Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : History's effect on Religion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (125)	5/13/2003 10:46:14 AM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 520

> I would argue Paul lived too early to be influenced by Mithraism. How so? You seem to base this claim on lack of Mithraic monuments in Rome. But Paul did not live in Rome. He was in Asia Minor (Syria and Turkey) which were very close to Persian Empire. Mithraism had been in existence for at least a thousand years prior to Paul. And the effects of Zoroastrianism and Mithraism on Judaism were already there. > animal sacrifice was already a standard part of Temple Judaism When you can show me another religion other than Mithraism in which bread and wine are had as a ceremony to have them as flesh and blood of the god, then I will concede that entrance of such beliefs may not have been from Mithraism. > Also the idea of the Messiah dying and being himself a sacrifice for sin is not found in Mithraism or Zoroastrianism either. The word "christ" is a Persian word that means god-king who sacrificed himself for the salvation of his people. Typically "salvation" here meant better crops, lack of disease, and protection from natural disasters. Just the same, it should be obvious that calling Rabbi Yeshua "Christ" is a direct reference to that belief. I find it strange that you map the rise of Mithraic religion in Rome well within its height amidst Zoroastrianism, but you refuse to concede Mithra of Rome had Zoroastrianism roots and beliefs. Do think that somehow the Romans heard the word Mithra and rather than taking its concepts from Zoroastrians, the Romans went on some archiological-anthropological excavation to find its roots from 1000 years before and adopt that religion? If somehow one of the Catholic saints becomes a god in a foreign land, will say that this new religion does not inherit the Christian beliefs because they don't believe in Christ? > If people want to derive this from some earlier religion, I think they should look elsewhere. Why is that? Deriving something and saying they are identical are not the same things. Christianity has borrowed tremendously from Mithraism as part of Zoroastrianism. This does not mean that the beliefs were not adopted to the local culture and political process of the time or that Christians did not add or modify these beliefs.