idahojeri
-
Posts
24 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by idahojeri
-
-
but catholic dogma is NOT Biblically based in the main - hierarchy, jesus as God, the trinity, the saints and intercession, much of th cult of thre Virgin have no gospel basis.
Sorry,
Phil
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Phil, You certainly make interesting statements. And you have courage to take on so many.
But, I still have to disagree.
If there is no biblical basis for hierarchy in the bible, how do you explain the clear hierarchy in all four gospels, Paul, and Acts? Didn't Matthias have to take over Judas' place in the apostolic succession? What about 1 Tim with the elaborate qualifications for bishops, priests, and deacons?
Jesus as God --"The Father and I are one" John 10, "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father" John 14,
"The glory of our great God and savior, Jesus Christ" Tit 2, and doubting Thomas saying, "My Lord and my God" John 20 among others.
I have already discussed the saints and Mary. Catholics find a biblical basis for all of these things, even if you may think our ideas skewed.
I await your reply, Blessings, Jeri
-
[
One that I always knew of was the idea of prayer for the dead and of Purgatory. Neither of these were directly mentioned by Christ, but instead vaguely mentioned in Daniel, Macabees, Revelations, and a few others (if memory serves). I'm pretty sure that the doctrine of Purgatory, where sinners suffer the pain of hellfire in order to be "purified" and gain entrance to heaven, was decided on by church leaders during the Council of Trent (1545-1563). Im sure there are many more, but I'd have to do a bit more research to assure my accuracy
\\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's an interesting topic. There were, as you mentioned, prayers for the dead in Macabees and Daniel. I would really like to learn more about the various beliefs current at that time. Can anyone tell me the titles of some of the better books on the subject?
I know that in the early church most of the fathers talk about the "intermediate state". Here is Justin Martyr about 160: "gnostics...do not admit to an intermediate state...and they say there is no resurrection of the dead. Rather, they say that when they die, their souls are taken to heaven. Do not imagine that they are Christians" 1,239. Also, Irenaeus, Origen, Augustine--they all talked about the "intermediate place". And, of course, the early Christians inscribed prayers to the dead near their dead. And in 2 Timothy Paul prays for his dead friend Oneishorus. If Oneishorus were dead, why pray for him if there wasn't an intermediate place? If he were in heaven, he wouldn't need prayers; if he were in hell, no prayers could help.
However, I think the strongest biblical verse would be in Matthew : "You will not be released until you haave paid the last penny" 5:26.
I believe Protestants have a very different take on these verses. Do you know what they are? I am curious.
Blessings, Jeri
-
[
One that I always knew of was the idea of prayer for the dead and of Purgatory. Neither of these were directly mentioned by Christ, but instead vaguely mentioned in Daniel, Macabees, Revelations, and a few others (if memory serves). I'm pretty sure that the doctrine of Purgatory, where sinners suffer the pain of hellfire in order to be "purified" and gain entrance to heaven, was decided on by church leaders during the Council of Trent (1545-1563). Im sure there are many more, but I'd have to do a bit more research to assure my accuracy
-
[st telling evidence of a "pagan" takeover.
Much of catholic teaching and ritual - as I understand it - is not Biblically based. Indeed, Jesus was much against ritual and ceremony and condemned it. Saints, bishops, and all the other paraphenalia was not mentioned in the giospels
I believe all of Catholic teaching and ritual to be biblically based. What evidence do you have that it is not? I would be intererested in learning.
Blessings, Jeri
-
Some differences between Catholic and Orthodox that I am aware of:
1) Catholics believes in the Pope as the Supreme Head. Orthodox believe in a collegiate atmosphere of Bishops. If you look at the early centers of Christianity, Rome was the only real center in the West, so its natural the Pope took the reigns in the West. The early centers of Christianity in the East had to work together, which is where the collegiate mentality comes from. Furthermore, Rome has the tradition of the College of Pontifs and the Pontifex Maximus, which the Pope assumed. In Ancient Greece there was no central religious authority and each polis conducted its own affairs.
