The Truth Behind the Christ Myth: Ancient Origins of the Often Used Legend

a reply to: chr0naut

Mithra is definitely a sun deity, though not to the Parsees he was Sol Invictus to the Romans who would have learned it from Persians or other Asians.

Regardless, the sun and Moon being called his friends makes him a divinity of BOTH, not neither, not a god but a mediator of sorts, a unique entity to the Persians and Zoroastrian monotheists alike.

More important to the Magian.

And yes, a divinity associated with the sun.

originally posted by: SethTsaddik
a reply to: SargonThrall

Mithra is a sun god that was popular in Persia.

Originally just a kind of yazata or angel in Mazdaism that was incorporated from India Mithra is older (Mitra) than even Zoroastrianism.

And that's old. Definitely older than Judaism or Christianity.

Someone said that Zoroastrian literature doesn't say much about Mithra, that is because he was a minor character that Zoroaster was against worshipping.

Mithra comes from Mitra in India and is not Zoroastrian or Persian in origin like they said, he goes back to pre Persian-Indian war times.

And not really Persian or important in Zoroastrianism.

More among the Magian tribes.

The Persian Mitra was not the Sun god.

The Vedic Mitra was not the Sun god.

The Zoroastrian Mithra was not the Sun god.

The Roman Mithras was not originally the Sun god, but changed.

The Roman cult was highly syncretic, taking in Greek, pagan Roman, Christian and Persian influences.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: SethTsaddik
a reply to: SargonThrall

Mithra is a sun god that was popular in Persia.

Originally just a kind of yazata or angel in Mazdaism that was incorporated from India Mithra is older (Mitra) than even Zoroastrianism.

And that's old. Definitely older than Judaism or Christianity.

Someone said that Zoroastrian literature doesn't say much about Mithra, that is because he was a minor character that Zoroaster was against worshipping.

Mithra comes from Mitra in India and is not Zoroastrian or Persian in origin like they said, he goes back to pre Persian-Indian war times.

And not really Persian or important in Zoroastrianism.

More among the Magian tribes.

The Persian Mitra was not the Sun god.

The Zoroastrian Mitra was not the Sun god.

The Roman Mithras was not originally the Sun god, but changed.

Oh you said so, I guess it's true.

Sorry, you even supplied a quote supporting association with the sun.

And, factually speaking, you're incorrect on all 3 counts.

Mitra is the Indian spelling btw.

Mithra Persian.

Mithras Roman.

Sun divinities all.

a reply to: CB328

I was well aware of the Pagan influences in Christianity, but I wasn't familiar with this Green man, who seems to be the basis of it all.

I think that is too much of a leap. Its clear from writings attibuted to Pliny the Younger that Rome saw Christians as a threat to Roman control so Rome may have modified Christianity through the ages as a tool to control the masses (Paulism, Introducing pagan beliefs etc).

The Dead Sea Scrolls have nothing say nothing about Jesus nor John the Baptist so we can assume Jesus wasn't a Jew in the religious sense. Gospel of Thomas supports this notion in sayings attributed to him, as he seems to identify Jews as a different party...

His disciples said to him, "Who are you, that you should say these things to us?" "You do not realize who I am from what I say to you, but you have become like the Jews, for they (either) love the tree and hate its fruit (or) love the fruit and hate the tree."

Jesus said, "The pharisees and the scribes have taken the keys of knowledge (gnosis) and hidden them. They themselves have not entered, nor have they allowed to enter those who wish to. You, however, be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves.

So we can only speculate to Jesus original faith from the Gosepls themselves, which opens with the three kings or magi following the star of bethleham. As identified by Roman historians, the magi were zoroastrian priests and their belief was of a savior, born of a virgin mother. It is also noteworthy that the Zoroastrian initiation was baptism, by blood, urine, or water, whereas Jewish initian is circumcision (universal male practice in ancient Egypt).

From Gospel of Thomas on circumcision...

His disciples said to him, "Is circumcision beneficial or not?" He said to them, "If it were beneficial, their father would beget them already circumcised from their mother. Rather, the true circumcision in spirit has become completely profitable."

But its also interesting that another sect from Jerusalem called the Mandaeans here recognize John the Baptist as a prophet and Jesus his pupil as perverting the teachings entrusted to him by John the Baptist.

So the mystery deepens! Was John the Baptist the true prophet?

a reply to: chr0naut

I recommend if you want to argue against something you don't supply evidence that directly contradicts you.

I already knew all this, I like reading, I have no concerns about being wrong on this so feel free to argue all you like and I will wait until you are done and then supply evidence.

a reply to: glend

Just because the DSS don't mention Jesus doesn't mean he was not Jewish.

In fact if you read the Scrolls you will see proto Christian theology everywhere.

It's becoming more known, documentaries on TV and the like.

