FR> What do you think about the times that Paul/Saul, the Terrorist of
FR> Tarsus, denied publically that he was in fact from Tarsus?  I can't
FR> help but wonder if he was embarrassed by the Mithra religion that he
FR> grew up in.
I also note that whoever wrote the first-person account of Paul/Saul had
him deny being a Roman citizen twice.  Since he was a Jew taught by one of
the more enlightened Rabbis, I would have thought being acknowledged as a
Roman citizen when he was in Athens would have been impressive.
And I think it amusing how quickly Paul/Saul and his band fled Athens
after getting soundly debunked by the thinkers in that great city.  }:-}
It rather reminds me of HolySmoke.  }:-}
db> I was not aware of that, nor that Tarsus was Mithraic.  The Ionian
db> cities were I thought, rather hostile to Persian culture and thus,
db> cosmologies or religion.  At that time, the region was part of the
db> Roman hegemony, which was rather lightly laid on Greek culture, as
db> we have been with the British.
Mithra had been firmly established among the inhabitants of Tarsus though,
just like any city one finds in "Westernized" cities, it was never a
majority.  The real question is whether Paul/Saul adopted Mithras or not.
Some clues are in the Mithra rituals paralleled in the Christian bible.
The "rebirth" of Lazarus -- Jesus's homosexual lover -- could very well be
the Mithratic ritual of "rebirthing" a man by placing him into the belly of
an animal and "rebirthing" him.
One of the books in my library discusses the rich parallels between the
rituals in the Christian bible and what is known of Mithratic rituals.
db> While the Romans were tolerant, even admiring of Greek paganism, I
db> thought they were intolerant of anything from the Persia, where on
db> several occasions they had had military disasters- e.g. Crassus.
I think they were tolerant of polytheism and feared a monotheistic religion
which could be used to unify those they occupied.
db> My perception is that Paul pandered to the sensibilities of Romans
db> in many ways, and would have, if he had had a Mithraic background,
db> tried to keep it quiet.  In Romans 13, *he* established the divine
db> right of kings [emperors], and in Philemon, established the rights
db> of slave owners- neither of which, was in keeping with the ancient
db> Greek concepts of self determination and republican traditions.
Isn't much of the details concerning slavery in the Christian bible copied
from the Code of Hammurabi?
db> I wish I knew more about Zoroaster and Mithras.  Joseph Campbell's
db> book on occidental mythology reports that when Mithras was born, a
db> group of shepards, 'watching their flocks by night' witnessed this
db> event with a 'heavenly host of angels'.  It rather looks like Rome
db> regarded the eastern mythology as ludicrous.
I don't see how they could consider it any different than all the other
religions, gods, and goddesses they had.
But yeah, the origins of Christianity are well established with Mithras.
Mithra was born to a virgin, from a rock, in a cave and came to "save"
humanity in some undefined way.
db> Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire suggests that, while
db> the government and the population regarded pagan belief as equally
db> true, the philosophers regarded it as equally false, and the Roman
db> emperors as equally useful.  St. Paul's succeess with Christianity
db> was in making it a little *more* useful.
I've really got to get a copy of that and read it.  I have several extracts
from the book in my archives and I know it's a valuable detailed examination
into the history of the Roman Empire.
And I recall the movie, "Sparticus" where the Roman property owner was
asked by another whether he believed in the gods.  The answer was,
"Publically I believe in all of them.  Privately in none of them."  It is
useful to governments to have religion among their populace.
---
---------------