![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
The vast majority of this article seems to have been plagurized from here http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mithras/display.php?page=mithras_and_christianity
Not only that, the entire point of it's existence appears to be to defend Christianity from charges of similarity to Mithras.
Agreed. This article has an entirely self-servicing bias towards the ill-fated idea that Christianity was an authochonous religion. There are plethora of authors, in the majority, that uphold the view that the Mithras were essential influence to the development of christianity. This article needs to be restructured. 167.1.146.100 ( talk) 22:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't see any plagiarism at the tertulian link cited above. I read that article and no large-scale lifting of material is seen anywhere. Do you have the right link ?? Sooku ( talk) 08:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
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)
The older title was worse.
86.24.11.18 ( talk) 22:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
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)
And, could you also explain how my rendering of Meyer was off base?- Civilizededucation talk 00:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
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 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!
This article needs to be watched for neutrality. Right now it gives one-sided story giving the Christian apologists last word in each case. -- 99.232.204.149 ( talk) 00:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. The author is intentionally obfuscating the many similarities between the Christian Jesus and the God Mithras - specifically, the attributes, biography, and original cult as it was practiced in the Roman Empire in the period during which it overlapped with early Christianity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.8.100 ( talk) 03:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
The above issue is notable in the 25th of December section, where "It is often stated that Mithras was thought to have been born on December 25. But Beck states that this is not the case." A single 1987 journal article (by a single author, Beck) is the only source cited in support of "not the case." No sources at all have been provided for "It is often stated...". The Wikipedian arguing and documenting the anti-Dec-25 case seems to have conceded that the consensus is on the other side, but he's not willing to be a fair broker for it. Worse, he overstates Beck's argument, which is not as firm a denial as "this is not the case." Beck only charges a non sequitur, thus 'not proven':
Oh, as to "probably", why would two gods sharing the title "Sol Invictus" NOT "probably" share a birthday when the physical sun returns from darkness every year? It seems more rather than less likely.
But we needn't strain our eyes peering into the dark mists of lost antiquity. One of the world's oldest continuously practiced religions, from the homeland of Mithra, is still with us, still remembers him, and still celebrates his birthday. The present-day Iran Chamber Society's Ramona Shashaani shares traditional 'Persian' (i.e. 'Parsee' = Zoroastrian) culture and history:
Why look away from where the evidence is? Arguments from ignorance are fruitless. – •Raven .talk 12:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Note that the NON-opensourced Encyclopaedia Britannica firmly states: "December 25th... was also the birthday of the Indo-European deity Mithra, a god of light and loyalty whose cult was at the time growing popular among Roman soldiers." – •Raven .talk 13:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Third- and fourth-century Christians admitted sharing the date, even if as a mere coincidence — per the Catholic Encyclopaedia, which quotes St. Cyprian of Carthage (200-258) as saying, "O, how wonderfully acted Providence that on that day on which that Sun was born.... Christ should be born". Further:
The CE begins that section of the article by saying, "The well-known solar feast, however, of Natalis Invicti, celebrated on 25 December, has a strong claim on the responsibility for our December date."
Beck attempts to argue that the date for the birthday of Aurelian's public god Sol Invictus was set completely independently and separately from "a different, earlier, and unofficial sun god, Sol Invictus Mithras", any resemblance purely coincidental... overlooking the tiny detail of how many Roman legionaries were Mithraists. By using a slightly more generic title, Aurelian allowed NON-initiates of the mystery religion to share in the celebration, while letting Mithraists interpret the title as their own deity's or as his lord's whom he served as soldier (i.e. Ahura Mazda). – •Raven .talk 11:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mithras in comparison with other belief systems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
The vast majority of this article seems to have been plagurized from here http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mithras/display.php?page=mithras_and_christianity
Not only that, the entire point of it's existence appears to be to defend Christianity from charges of similarity to Mithras.
Agreed. This article has an entirely self-servicing bias towards the ill-fated idea that Christianity was an authochonous religion. There are plethora of authors, in the majority, that uphold the view that the Mithras were essential influence to the development of christianity. This article needs to be restructured. 167.1.146.100 ( talk) 22:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't see any plagiarism at the tertulian link cited above. I read that article and no large-scale lifting of material is seen anywhere. Do you have the right link ?? Sooku ( talk) 08:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
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)
The older title was worse.
86.24.11.18 ( talk) 22:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
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)
And, could you also explain how my rendering of Meyer was off base?- Civilizededucation talk 00:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
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 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!
This article needs to be watched for neutrality. Right now it gives one-sided story giving the Christian apologists last word in each case. -- 99.232.204.149 ( talk) 00:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. The author is intentionally obfuscating the many similarities between the Christian Jesus and the God Mithras - specifically, the attributes, biography, and original cult as it was practiced in the Roman Empire in the period during which it overlapped with early Christianity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.8.100 ( talk) 03:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
The above issue is notable in the 25th of December section, where "It is often stated that Mithras was thought to have been born on December 25. But Beck states that this is not the case." A single 1987 journal article (by a single author, Beck) is the only source cited in support of "not the case." No sources at all have been provided for "It is often stated...". The Wikipedian arguing and documenting the anti-Dec-25 case seems to have conceded that the consensus is on the other side, but he's not willing to be a fair broker for it. Worse, he overstates Beck's argument, which is not as firm a denial as "this is not the case." Beck only charges a non sequitur, thus 'not proven':
Oh, as to "probably", why would two gods sharing the title "Sol Invictus" NOT "probably" share a birthday when the physical sun returns from darkness every year? It seems more rather than less likely.
But we needn't strain our eyes peering into the dark mists of lost antiquity. One of the world's oldest continuously practiced religions, from the homeland of Mithra, is still with us, still remembers him, and still celebrates his birthday. The present-day Iran Chamber Society's Ramona Shashaani shares traditional 'Persian' (i.e. 'Parsee' = Zoroastrian) culture and history:
Why look away from where the evidence is? Arguments from ignorance are fruitless. – •Raven .talk 12:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Note that the NON-opensourced Encyclopaedia Britannica firmly states: "December 25th... was also the birthday of the Indo-European deity Mithra, a god of light and loyalty whose cult was at the time growing popular among Roman soldiers." – •Raven .talk 13:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Third- and fourth-century Christians admitted sharing the date, even if as a mere coincidence — per the Catholic Encyclopaedia, which quotes St. Cyprian of Carthage (200-258) as saying, "O, how wonderfully acted Providence that on that day on which that Sun was born.... Christ should be born". Further:
The CE begins that section of the article by saying, "The well-known solar feast, however, of Natalis Invicti, celebrated on 25 December, has a strong claim on the responsibility for our December date."
Beck attempts to argue that the date for the birthday of Aurelian's public god Sol Invictus was set completely independently and separately from "a different, earlier, and unofficial sun god, Sol Invictus Mithras", any resemblance purely coincidental... overlooking the tiny detail of how many Roman legionaries were Mithraists. By using a slightly more generic title, Aurelian allowed NON-initiates of the mystery religion to share in the celebration, while letting Mithraists interpret the title as their own deity's or as his lord's whom he served as soldier (i.e. Ahura Mazda). – •Raven .talk 11:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mithras in comparison with other belief systems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)