2) The Catholics portray Mary as "The Virgin." The Orthodox portray Mary as "The Mother of God" (Theotokos). The Catholic's emphasize Mary's sexual purity while the Orthodox emphasize Mary's maternal aspects.
3) The Catholics believe that original sin is almost genetic, somehow transmitted through the human line via Adam. Thus if Christ were free from Sin, his mother had to be as well, and this is where the Immaculate Conception comes from. The Orthodox believe in original sin as a more metaphysical doctrine and less of a genetic one. Thus, in their theology, there is no need for Mary to be immaculately conceived.
4) Catholic iconography depicts the suffering of Christ on the cross; the emphasis is on the terrible price Christ paid to redeem the sins of Humanity. Orthodox iconography emphasizes the joyous triumph of Christ over sin via resurrection. Thus for Catholics Christ is a suffering figure while for Orthodox he is a triumphal figure.
5) Catholics have a very legalistic understanding of Christianity, the religion is almost like a legal contract with God. This is a continuation of Roman paganism, which was legalistic in the extreme. Roman culture at its heart is legalistic, which is why Rome gave Western Civilization so many of her laws. The Orthodox, by contrast, have a more mystical and philosophical relationship with god. This stems from earlier Greek pagan culture which was of course more mystical and philosophical than Rome.
6) The Catholic church is a supranational organization that has no nationality (even if Italians informally dominate). By contrast, the Orthodox churches are very much tied to local ethnicity and nationality. In Orthodox countries there is often a deliberate blurring between ethnicity, religion and government. The Catholic countries are not as prone to this.
7) In the Catholic West, creation is often considered fallen, degenerate, and debased due to the actions of Adam and Eve
-
We also know that Christianity borrowed dates and myths from Mithraism and the cult of Sol Invictus (Christmas etc).
The information that I have about Christmas is different. There were two early dates for Christmas, both in spring. However, not all Christians celebrated Christ's birth, and some were very much against the idea of celebrating his birth. Origen, for example. complained that the pagans celebrated birthdays; he argued that Christians should celebrate baptisms. A list of Christian feasts by Irenaeus never mentions Christmas.
However, the gnostic Basididians did celebrate the epiphany in early January, and perhaps Christ's birth in December. Some historians have suggested this is why the emperor Aurelion began the feast of Sol Invictus in the year 274. By that time, the number of Christians and gnostics in Rome must have been quite high. So some historians have suggested that is why he chose the date of Dec. 25th for his feast.
What information do you have on this?
Blessings, Jeri
[q
We also know that Christianity borrowed dates and myths from Mithraism
This was a very popular idea among biblical scholars for about a hundred years. However, all study, and thousands of books on the subject, never found a single instance of borrowing. What evidence do you have? Blessings, Jeri
Some differences between Catholic and Orthodox that I am aware of:1) Catholics believes in the Pope as the Supreme Head. Orthodox believe in a collegiate atmosphere of Bishops. If you look at the early centers of Christianity, Rome was the only real center in the West, so its natural the Pope took the reigns in the West. The early centers of Christianity in the East had to work together, which is where the collegiate mentality comes from. Furthermore, Rome has the tradition of the College of Pontifs and the Pontifex Maximus, which the Pope assumed. In Ancient Greece there was no central religious authority and each polis conducted its own affairs.
2) The Catholics portray Mary as "The Virgin." The Orthodox portray Mary as "The Mother of God" (Theotokos). The Catholic's emphasize Mary's sexual purity while the Orthodox emphasize Mary's maternal aspects.
3) The Catholics believe that original sin is almost genetic, somehow transmitted through the human line via Adam. Thus if Christ were free from Sin, his mother had to be as well, and this is where the Immaculate Conception comes from. The Orthodox believe in original sin as a more metaphysical doctrine and less of a genetic one. Thus, in their theology, there is no need for Mary to be immaculately conceived.
4) Catholic iconography depicts the suffering of Christ on the cross; the emphasis is on the terrible price Christ paid to redeem the sins of Humanity. Orthodox iconography emphasizes the joyous triumph of Christ over sin via resurrection. Thus for Catholics Christ is a suffering figure while for Orthodox he is a triumphal figure.
