HALF-BAKED

HALF-BAKED

(PART VI)

A RESPONSE TO “THE ORIGIN OF PRESENT-DAY CHRISTIAN BELIEFS AS PRESENTED BY THE AUTHORS OF THE URANTIA BOOK”

by Lee Cook

The Magical Mystery Tour

The Christian religion arose through the compounding of numerous teachings, influences, beliefs, cults, and personal individual attitudes. A few will be mentioned. [98:7:3]

THE MYSTERY RELIGIONS. The mystery cults were all characterized by some mythical legend, a mystery. As a rule these mysteries pertained to the story of some god’s life, death, return to life, who had brought salvation to a sin-cursed human race. The mystery cults did much to prepare the way for the rapid spread of the vastly superior Christian teachings. The cult of Mithras, which became the greatest of the cults, made an appeal to a wide range of human nature, including promises of personal salvation and assurances of hope for immortality after death: “deliverance from evil, survival after death, and enduring life in blissful realms beyond this world of sorrow and slavery.” [98:5,6] [121:5:6]

Ms. Cook has now decided to launch the arsenal offered by The UB regarding Christianity’s alleged dependence on mystery religions such as Mithraism. It is a long-established fact that there arose many mystery cults from Egypt and the Levant that the common populace of the Greco-Roman world turned to. The three most popular of these mystery cults were the Phrygian (Turkish) cult of Cybele and Attis, the Egyptian cult of Isis and Osiris, and the cult of Mithras (cf. 98:4.2). During the early to middle part of the twentieth century, it was common for some scholars to question the origin of the Christian faith based on an assumed dependence on a number of these ancient mystery cults, most notably Mithraism.

Predictably, the cult of Mithras is given special attention in The UB, the last three sections of Paper 98 being devoted to the cult and its alleged relation to Christianity. Deemed the “greatest of all the mystery cults” (98:5.1), it was Mithraism that “exerted an influence upon later appearing Christianity” (98:5.2), and whose devotees engaged in “the worship of Mithras as the savior and redeemer of sinful mankind” (98:4.2). The following passages reveal which influences from Mithraism The UB considers to be attached to Christianity:

“The cult of Mithras arose in Iran and long persisted in its homeland despite the militant opposition of the followers of Zoroaster. But by the time Mithraism reached Rome, it had become greatly improved by the absorption of many of Zoroaster’s teachings. It was chiefly through the Mithraic cult that Zoroaster’s religion exerted an influence upon later appearing Christianity. (98:5.2)

“The Mithraic cult portrayed a militant god taking origin in a great rock, engaging in valiant exploits, and causing water to gush forth from a rock struck with his arrows. There was a flood from which one man escaped in a specially built boat and a last supper which Mithras celebrated with the sun-god before he ascended into the heavens. This sun-god, or Sol Invictus, was a degeneration of the Ahura-Mazda deity concept of Zoroastrianism. Mithras was conceived as the surviving champion of the sun-god in his struggle with the god of darkness. And in recognition of his slaying the mythical sacred bull, Mithras was made immortal, being exalted to the station of intercessor for the human race among the gods on high.” (98:5.3)

“The adherents of this cult worshiped in caves and other secret places, chanting hymns, mumbling magic, eating the flesh of the sacrificial animals, and drinking the blood. Three times a day they worshiped, with special weekly ceremonials on the day of the sun-god and with the most elaborate observance of all on the annual festival of Mithras, December twenty-fifth. It was believed that the partaking of the sacrament ensured eternal life, the immediate passing, after death, to the bosom of Mithras, there to tarry in bliss until the judgment day. On the judgment day the Mithraic keys of heaven would unlock the gates of Paradise for the reception of the faithful; whereupon all the unbaptized of the living and the dead would be annihilated upon the return of Mithras to earth. It was taught that, when a man died, he went before Mithras for judgment, and that at the end of the world Mithras would summon all the dead from their graves to face the last judgment. The wicked would be destroyed by fire, and the righteous would reign with Mithras forever.” (98:5.4)

