Was Jesus a Solar Diety?

  • Thread starter Thread starter exile
  • Start date Start date
There are many here who realize full well that the Christ's appearance 2100 years ago was that of the Sun God ..
Wikipedia says Mithras was born out of a rock. I do not think it mentions the various things that you list here. Sort of surprised. There must be a better source of information about Mithras than Wikipedia. Krishna remained in his birth place, Vraja, during his childhood. And he is not a sun god. Vedic Mitra is totally different, just a sun god, one of the seven/eight/ten/twelve (at various times) sons of god-mother Aditi.

What intrigues me is the date for Christmas. Vedas never celebrated Winter Solstice. It was considered to be the bad part of the year. They celebrated Spring Equinox and that was the beginning of the year for them. Is Christmas really the Spring Equinox which has moved three months ahead due to precession? Vedas have record of such movement. At one time Spring Equinox occured when the sun rose in the asterism of Orion. Now it rises in the asterism of Pisces.
Who are some of the other Solar Deities? I count Horus, Krishna, Christ and the Lamb of Revelations. What others?
Can I suggest that you read this: Lokamanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak — The Arctic Home in the Vedas — Chapter 12
 
Nor can Plato nor the Vedas nor the Sutras nor the Emerald Tablet nor any other Tradition offer an authoritative commentary on Christianity.
How can Vedas say anything about Jesus? They were fixated at least a 1000 years before Jesus.
 
How can Vedas say anything about Jesus? They were fixated at least a 1000 years before Jesus.
Quite.

It was in response to the contemporary notion that by an understanding of one 'paradigm' one can explain all the others. One can't. So the idea that Jesus has to be this or that to fit an alien paradigm is itself flawed.

Similarly, the idea that the 'Perennial Philosophy' exists as a distinct philosophy is to misconceive the notion.

The Perennial Philosophy points to a universal which, by its very nature, is prior to form, verbal or otherwise. Where the confusion occurs is that each addresses man, and man is the same everywhere, so there will be real and meaningful correspondences, but where the distinction occurs is how and by what means a given philosophy addresses the question of the Transcendent.

All philosophies are connected in that they apprehend, to a greater or lesser degree, the truth of things. There is truth accessible even in the most 'pagan' or 'naive' or 'natural' expression (as long as the philosophy in question does not suffer the unfortunate impediment of self-determined limitation). What distinguishes them is the degree to which they are informed by intellection, inspiration and revelation — and in the end the degree to which they are open to the Infinite, which is surely man's vocation to know.

Thomas
 
The Perennial Philosophy points to a universal which, by its very nature, is prior to form, verbal or otherwise.

What distinguishes them is the degree to which they are informed by intellection, inspiration and revelation — and in the end the degree to which they are open to the Infinite, which is surely man's vocation to know.
Vedas too talk of sacrifice of 'Purusha', which created the universe. As an atheist, I accept only intellection, inspiration can be wrong, and revelation is untruth. People have various views (our books said 'Vipra bahudha vadanti').

However, I would like to know the connection (if any) between Spring equinox and Christmas.
 
As an atheist, I accept only intellection, inspiration can be wrong, and revelation is untruth.
Surely the same can be said of intellection?
However, I would like to know the connection (if any) between Spring equinox and Christmas.
Short answer is, as Christianity is not a solar religion, there isn't one.

The longer answer would involve a discussion around symbols, and the particular mode of the Revelation in Christ, where the Principle is Itself realised actually.

If Christ is, as we (Christians) believe Him to be, the Incarnate Son of God, then there will be a correspondence between His corporeal being and the corporeality of the world, so there will be a correspondence between His life and the patterns and rhythms of the cosmos.

In that sense yes, there is a connection, but the principle transcends the cosmological order, rather than be ordered according to it.

God bless

Thomas
 
Let us say a baby is conceived [as always, via the SAME natural process] around ~ the Vernal Equinox, March 21st.

Tell me, Aupmanyav, WHEN will that same baby be born ... approximately?
What will be the expected DUE DATE, for DELIVERY of that child?

