over millennia as Indo-European cultures adapted to strikingly different climates - those environments where they adopted traits of indigenous peoples they encountered there?

And within the Indo-European family of cultures, is there a striking similarity of religious pantheon from culture to culture?
(Similarity of archetypal constructs for interpreting events in their world?)

Or are there striking differences between archetypal values from culture to culture?
(Say, were some of the Indo-European cultures strongly Matriarchal from the beginning, others strongly Patriarchal? Favoring many gods at once? Or preferring one god atop the pantheon? Three? Or did some Indo-Europeans prefer 'jealous gods' like many of the Semitic peoples did?)

Or did all Indo-European cultures begin from the same archaic outlook? But then evolve in different directions?
(Or did they all evolve along an essentially identical trajectory?)

& & &

Then ... in the first four centuries of the First Millennium, did pagan Indo-European values co-opt nascent Christianity toward Indo-European pagan ends? If so, how?
(Not just in high-brow theological terms of archetypes floating about within the stew of the Mediterranean collective-unconscious. But, more concretely, how did paganism co-opt daily ritual practices that gave direct and immediate meaning to early Christian lives?)

Did it work the same way, for this new Christian-cult as for that new Christian-cult? Or did the co-opting, of necessity, take a different tack when addressing each new Christian community?
(Paganism would have to apply a different tactic for each and every one of these new cults exhibiting divergent practices ... in order to effectively undercut the Judaic values - the Judaic-origins - of Christianity so it could get Christianity dancing to the same tune as the larger pagan collective-unconscious, right? A pretty arduous task, if it involved changing Christianity's day-to-day ritual practices on top of dynamiting Christianity's core concepts and seducing these new cults into adopting a broader Mediterranean mythology.)

Sounds like hard work, for Indo-European paganism to accomplish as a 'program' - offering a 'complete package.' And who orchestrated this 'program'? And how did it set targets and goals for itself?

A religion is far more than just ideas to be pulled out of the air.

& & &

Seems to me that Thomas's view that Christianity co-opted paganism is, at face value, a far more logical scenario. That Christianity courted paganism, but then injected Judeo-Christian values into the equation. Giving paganism an added dimension that it never experienced before. An ethical dimension which made pagan-cultists feel more self-conscious about the day-to-day existence which they were living. Give each individual of the community a more intensified and satisfying connection to their sense of the divine.

Religion here becomes both more individual and more intensely personal ... because it reaches beyond the ideational collective-unconscious enveloping the Mediterranean region. Religion, here, stops dealing (primarily) in an archetypal dreamworld, and responds more directly to real things. This is what Judaic Monotheism gave to Christianity - a sense of 'living consciously.'
(Conscience. A sense of God looking over one's sholder.)
Actively (by choice), living ethically ... and not living in an archetypal world.
(Just as Jewish communities following Rabbinic Judaism were doing, contemporaneously.)
This would give to each new Christian-cult member, an increased sense of free-will - and of personal responsibility (though this must manifest itself in somewhat different ways, from this new cult to that new cult).

Christianity, to date, has not escaped the archetypal (the pagan) world, completely. But, here and there in Christendom, every few generations, Christianity would raise another notch above the 'unconsciousness' of paganism. This incremental process (linked with Judaism) is what produced western civilization.

At least, Amergin, this appears to me to be the more logical way to interpret the interaction between early Christianity and Indo-European paganism ... and in which direction these scales - these co-option-process scales - were tipped.

But educate me.
(But build the full context for me. Not just the stew of theological ideas floating about the Mediterranean world. Ideas alone do not a religion make.)

& & &

And regarding Mithraism ... It looks, to me, a lot like a depiction of the Masonic Order in Enlightenment 18th-century Europe. A secretive middlebrow gentleman's club for individuals seeking "illumination." Mithraism and Christianity ... both cults being urban and cosmopolitan and ethics-driven, they no doubt borrowed concepts and ritual practices extensively from each other in their competition to lure converts. But in the end, being a male-only club, Mithraism limited its reach.

But that 'cave' stuff is damn interesting, isn't it?
(Any other brands of paganism, which you know of, which ... build a universe out of a cave?)

& & &

This has been a nice brain-recharge, Amergin. Thanks.

 

[Thomas]

I think the main conclusion is that Christianity is a Pagan Religion with some Jewish names, 1700 years ago. Naturally details can be lost and records fudged to protect the guilty. The structure of Christianity is fundamentally Indo-European with only a trace of Semitic religion.

This is so not the case, although I can see how one can draw that conclusion from the post-Reformation forms, and if one is comparing external and exoteric forms, without investigating the interior and esoteric aspects.

The structure of Christianity was, until the Reformation (15th century), fundamentally and primarily liturgical, before all else, and the church's liturgy was founded on Jewish liturgical practice.

Even the sacraments, which have a particularly Christian meaning, were closely associated with Jewish practice. John was baptising in the Jordan as we know, and the Eucharist traces its roots and meaning into Hebrew chronology (the Passover) and Hebrew mysticism.