5) Catholics have a very legalistic understanding of Christianity, the religion is almost like a legal contract with God. This is a continuation of Roman paganism, which was legalistic in the extreme. Roman culture at its heart is legalistic, which is why Rome gave Western Civilization so many of her laws. The Orthodox, by contrast, have a more mystical and philosophical relationship with god. This stems from earlier Greek pagan culture which was of course more mystical and philosophical than Rome.
6) The Catholic church is a supranational organization that has no nationality (even if Italians informally dominate). By contrast, the Orthodox churches are very much tied to local ethnicity and nationality. In Orthodox countries there is often a deliberate blurring between ethnicity, religion and government. The Catholic countries are not as prone to this.
7) In the Catholic West, creation is often considered fallen, degenerate, and debased due to the actions of Adam and Eve
-
I
But I think the cult of the Virgin - non-existent in Biblical terms - owes much to the cults, symbolism and imagery of Isis and the Magna Mater. The idea of Mary as the Queen of Heaven for instance.
Around 150 Justin Martyr wrote about Mary as being "the new eve". Soon after, Irenaeus wrote extensively on the subject of Mary as being the new eve and as untying knots. He said that through her the whole of humankind could achieve salvation. In the early 200's, someone wrote the Protoevangelium which was a very devout life of Mary, dripping with sentimentality. Also around this time, there is archeological evidence, disputed I believe, of prayers to Mary.
This is very early evidence. I can't imagine the early Christians borrowing these ideas from paganism at this time, They were giving up their lives to fight against paganism. Justin Martyr was a martyr, after all.
What evidence do you have? I am curious.
Blessings, Jeri
-
I have been thinking a great deal lately about just what the "Roman" in Roman Catholic means. Im sure it is much more than a word used to signify allegiance to the Pope.
The word Roman simply refers to one kind of rite in the church. There are other rites which have slightly different ways of giving the sacraments or saying Mass. Armenian, for example.
Blessings, Jeri
Well there are certain elements of paganism that can be identified in Christianity, or at least the high churches.There are little things, like the depictions of Isis and her child Horus being similar to later depictions of Mary and Christ.
You might enjoy the book "The Clash of Gods: A Reinterpretation of Early Christian Art" by Thomas F. Mathews. He challenges the idea that there was an emperor mystique which the artists used as Christ the king, and he also disagrees with the Isis/Mary theory. Interesting book, well written.
Blessings, Jeri
-
It is interesting to note that the idea of the family having numerous specific deities never really died out. The way Roman Catholics "venerate" different Saints and the Blessed Virgin alongside the Trinity is a direct descendent of this form of worship.
Most Roman Catholic families have a number of Saints that they have traditionally venerated, often through many generations.
The idea of a "Patron Saint" is also reminiscent of the ancient pre-Christian Roman tradition. The individual Catholic will often have a a specific Saint with which he/she identifies strongly and has a strong relationship with that will often last a lifetime, just as the pre-Christian Romans had their own personal deity.
Anyone who puts a saint or the virgin on the level with God would not be a Catholic at all, but a heretic. This is simply basic Catholic theology.
Also in Catholic theology, a saint is anyone in heaven. Your grandmother, if she was good, may well be a saint. "Patron Saints" are people who lived saintly lives and are designated saints by the church. St. Augustine, for example, might become the "patron saint" of a man who has led a bad life but now wants to reform and takes St. Augustine as an inspiration.
Blessings, Jeri
n.. Some of them even had a deity who was born of a virgin at the end of the year, had three wise men visiting him who were skilled in astrology - or following stars, who rode to his execution on a donkey and died hung on to a tree/cross/piece of wood. Which was the original one? Now, THERE'S a question!!
o
I believe you are incorrect. What books are you basing these claims on?