“Even the legends of the birth of Jesus on Urantia became tainted with the Roman version of the miraculous birth of the Iranian savior-hero Mithras, whose advent on earth was supposed to have been witnessed by only a handful of gift-bearing shepherds who had been informed of this impending event by angels.” (98:7.7)

The above paragraphs, for which a “Melchizedek of Nedadon” claims authorship, apparently owe a great debt to a passage from a once-popular book entitled This Believing World (1926), written by a London-born American journalist (that is, a mere human) named Lewis Browne. The uncanny similarity between Browne’s and Melchizedek’s description cannot be fully appreciated unless the two are compared directly, which I now invite the reader to do:

“[T]he cult of Mithras, imported from Persia, . . . had arisen out of those primitive elements which the prophet Zoroaster had failed to stamp out. It had spread since from one land to another, . . . finally to Rome. It entered there about the first century B. C., and so ready were the Romans to receive it that soon it was almost dominant in the empire. The root of the mystery was an ancient Persian legend which told of a divine hero named Mithras whose miraculous birth had been witnessed only by a few shepherds come from afar with gifts to adore the wonder-child. Mithras grew up to be the most strenuous champion of the sun-god in his war against the god of darkness, and the climax of his career was a life-and-death struggle with a mythical sacred bull. By finally slaying this bull and letting its blood flood the earth, Mithras gave life to the soil, and earned immortality for himself. Straightway he was exalted to the abode of the Immortals, and there he dwelt as the divine protector of all the faithful on earth. Long before the advent of Christianity we find a significant religion and an elaborate ritual crystallizing around that legend of Mithras. To this day there exist along the Danube and in Northern Africa certain subterranean caves in which are statues and carvings depicting scenes in the tale. Those caves were the secret churches of the Mithraists, and in them all manner of magic rites were once performed. Three times a day, with especial elaborateness on the Sun-day and the twenty-fifth of December, the Mithras priests offered services in the caves. Libations were poured, bells were rung, hymns were chanted, and many candles were burnt. Above all, holy sacraments were administered to the initiated. The flesh of a sacrificial animal was eaten, and its blood was drunk, and thus the celebrants were thought to take on the divinity and immortality of their blessed lord, Mithras. . . . When they died on this earth they expected to ascend to Heaven through seven gates, unlocked by seven keys which the Mithras priests possessed, and in Heaven they hoped to dwell with Mithras until the final Judgment Day. All the unbaptized, both living and dead, were to be totally annihilated on that Judgment Day. Only the redeemed were to be saved, and Mithras, come to earth a second and final time, would administer to each of them a last sacrament, and then cause them to inherit the world in peace and blessedness forevermore.”[1]

Of course, it goes without saying that if these claims of early Christian syncretism are true and a substantial number of these supposed beliefs could be shown to have been well-established prior to the apostolic age, it would be the first step in damaging the credibility of the assertions Christians have traditionally made regarding the origin of Christian theology. If those who claim dependence could offer persuasive proofs, the New Testament would fall under suspicion for concealing Mithraic influence and thereby misrepresenting history. A thinking Christian would be forced to re-evaluate the historic reliability of the faith to which he or she was committed.

But the confidence with which journalist Mr. Browne states his position on Christianity’s flagrant pilfering from Mithraism is misleading, to say the very least. As we shall soon see, none of the alleged parallels between Mithraism and Christianity cited above can be traced back to Mithraic roots before the time of the apostles. Moreover, an honest reading of the New Testament shows that it did not teach a new religion or draw on existing mythology. The foundation stones for Christianity are patently taken from the Old Testament and from the words of Jesus Himself. While it is true that Mithraism eventually became Christianity’s most serious rival, it had no importance in the Roman world during the first century, and could not possibly have influence early Christianity. Only later did Mithraism come close to becoming the dominant religion of the Roman Empire, in the end losing out to Christianity.