The early Christian community was a Liturgical and Eucharistic community before the New Testament was written, and this 'inner life', which all but vanished from the post-Reformation denominations, still exists in Roman Catholicism and the Orthodox Patriarchies.

There are some scholars the argue that the ecclesiastical structure of the church, a tripartite system of bishop - presbyter - deacon, was formulated in Antioch, and adopted an Essene model for its structure, but I'm not sure if there's any hard evidence to support this.

I suspect that Constantine's "conversion" is, in truth, an extremely complicated affair, socially-politically-theologically.

I tend to think that Christianity was spreading fast, and had proven itself to be a remarkably resilient faith, founded on sound ethical as well as religious principle.

Remember that Constantine's mother was a Christian, and no doubt Constantine saw Christianity as the glue that might bind an otherwise fragmenting empire, and acted primarily out of political expediency in hoisting the Christian banner, as it were.

Constantine's spiritual and theological adviser was Ossius, the Bishop of Cordova, no mean theologian by any standard, and most people who assume Constantine invented Christianity, or wrote the Creed of Nicea, are blissfully ignorant of the role of this man.

When the Arian conflict arose in Alexandria, Constantine sent Ossius as his ambassador to find out what exactly was happening. Learning of Arius’ teachings, Ossius agreed with Alexander, and recognised the genius of Alexander's secretary, one Athanasius.

Here's an interesting extract from a letter from Ossius to Emperor Constantius:

I was a Confessor at the first, when a persecution arose in the time of your grandfather Maximian; and if you shall persecute me, I am ready now, too, to endure anything rather than to shed innocent blood and to betray the truth. But I cannot approve of your conduct in writing after this threatening manner. Cease to write thus; adopt not the cause of Arius, nor listen to those in the East, nor give credit to Ursacius, Valens and their fellows. For whatever they assert, it is not on account of Athanasius, but for the sake of their own heresy. Believe my statement, O Constantius, who am of an age to be your grandfather...

... then do you cease to use force; write no letters, send no Counts; but release those that have been banished, lest while you are complaining of violence, they do but exercise greater violence. When was any such thing done by Constans? What Bishop suffered banishment? When did he appear as arbiter of an Ecclesiastical trial? When did any Palatine of his compel men to subscribe against any one, that Valens and his fellows should be able to affirm this? Cease these proceedings, I beseech you, and remember that you are a mortal man. Be afraid of the day of judgment, and keep yourself pure thereunto. Intrude not yourself into Ecclesiastical matters, neither give commands unto us concerning them; but learn them from us. God has put into your hands the kingdom; to us He has entrusted the affairs of His Church; and as he who would steal the empire from you would resist the ordinance of God, so likewise fear on your part lest by taking upon yourself the government of the Church, you become guilty of a great offence. It is written, “Render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s Matthew 22:21 .” Neither therefore is it permitted unto us to exercise an earthly rule, nor have you, Sire, any authority to burn incense. These things I write unto you out of a concern for your salvation.

With regard to the subject of your letters, this is my determination; I will not unite myself to the Arians; I anathematize their heresy. Neither will I subscribe against Athanasius, whom both we and the Church of the Romans and the whole Council pronounced to be guiltless. And yourself also, when you understood this, sent for the man, and gave him permission to return with honour to his country and his Church. What reason then can there be for so great a change in your conduct? (Athanasius, History of the Arians VI)

The Creed was drafted at Nicea, and it was Ossius, not Constantine, who suggested the clarification of the terminology to Athanasius who, seeing that it did not alter the theological issue, was happy to adopt it.

Ossius, now well over 90, was held prisoner by Constantius, and tortured until he agreed to take communion with Valens and others of the Arian cause. The old man however, refused to speak out against Athanasius, and condemned the Arian heresy.

Thomas

 

[bob x]

Then ... in the first four centuries of the First Millennium, did pagan Indo-European values co-opt nascent Christianity toward Indo-European pagan ends? If so, how?

Refusal to sacrifice to the traditional Indo-European gods like Jupiter, even under threat of torture and death, was the most striking characteristic of early Christianity.

And regarding Mithraism ... It looks, to me, a lot like a depiction of the Masonic Order in Enlightenment 18th-century Europe. A secretive middlebrow gentleman's club for individuals seeking "illumination."

A good analogy; at least, that's my view of what Roman "Mithraism" was like.

 

[roger_pearse]

The internet is a great blessing, because of the quantity of material that we can access at the touch of a key; but we must always be wary of material that is both controversial and unreferenced. Nonsense can spread as quickly as knowledge, and, when it suits someone's prejudices, faster.

Information about Mithras online is particularly susceptible to this process. Be very sceptical about what you find. Here are a couple of notes:

Mithraism was brought to the Roman Empire in the reign of Augustus when he ransomed back from Parthia survivors of the legions who lost the battle of Carrhae in the time of the First Triumvirate ... By the time these soldiers came home, they had been thoroughly assimilated into Persian ways, had wives and children and probably mostly no desire to come "home".