Thank you, thank you. No autographs. You may pick up signed copies of my lengthy tractates in the lobby ... :rolleyes:
 
Getting back to the topic: what is the basis for the claim that Jesus was a continuation of the Mithras cult?

This is only oral history, but the early church (pre-Nicene), early Judaism, and early Islam all tend to say different. Gimme some background and help here.

A lot of what is said about the Mithras story are elaborations, but not everything is spurious. Based on the iconography: 1.) Mithras was born from a rock. The rock is thought to symbolize Mother Earth or the Mother Goddess which draws parallels to Jesus' virgin birth to the Mary "the Mother of God." 2.) a shepherd witnesses Mithras' birth just as shepherds witness Jesus birth. 3.) The Mithraic banquet is sort of a last supper before Mithras' ascent 4.) Mithras ascends into the heavens in Sol-Helios-Apollos's horse-drawn chariot

There was also a symbolic martyrdom, soul-travel, and rebirth for initiates into the cult of Mithras described in textual sources. Interestingly enough this all took place in a cave which recalls certain elements of Jesus' resurrection.
 
Wikipedia says Mithras was born out of a rock. I do not think it mentions the various things that you list here. Sort of surprised. There must be a better source of information about Mithras than Wikipedia. Krishna remained in his birth place, Vraja, during his childhood. And he is not a sun god. Vedic Mitra is totally different, just a sun god, one of the seven/eight/ten/twelve (at various times) sons of god-mother Aditi.

What intrigues me is the date for Christmas. Vedas never celebrated Winter Solstice. It was considered to be the bad part of the year. They celebrated Spring Equinox and that was the beginning of the year for them. Is Christmas really the Spring Equinox which has moved three months ahead due to precession? Vedas have record of such movement. At one time Spring Equinox occured when the sun rose in the asterism of Orion. Now it rises in the asterism of Pisces.

Mithraism is loosely connected to Zoroastrianism. One of the grades in the Mithraic mysteries was Persis which connected the Romans to the mystical Zoroastrian past. The early Christians such as Irenaenus, Tertullian and Origen saw birthday anniversaries as pagan in practice. Herodotus, on the other hand, shows that the celebrating the birthday anniversary was commonplace among the Persian Zoroastrians.


It is their practice to honor above all the days that one on which they were born. On this day they think it right to spread a more elaborate meal than they do on other days. - Herodotus 133 (C.5)

The winter solstice was marked by the Zoroastrians as Dae Mah the month of the creator. This may have have contributed to establishing Mithras the kosmocreator's birth around the beginning of Day Mah. Could it be that celebration of Mithras the Sun god, proceeding the Saturnalia might have had something to do with reassigning the Sabbath day from Saturday to Sunday too?
 
Posting after three months.
@ Jeromedb: You are not taking into consideration precession of equinox. The Greeks might be celebrating their Saturnalia at a wrong time.
 
Kindly ignore the above post. I will think about it some more and post a message tomorrow to highlight some confusion that I have. I would request both of you, Taijasi and Jeromedb, to have a look and comment on it.
 
So here is my question again:

Why 'Dies Natalis Solis Invicti', or 'Birthday of the Unconquered Sun' should be on December 25th (so to say the 'dark part of the year')?

Normally it should have been in spring when sun warms the earth again. This is when many peoples in the world have their new year. It was so even in Rome when the year started in March. After all, January and February are months which were added to ancient Roman calendar by Numa Pompilius, king of Rome, in 700 BC.

Is that a remembrance of ancient (some 8,000 years ago) vernal equinox which is on March 20th, but due to precession of exquinox fell around December 25 in the 1st Century?