Blessings, Jeri
-
I have posted a blog entry and a comment regarding abortion as part of my notes relating to meeting a moderm midwife who is a re-enactor Roman midwife
http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?automo...p;showentry=425
The photo link to the specialised equipment may not be for the faint hearted, but it is an acurrate and faithful attempt at re-creating an historical surgical tool.
Incredible picture. Wonder if this is the equipment Tertullian wrote about in 203 "a flexible frame for opening the uterus...futher furnished with an anular blade..its last appendage being a blunted or covered hook, wherewith the entire fetus is extracted by a violent delivery. There is also a copper needle or spike by which the actual death is managed." (A Treastise on the Sout, 25)
Anyone know of any studies about abortion and the death of Roman women? Rodney Stark mentions that abortion was a leading cause of death, which I believe he bases upon an essay? book? by Gorman.
Blessings, Jeri
-
so in a sense of the word i think the last post i did what i was trying to say was that even though the main idea of christanity and catholics was to worship the Lord and Jesus Christ and the numeras saints that are based on the different geographysof the world(cause if u look a little u can see what i mean by it)but thats where it ends, so i go on to say that yes the people have that understanding of those "beliefs" it is like the way i see it for instance the people that are islamic jihad their islamic but they are basing their religios beliefs on their own ideas of what it is and have their own way of interprating what the messeges are fro their holy book(some jihads not saying islamic but some even have some of the rules changed to suit their jihad)
any way hopefully i dont start an argument with what said
sincerly
BrOtUs MaXiMuS
A.K.A
kris
And along with that, I wonder with some of the aforementioned if they have any grasp on the geography of the world of Jesus Christ or if words like Galatians or Ephesians are just words meaning people who got converted...
... or, indeed, whether or not Paul's letters to these people were supposed to apply to the rest of us, or whether he was speaking to those people only, making references to the particular cultures he was talking to.
interesting debate. I have been reading and reading for years on the subject and hardly feel I have a toe hold. Yet I am always struck every time I read Ignatius (110 AD). 1 Clement (95 AD) and the Didache (variously put at 50-150 AD) how completely they mirror orthodox Christian views of today. Any good books on ancient civilization you really enjoyed? or that you thought were especially insightful? I just finished "Restless Youth in Rome" which was pretty good, but hardly answered all my questions on the subject.
Blessings, Jeri
-
My family and I were discussing varius thing the other night when we came apon the topic of religion and I had once heard that roman catholics were one of the oldest religions when it came to christianity, now my problem is when did the romans start believing or (start the religion). if some one could give me some insight on this stuff ( i am confused on the whole matter)
sincerly
brotus maximus
A.K.A
kris
The first time anyone mentioned the Catholic church was in 110 Ad. Ignatius of Antioch (in his epistles) wrote: "Wherever the bishop appears, let the congrregation be present; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic church".
Blessings, Jeri
-
[
[quthem.[/i]
W
The notion of Christianity not being even remotely similar to and/or influenced by the Mystery religions is complete rubbish.
Then you disagree with thousands and thousands of scholars who have investigated the idea. No influence has ever been found. Rather, the evidence is all on the other side. The idea of Christianity struck the Roman world like a bomb. Within some 30 years after Christ's death "vast multitudes" of them were being tortured by Nero's minions. Within another 50 year4s Pliny was moaning that the temples were deserted because of the number of Christians.
Christian ideas were so powerful that mystery religons stole them--look at the Mithric cult. Look at the gnostics. Think of all the hundreds of gnostic texts that stole Christian names--ie the gospel of Judas--no doubt to add a gloss to them. Why do you think the gnostic were so desperate to add Christian titles and Christian symbolism to their cults? Certainly not because Christianity was so unpopular.
Think for a moment of what Christianity offered. A meaning to life in the vast, cold nothingness of Greek philosphy. The idea that there was an ultimate right and wrong, and that, eventually, all wrongs would be made right. Must have sounded pretty good to the poor. And then, of course, there was that promise of eternal life.
Pretty heady stuff, compared to the cold, pale Greek philosphies or the majic and nonsense world of the mystery religions.
No wonder Christianity conquered.