No ancient text records any of this, tho. There is little evidence that "Mithraism" -- that is, the mystery cult worshipping Mithras -- came from anywhere. The archaeology and literature all point to an origin in Rome in the middle of the 1st century AD, you see.

Mithraic studies begin with Franz Cumont ca. 1900. He gathered all the archaeology and literature known. Because the Romans considered Mithras a "Persian" deity, and the Persian god Mihr or Mitra or Mithra is referenced under the same name in classical Roman sources, he naturally presumed that the cults were the same. But over the next 50 years very much more became known; and by 1971 scholars were revolting and refusing to accept that the two were the same. This is the consensus today.

A couple of killer facts are that in Roman Mithras, we know it best from the very distinctive underground temples or Mithraeums. None of these are known outside of the Roman empire, which could hardly be so if Mithras came from Persia. Likewise the key element in the myth of Roman Mithras is Mithras killing the bull. No such element is known in the mythology of Mihr.

Mithraism was first reported in Cilicia...

The first archaeology appears ca. 90 AD, in inscriptions of people fanning out from Rome. The first literary mention is in Statius, ca. 80 AD, in Rome. Plutarch, ca. 100 AD, asserts that the Cilician pirates defeated by Pompey in 68 BC worshipped Mithras. No other evidence supports this claim. But we know that Perseus was worshipped in Cilicia, and the two figures look very similar, so scholars have tended to presume a mistake by Plutarch.

The Mithras=Jesus stuff is very ignorant, in fact. Let's consider the myth of Mithras. He is a deity. He is born from a rock, bearing a dagger and a torch. He hunts the cosmic bull. When he catches the bull, he drags it into a cave. Sometimes the roof of the cave is depicted with stars, indicating the cosmos; sometimes not. There, attended by two torchbearers wearing phyrgian caps, he stabs it. As it dies, a dog and a snake leap up to lick the blood, and a scorpion grabs its balls. Then he goes off to meet the sun god, Helios, the latter wearing his rayed crown. Helios kneels to Mithras; then the two exchange a handshake and have a dinner of bull parts. The cult initiates were divided into seven grades, and different ritual meals (with different foods) were involved.

All just like Jesus, eh? After all, we all remember how Jesus killed the cosmic bull... don't we?

Be sceptical. Anything which is both controversial, designed to stick it to the Christians, and unreferenced should be mentally labelled "too good to be true".

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

[taijasi]

The Cosmic Bull is Taurus. Following the astrological sign of Taurus (remember that golden calf?) you will find a sign called Aries. Strangely enough, it's associated with the Cosmic Ram, or LAMB - that Promised thing. And funnily enough, God decided to send an avatar to the people a 2nd time, which we know from history.

I don't think they liked him that time either.

I guess in the this case the roof doesn't have that many stars, but that's because we seem to have buried them at our feet, for whatever peculiar reason - after all, who's the greatest in this god-made-for-man hierarchy anyway?

The Initiate is led to his liberation, if you believe Jesus was any such silly thing, by the same two sponsors of human Freedom (the cap) as occur in any initiation ceremony, these being the support at his left and right hand.

Additional zodiacal indications - the dog, snake and scorpion - all also appear in other world mythologies, even if today's Christians cannot, or prefer not, to see the tacit and obvious connections between Thoth-Hermes, the `dog star Sirius' and Mercury, the planet of Christs and Buddhas. But Jesus, a Son of God, could surely never have known about anything as awesome, insightful, suggestive or mysterious as all of this.

No, I am sure he preferred to slink along on his belly in the sand, slithering and biting heels (oh wait, wan't that the dog?) - and by no means soaring through the air as a Wise, WINGED serpent, Kirin, 1/2 of Christ's injunction to His followers in Matthew 10:16.

As for the Scorpion, which every student of the Ageless Wisdom knows to be the governing sign of discipleship, I suppose the Christ also had no knowledge of what the heavens tell us, or this bizarre fire religion, or the Herculean Mythos of trials & tests which verily limit (or temporarily restrain) our higher creative POWER ... by snatching us by - the balls.

Christ's mystical relationship with the Father is a thing we had better just leave to the ears and eyes (hence, the Voice of the ~) ... and anyone who fails to see the 7 grades of initiation within the Christian presentation can hardly be blamed, and his oversight well understood and forgiven. After all, what - in, on or around this earth - could possibly ever give us any idea, or faint hint of suggestion, that Christ would have believed in or expected us to believe in such a thing!

Ritual foods? Sacraments?

HORSEFEATHERS

Poor fella

when when when when when when when!

 

[taijasi]

But if you want to see an example of modern Christianity, as Christ intended it, why not check your hometown ... (in mine, for example: West End Ministries)

 

[bob x]

No ancient text records any of this, tho.

