WI: Josuha-ben-Josef was seen as the son of Mithras?

[Count Dearborn]

What if fledgling Christianity had undergone syncretism with Mithraism, and out of it, Christ was seen as the son of Mithras?

[Malta Shah]

Well, that would odd and interesting.

Actually, I think the early skeptics of Jesus believed him to be a son of Dionysus or Bacchus. I mean, they (Dionysus and Jesus) do have alot in common.

Now to be the son of Mithras, hmmm thats complicated actually. Well, to get people to think that he was Mithra's son he would have to say that he was the Son of Mithras (Which would have indeed made him very popular with the Roman Legions). For later Christians to think of him as the Son of Mithras would be nigh implausable, as the other Christian sects would no doubt gang up on the sect that thought him as any other son then Yahwehs.

[Osakadave]

He'd probably end up associated with a Mystery Cult.

[Lord Grattan]

Originally Posted by Count Dearborn

What if fledgling Christianity had undergone syncretism with Mithraism, and out of it, Christ was seen as the son of Mithras?

The Jesus sect of Mithraism would have as large a following today as any other sect of Mithraism around the world does.

[rcduggan]

Originally Posted by Count Dearborn

What if fledgling Christianity had undergone syncretism with Mithraism, and out of it, Christ was seen as the son of Mithras?

Then I can't see *Christianity doing very well. Mithraism was the kind of religion where most people were ignorant of any scripture and just participated in various ceremonies (IIRC). Furthermore, I can't see the Jews being very receptive to a new strain of Mithraism, which means that his religion will probably not get off the ground.

Random note: for what it's worth, a Google search reveals that there are theories that Christianity "borrowed" many basic elements from the Mithraic mysteries.

[carlton_bach]

Not that that makes it impossible, but you might have people asking what good is the son of the son of God, a saviour begot by a saviour.

More importantly, though, Mithra worship isn't very big yet in 1st century Rome. The most likely result is a small syncretistic strand of Mithraism that the mainstream may want to disavow. Unless it somehow manages to still replicate Christianity's killer applications, it's not likely to get very big IMO.

[Lysandros Aikiedes]

I for one never understood why people think that the Cult of Mithras could have made a viable state religion. Mithraism was Henotheistic, and was more often than not, strictly for men with a military or combat oriented background. It would either have to had it's standards changed or evolve itself beyond it's nature somewhat, or remain as a mystery cult within a larger universal Polytheist society.

[the_lyniezian]

Originally Posted by Tomb

Well, that would odd and interesting.

Actually, I think the early skeptics of Jesus believed him to be a son of Dionysus or Bacchus. I mean, they (Dionysus and Jesus) do have alot in common.

Now to be the son of Mithras, hmmm thats complicated actually. Well, to get people to think that he was Mithra's son he would have to say that he was the Son of Mithras (Which would have indeed made him very popular with the Roman Legions). For later Christians to think of him as the Son of Mithras would be nigh implausable, as the other Christian sects would no doubt gang up on the sect that thought him as any other son then Yahwehs.

I think I read some article on the internet that shoots that assumption down fairly well. I think the whole Jesus-Bacchus argument is just some over-enthusiastic historians trying to draw parallels where none exist.

[the_lyniezian]

I would suggest that any view of Jesus as the son of Mithras would have to come several centuries later than Christianity's foundation, similar to what I understand of the likes of Gnosticism, as it is very unlikely (less likely than Gnosticism I think) that Mithraism is going to have a positive impact on Jewish thought or, as carlton_bach mentioned, it generally wasn't a big deal yet. And that is just from a secular viewpoint.

[Malta Shah]

Originally Posted by the_lyniezian

I think I read some article on the internet that shoots that assumption down fairly well. I think the whole Jesus-Bacchus argument is just some over-enthusiastic historians trying to draw parallels where none exist.

Yet you find massive amounts of material with parallels bewteen the two. Obviously Jesus or his story was influenced by the Great Wine Maker. Dionysus was here first anyway.

[the_lyniezian]

Originally Posted by Tomb

Yet you find massive amounts of material with parallels bewteen the two. Obviously Jesus or his story was influenced by the Great Wine Maker. Dionysus was here first anyway.

And a lot of non-parallels. I can't cite any, but I might try looking something up...

EDIT: For starters: http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/dionysus.html
http://www.kingdavid8.com/Copycat/JesusDionysus.html

[Malta Shah]

Originally Posted by the_lyniezian

And a lot of non-parallels. I can't cite any, but I might try looking something up...

EDIT: For starters: http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/dionysus.html
http://www.kingdavid8.com/Copycat/JesusDionysus.html

I agree and disagree with some of these. Fatefully the strange truth of the matter is left to sources over a thousand of years old all pointing at different points. The truth is left to the mystery of the divine.

[el t]

Who is Joshua-ben-Josef?

[Constantius]

Originally Posted by el t

Who is Joshua-ben-Josef?

Yeshua [Jesus], Son of Joseph

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by el t

Who is Joshua-ben-Josef?

Did you ever answer my question on whether or not to not believe in Buddha and Mahavira?

[MarkA]

Originally Posted by Osakadave

He'd probably end up associated with a Mystery Cult.

Good one. The only mystery however is why all these miracles attributed to him are not attested to by any source outside the ones written many decades afterwards or that Paul seems completely unaware of his physical life.