Christianity As A Mystery Religion

[Primus Pilus]

Pliny's letter to Trajan regarding the Christians was written as he was governor of Pontus et Bithynia. The number of Christians in the east, where the religion was founded and began its march to dominance thanks in part to the travels of Paul, would've have been considerably higher than in the west.

[Leguleius]

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead" -- Romans, 1:20 (my emphasis)

 

It seems to me Paul here is using the Platonic idea of a dualism between the intelligible and the perceptual worlds with which he would have been familiar as an educated Roman citizen of Asia Minor. I'm sure there are countless other examples of Hellenistic culture influencing Paul's version of Christianity.

 

Interesting stuff.

 

Tom

[Northern Neil]

idahojeri

 

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.

 

 

Blessings,

 

Far from being 'anti - god', many people, including myself, are very 'pro - god' indeed, although we still agree with the view that post - Nicean Christianity borrowed heavily from paganism. Anyone with an objective and unbiased reading of the late Roman period would realise this, and understand fully the political reasons why it happened. Far from being anti - god, we feel it would be nice to know what the early Christians and Jesus himself actually said, rather than having to settle for the revisions of Constantine, Athanasius and others.

 

It must also be said that the vast majority of christian writings on the history of their religion come from those who write history the best - in other words, the winners.

 

It seems to me that if early christians were somehow transported forward into the time of Theodosius, they too would have been persecuted, much like the remainder of the pagans at that time. And probably for being pagans.

Edited June 1, 2006 by Northern Neil

[Dodge]

The Roman objection to Christianity was a horror at the concept of the consumption of the "body and blood" of Christ-and some of course thought this was literal -and if not literal seriously weird!

 

There was also the problem of identity, in the Roman's normative religions, political and ethnic units were the focus for public religious activity ( private religious belief did not take precendence to public cults.) That was one of the reasons some religions were regarded with suspicion ie Christianity, worshippers of Bacchus etc. These religions (and we could add more to the list) cut the normal Roman connection of civic and religious identity. However, that does not add to the orginal post, sorry.

[Ursus]

Far from being 'anti - god', many people, including myself, are very 'pro - god' indeed, although we still agree with the view that post - Nicean Christianity borrowed heavily from paganism. Anyone with an objective and unbiased reading of the late Roman period would realise this, and understand fully the political reasons why it happened.

 

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.

 

Far from being anti - god, we feel it would be nice to know what the early Christians and Jesus himself actually said, rather than having to settle for the revisions of Constantine, Athanasius and others.

 

Nonetheless in the interests of objectivity, I feel must point out something. The High Churches would argue that everything said by Christ and his early compatriots have to be understood in the light of Holy Tradition to which these Churches claim (naturally) to be the guardians. Since Christianity existed 300 years before the words of Christ and his disciples were codified (i.e. the New Testament), the traditions of the Church not recorded on paper are integral to the Christian experience. While any one person can err on their interpretation of Christ

[phil25]

A very good post Ursus, especially your last section.

 

Thinking about this subject over the last few days - this site is very good at getting you thinking, I find - the following struck me.

 

Temple Judaism of the early C1st AD was far from mystic - it was open, based on sacrifice and ritual. Sure there were great teachers like Gamaliel, and the Pharisees and others discussed intellectual issues. But the basis of the religeon and worship was distinctly different from the Greek mystery cults.

 

Jesus, coming from within that culture, even in the gospels, can be seen to be preaching a straightforward message within Judaism. And whatever dates the four gospels were made canonical, he make no mention of setting up an alternative faith (apart from the one reference to Peter) or of breaking with Judaism.

 

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.

 

At least one section of Jesus' followers, under James (the brother of Christ) remained within or strongly associated with Judaism (and in Jerusalem).

 

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 rebirth to be undergone and then things will appear utterly different. Jesus said similar things to people, but in (to me) much less mystic language - read his meeting with Nicodemus.

 

Now it is even possible that Jesus did include initiation in his teachings (I am probing at the evidence now, I personally remain unconvinced of this) and that the raising of Lazarus and the cryptic reference to the naked lad in a sheet in Gethsemane are survivals of this. I believe there is also well documented evidence of an ancient/early excision from Mark's gospel which specifically refers to an initiation ceremony.

 

So I would argue that what evidence we have suggests that Christianity began as a strand within Judaism without any thought of breaking away to found a new sect. However, it may have included mystery elements, including literal initiation (in the form of symbolic rebirth?).