The capture of three legions at Carrhae, the prolonged negotiations by Augustus for their repatriation, and their difficult resettlement in underpopulated Anatolian districts, like Cilicia, are all quite well documented. It is, to be sure, not recorded that the divine name "Mithra" was among the Persian cultural traits which they brought back with them, but this hypothesis does provide a vector for the spread of the name into the Roman Empire, and we do need such a vector.

The archaeology and literature all point to an origin in Rome in the middle of the 1st century AD, you see.

If we didn't have the New Testament, the reference to "Christians" as suspects in the Great Fire would be the first time we heard of them in the literature, and the graves in the Catacombs are the oldest archaeological evidence, also. My point is: lots of sects from all over the Empire made their way to Rome and became noticeably large there, often mutating into near unrecognizability ("Anubis" in Rome is a very different fellow from what he was in Egypt), but to imagine that the inhabitants of the city had a hobby of inventing religious cults out of nothing is, in my view, a serious misreading of the situation. Latching on to a divine name from a remote country with which the Empire was perpetually at war would be particularly odd, if the deity in question had not already gotten a foothold somewhere in the Empire.

Plutarch, ca. 100 AD, asserts that the Cilician pirates defeated by Pompey in 68 BC worshipped Mithras. No other evidence supports this claim. But we know that Perseus was worshipped in Cilicia, and the two figures look very similar, so scholars have tended to presume a mistake by Plutarch.

Except for both being male, I see no similarity in the iconography, and there's certainly none in the name. This thesis that "Mithras" was a mistake for "Perseus" is news to me; on the face of it, it sounds very weak and implausible, so, do you have some source that explains why anyone would think this?

Clearly Plutarch is wrong to back-project Mithraism in Cilicia to the time of Pompey, but this mistake does not make any sense unless it was common knowledge in Plutarch's day that Mithra had been worshipped in Cilicia for a long time.

As to your other points, that the underground "Mithraeum" (though connected to the Persian view of Mithra as having sprung from a rock) is a Roman innovation unlike anything found in Persia, and that the iconography (however interpreted) does not seem to be telling a story even remotely reminiscent of the Gospels: I agree completely. I even have some agreement with taijasi. One interpretation is the the "Bull-slaying" refers to the precession of the equinoxes (spring equinox had been in Taurus when astrologers first defined the 12 signs; it had moved through Aries and was starting to be in Pisces in Roman times), and that the "mystery" was Mithra's great power to overturn all the revolutions of the heavens. Whether or not this is correct (and a humble attitude of "We don't really know!" would do a world of good for self-proclaimed "experts" about Mithraism, myself not excluded), astronomical references do appear to be the most plausible significances of the animal pictures.

 

[bob x]

this mistake does not make any sense unless it was common knowledge in Plutarch's day that Mithra had been worshipped in Cilicia for a long time.

Amplification: for example, depictions of the Greek/Persian wars sometimes have anachronistic overtones of the modern conflicts between the West and the Mideast. Suppose a storyteller had the Persians shouting "Allahu Akbar!" This would betray a poor grasp of history on his part; but my point is, this mistake would only happen because Mideasterners are known for shouting "Allahu Akbar!" and have been for a long time. Plutarch is similarly anachronistic to be depicting Mithraists in his story about the Cilicians of Pompey's day, but why would he make that particular error unless Mithraism was commonly associated with Cilicia?

 

[Thomas]

The Cosmic Bull is Taurus...

Oh dear ... I thought you had agreed that Christianity is not a cosmic religion, but a metacosmic religion?

Of course Christianity can be devolved into all manner of cosmic interpretations, as the lower is determined by the higher, so the traces of the higher can be seen in the lower, by the discerning eye ... but this is not the point of Christianity. That is all subsequent, interesting and often inspiring, but it's not IT.

... and anyone who fails to see the 7 grades of initiation within the Christian presentation can hardly be blamed, and his oversight well understood and forgiven.

Precisely because Christianity is the Religion of the Principle (Logos), the one initiation contains within it the principle of all initiation, which is plain for all to see in Baptism; thus there is no needs of grades, orders, hierarchies, etc., we speak rather of growth, (the catechumen, after baptism, is called the neophyte, the new growth).

After all, what - in, on or around this earth - could possibly ever give us any idea, or faint hint of suggestion, that Christ would have believed in or expected us to believe in such a thing!

Well you show me where you think Christ expects us to believe in such a thing, and we can discuss it.

There are in Christianity innumerable 'patterns' to enable the neophyte to better understand the mystery of being, the ascending and descending angels or the exitus/reditus of Christian Neoplatonism, the three movements of the soul, the four senses of Scripture, the five divisions of nature ... but these are just explanations, that's all they are.

But these initiatic hoops the neophyte has to jump through? No, that is just an over-exteriorisation that ends up as rigid and defining structures, overly formulaic and already ossifying ... which ends up as 'an esoteric system' for a self-styled elite to set themselves over and above the hoi polloi, a Babel under which the true light of Christianity is buried ... in fact, it's a hollow shell in which the true light of Christianity is absent, and in which the acolyte stands dazzled by the glamour of so much knowledge.