Blessings, Jeri
-
o
At least one section of Jesus' followers, under James (the brother of Christ) remained within or strongly associated with Judaism (and in Jerusalem).
I am puzzled by your conclusion here. There was constant travel between the different Christian groups, not to mention a council in Jerusalem, to mitigate against any difference in belief between the groups. According to the information we have, James was not a believer in Jesus until after the resurrection. Then he became a believer. Also, his bleliefs could hardly have been in great conformity with the Jews, since they killed him in 62 AD.
Blessings, Jeri
[
It is here that the advocates of views partly enshrined in the da Vinci Code and elsewhere have a strong point - as a Jewish man of his time, it would be very likely that Jesus conformed (ie married etc) else he would have been outside convention and unlikely to find an audience, let alone be called rabbi. And the gospels are silent on the subject of his marital status or celibacy - interesting if he believed in something markedly different from the norm. I cite this here solely to demonstrate that that Jesus does not himself appear to have preached a radical message in any way ezxcept seeking personal moral reform of the individual.
There were a number of groups of celibate Jews. The Essenes, for example Also those who took the Nazrite oath.
i
It
It is only when we see the activities of Paul, and his tremendous journies (see how little time he spent in Palestine) that we see the mystic element in Christianity being emphasised. While there is no mention of "initiation" in the sense of a ceremony, the whole thrust of paul's teaching is that there is a mental, spiritual real, metaphysical and mysterious. I would argue, packaging it for the Hellenistic audiences in the great c
Oh for a time machine!! I think we might be in for a few surprises if we went back.
Phil
Dear Phil, yes, Paul went on many journeys. The entire Christian community seems to have been on the move during the first 80 years of Christianity. Again and again Paul mentions those who are visiting from Jerusalem or from other cities. How could Paul have been teaching anything different from what was being taught in the other cities if there were these constant journeys?
I love the time machine idea.
Blessings, Jerii
-
As a Pagan I've always loved pointing out how the date of Christmas was an appropriation from the commemoration of the temple of Sol Invictus. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/cool.gif)
The earliest date for celebrating Christ's birth was May 20th according to Clement of Alexandria, circa 200 AD. However, many Christians were upset at the idea of celebrating Christ's birth, since birthdays were a pagan custom. Origen was very much against the idea. During the next two hundred years 7 different dates were suggested. The one that was agreed on, was, indeed, Dec. 25th. This was not because Christians didn't know the difference between the celebration of Sol Invictus and Christ's birthday. Hardly. It was a piece of pure triumphalism.
[
t is here that the advocates of views partly enshrined in the da Vinci Code and elsewhere have a strong point - as a Jewish man of his time, it would be very likely that Jesus conformed (ie married etc) else he would have been outside convention and unlikely to find an audience, let alone be called rabbi.l
Some temple Age Jews did practice celibacy, such as the Essenes and those who had taken the Nazartie oath.
-
Within thirty years or so after Christ's death "vast multitudes" of them were killed by Nero. By 112 Pliny was complaining that all the pagan temples were deserted because of the number of converts
Could you please post the quotes for these ? I can remember Pliny saying nothing like this ?
First quote--Tacitus in the Annals says "Nero fastened the guilt...on a class...called Christians...an immense multitude was convicted...Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illunination...Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle".
Second quote--from Pliny the Younger, in his tenth book, written around Ad 112. The letter is very long but says, among other things, that the pagan temples had been nearly deserted and 'sacrificial animals had few buyers". Pliny had two female slaves who were deaconesses in the church tortured to obtain information about Christianity. Only if the Christian denied Christ and "repeated after me an invocation to the gods, and offered adoration ...to your (Trajan's image) were they to be let go"; otherwise, they were killed.. Pliny explained that his purpose in all this was that "multitudes may be reclaimed from error".
Blessings
-
Paul. Paul's first letter was written about 20 years after the death of Christ. Not a lot of time for "influence" of any kind to seep in. A huge number of people who knew Christ were still alive. Facts could be checked.
Except for Paul himself as the influence!!