Even a simple comparison between some of the fundamental doctrines of Mithraism and Christianity and their historical significance logically removes any notion of similarity. Christianity affirms the physical death and bodily resurrection of Christ. Mithraism, like other pagan religions, has no bodily resurrection. Further, the only death portrayed in the Mithraic myth is that of the sacrificial bull, but no mention of Mithras’ death (much less a sacrificial death) is to be found in any of the available ancient literature. Pagan religions, including Mithraism, were polytheistic (which The UB acknowledges; 98:5.3), whereas Christianity is staunchly monotheistic. The character Mithras is founded on a typically mythological motif taken from an imaginary past, wherein he battled with a primeval bull, thought to be the first act of creation. Mithras slew the bull, which then became the ground of life for the human race. Christianity is based on the historical person Jesus, whose birth, death, and resurrection occurred only a few years before the first New Testament documents were written. The majority of some five hundred witnesses to the resurrection were still alive when the apostle Paul wrote his first letter to the Corinthians (1Cor. 15:6). Mithraism flowered after Christianity, not before, so Christianity could not have copied from Mithraism. The timing is all wrong to have influenced the development of first-century Christianity. The rise of Mithraism occurred after the close of the New Testament canon, too late for it to have influenced the development of first-century Christianity.[2]

Had the “Melchizedek of Nebadon” chosen to borrow from a different literary source, the timing of Mithraism’s influence in the Roman Empire would have been better aligned with current scholarship. Professor H. Donald Spence, Dean of Gloucester University, in his book Early Christianity and Paganism (1904), describes the worship of Mithraism by Aurelian, who served as Emperor of Rome from the years A.D. 270 to 275:

“To him [Aurelian], as to Marcus, the religion of Rome was something more than the official cult, the pledge of Roman unity; it possessed evidently a living reality. To such a sovereign, at once an earnest, even a fanatical Pagan, and a stern military disciplinarian, the Christian, who not only refused to share in the popular religion but positively loathed the objects of the popular cult, was at once a rebel to constituted authority and a standing menace to the State. . . . The especial object of his devotions, whom he hoped to see the centre of the Roman cult, was Mithras, around whose sacred shrine his earliest memories were grouped. The extraordinary popularity of the Mithras worship in Rome and in other great centres, from the earlier years of the second century onwards, has been already noticed. . . . This worship was formally introduced by Trajan, circa A.D. 100, and developed under Commodus, circa A.D. 190, and, though not at first, was subsequently identified before the time of Aurelian with that of the sun. . . . Among the rites and teachings of the cult were many strange customs and doctrines, seemingly borrowed from Christian worship and teaching, such as baptism, redemption by blood, the oblation of bread and wine, the sacred common repast. But here in these outward symbolic ordinances and ritual observances, the resemblance to Christianity ceased. Upon the votaries of the Persian deity no precepts bearing on the higher, purer life seem to have been inculcated. There was no self-denial [cf. 134:6.16], no austere virtue, no need for purity pressed home to the worshippers at the fashionable and favourite shrines.” (Spence, pp. 385, 386; emphasis added)[3]

Not surprisingly, The UB paints a different portrait of the relationship between Mithraism and Christianity during the third century A.D., implying a high degree of syncretism and similitude between the two religions:

“During the third century after Christ, Mithraic and Christian churches were very similar both in appearance and in the character of their ritual. A majority of such places of worship were underground, and both contained altars whose backgrounds variously depicted the sufferings of the savior who had brought salvation to a sin-cursed human race. (98:6.3)

“Always had it been the practice of Mithraic worshipers, on entering the temple, to dip their fingers in holy water. And since in some districts there were those who at one time belonged to both religions, they introduced this custom into the majority of the Christian churches in the vicinity of Rome. Both religions employed baptism and partook of the sacrament of bread and wine.” (98:6.4)

Of course, the UB author is ignoring the obvious—the noted similarities between the two religions indicate that Mithraism may have actually borrowed from Christianity, and not the other way around. In light of the time in which these alleged similarities occurred, “during the third century after Christ,” they provide nothing in support of the claim that Christianity absorbed Mithraic rituals.