And I've been there.

When will you ever understand Christ rises in in the heart of those who believe in Him; that He draws them to Himself, not by stages, not by degrees, not by initiations ... but by love?

Christianity is the simplest religion in the world, and the hardest to do.

So rise above the 'cosmic cloud' and contemplate the truth as theophany.

For anyone interested, here's an Easter contemplation the way some Christians do it:
"And after six days Jesus taketh unto him Peter and James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into a high mountain apart: And he was transfigured before them. And his face did shine as the sun: and his garments became white as snow. And behold there appeared to them Moses and Elias talking with him."
Matthew 17:1-3

What does six days signify?
What does a high mountain apart signify?
What does His face shining like the sun signify?
What does his garments white as snow signify?
What do Moses and Elias signify?

Ritual foods? Sacraments?
HORSEFEATHERS

Please don't mock those who choose not to follow your doctrine ... you present your teaching as a dogma and are most abusive and contemptuously dismissive of those who don't fall at your feet.

And please don't mock things you don't understand.

Thomas

 

[roger_pearse]

The capture of three legions at Carrhae, the prolonged negotiations by Augustus for their repatriation, and their difficult resettlement in underpopulated Anatolian districts, like Cilicia, are all quite well documented.

I cannot believe that you are unclear that the point at issue is not the campaign of Crassus, about which I made no comment, but the cult of Mithras.

Your post made claims about this, stated as fact, that the cult of Mithras originated from this campaign. This statement is not found in any ancient source -- as you know, it seems -- so to respond to that correction in this manner is not a good idea. Don't do this, hmm?

It is, to be sure, not recorded that the divine name "Mithra" was among the Persian cultural traits which they brought back with them, but this hypothesis ...

Let's stick to facts, hmm?

If we didn't have the New Testament, the reference to "Christians" as suspects in the Great Fire would be the first time we heard of them in the literature, and the graves in the Catacombs are the oldest archaeological evidence, also.

This seems to have no connection to the point at issue, which is Mithras.

My point is: lots of sects from all over the Empire made their way to Rome and became noticeably large there, often mutating into ...<etc>

These are very general claims, which it would be cruel to ask you to substantiate from primary data. I think you are suggesting that since cults like Cybele even in Republican times came from outside, therefore Mithras might have done so likewise. Of course this is true, and is one reason why Cumont took the view he did. But I think we must stick to what the data actually says, and this is against it.

This thesis that "Mithras" was a mistake for "Perseus" is news to me; on the face of it, it sounds very weak and implausible, so, do you have some source that explains why anyone would think this?

I agree, I didn't quite follow the logic; but I suspect the problem is a sheer lack of data for scholars to work with. You will find it in the standard reference, Manfred Clauss, "The Roman cult of Mithras".

Clearly Plutarch is wrong to back-project Mithraism in Cilicia to the time of Pompey, but this mistake does not make any sense unless it was common knowledge in Plutarch's day that Mithra had been worshipped in Cilicia for a long time.

Isn't this stating speculation as fact, tho? We have no information whatever on what led Plutarch to state what he did. Let's stick to the facts.

As to your other points, that the underground "Mithraeum" (though connected to the Persian view of Mithra as having sprung from a rock)

Interesting; which primary Persian source describes Mihr as sprung from a rock? (The reason I ask is that I have yet to find anyone online with any knowledge of Persian sources; and the one source I know, Elias Vartabed, says something different).

is a Roman innovation unlike anything found in Persia, and that the iconography (however interpreted) does not seem to be telling a story even remotely reminiscent of the Gospels: I agree completely.

Fair enough.

I even have some agreement with taijasi. One interpretation is the the "Bull-slaying" refers ....Whether or not this is correct (and a humble attitude of "We don't really know!" would do a world of good for self-proclaimed "experts" about Mithraism, myself not excluded), astronomical references do appear to be the most plausible significances of the animal pictures.

This sounds like the Ulansey theory. Mithras is sometimes depicted surrounded by a zodiac, meaning unknown.

You are right to say, tho, that it is merely speculation based on no data; and I entirely endorse the idea of NOT speculating like this. It just does no good.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

[nativeastral]

looking at it in context and from a birds eye point of view l'm surprised no one has mentioned the Kingdom of Pontus ruled by the Mithrades dynasty BC, or the fact that Armenia was the first to be wholly Christianized.

These are both in the north of present day Turkey, Armenia claiming Noahic descendency but like Pontus and the rest of the penninsula became Zoroastrian influenced. Theres an amalgamation or syzygy in the ones who came and went over the millenia. For instance there is a heavy Celtic influence [Galatia] that settled in Phyrgia [from Thrace], where Cybele [sybil=prophetess?] the mountain earth mother was worshipped along with her lover/son Attis , the followers the Romans called Galli. In this area also was Men (god), analagous to the Persian moon god Mah.