Truth is, the epistles are all FACT-light. Jesus' message - if Pauline Christianity has any link to it - is spiritual and mysticised (moved away from Judaism), with hardly any mention of Jesus' life or deeds. The whole thrust is to make the teachings attractive to and amenable to the Hellenised thought.
Phil, Hi, these are interesting issues, although perhaps too many to deal with in a few paragraphs.
As far as Hellenized thought and Paul are concerned, surely Paul's message was only important to people because it had the full weight of Jewish history and religion behind it. And his message was one of fullfilled Jewish covenant and of messianic promises of salvation. Paul's beliefs were also a clear challenge to paganism at the level of power, particularly of empire. Almost everywhere he went Paul was persecuted, whipped, riots ensued, etc. This doesn't seem to me to be softening anything up.
Paul was a strict Jew who received instruction from Gamaliel, and then persecuted and killed Christians. Does it really seem reasonable to you that someone of this temprament would be interested in Hellenizing anything? Which teachings are you talking about?
Blessings
-
I can't begin to see how Christianity was not influenced by the mystery religions and predecessing Pagan beliefs.
Whether such notions... Zoroaster prediction of the savior, the immaculate virgin mother Anahita who was once worshipped as a fertility goddess, Mithra's ascension to heaven etc., influenced Christianity may be a tough thing to prove, but summarily dismissing them simply because Christians had the foresight to burn anything that disagreed with their own doctrine doesn't prove anything either.
Hi. I am simply reporting what 100 years of scholarship has found. There are hundreds, even thousands, of books and studies on the subject. No one was able to find a connection, either in the texts that are available (admittedly scanty) or in any archeological site. The earliest Mithric cult site, for example, is about 170. THere are no traces of it in Pompeii.
On the contrary, all the influence was on the other side. Christianity appears to have exploded like bomb in the Roman world. Within thirty years or so after Christ's death "vast multitudes" of them were killed by Nero. By 112 Pliny was complaining that all the pagan temples were deserted because of the number of converts. By 150 the Roman world was awash in gnostic texts, Christian persecutions, and the arguing hasn't stopped since then.
As for why the mystery religions didn't influence Christianity, from the very beginning participation of any kind of activity to any god except Christ was forbidden. Paul makes this very clear in Corinthians 10. He allowed for no flexibility at all. He says pagan sacrifices are offered to "to demons and not to God". Partcipation of any kind of cultic activity was regarded as idolatry and was condemned in the harshest terms.
And all the other early writings are equally strong on this point.
Blessings.
-
idahojeri
I myself cited some examples of potential similarities in an earlier post. How did the scholars you mention conduct their analysis?
On the basis of admittedly limited reading, I would question whether Mithraism was influenced by Christianity, but continue to suggest that the influence was the reverse.
Are you sure that the scholars were not influenced by that they wanted to find?
Phil
Phil, great questions. Were the scholars influenced by what they wanted to find? Biblical scholarship is pretty well divided into pro-God and anti-God types. If there was even the smallest proof that the mystery religons created/influenced Christianity the anti-God squad would be proclaiming it from the rooftops.
I am talking about people like Elaine Pagels. Pagels' most famous book title pretty well sums up her attitude: 'Beyond Belief". Or people like John Crossan. Crossan is a fallen away Catholic priest who has spent the last thirty years writing books in an effort to squash Christianity like a bug. He's one of the founders of the Jesus Seminar. Ever heard of it? Anyway, my point is that there are a legion of atheist scholars out there trying to prove Christianity false, and they would be delighted if they could find proof that the Roman mystery religions influenced Christianity. .
The anti-God scholars did give it their best, for about 100 years. Some of the stumbling blocks they ran into:
Paul. Paul's first letter was written about 20 years after the death of Christ. Not a lot of time for "influence" of any kind to seep in. A huge number of people who knew Christ were still alive. Facts could be checked.
Next, archeological and historical evidence. As I mentioned before, the very earliest site for the Roman-style Mithric cult is about 170 or so. This was about the same time that the gnostics were feverishly pouring out writings heavily influenced by Christianity (like the recent gospel of Judas discovery).