The archaeological record provides no assistance either in establishing a pre-apostolic presence of Mithraism in the Roman Empire. Mithraism’s broad geographical presence in the Roman Empire is indeed confirmed by archaeology. However, nearly all dated Mithraic inscriptions and monuments belong to the second through the fourth centuries. According to Vermaseren, “it is not until [the end of the first century] that we actually find in Rome the characteristic representation of Mithras as bull-slayer.” He later adds that no Mithraic monument “can be dated earlier than the end of the first century A.D.”[4]

Let us re-examine the pertinent UB passages more closely for the sake of thoroughness. After all, we would not want to miss any parallels that still exist despite the temporal shortcomings of Browne’s speculations, would we?

Jumping the Gun

Due in part because of the dearth of literary works left behind regarding Mithraism, and partly because it has long been a dead religion, it is not surprising that for the longest time there was only one person in the world who was regarded as any sort of authority on Mithraism, that being the Belgian-born archaeologist and philologist Franz Cumont (1868-1947). Cumont theorized that Mithraic belief was a continuous and fairly invariable religious expression from its earliest Persian roots up into its flowering during the Roman period. The problem was that Cumont was entirely wrong about ancient Persian Mithraism being in continuity with Roman Mithraism. Historians have come to realize that the Roman Mithra was best known for his act of slaying a bull; yet there is no indication that the Persian Mithra ever interacted with a bull for any reason.[5] And to make matters more complex, his followers in Persia, unlike the Roman Mithraists, did not worship in cave-like rooms, did not promulgate levels of initiation, and did not promote secrecy.[6] There really was little resemblance between the two faiths except for the name of the central god, some terminology, and astrological lore of the sort that was coincidentally imported into the Roman Empire from Babylon.[7] Simply put, the Roman Mithra was nothing like his Persian predecessor. The only thing that remained the same was that Mithra kept a loose association with the sun, which was something many gods exhibited.

General’s Orders

For the most part, this paragraph only serves to further illuminate the stark contrasts between Mithraism and Christianity. Mithras was supposedly “born” when he emerged from a rock as a full-grown adult, carrying a knife in one hand and a flaming torch in the other and wearing a cap, whereas Jesus was born a naked and helpless infant. Mithraism was basically an elitist military cult, which leads to skepticism when suggestions are made that it appealed to nonmilitary people like the early Christians. Even The UB acknowledges this significant cultural gap: “The one great difference between Mithraism and Christianity, aside from the characters of Mithras and Jesus, was that the one encouraged militarism while the other was ultrapacific” (98:6.4).

The UB paragraph cited above also introduces other glaring differences between Mithraism and Christianity. We learn from Origen that Mithraism taught the human soul has fallen from its original home in heaven through seven layers of reality, each identified with one of the seven known planets. At each stage of its descent, the soul lost more of its original heavenly characteristics and acquired more defects associated with the material realm. The seven levels of man’s fall then become seven stages that each initiate had to pass through as symbols of his gradual elevation to the purity and communion of his original life. Worshipers of Mithras believed that after death the souls of true disciples are led by Mithras himself through the spheres of the seven planets to their final blessed destination. This belief allows Mithras to be called, rather loosely, a “redeemer-god.”[8] (Note to Urantians: Does this cosmology sound at all familiar to you?)

Sacred Trust

We can immediately dispense with the implied notion that Christianity borrowed the ritual date of December 25 from Mithraism, for nowhere does the New Testament associate this date with any significance pertaining to Jesus. The celebration of Jesus’ birthday on this date is something the later church did; wherever they got the idea from, it was not the apostolic church. Further, any borrowing of this date would have been common, as December 25th was a universally accepted day of sacred festivities being that it was the winter solstice at the time. And ironic though it may seem, Cumont himself acknowledges that December 25^th was not celebrated as Christ’s birthday until the fourth century,[9] something the “Melchizedek of Nebadon” failed to pick up on in his attempt to associate the date with Persian Mithraism, and a clear sign that the alleged “celestial” author chose to pilfer from Lewis Browne’s sloppy journalism rather than from Cumont.