 

It was, however, Paul who changed the language and nature of the emerging faith, making it intellectual, metaphysical and mysterious. I would argue, packaging it for the Hellenistic audiences in the great cities witherto he went - Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, etc.

 

Finally, re-reading an admittedly very old book on Mithraism on a train journey in the week, I was strongly struck by the many similarities to Christianity. The birth of Mithras in a cave; the adoration of shepherds; the presence of magi in Zoroastrian religeon (three kings in the gospel); the last supper; the death and rebirth of the god. Someone has borrowed something here - and as Mithraism is older, I wonder whether the early Christians found themselves adding bits to THEIR legend. After all, the nativity is in only two of the four gospels (and different in each) ...

 

Oh for a time machine!! I think we might be in for a few surprises if we went back.

 

Phil

[Pantagathus]

For what it's worth, I had to sit through an Episcopal service yesterday on the Pentecost (For a little cousin's baptism) and the Reverend made mention of the "mystery" of/in Christ at least 5 times throughout the service.

 

This stuck me as quite appropriate given what the Pentecost is about and what we generally understand most of the Mystery religions to have been about (& what I mentioned on the first page of this thread):

 

The triumph of life over death in the form of resurrection, and the communion between initiates in celebration of it.

 

Pentecost was originally an Old Testament festival, since the time of Josephus calculated as beginning on the fiftieth day after the beginning of Passover. In the Christian calendar, it falls on the seventh Sunday after Easter. It was called the Feast of Weeks (Shavuot), and in the Old Testament was originally an agricultural festival celebrating and giving thanks for the "first fruits" of the early spring harvest (Lev 23, Exod 23, 34).

 

For Christians, Pentecost Sunday is a day to celebrate hope, a hope evoked by the knowledge that God through His Holy Spirit is at work among His people. It is a celebration of newness, of recreation, of renewal of purpose, mission, and calling as God

[idahojeri]

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.

Edited June 26, 2006 by idahojeri

[idahojeri]

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

[idahojeri]

[

 

[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

[caldrail]

Since Christianity existed 300 years before the words of Christ and his disciples were codified (i.e. the New Testament)

 

Surely thats not possible. Christianity by definition is the worship of Jesus as the son of god. There were certainly a number of judaic religions/cults around that time.

[Ursus]

Christianity as a legitimate, organized, codified religion didn't exist until the church councils of the fourth century. Yes, it existed before then, but as something of an underground movement, with various flavors deemed "heretical" by the mainstream church.

 

The point is that while Xtianity existed before its creeds were articulated by council, it's guide was Tradition. Solo Scriptura doesn't make sense therefore from the perspective of the high churches.

 

I personally don't really care one way or another. Just summarizing the arguments.

[Pertinax]

Aha ! moderating glitch there, the thread re-appears by magic.

 

my apologies if you were searching for this topic whilst I was editing.

[Northern Neil]

http://www.vexen.co.uk/books/jesusmysteries.html

 

Please click on the above link, everyone. I have a copy of this book; its scholarly credentials are good, and its references very comprehensive. Many of the stories related by Jesus, and ascribed to him in the Bible, appear in just about every other religion in the Eastern meditterranean from about 1000 BC up to (and after, in the case of Mithraism) the time of Jesus. In late antiquity, this was so obvious and widely known that the very dubious theory of 'Diabolical mimicry' was the only way of explaining these blinding similarities. I do not think that this in any way alters the basic message of Christianity or its validity as a religion, and I am puzzled as to why some people get so hot under the collar about it. It simply casts doubt on the authenticity of the Bible as an historical document.

 

But then, it is quite clear from the apocryphal gospels, and parts of the canonical gospel of John, that Christianity was a mystery religion just like many others, before it was edited by Constantine, Eusebius and Athanasius. Prior to the third century or thereabouts, the stories in the Bible were not meant to be regarded as historical fact, except by new initiates and people only peripherally associated with the religion. They were allegories. But then, this book didn't really tell me anything I didn't already suspect from reading the Gnostic Gospels, the apocrypha, the Bible itself and other works on Egyptian, Mesopotamian and Graeco/Roman religion. It merely packages all the evidence in one volume and makes sense of it all.

 

I have already posted this on another part of the forum; however, I think it is probably better at home here.

Edited July 19, 2006 by Northern Neil

[phil25]

Idahojeri wrote:

 

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.

 

Where is the evidence for the first statement?

 

As I and others have argued in other threads, the so-called Neronian persecutions appear a myth. If nothing else, where did all these "Christians" spring from BEFORE the diaspora of the 70s AD?

 

Phil