Now, put that together with Tacitus' famous mention of the "vast multitudes" of Christians who were killed by Nero, and Pliny's letter in 112 in which he complains that the pagan temples are deserted because so many people had converted. All these things suggest that the Romans--at least a large number of them--were influenced by Christianity.
But proof that Christianity had been influenced by the mystery religons? As hard as they looked, the anti-God types couldn't find anything.
I think the only book on the market on this subject is "The Gospel and the Greeks". It goes into much more detail than my quick sketch here, and could probably answer most of your questions. Otherwise, if you are interested in hearing the various arguments, you may have to go back to books written over 50 years or so. Innerlibrary loans may be your only bet (and we all know what a pain innerlibrary loans are). Sorry.
However, I have a copy of "The Gospel and the Greeks". I'd be glad to look up anything I can for you. I'm afraid I don't have any of Edwin Yamouchi's books. They are very expensive now.
Blessings,
-
Unless you are suggesting that the Roman army was occupying Iran at the time, I can't see the logic of your statement. Mithraism was clearly a major force in the army (I have seen the evidence on Hadrian's Wall for myself); in London (the Walbrook temple) and in Rome itself (and places such as Ostia) from the C2nd-3rd onwards. the shrines and sculptures are there to prove it
Phil
I am sorry--I must not have been very clear. Mithraism was a small cult in Iran. Mithra was the twin brother of the Zoroastrain god Ahura Mazda. However, although this formed the original kernal for the cult, it had little to do with the Mithraism that was so popular in the Roman military. That cult, which apparently borrowed much of its trappings and ethical content from early Christianity, was very different indeed. M. J. Vermaseren, who wrote about the excavations on Mithraism at Dura, suggested that there were no Mithraic sites that could be dated earlier than 168. There are none, for example, in Pompeii.
My point was merely that there are no instances of mystery religions influencing Christianity, at least none that 100 years of scholarship could find. There are, however, as in the Mithric cult, instances of Christianity influencing mystery religions. I hope I've made it clear this time! Sorry for the confusion--
Blessings,
Unless you are suggesting that the Roman army was occupying Iran at the time, I can't see the logic of your statement. Mithraism was clearly a major force in the army (I have seen the evidence on Hadrian's Wall for myself); in London (the Walbrook temple) and in Rome itself (and places such as Ostia) from the C2nd-3rd onwards. the shrines and sculptures are there to prove itPhil
I am sorry--I must not have been very clear. Mithraism was a small cult in Iran. Mithra was the twin brother of the Zoroastrain god Ahura Mazda. However, although this formed the original kernal for the cult, it had little to do with the Mithraism that was so popular in the Roman military. That cult, which apparently borrowed much of its trappings and ethical content from early Christianity, was very different indeed. M. J. Vermaseren, who wrote about the excavations on Mithraism at Dura, suggested that there were no Mithraic sites that could be dated earlier than 168. There are none, for example, in Pompeii.
My point was merely that there are no instances of mystery religions influencing Christianity, at least none that 100 years of scholarship could find. There are, however, as in the Mithric cult, instances of Christianity influencing mystery religions. I hope I've made it clear this time! Sorry for the confusion--
Blessings,
-
I
Whatever Jesus' original message, I believe it was perceived in the west and in the Greek world, as a mystery religeon. I
Phil
I am very surprised that no one has brought up the evidence of the biblical scholars who studied the influence of the mystery religons on Christianity. Entire forests were felled to create the thousands and thousands of books on the subject.
Of course, these books were written some time ago. As Nash writes, "During a period of time running roughly from about 1890 to 1940, scholars often alleged that primitive Christianity had been heavily inluenced by Platonism, Stoicism, the pagan mystery religons, or other movements". The reason that bible scholars stopped writing about it was that archeological and literary evidence proved the exact oppostie. Not only was Christianity not influenced by the mystery religions, instead, Christianity became a huge influence on the mystery religions, especially Mithraism. As Nash puts it, "Today, most bible scholars regard the question as a dead issue".