Cumont neglects to offer even an approximate date at which the Mithraic practice of observing the sacraments began.[10] Modern proponents of Cumont’s copycat theory, Freke and Gandy[11] strongly imply that the Christian Church invented the words of Jesus in John 6 which exhort us to “eat the flesh of the Son of Man” after the Mithraic quotation, “He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation.” As it turns out, however, the real source of this quotation, according to Vermaseren,[12] is a medieval text from Persia containing the sayings of Zarathustra, not Mithra.

With respect to alleged parallels relating to the Lord’s Supper, Nash responds:

“Of all the mystery cults, only Mithraism had anything that resembled the Lord’s Supper. A piece of bread and a cup of water were placed before initiates while the priest of Mithras spoke some ceremonial words. But the chronology of Mithraism precludes its sacred meal from influencing first-century Christianity.”[13]

In fact, it may be argued that if there is influence it flows from Christianity to Mithraic practices. It will not do simply to declare that Christ’s followers mimicked Mithraic communion practices. Even to move out of the blocks with this argument, one must document that Mithras’ devotees possessed an equivalent celebration by the early part of the first century. No evidence for this exists.

The only hard evidence of a “salvational” ideology is a graffiti entry found in the Santa Prisca Mithraeum, dated no earlier than 200 AD, which reads, “And us, too, you saved by spilling the eternal blood.”[14] Note, however, that the statement refers to Mithra spilling the blood of the bull, not his own. Note also that the intended meaning of the passage is not “salvation” in the Christian sense (involving freedom from sin), but an ascent through levels of initiation into immortality.

Wynne-Tyson does not cite a source for the claim that Mithras was believed to be the one who would preside over the final judgment. Freke and Gandy allege the same parallel and introduce details about how Mithras would separate the “good” from the “bad.” It is alleged that the story of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25 is a plagiarism of an earlier Mithraic doctrine. Their only source is Cumont, who does not reveal a source for this belief, nor does he supply a date for the supposed Mithraic belief. That Christianity borrowed its doctrines of the second coming of Christ and the final judgment from Mithraism is a statement of pure conjecture. Jesus made no attempt to hide the fact that many of his apocalyptic thoughts mirrored the book of Daniel, which points to the Jewish roots of Christian theology.

Birth of a Notion

The story of the shepherds may or may not have some legitimacy as a tenet of Persian mythical belief. However, no reason is given by The UB to believe that any such belief made its way into Roman Mithraism, and no wonder, since evidence that a pre-Christian story of shepherds attending the birth of a Savior does not exist. Attempts to demonstrate dependence proved too much even for Cumont. The shepherds of Mithra not only “witnessed” his birth (unlike Luke’s shepherds, who were only told of Jesus’ birth by an angelic mediator and visited Him afterward, but bore no gifts for Him; cf. Luke 2:8-20), they also helped Mithra out of the rock, and offered him the first-fruits of their flock. This should be considered quite a feat for these guys in any event, considering that Mithra’s birth took place at a time when men had supposedly not been created on earth yet![15] In addition, the advent of Jesus was witnessed by more than just a handful of shepherds; witnesses included Mary’s betrothed Joseph (Matt. 1:18-25), the wise men from the east (Matt. 2:1-12), and those who were at the temple during Jesus’ circumcision (Luke 2:21-22), including one Simeon (Luke 2:25-35) and one Anna (Luke 2:36-38).

Even Cumont was not so quick to draw conclusive analogies between Christian and Mithraic doctrines, cautioning his readers that “certain ideas and certain ceremonies must necessarily have passed from the one cult to the other; but in the majority of cases we rather suspect this transference than clearly perceive it.”[16] Cumont goes on to reluctantly admit that the parallels he provides are “strained” at best, and that the mythical premises of Mithraism ultimately remain inferior to the historic facts of Christianity:

“Apparently the attempt was made to discern in the legend of the Iranian hero the counterpart of the life of Jesus, and the disciples of the Magi probably drew a direct contrast between the Mithraic worship of the shepherds, the Mithraic communion and ascension, and those of the Gospels. The rock of generation, which had given birth to the genius of light, was even compared to the immovable rock, emblem of Christ, upon which the Church was founded; and the crypt in which the bull had perished was made the counterpart of that in which Christ is said to have been born at Bethlehem. But this strained parallelism could result in nothing but a caricature. It was a strong source of inferiority for Mazdaism that it believed in only a mythical redeemer. That unfailing wellspring of religious emotion supplied by the teachings and the passion of the God sacrificed on the cross, never flowed for the disciples of Mithra.”[17]

Nevertheless, the “Melchizedek of Nebadon” utterly fails to perceive these glaring contrasts and forges ahead with the syncretic nonsense of the likes of Lewis Browne.