During that period Indian Aryan calender makers changed their beginning of the year three times. Their new year was changed for vernal equinox from the asterism of Castor and Pollux (Punarvasu) to Orion (Mrigashiras) to Pleidas (Krittikas). It was changed again around 600 AD to Arietis (Ashwini). Perhaps the ancient Romans did not do so and their calculations depended on politics:

"The position of Pontifex Maximus was not a full-time job; it was held by a member of the Roman elite, who would almost invariably be involved in the machinations of Roman politics. Because the term of office of elected Roman magistrates was defined in terms of a Roman calendar year, a Pontifex Maximus would have reason to lengthen a year in which he or his allies were in power, or shorten a year in which his political opponents held office. For example, Julius Caesar made the year of his third consulship in 46 BC 445 days long."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_calendar#Calendar_of_Numa
 
Clarification: The vernal equinox remained where it was but the festival preceded because of astral considerations. (It seems Romans were not careful enough with their calendar)
 
Indian Aryans were faced with this problem some time before christian era. To keep up with seasons, they had to change the division of the year. Initially the period from vernal equinox to autumnal equinox was known as 'Devayana' (the path of Gods) and that from autumnal equinox to vernal equinox was known as 'Pitriyana' (the path of ancestors).

The new scheme had 'Uttarayana' (sun going North) from winter solstice to summer solstice, and 'Dakshinayana' (sun going South). A difference of three months.

I am trying to get a pictorial representation which would explain it better.
 
Change of the division of year in India.

The first image is the older division, vernal equinox to autumnal equinox and return (Devayana and pitriyana, for Gods or ancestors). The second is the current division, winter solstice to summer solstice and return (Uttarayana and dakshinayana, sun going north or sun going south). This was neccesiated by precession of equinoxes by three months over a period of 6,000 years.
 

Attachments

  • Seasons.png
    Seasons.png
    5.6 KB · Views: 285
I don't understand what the images represent. Physical objects or only the idea that something is different?
 
I suppose this will help: V-vernal equinox, A - Autumnal equinox, S - Summer solstice, w - Winter solstice.

Perhaps around Buddha's time (2,600 years ago), the divisions of the year were changed from image 1 to image 2 to adjust for seasons.
 

Attachments

  • Seasons.png
    Seasons.png
    8 KB · Views: 267
Therefore, 'Dies Natalis Solis Invicti', or 'Birthday of the Unconquered Sun', which was taken as the birthday of Jesus, is wrongly placed in December. It should have been on March 20. But unlike Indian Aryans, the European Aryans did not correct the year to account for the precession of equinox.
 
This may have have contributed to establishing Mithras the kosmocreator's birth ...
Mithras is not kosmocreator ...

Could it be that celebration of Mithras the Sun god, proceeding the Saturnalia might have had something to do with reassigning the Sabbath day from Saturday to Sunday too?
No. The reasoning is there in Acts.
 
Getting back to the topic: what is the basis for the claim that Jesus was a continuation of the Mithras cult?


This mostly comes from the fact that prior to accepting Jesus, Paul was a Mithraic priest. Many have suggested that Jesus was a fictional character he has created to try to merge Mithraism with his ancestral religion of Judaism.

Many put the different styles of Moses and Jesus down to Jesus being a new dispensation, but in truth much of it comes from the mystery traditions. Very little is unique at all, even the concept of trinity is actually founded on ideas that already existed elsewhere - Bhagwan/Son, Brahman/Father, and Paramatma/Holy Spirit is an obvious correlation.

We often forget that for most, the religion we have chosen is based mostly on social pressure - whether current or at some point in the past, the popular religions are so because not following them resulted in death. We go out of our way to slander new groups as cults, forgetting that every organized religion is a cult - they are all the popularization of a particular charismatic figure. In truth, there should be over 7 billion religions on this planet, for each one has their unique path to walk. Instead, people like Paul wish to indoctrinate the masses with a common dogma - "behold, I have become all things for all people".

That isn't to say we shouldn't look to certain figures for guidance, but in creating an exclusive and fanatic group, you only ensure violence. A person that does not have direct experience of what they believe will go above and beyond to justify it, they feel a need to prove their loyalty and are willing to harm anyone that is seen as a threat. It is because the belief becomes part of your identification, and so you are personally threatened when someone attacks those beliefs.

It is quite a mess.
 
Back
Top