Coupled with both Apollo and Hercules associated with this area, as well as mentioned Perseus, and phaeton [son of helios or phoebus], shining saviours and demi god men are ten a plenty.

But like India even nowadays it is the local shrines inhabitated mainly by goddesses which were frequently invoked on a daily basis [even Constantine dedicated a Church to Irene of Peace]. Take a look at the multitude to choose for every occasion :
GREEK MYTHOLOGY FAMILY TREE 1

Were the Christian caves of Cappadocia previously Mithrian in use? There is not much sign of Mithreums in this area; is that because the early influx of Christianity erased them and any chthonic religions? This area was where many slaves got shipped off to France etc; did some get back proud to wear the phyrgian cap of freedom? having endured herculaean tasks in the hands of fate? Now free Roman citizens more in control of their destiny?

The influence of the lady of Ephesus in this area as attested by Paul should not be underestimated. Artemis, or Phoebe, the virgin twin of Apollo, is now thought to have bulls testicles, and not many breasts attached to her In Search of Diana of Ephesus - NYTimes.com . The cult of Aphrodite [made from the genitals of ouranos] was also extremely important here.

Hieropolis had a plutonium [cave] where the castrated priests [Galli] would enter.

The Judaic influence is larger than perhaps realised, tilling the soil for a monotheistic Mytheme of god fearers. And we know as bobx said that the Christians, in imitating the Jews would not pay tribute to the Roman gods and so were martyred; unlike the jews who were considered a separate people with their own religion exempt from State veneration.

So we have eunochs that were prepared to sacrifice their fertility for their alignment with the Goddess, The Jews who did just a nick for theirs, and the Christians who found themselves in the position of martyrdom, imitating their saviour!

In this area was where Montanism was founded, and the start of anathematizing especially prophetesses, since Jesus was seen as a female, and this whole area seems to have a mytheme of transgenderism running through it!.

Is this the real Martin Luther King? Seems like a decent essay on the subject study of mithraism

In all of this the goddess always has a consort, who is always the new sun/son, who brings light [torch bearer].
Another good read on this area The Syrian Goddess: "De Dea Syria" - Google Books .

Yes philosophically Tarsus was important, particularly for stoicism, which didn't negate the divinatory arts. And any new cosmological insight like the precession is bound to affect in time the concepts that are developed in the area which by Roman times was cosmopolitan.

So Mithras is still the age old birth death rebirth story, where the young guardian of the earth[mother] slays the old father [zeus/bull] for a new paradigm, a new life, now individual not communal piety and salvation, a sense of freedom and individuation not just for here but also there.

The Christian church,the body, is the new mithreum, the new synagogue, where the mystery is still veiled and the icons are now saints not river or hill goddesses and where sacrifice [like the hindus] becomes symbolic rather than blood spillage. Mithras the warrior/smith 'twin' of the love god/goddess Jesus travels as a soldier companion/daemon, whilst the women left pray to the more passive stay at home Christ, along with our indispensable lady!.

 

[Thomas]

Coupled with both Apollo and Hercules associated with this area, as well as mentioned Perseus, and phaeton [son of helios or phoebus], shining saviours and demi god men are ten a plenty.

The unique nature of the Christian idea of the incarnate Son of God, the metaphysic of the Incarnation and the Trinity is well established, so the existence of other demi gods, saviours, triunes, etc., is largely irrelevant.

Or put another way, that other triunes, trinities and demigods all fulfil a basically argarian/natural/cosmological idea, and the Christian one does not, speaks volumes.

Were the Christian caves of Cappadocia previously Mithrian in use?

No. Even if they were, that means nothing. In Rome and elsewhere, Christians erected Christian temples on pagan sites.

The influence of the lady of Ephesus in this area as attested by Paul should not be underestimated.

Nor should the fact that, as attested by Paul and Luke, the temples at Ephesus, in fact all of Asia, were going bankrupt because so many were converting to Christianity.

The Judaic influence is larger than perhaps realised...

By whom? The Judaic influence on early Christianity is recognised as being foundational and formative.

In this area was where Montanism was founded, and the start of anathematizing especially prophetesses, since Jesus was seen as a female, and this whole area seems to have a mytheme of transgenderism running through it!

Not sure where you're getting your information from here, but it seems somewhat inaccurate.

Montanus declared himself to be in receipt of direct revelation through the Holy Spirit, thus a prophet, as were his two asociates, Prisca and Maximilla. The Montanists never preached of Jesus as female, so all that, I think, is spurious.

In all of this the goddess always has a consort, who is always the new sun/son, who brings light [torch bearer].

Well there's one significant distinction, as such is not the case in Christianity.

So Mithras is still the age old birth death rebirth story, where the young guardian of the earth[mother] slays the old father [zeus/bull] for a new paradigm, a new life, now individual not communal piety and salvation, a sense of freedom and individuation not just for here but also there.

