Post 60:
Persian influence on Roman Mithraism was not minor at all.
The third highest grade of the Mithraic initiation was Perses (Persian). Above this were the positions of Messenger of the Sun and the highest of all, which was Father (Pater). Head of all Paters was the Pater Patrum, from which derives <i>Pope</i>.
In Persia's Mithraism, Mithra was born of their Goddess Anahita from the frozen seed of Zoroaster. Three Magis followed a star to visit the cave (a rock - <i>Petra</i> in Latin) where he was born. Zoroaster had predicted Mithra's birth, who was seen as the Saoshyant (World Savior) by the Mithraists among the Persians. (See The Legend Of Mithras by Cumont)
This entered Rome, where it got enhanced by and mixed with the similar lives of other Roman deities, and ended up as a somewhat different-looking religion. But it kept the basics given above. Today these are, along with the rituals of Roman Mithraism, wrongly thought to be elements of Christianity (particularly the Catholic variety).
About Zalmoxes, he appears to be multi-dated similar to Zoraster: 600bce, 1200bce - any 6000bce too, perchance? And you say he's a religious reformer associated with something similar to Mithraic religion? Is Zalmoxes merely the western transplanting of Zoroaster?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->see on wikipedia MIthraism<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I don't trust wikipedia any more than I trust a monkey that can type. Actually, that's not true - I'd trust the monkey more (it can type!)
It's a user-contributed encyclopaedia, which means I can go there now and delete everything and overwrite it with whatever I want and then refer to it as "an article from an Encyclopaedia".
Most articles about India and our history there are totally skewed towards the missionary or Islamist or communist or Eurocentric-Indology sides (depending on the topic) because they have a large lobbying group and their persistence and sheer determination to have their version accepted pays off.
For how wrong a Wikipedia article can be, see Post #20 of another thread for a few glaring mistakes I found in just one article of theirs (other members here can find more errors). And this sort of (at times purposefully) shoddy work is supposed to be considered reliable enough to refer to?
At least one Wikipedia entry referred to an article on a known terrorist propaganda site (known for supporting BinLadin) as if the latter was reliable. One wonders who the authors of that wikipedia entry could possibly be...
Persian influence on Roman Mithraism was not minor at all.
The third highest grade of the Mithraic initiation was Perses (Persian). Above this were the positions of Messenger of the Sun and the highest of all, which was Father (Pater). Head of all Paters was the Pater Patrum, from which derives <i>Pope</i>.
In Persia's Mithraism, Mithra was born of their Goddess Anahita from the frozen seed of Zoroaster. Three Magis followed a star to visit the cave (a rock - <i>Petra</i> in Latin) where he was born. Zoroaster had predicted Mithra's birth, who was seen as the Saoshyant (World Savior) by the Mithraists among the Persians. (See The Legend Of Mithras by Cumont)
This entered Rome, where it got enhanced by and mixed with the similar lives of other Roman deities, and ended up as a somewhat different-looking religion. But it kept the basics given above. Today these are, along with the rituals of Roman Mithraism, wrongly thought to be elements of Christianity (particularly the Catholic variety).
About Zalmoxes, he appears to be multi-dated similar to Zoraster: 600bce, 1200bce - any 6000bce too, perchance? And you say he's a religious reformer associated with something similar to Mithraic religion? Is Zalmoxes merely the western transplanting of Zoroaster?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->see on wikipedia MIthraism<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I don't trust wikipedia any more than I trust a monkey that can type. Actually, that's not true - I'd trust the monkey more (it can type!)
It's a user-contributed encyclopaedia, which means I can go there now and delete everything and overwrite it with whatever I want and then refer to it as "an article from an Encyclopaedia".
Most articles about India and our history there are totally skewed towards the missionary or Islamist or communist or Eurocentric-Indology sides (depending on the topic) because they have a large lobbying group and their persistence and sheer determination to have their version accepted pays off.
For how wrong a Wikipedia article can be, see Post #20 of another thread for a few glaring mistakes I found in just one article of theirs (other members here can find more errors). And this sort of (at times purposefully) shoddy work is supposed to be considered reliable enough to refer to?
At least one Wikipedia entry referred to an article on a known terrorist propaganda site (known for supporting BinLadin) as if the latter was reliable. One wonders who the authors of that wikipedia entry could possibly be...