Name that Religion

Politicon · #21 (**permalink**) 08-31-2006, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dom1

It isn't so much that I have specific reasonings on the issue, I just like to read what some of the Latin Fathers (Jerome, Augustine, Ambrose) write sometimes. I haven't seen Mithraism in a while and I ran across it the other day and I got to thinking about it. Jerome, who was very vitriolic in his writings, would argue that much of it was made up to look like Christianity, and was not really so much like it; others would argue that the devil knew of the prophecies of Jesus, and tried to fool mankind. I just like to compare what people say today to waht they said 1600 years ago.

Does Augustine address Mithraism? I know Augustine address Manicheism, a mystical religion that combined Christianity and Mithraism, but I don't remember reading about Mithraism....then again, I've only read Confessions.

Dom1 · #22 (**permalink**) 08-31-2006, 04:13 PM

Not specifically, but a couple of the Latin Fathers address similarities between pagan religions and Christianity. They generally work as debunkers. In the 360's Julian the Apostate brought back the pagan religions. After the sack of Rome (408) by the Vandals the Christian God was blamed for Rome's sufferings and Augustine countered with the "City of God", which pretty much lambasted the pagans. St. Jerome is the primary figure in addressing the Mithraists among the Latin Doctors, as they were called. He addresses the seven mysteries of Mithraism in comparison to the seven sacraments. Before them came the Greek apologists who really helped bring pagans over to Christianity. The Greek Doctors dealt mainly with the various heresies. One of the biggest concessions, so to speak, to the pagans was a reverance for the Mother Mary.

If you have a chance read the "City of God." But you have to have a lot of free time on your hands. About 1200 pages and some of it is pretty dry.

Politicon · #23 (**permalink**) 08-31-2006, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dom1

Not specifically, but a couple of the Latin Fathers address similarities between pagan religions and Christianity. They generally work as debunkers. In the 360's Julian the Apostate brought back the pagan religions. After the sack of Rome (408) by the Vandals the Christian God was blamed for Rome's sufferings and Augustine countered with the "City of God", which pretty much lambasted the pagans. St. Jerome is the primary figure in addressing the Mithraists among the Latin Doctors, as they were called. He addresses the seven mysteries of Mithraism in comparison to the seven sacraments. Before them came the Greek apologists who really helped bring pagans over to Christianity. The Greek Doctors dealt mainly with the various heresies. One of the biggest concessions, so to speak, to the pagans was a reverance for the Mother Mary.

If you have a chance read the "City of God." But you have to have a lot of free time on your hands. About 1200 pages and some of it is pretty dry.

All right, thanks a lot. I may have to look into it. I know school starts for me on Tuesday so my free time to read (and to post here) declines drastically. It'd be interesting to see what St. Jerome said about the Mithraists though, and I'm guessing I could at least skim that fairly quickly. Anyway, thanks again.

vincent_delacroix · #24 (**permalink**) 08-31-2006, 05:48 PM

if, and this is not saying that they did, people in Judah and Israel did copy this from the followers of Mithras why did the Apostles of Jesus so firmly believe in Jesus as the Son of God and Saviour of Humanity from our evil? IKf they did not believe that Jesus had died and risen again they could have just got his brother to take his place as a "new' messiah. this is also the speculation of why early Christians were so very adamant in their faith.

Dom1 · #25 (**permalink**) 08-31-2006, 07:06 PM

I am not sure what exactly you are asking, but atleast one disciple did doubt that Jesus had risen. He needed more than just faith, Thomas needed to see for himself and would not make the 'leap of faith'. He pays for it in the Bible also, if I remember right, John isn't so nice to him in his gospel.

Lookagain · #26 (**permalink**) 08-31-2006, 07:23 PM

Doubting Thomas
"I won't believe till I've put my fingers in the nail hole and my hand in his pierced side"

Yup, that was me once.

Lookagain · #27 (**permalink**) 08-31-2006, 07:26 PM

Be carefull what you ask for, in your quest for truth and GOD or maybe you could end up................ just like me.

vincent_delacroix · #28 (**permalink**) 08-31-2006, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dom1

I am not sure what exactly you are asking, but atleast one disciple did doubt that Jesus had risen. He needed more than just faith, Thomas needed to see for himself and would not make the 'leap of faith'. He pays for it in the Bible also, if I remember right, John isn't so nice to him in his gospel.

what i am trying to say is that yes the two religions are similar but they are not related to each other. basic Christianity is not rooted in any religion, in fact it is quite differnet from all other religions, bits and peices maybe similar but as a whole it is unique, just like Judaism and Islam. although all three have become very bloody. and yes Thomas did doubt at first, but would you not doubt if your friends said your teacher was back from the grave, i don't know if i would or wouldn't because i have never been in that situation.

Dom1 · #29 (**permalink**) 08-31-2006, 10:39 PM

I would definately doubt it, but what makes Thomas' questioning notable is that he is the only one of the apostles who doubted. . . even after witnessing miracles.

I think you are right in that Christianity is unique in that the basic premise was not borrowed from anyone else. However, I believe that aspects were compromised to sort of appease pagans and draw them into the faith. Things like having saints. Things like the veneration of Mary. There are other smaller things which don't take away from the message. Many of the things that are viewed as a part of Christianity are not unique at all.

I do believe that the message was not compromised, and isn't that the most important part?

Lookagain · #30 (**permalink**) 09-07-2006, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dom1

I thought it was interesting because Paul had to try to gain Mithraist converts. I don't remember the exact place where he appeals to Mithraists in the Bible, but there is a place where he talks about drinking the blood of a bull for salvation, imagine what the blood of a man/God would do. I am sure there are people on this forum who could point to the exact place, if not I am sure I can find it. It is important to remember however, that history is written by the victors, ie Christianity.

Good job Politicon. These aren't necessarily the arguments of the early Christians, more like modern Christians, but very good. Christianity has done a very good job of clouding pagan religions.

There was some contention amoung the Mithraists that Paul converted.

http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q...rist&FORM=MSNH