I recommend reading the DSS AND DSS Uncovered. You will not see Jesus but his religion you will.

originally posted by: SethTsaddik

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: SethTsaddik
a reply to: SargonThrall

Mithra is a sun god that was popular in Persia.

Originally just a kind of yazata or angel in Mazdaism that was incorporated from India Mithra is older (Mitra) than even Zoroastrianism.

And that's old. Definitely older than Judaism or Christianity.

Someone said that Zoroastrian literature doesn't say much about Mithra, that is because he was a minor character that Zoroaster was against worshipping.

Mithra comes from Mitra in India and is not Zoroastrian or Persian in origin like they said, he goes back to pre Persian-Indian war times.

And not really Persian or important in Zoroastrianism.

More among the Magian tribes.

The Persian Mitra was not the Sun god.

The Zoroastrian Mitra was not the Sun god.

The Roman Mithras was not originally the Sun god, but changed.

Oh you said so, I guess it's true.

Sorry, you even supplied a quote supporting association with the sun.

And, factually speaking, you're incorrect on all 3 counts.

Mitra is the Indian spelling btw.

Mithra Persian.

Mithras Roman.

Sun divinities all.

An association with the Sun does not imply that Mithra IS the Sun.

The text I referenced clearly says that Ahura Mazda is 'like' the Sun (in several places). 15 specifically describes the friendship between Ahura Mazda and Mithra as being like the friendship between the Sun and the Moon. Taken in context, that would equate Mithra more with the Moon, rather than the Sun. The essence of the entire section is that the Sun is separate to, but like, Ahura Mazda, and to a lesser extent, Mithra.

You haven't supplied any supportive links at all as far as I can see and I don't acknowledge you as an expert in the field, so unless you can furnish me with some actual supportive data, I probably won't be swayed by your beliefs, no matter how fervently held.

a reply to: glend

Interesting thing, I was reading about a recent Mandaean who got baptized and compared it with Jesus' baptism.

The Codex Nazareus is the Gnza Rabba or scripture of the Mandaeans, it's in the Yohann book of the Mandaeans that Jesus is called Jeshu Nebu the false Messiah.

It's in Aramaic too. A language where Paulis means deciever, which is strange considering the false prophet Saul/Paul was named Paulus or Pol for short.

But they don't actually hate Jesus, I think it was Jesus as a symbol of the church that stole his name they were against.

Interesting enough they were called Nazarenes before Mandaeans, and are mentioned in the Qur'an as Sabaens, though that confuses me because I thought a Sabaen was something different. Maybe not, maybe translation confusion, I don't know.

They are a mystery.

a reply to: SethTsaddik

If Jesus was a prophet of Judiasm they would have definately written about him in DSS. There is nothing about him nor John the Baptist so the silence tells much. Even today, Jewish priest see Chistianity as a false teaching and forbid their followers from praying in Christian Churches because of Idoltry etc (although they will allow Jews to pray in Mosque if a synagogue isn't available). The proto Christian theology you recognize could stem from Zorostrian which was a widepsread religion at the time.

Note, I am not saying NT is wrong, nor Jesus wasn't enlightened, just trying to see through the eyes of others. Obviously its hard to be certain of anything without unadulterated sources from 1AD.

a reply to: chr0naut

Yeah, I don't think you know as much as you pretend to.

The fact that you are denying a rather well known historical fact doesn't inspire confidence.

There is no argument, Mitra, Mithra and Mithras were all associated with the sun, either accept it, deny it, or whatever you want to do.

He will still be associated with the sun when you are finished.

originally posted by: SethTsaddik
a reply to: glend

Interesting thing, I was reading about a recent Mandaean who got baptized and compared it with Jesus' baptism.

The Codex Nazareus is the Gnza Rabba or scripture of the Mandaeans, it's in the Yohann book of the Mandaeans that Jesus is called Jeshu Nebu the false Messiah.

It's in Aramaic too. A language where Paulis means deciever, which is strange considering the false prophet Saul/Paul was named Paulus or Pol for short.

But they don't actually hate Jesus, I think it was Jesus as a symbol of the church that stole his name they were against.

Interesting enough they were called Nazarenes before Mandaeans, and are mentioned in the Qur'an as Sabaens, though that confuses me because I thought a Sabaen was something different. Maybe not, maybe translation confusion, I don't know.

They are a mystery.

Yes, which makes them very interesting! I'd love to see any writings they have from John the Baptist eh.

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: SethTsaddik

If Jesus was a prophet of Judiasm they would have definately written about him in DSS. There is nothing about him nor John the Baptist so the silence tells much. Even today, Jewish priest see Chistianity as a false teaching and forbid their followers from praying in Christian Churches because of Idoltry etc (although they will allow Jews to pray in Mosque if a synagogue isn't available). The proto Christian theology you recognize could stem from Zorostrian which was a widepsread religion at the time.