My Stars!

The degree to which Mr. Browne’s Mithraic musings relied on the speculative scholarship of his day has also been exposed through subsequent research on the topic. Case in point, Ulansey offers an astonishing observation:

“However, from the beginning there were obvious problems with Cumont’s interpretation. The Western mystery cult of Mithraism as it appeared in the Roman Empire derived its very identity from a number of characteristics which were completely absent from the Iranian worship of Mithra: a series of initiations into ever higher levels of the cult accompanied by strict secrecy about the cult’s doctrines; the distinctive cavelike temples in which the cult’s devotees met; and, most important, the iconography of the cult, in particular the tauroctony. None of these essential characteristics of Western Mithraism were to be found in the Iranian worship of Mithra.”[18]

Notice that even the “tauroctony” (the bull-slaying scene) itself, the centerpiece of Cumont’s story and the all-important element of Roman Mithraism, was nowhere to be found in the East. So what is the source of all the elaborate details surrounding the famous bull-slaying scene?

While Cumont’s assumption of strong continuity is vital for dependency theorists, it has fallen out of favor with contemporary scholarship. At the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies, held in 1971 at the University of Manchester, Cumont’s pillar began to crumble. The lack of evidence of a Persian/Roman connection led several Mithraic scholars to challenge the notion of continuity, suggesting that Roman Mithraism was “a new creation using old Iranian names and details for an exotic coloring to give a suitably esoteric appearance to a mystery cult.”[19] Practically everything once thought to be known about Mithraism in the West had to be revisited. Roman Mithraism was Persian Mithraism in name only, the repackaging of an old religion that used a familiar moniker to attract a new host of devotees compelled by Eastern mystery and intrigue. The position that the tauroctony was based on new astronomical discoveries (and not a combination of various Iranian beliefs) became the standard explanation. As of the Fourth International Congress of Mithraic Studies in 1990, these findings still stood.

But what was at the core of this mysterious new religion? For years Mithraic scholars puzzled over the meaning of the bull-slaying scene. The problem was that the Mithraists left behind pictures without captions. Thus in the 1970s, the Mithraic scholars had to reluctantly admit that their knowledge of the cult’s ideology was based more on conjecture than fact.

Before too long, Mithraic scholars noticed something about the bull-slaying scene. (In retrospect, the scholars had actually revived a hypothesis first posited in 1869 that Cumont, because of his biases, had dismissed.[20]) The various human, animal, and other figures comprised an astrological chart! The bull corresponded with Taurus; the scorpion coincided with Scorpio; the dog matched up with Canis Major, and so on.

What Mithra himself corresponded to took a bit longer to determine. Spiedel first made a case for a correspondence with Orion,[21] but Ulansey has found the better fit with the thesis that Mithra is to be identified with Perseus.[22] Concurrent with Ulansey’s theory is the idea that Roman Mithraism was founded upon a “revolutionary” discovery in ancient astronomy (which was closely linked to astrology in that time) that “the entire cosmic structure was moving in a way which no one had even known before”—a process we now call the precession of the equinoxes. Because it is held that the cult had its origin in Tarsus, a city long under Persian domination and where Perseus was the leading god, Perseus was the perfect choice. Ulansey theorizes that the cultists chose the name of Mithra (a Persian god), partly to cover the identity of Perseus, partly because of an alliance between the Cilician pirates who first introduced Mithraism to the Romans, and partly in honor of a leader in Asia Minor named Mithridates (“given of Mithra”),[23] named after Mithra and a mythical descendent of Perseus.