Anyone interested in the subject will want to read Ronald Nash's "The Gospel and the Greeeks: Did the New Testament Borrow from Pagan Thought?". It's a readable book (unlike many books on biblical scholarship) and it's just about the only book on the market on this subject still in print. The others are all only to be found gathering dust in libraries. Edwin Yamauchi is considered the greatest scholar on the subject, buy his books are all now out of print.
About Mithraism: all evidence points to it being a small cult in Iran. Only much later, after it had borrowed a number of beliefs from Christianity, did it succeed in growing in Rome.
There are so many books written on the subject I hardly know where to begin, but anyone interested in a list can email me.
notw ...d'on
-
. As in the mystery religions, special ritual objects (the cup and bread) were revealed at the end of a long ritual only to those properly initiated. And it came to be believed that something mysterious and magical happened at the exact moment when the priest said certain words over them: that the wine and bread actually became, physically, the body and blood of Christ.
Needless to say, this was not the original idea, even in Rome, but the result of a development over centuries
Thought you might be interested in these quotes:
Letter from Ignatius, about 105-110) "I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life--which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the son of God."
Also from the letters of Ignatius: "They (the pagans) abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not believe the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ...Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death".
And from Irenaeus (about 180) "For the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist--consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly."
Also from Irenaeus: "The wine and bread having recieved the Word of God, become the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ".
Then there is Paul: "He who eats and drinks (the Eucharist) in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body" 1 Cor. 11:29,
There are other quotations, including ones from the Didache, Justin Martyr, and Clement that indicate that from the beginning the Eucharist was regarded as the body of Jesus.
[/i]
-
I'm not sure if Christianity had much to do with it. Christianity once seriously debated whether or not grown women had souls. Whether or not a newborn or a fetus had a soul is something I don't think they worried about until later.
Ever since the age of Augustus, social conservatives worried about the declining Roman birth rate. Perhaps the answers lie there, in the general willingness of the government to have more Romans born into the world to be soldiers, farmers and tax payers.
Jewish laws from the time of Moses forbade abortion and infanticide. The only exception to an absolute ban on abortion was to spare the life of the mother. Of all the cultures in the ancient world, only the Jews insisted on trying to raise every child that was born. The Christians, from the very beginning, followed the same practice. They also forbade contraception, and believed that sex outside of marriage was sinful. These practices would over time produce an ever growing Christian population.
I believe you are incorrect about Christians ever debating whether or not women and souls. Would you mind supplying more information about this?
Jews And Romans
in Templum Romae - Temple of Rome
Posted
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just finished "The Jews of Ancient Rome" by Harry Leon. THought you might be interested in what I picked up: The Jews were lucky when they backed Julius Caesar. Always one to shower benefits on those who helped him, Caesar granted them some great privileges (Josephus gives us the whole list in his "Antiquities"). They were allowed to practice their religion, which was the main benefit. Also, they even had their own courts of justice in many cities, and their men were exempted from serving in the army. Christians tried to claim status as Jews in the early years since the Jews had so many benefits.
The Jews in ROme were mostly clustered around the Transiberine section. Jews tended to cluster together because their food was different, and their holidays. Jews from this section buried their dead in the catacombs. Those who had been archons, gerusiarch, archisunagogus, etc. were noted in their funeral incriptions. Of the 544 inscriptions Leon mentions 405 were in Greek, 123 in Latin, and only 3 in Hebrew and 1 in Aramaic. Many of the inscriptions had errors in grammar or spelling.
Yet even for all their benefits the Jews, within the next hundred years or so, had two violent uprisings against the Romans.
The first was surely the worst, It ended in 70 AD and the destruction of the Jewish temple. With the loss of the temple, the Jewish priesthood ended. In order to become a priest you had to have proof of your family in the scrolls that were kept in the temple So there were no more high priest, no more sacrifices.
Sorry, this is getting too long. But it's interesting, isn't it?
Blessings, Jeri