Note, I am not saying NT is wrong, nor Jesus wasn't enlightened, just trying to see through the eyes of others. Obviously its hard to be certain of anything without unadulterated sources from 1AD.

No, his not being written about in the Scrolls doesn't mean that, the Talmud mentions him, negatively but still, and that is a giant assumption.

The Scrolls don't use names of living people, that means what your saying is not correct or proof of anything.

I was clear when I said he was not mentioned in the Scrolls, but the Righteous Teacher could have been his archetype so who knows, maybe they just mingled some stuff together and birthed a myth off that.

Who knows, but they just didn't mention people by name who were living for some reason, so that means nothing that he was not mentioned other than he was not mentioned.

But his religion IS in the Scrolls.

a reply to: glend

And Judaism was influenced by Zoroastrianism centuries prior to the DSS, Christianity only adopted it from Judaism, so indirectly.

I have no doubt that the Scrolls have Persian influence, but the parts that are like Christianity don't come from Zoroastrianism at all.

12 and 3 leaders (Community rule) and the terms they use for themselves, reverence for Melchizedek as divine, the Davidic Messiah and priestly Messiah, end of days apocalypticism, destruction of Rome hoped for.

That's just a little bit, seriously, the book is 6$ for a hardcopy, don't ask why but nobody reads them.

I recommend it. You can read the DSS Uncovered online for free too.

a reply to: SethTsaddik

But his religion IS in the Scrolls.

You might have difficulty convincing a Rabbi on that matter....



Personally I don't have any meat on either plate, interested only in the truth.

a reply to: glend

You can read the John book and the rest at Gnosticism.com.

a reply to: glend

I actually think a Rabbi would be more inclined to agree, and many do for that matter.

As well as Christian scholars.

a reply to: SethTsaddik

Al-Khidr or the Green Man is one of the four immortals

fracidus in the fruchtbringende gesellschaft

Johann Valentin Andreae

he is still green - 1646

originally posted by: SethTsaddik
a reply to: chr0naut

Yeah, I don't think you know as much as you pretend to.

The fact that you are denying a rather well known historical fact doesn't inspire confidence.

There is no argument, Mitra, Mithra and Mithras were all associated with the sun, either accept it, deny it, or whatever you want to do.

He will still be associated with the sun when you are finished.

If it is so well known, perhaps you could provide a supportive link from a credible source?

originally posted by: SethTsaddik
a reply to: glend

And Judaism was influenced by Zoroastrianism centuries prior to the DSS, Christianity only adopted it from Judaism, so indirectly.

I have no doubt that the Scrolls have Persian influence, but the parts that are like Christianity don't come from Zoroastrianism at all.

12 and 3 leaders (Community rule) and the terms they use for themselves, reverence for Melchizedek as divine, the Davidic Messiah and priestly Messiah, end of days apocalypticism, destruction of Rome hoped for.

That's just a little bit, seriously, the book is 6$ for a hardcopy, don't ask why but nobody reads them.

I recommend it. You can read the DSS Uncovered online for free too.

Saul/Paul spent three years as a novice essene so think you might be recognizing comparisions between DSS with paulism and his flavour of Chrisitianity. Zoroastrian hymes are said to be very similar to vedic hymes, so might be offsprang from hinduism.

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: SethTsaddik

If Jesus was a prophet of Judiasm they would have definately written about him in DSS. There is nothing about him nor John the Baptist so the silence tells much. Even today, Jewish priest see Chistianity as a false teaching and forbid their followers from praying in Christian Churches because of Idoltry etc (although they will allow Jews to pray in Mosque if a synagogue isn't available). The proto Christian theology you recognize could stem from Zorostrian which was a widepsread religion at the time.

Note, I am not saying NT is wrong, nor Jesus wasn't enlightened, just trying to see through the eyes of others. Obviously its hard to be certain of anything without unadulterated sources from 1AD.

The majority of the scrolls have been dated to centuries before Christ. For some, the dating is not accurate enough to say if they are 1st century. Also, many of these are commentaries on ealier texts. As such, it is unlikely that they would mention any 1st century events.

The idea that the DSS were post Christian was originally proposed by Robert Eisenman, who also called for accurate carbon dating of the DSS, which he believed would support his theories.

The carbon dating has been done (on some scrolls, several times) and the results agree with each other, showing a strongly pre-Christian mean with a 2-sigma (95%) confidence.

Here's a Wikipedia article on it.

While Eisenman was dissappointed with the results, he has criticised the dating methods applied so far and suggests that his idea of 'Christian' Essenes (as opposed to Barbara Theiring's Essene Christ, which is also debunked) is correct and that dating should be ignored in preference to what he infers the scrolls are saying.