If this is the case, which I am far from sure, it's nothing like Christianity, so you seem to be undoing your own argument.

The Christian church,the body, is the new mithreum, the new synagogue, where the mystery is still veiled...

You might be wise to check this out with Christians, before you make such assumptions.

The scholars of the Sophia Perennis were not the first to notice the significance of the symbolism of the veil of the temple, torn from top to

Thomas

 

[nativeastral]

thomas l am not making any particular argument, just like amergin, making a point that such symbolism and mythology as used by Christianity was already there in this region

Hattians 3-2000 BC

The unique nature of the Christian idea of the incarnate Son of God, the metaphysic of the Incarnation and the Trinity is well established, so the existence of other demi gods, saviours, triunes, etc., is largely irrelevant.

Or put another way, that other triunes, trinities and demigods all fulfil a basically argarian/natural/cosmological idea, and the Christian one does not, speaks volumes.Thomas

It is no more unique than the other stories around of a resurrected saviour [myths combined with royal lineage and history] that the populace can identify with Ara the Beautiful

No. Even if they were, that means nothing. In Rome and elsewhere, Christians erected Christian temples on pagan sites.


Nor should the fact that, as attested by Paul and Luke, the temples at Ephesus, in fact all of Asia, were going bankrupt because so many were converting to Christianity.Thomas

We dont know for sure, since so much was destroyed.
At this time, unlike now, people perhaps adhered to more than one religion, even the most pious christians still venerated local pagan shrines l'm sure; certainly it has been attested that many clergy still 'sun worshipped' The bankcruptcy was part and parcel of Roman demise in the wider picture, and as Christians in this early stage did not involve themselves politically, they acted more as a self contained unit looking after their own; while the rich families, many of whom inherited priesthood status, were stripped of assets by the expenditure of Roman war mongering.

Not sure where you're getting your information from here, but it seems somewhat inaccurate.

Montanus declared himself to be in receipt of direct revelation through the Holy Spirit, thus a prophet, as were his two asociates, Prisca and Maximilla. The Montanists never preached of Jesus as female, so all that, I think, is spurious. Thomas

Theres plenty of info on Jesus as seen in vision "Montanism: Heresy Or Healthy Revival?" by Robert I Bradshaw
Charles Bigg on Montanism

l'm vaguely familiar with sophia/wisdom/logos ideas and yes it does point to the fact that female input was more or less airbrushed out [or kept behind a veil!]. But the iconography of the 'rock' still stands.

while perusing wiki on Mithraism l came across this wonderful zoroastrian day of love and earth Spandarmazgan

 

[Thomas]

thomas l am not making any particular argument, just like amergin, making a point that such symbolism and mythology as used by Christianity was already there in this region

Which I don't dispute, indeed Christianity uses the most fundamental of symbols: water, wine, oil, bread — but the point remains that it is what is signified is the issue, not the signifier.

It is no more unique than the other stories around of a resurrected saviour [myths combined with royal lineage and history] that the populace can identify with Ara the Beautiful

I fail to see any relevance of this story to the idea of Incarnation, or salvation, or how universal salvation is attained?

We dont know for sure, since so much was destroyed.

No, we don't know at all, and the absence of evidence is no basis on which to argue a case.

At this time, unlike now, people perhaps adhered to more than one religion, even the most pious christians still venerated local pagan shrines l'm sure...

Well your 'perhaps' and 'I'm sure' are let outs, aren't they?

The evidence is rather the other way: Christians died for their faith, and died quite horribly, rather than offer sacrifice to pagan gods ... now not every Christian went to death with a steadfast heart, and I'm sure more than a few recanted, or said anything to save their skins — and we have the evidence for that, it's a matter of record — but that does not alter the fact that Christianity is a unique doctrine, even though, outwardly, it might have much in common with its neighbours.

The Montanist sectarians, by the way, saw no forgiveness for those who worshipped pagan gods. They were extremists, as was so often the case with sects that orthodoxy refuted.

The point is, one cannot ignore archaeological and historical evidence, and pose another 'reality' on the basis of nothing other than an opinion.

The bankcruptcy was part and parcel of Roman demise in the wider picture, and as Christians in this early stage did not involve themselves politically, they acted more as a self contained unit looking after their own; while the rich families, many of whom inherited priesthood status, were stripped of assets by the expenditure of Roman war mongering.

But that was not the argument at Ephesus, was it? The argument there was that the temples sold the meat and other sacrificial offerings and functioned as the equivalent of the local butcher/greengrocer, and people bought their meat and other foodstuffs from the temple, as well as gifts, amulets, etc.

But the Christians were not shopping at the temples, and so were having a detrimental effect on the local economy.

As St Paul said, it's fine to eat meat offered in sacrifice to the gods, as the gods don't exist ... but if by so doing you scandalise those who are young or insecure in their faith, then for their sakes, better you don't.

l'm vaguely familiar with sophia/wisdom/logos ideas and yes it does point to the fact that female input was more or less airbrushed out [or kept behind a veil!]. But the iconography of the 'rock' still stands.