Citing Ulansey, Freke and Gandy seem to acknowledge the new model when they write, “Scholars now understand that altar-pieces representing Mithras slaying a bull are actually star maps depicting the ending of the Age of Taurus.”[24] However, Freke and Gandy do not recognize how devastating Ulansey’s conclusions are to their argument that Mithraism contributed to Christianity’s early theological development. A new religion which was itself in its formative stages is hardly in a position to influence Christianity’s development.

Paul the Plagiarist

Let us now focus on the route through which, according to The UB, Mithraism found its way into the New Testament:

“And it should be recorded that Mithraism was the dominant religion of Tarsus during his adolescence.” (98:7.9)

“Paul’s theory of original sin, the doctrines of hereditary guilt and innate evil and redemption therefrom, was partially Mithraic in origin, having little in common with Hebrew theology . . . or Jesus’ teachings.” (121:6.5)

“The Gospel of Jesus, as it was embodied in Paul’s cult of Antioch Christianity, became blended with the following teachings: . . . . The appealing teachings of the prevailing mystery cults, especially the Mithraic doctrines of redemption, atonement, and salvation by the sacrifice made by some god.” (121:7.8)

The contention that Paul held views similar to those of the mystery religions has been answered and disproved in numerous books and articles.[25] A simple comparison of Paul’s Epistles and the Gospels reveals that the source of Paul’s teachings on salvation was the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus. There can be no denying that Jesus was well acquainted with the Old Testament. He regarded Himself as the promised Anointed One and in John 4:26 clearly claimed to be the Jewish Messiah. Both Paul and Jesus taught that Christ was the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies regarding God’s plan for the redemption of mankind. Jesus declared: “‘Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them’” (Matt. 5:17). Likewise, Paul wrote to the Romans: “Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes” (Rom. 10:4).

Both Jesus and Paul also taught that humans are sinful and subsequently in need of redemption. Jesus said: “‘I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am [the one I claim to be], you will indeed die in your sins’” (John 8:24). Paul also declared that all human beings are sinful, insisting that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). He added in Ephesians, “As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins” (Eph. 2:1). In fact, it was Paul who learned from the apostles and early disciples of the Christian church that “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures” (1Cor. 15:3).

Both Paul and Jesus also insisted that the shed blood of Christ was necessary as atonement for our sins. Jesus proclaimed: “‘For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many’” (Mark 10:45). He added at the Last Supper, “‘This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins’” (Matt. 26:28). Paul was just as emphatic, affirming that “In him [Christ] we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace” (Eph. 1:7). In Romans he added, “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8). Referring back to the Old Testament Passover, he said, “Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed” (1Cor. 5:7).

Jesus and Paul also both taught that salvation is by grace through faith. Throughout the Gospel of John, Jesus presented only one way to obtain God’s gracious salvation: “‘Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life’” (John 3:36; cf. 3:16; 5:24; Mark 1:15). Paul taught salvation by grace through faith, affirming, “It is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast” (Eph. 2:8-9; cf. Titus 3:5-7).

A comparison of the teachings of Jesus and Paul on salvation reveals clearly that there is no basis for speculating on any source of Paul’s teachings other than that of Jesus. Christianity was rooted in Judaism, not in Mithraism. Indeed, Paul’s message of the gospel was both checked and approved by the original apostles (Gal. 1-2), demonstrating official recognition that his message was not opposed to that of Jesus.[26] The charge that Paul corrupted Jesus’ original message was long ago answered by J. Gresham Machen in his classic work, The Origin of Paul’s Religion.[27]

From the foregoing it becomes abundantly clear that Judaism and the teachings of Jesus were the origin of Christianity, and not Mithraim. The UB’s descriptions of this religion are baseless; in fact, The UB provides no references for the alleged similarities.

