Re: Mithra

From: <>
Date: Tue Apr 05 2005 - 17:57:29 EDT

In a message dated 4/5/05 4:05:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, writes:
I used to argue with a Catholic friend of mine. He bought into every church
dogma without equivocation. Transubstantiation (wine of the Eucharist turns
into the blood of Christ in your tummy), the Immaculate Conception (Mary had no
natural father), the appointing of saints (Pope calls the shots) were
irrefutable beliefs in his mind and open to inquiry in my mind. I don't think
Catholicism is "wrong," it just has some baggage I can't buy into.
The Immaculate Conception does not imply Mary had no natural father. You're
thinking of the virgin birth. The immaculate conception arose out of the
traditional assumption and celebration of Mary as the perfect receptacle for Jesus,
the son of God. It only means she was full of God's grace from the beginning
and did not have the stain of original sin. In psychological terms it means she
always displayed perfect behavior, doing God's will intuitively and the
assumption is that she was capable of perfect behavior from birth while the rest of
us are capable of both good and evil.

As for Mithraism, if it resembles Christianity, that is not unusual. AT
Olmstead says Persian religion traveled from Zela (Armenia) to Cappadocia, south to
Cilicia where the Persians took over the cult of Mithra. Armenia was the
first Christian country in 311 prompting Constantine to adopt Christianity in 313
in league with the Armenians against the Parthians in the East. It was for
that reason Constantine began to build churches in the East to solidify the
frontier the same way Cyrus had financed the Jewish temple in Jerusalem to
strengthen Israel as a buffer state between Mesopotamia and Egypt which the Persians
later conquered, and of course, destroying the Egyptian temples in the process
while leaving the Jewish temple at Elephantine intact.
Received on Tue Apr 5 17:58:32 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Apr 05 2005 - 17:58:34 EDT