Well again you're assuming something on the basis that you want it to be that way.

I agree that the role of women in the Church was increasingly marginalised as the church grew, but not that the Deity was ever perceived as a feminine entity, that's simply not true.

And I'm not sure what you mean about the iconography of the rock — there is only one 'rock' in Christianity, and it's not the Deity, nor is there any comparison between the birth of Christ and the birth of Mithra.

Thomas

 

[nativeastral]

Which I don't dispute, indeed Christianity uses the most fundamental of symbols: water, wine, oil, bread — but the point remains that it is what is signified is the issue, not the signifier.


I fail to see any relevance of this story to the idea of Incarnation, or salvation, or how universal salvation is attained?

Well, l didnt want to use the usual hercules, apollo, adonis or persephone iconography to state the obvious..that the populace were always hankering after some sort of mediating saviour, one that was semi divine, that was resurrected...at that time there were a lot of sheep and a lot of shepherds!
The point l was trying to make was that just like in Egypt where there was an amalgamation of apis and Hade [?] to form serapis, in the east they would not relinquish the goddess, hence the theokotis emphasis there. [and reaffirming shawns post];

'The land of Egypt, the praises of which you have been recounting to me, my dear Servianus, I have found to be wholly light-minded, unstable, and blown about by every breath of rumour. There those who worship Serapis are, in fact, Christians, and those who call themselves bishops of Christ are, in fact, devotees of Serapis. There is no chief of the Jewish synagogue, no Samaritan, no Christian presbyter, who is not an astrologer, a soothsayer, or an anointer. Even the Patriarch himself, when he comes to Egypt, is forced by some to worship Serapis, by others to worship Christ.[6]'

No, we don't know at all, and the absence of evidence is no basis on which to argue a case.

Well your 'perhaps' and 'I'm sure' are let outs, aren't they?

The evidence is rather the other way: Christians died for their faith, and died quite horribly, rather than offer sacrifice to pagan gods ... now not every Christian went to death with a steadfast heart, and I'm sure more than a few recanted, or said anything to save their skins — and we have the evidence for that, it's a matter of record — but that does not alter the fact that Christianity is a unique doctrine, even though, outwardly, it might have much in common with its neighbours.

yes we dont know yet and perhaps never will and so as was mentioned earlier perhaps speculation is futile but this topic does seem to crop up here all the time. I dont know whether it is any more unique than the other mystery cults at that time, apart from the 'incarnation' of a historical contemporary man who died a common death which Paul successfully disseminated in an area already integrated with a Messiah longing.

The Montanist sectarians, by the way, saw no forgiveness for those who worshipped pagan gods. They were extremists, as was so often the case with sects that orthodoxy refuted.

The point is, one cannot ignore archaeological and historical evidence, and pose another 'reality' on the basis of nothing other than an opinion.

Yes, so extreme that refutations transformed later into witch hunts?! As you know Tertullian despaired at the state of the church [for sinners or for saints?] even then, hence his move to Montanism. The problem for us is that many books deemed heretical were handed over during the persecutions.

But that was not the argument at Ephesus, was it? The argument there was that the temples sold the meat and other sacrificial offerings and functioned as the equivalent of the local butcher/greengrocer, and people bought their meat and other foodstuffs from the temple, as well as gifts, amulets, etc.

But the Christians were not shopping at the temples, and so were having a detrimental effect on the local economy.

As St Paul said, it's fine to eat meat offered in sacrifice to the gods, as the gods don't exist ... but if by so doing you scandalise those who are young or insecure in their faith, then for their sakes, better you don't.

that wasnt my argument but yes economics obviously was crucial, even where allegiance in religion is concerned. The silversmiths were narked back then werent they? You are back projecting Christian influence of the 4th century onto the 2nd. Remember wasnt until the 6th that paganism was formally outlawed.

Well again you're assuming something on the basis that you want it to be that way.

I agree that the role of women in the Church was increasingly marginalised as the church grew, but not that the Deity was ever perceived as a feminine entity, that's simply not true.

And I'm not sure what you mean about the iconography of the rock — there is only one 'rock' in Christianity, and it's not the Deity, nor is there any comparison between the birth of Christ and the birth of Mithra.
Thomas

I do not want for any way; l was just looking at it from a wider dimension; as to why Jesus became so popular there, why Mithras evidence there is so scant, as compared to the Garrison outposts, and more particularly why Mary had to have a more prominent position. Also why fasting and icons are more a central feature. I think the celtic influence is understated as is the judaic [why the easter dates were such a moot point]. But l forgot this was the christian area and not comparative studies!

About the rock, l meant the meaning of the mountain, the navel of the earth, axis mundi, or as you would say vertical and horizontal. Just as Montanists made a new jerusalem there Constantine made a new rome, space and place being so important [and why churches were built over such areas].