In honest retrospect, the claim that Jewish Christianity borrowed from pagan myths is simply untenable. Christianity had its origins in Judaism, and like Judaism, it abhorred idolatry, which is ever present in pagan religions. Paul often exhibited this abhorrence (Acts 17:16; 19:24-41; Rom. 1:18-23; 1Cor. 10:14), as did John (1John 5:21), and the elders and apostles at Jerusalem (Acts 15:29). First century Israel was not a culture open to paganism. The Maccabean wars were fought over such attempts to Hellenize the orthodox core of the Jewish people, as was the revolt of A.D. 66. It is simply false to suggest that Palestinian Judaism was a soil in which paganism could grow, regardless of how much more susceptible other portions of the Roman world were.

Despite ample evidence to the contrary, other self-proclaimed experts continue to push this rhetoric even to this day.[28]

Starstruck

Among other things, the Mithraic cult portrayed a militant god taking origin in a great rock, engaging in valiant exploits, and causing water to gush forth from a rock struck with his arrows. There was a flood from which one man escaped in a specially built boat and a last supper which Mithras celebrated with the sun-god before he ascended into heaven. The Roman version of Mithraism contained the account of the miraculous birth of the Iranian savior-hero, Mithras. Immediately after his birth he was presented with gifts by a handful of shepherds who had been informed of his impending birth by angels. The most elaborate of their rituals was the annual festival of Mithras on December twenty-fifth. [Jesus was born August 21, 7 B.C. When he was about three weeks old he was visited by three priests from Mesopotamia who had been told by a religious teacher of the impending birth of “the light of life.” Aided by Zacharias, they found Jesus and presented gifts to Mary for him. It was once universally believed that a virgin could become pregnant by being entered by a spirit, an evolving ghost. Both diet and the evil eye were also believed to be capable of causing pregnancy in a virgin or unmarried woman.] [84:1:3] [98:5.6] [122:8:1,5-7]

The top portion of the above passage has already been dealt with, as it merely comprises a rephrasing of 98:5.3, 98:5.4, and 98:7.7 (there is no such paragraph as 98:5.6 in The UB). I will only point out here that Ms. Cook has apparently repeated Cumont’s mistake of assuming continuity between Roman Mithraism and that of the earlier, pre-Christian Persian variety.

What the reader might find more intriguing at this juncture is the information provided in brackets, to which I will now address. That Jesus was supposedly born on 21 August, 7 B.C., according to The UB’s account (122:8.1) has little basis in reality, and which discussion is beyond the scope of this treatise. (For an entertaining discussion on the source of this date, see Martin Gardner, “The Star of Bethlehem,” Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 23, No. 6 [1999], p. 13-15.)

Don’t Look Back

When one measures the exclusivistic and monotheistic Jewish faith against the mythical and polytheistic Mithraic tradition it is obvious which background is more compatible with Christianity. Upon closer examination of these outspoken analogies and parallels, it is clear that they are the products of indulgent imaginations. The whole story in all of its detail has been superimposed on Roman Mithraism by nineteenth- and twentieth-century writers who assumed a basic continuity from Iran to Rome.

Because of Ulansey’s conclusions and those of the International Congress of Mithraic Studies, we can no longer look to the East for the roots of Mithraism. Ulansey and company have closed the door on hopes that Iranian Mithraism might offer some help in knowing just what Mithraism in the West believed and taught. Roman Mithraism is once again what it was then—a polytheistic mystery cult that bears little resemblance to historic Christianity.

What has been the point of this long, drawn-out discussion? The point is to give the reader a warning to be on the lookout any time a critic makes some claim about Mithraism somehow being a parallel to Christianity. Check their sources carefully. If, like The UB, they cite source material from the Cumont era (such as Lewis Browne’s This Believing World), then chances are excellent that they are using material that is either greatly outdated, or else does not rely on sound scholarship. Furthermore, if they have asserted anything at all definitive about Mithraic belief, they are probably wrong about it, and certainly basing it on the conjectures of someone who is either not a Mithraic specialist or else is badly misinformed.

If this “scholarship” is supposed to be an example of how the “celestial” authors have given “preference to the highest existing human concepts pertaining to the subjects to be presented” (0:12.10), one must wonder about their ability to distinguish fact from fiction when they are gullible enough to fall for the sensationalistic hyperbole of a journalist!

ENDNOTES