This is from Book One of the Arthurian Saga by Mary Stewart. It takes place in the fifth century, which will require a little arithmetic on your part.
When Christians met Mithraism, Christians honestly believed that the Mithraism from Iran had copied Christian doctrine, just as Old Testament fanatics today believe that the Magi had to know the Old Testament.
They’ve got it backwards.
So here is Mary Stewart’s very accurate portrayal of Mithraism in the fifth century:
“ I knew I had seen more than was in the painting. I had seen the soldiers’ god, the Word, the Light, the Good Shepherd, the mediator between the One God and man. I had seen Mithras, who had come out of Asia a thousand years ago (500 BC). He had been born, Ambrosius told me, in a cave at mid-winter (December 25), while shepherds watched and a star shone….and then, after eating his last meal of bread and wine, he was called up to heaven. He was the god of strength and gentleness, of courage and self-restraint.”
Mary Stewart is a good Catholic. But she does not depend on ignorance to confirm her faith.
#1 by Peter on 06/22/2005 - 12:51 pm
IF you look at some of the oldest writings from early Christianity, you will find a phrase from time to time: “he was a Christian before Christ.” It never refers to Old Testament people.
#2 by Elizabeth on 06/22/2005 - 10:06 pm
Franz Cumont, who wrote THE MYSTERIES OF MITHRA, in the 1800s, believed that Christianity’s success over Mithraism was due solely to Mithraism’s exclusion of women. Cumont was a French Catholic.
#3 by Bob on 06/23/2005 - 5:56 pm
I think Elizabeth is right.
I understand (and am willing to be corrected) that the early Christian ceremonies of bread and wine were conducted in the home as the agape. In the home, women assumed a role in the agape which was offensive to many men, so communion became a strictly male affair.
Has anybody else heard anything like this?
#4 by H.S. on 06/24/2005 - 12:02 am
“Has anybody else heard anything like this?” –Bob
No, absolutely nothing of the practice you describe. But from the principle of headship in the family and in church administration, I can understand the “offense” to men. From any records I have every read or studied in groups, the Lord’s Table or Communion was never not officiated by men. I could imagine times in the heavy persecution of the early “church” history when exceptions would be made, but that is strictly conjecture on my part.
PC says everyone is equal. What say ye? 🙂