Talk:Mithraism in comparison with other belief systems

Why?

Untitled

This article consists of material about Mithras and other cults moved from the Mithras article. I'm not sure this was a good idea.

Even if it is, the title is terrible. "Belief systems" is anachronistic -- paganism was about what you did, not what you believed. What, I wonder, is this page really about? The summary is of course a chunk from the Mithras article, rather than a summary of contents. 21:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The page is about defending against the assertion that christianity superimposed itself upon existing beliefs and rituals, of course. 124.149.177.209 (talk) 12:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Though I don't really care one way or another, as I would not deign to criticize or attack another person's beliefs/opinions, I should mention that BOTH points of view are assertions.... most people who publish research on this subject conclude that Christianity, as it was eventually codified, not necessarily as it was originally characterized, was composed of a very large number of very similar rituals/rites, ideas/beliefs, and organizational/operational methodology to pre-existing AND subsequent (subsequent to 0 CE; pre-existing to the Council of Nicea) local/regional belief systems, religions, spiritual organizations, etc. On the other hand, the difficulty is that most "scholars" who "research" this idea and conclude the opposite viewpoint are immediately discountable as neutral/unbiased sources of professional analysis.... Jesuit priests, Catholic/Vatican clergy, monks, or otherwise affiliated scholars, and the host of protestant christian researchers who often go through some or all of their education, even in childhood, from christian schools.... these are the most common voices in favor of the opposite view. Unfortunately, you cant take their word as reliable on this subject.184.189.220.114 (talk) 08:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The older title was worse.

86.24.11.18 (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

John Gee

Hi Ari. Could you please provide an extract of what Gee has stated? Does he actually say that many take this view?-Civilizededucation^talk 10:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Many do as the sources state. There seems to be little support of it being either "Mithraic" or "liturgy" in contemporary scholarship, a name that was attached early on by Albrecht Dieterich. --Ari (talk) 09:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

And, could you also explain how my rendering of Meyer was off base?-Civilizededucation^talk 00:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It came across extremely polemical (quoting takes away from claims of it being an editorial pov) and it misses the basis on which Meyer was making the comparisons in that article. Furthermore, calling "Professor of X at Y" is generally unnecessary when we can easily wikilink to the profile. Finally, we should address what he means by apologists ie. Justin Martyr's comparison. --Ari (talk) 09:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Generally, I think quoting is unnecessary unless there be some real problem in paraphrasing it. I could agree to adding something about Justin Marty's claim about Mithraism, however, I don't think that it is proper to do OR on a primary source. We should find it in some secondary source. I will be trying to do it myself too.-Civilizededucation^talk 09:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Meyer mentions the example of the Eucharist and Mithraism on p.179 if you have the text available. However, this is problematic for us as editors. (1) Meyer's reading is not universal. Other scholars point that Justin is presenting Christianity in terms of other Greaco-Roman "religions" as part of his apology along the lines of 'why set us aside as different, what we believe isn't so foreign to what you do'. (2) Most scholars believe that the tradition began with Jesus and makes sense in light of the contemporary Jewish tradition of symbolic religious meals (such as by the Qumran community). (3) Some editors push for similarity = dependence, and then postulate some OR or fringe idea that Christianity was a copy of Graeco-Roman cult. --Ari (talk) 10:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I have the text. However, I don't see a problem regarding his reading not being universal. In such matters, there is always a multiplicity of views. From what I see about Justin, I think he has tried to explain the similarities by ascribing them to a devilish invention. As for editors pushing a point, I think it is the source which is saying something. I see no reason to disregard it.-Civilizededucation^talk 10:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Two new Myths of Mithras?

Hello there! I've recently come across two new (possible) additions for this page and was hoping the researchers here would like them. I don't know if they are myths (miths?) or not, but they really sound like them, particularly the first one! I heard these from an editor who claims to have come from a predominantly Christian country in which the cult of Mithras was once "significant".

The claims are:

• The followers of Mithras practised "ritual eating (in the case of the Christians the flesh of a deity, and the paintings in Mithras temples suggest the followers of that cult saw it the same way)"

• "Sunday (rather than Saturday, for instance) as the holy day in honour of the sun god."

The editor went on to claim that "the miracle stories about Jesus follow a pattern of stories that were earlier reported about various Greek philosophers such as Pythagoras and Empedocles."

I hope this is helpful!

Ion Zone (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)