Mithraism, Masonry, and Christianity There has been occasional reference to the ancient mystery religion on this forum,

and specific looks at ancient connections between Mithraism, Masonry, and Christianity. Of particular interest is the fact that Mithraism is frequently referenced by historians and scholars as being a 'sort of ancient Freemasonry' -- a male fraternity, popular in the military and civil leadership, emphasising brotherly unity. Others make comparisons between some of Mithraism's practices and the development of the Christian Church. Is Freemasonry modern Mithraism? Is Christianity borrowed Mithraism? Is Mithraism paganized Christianity? It is interesting, first of all, to observe that those most stridently asserting a Mithraic origin of Christianity are very much NOT the handful of leading historians, scholars, and authentic experts on Mithraism. Real experts are quick to acknowledge that not only is Mithraism little understood, but that evidence for any such syncretism is tenuous at best. A few points then: The births of Jesus and Mithras Mithras is born, full grown, out of a rock, carrying a torch in each hand. Jesus is born an infant, of a woman. Although it is likely that the stable and manger into which Jesus was born were located in a cave, providing another tenous 'borrowing', this point is an assumption made by scholars. To the Gospel writers the fact that Jesus was born in a cave was irrelevant. What was significant was the humble, even humiliating, circumstances of his birth. Further, although worshipped in caves, nothing suggests that Mithras was actually born in a cave himself, unless you assume a cave of sorts left behind from where he emerged from the rock. His birthplace is usually given as near a river and under a tree. Parallel: fabricated. Shepherds attend their births. Shepherds and kings both attend the birth of Jesus, the highest and the lowest--as has been said by another, The humble and uneducated, and those learned enough to know their learning was nothing. Shepherds assist in the 'delivery' of Mithras from the rock, and offer sacrifice. However, the time of Mithras' birth is before the creation of Man! Where do these shepherds come from? Just an observation--the most ancient Indian/Persian Mithras stories do not tell the rock-birth story. These seem to be a much later --Roman-- accretion. And most of what is known of Roman Mithras is post-first century. It is as likely that Mithraism borrowed the detail of shepherds from Christianity than the other way around. Parallel: tenuous. In fact, the first Apology of St. Justin Martyr complains of exactly that regarding another similarity: "...so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. . . . Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn." [ca. 165 A.D.] In any event, the Christian Eucharist is the fulfillment and continuation of the Jewish Passover supper, which obviously predates both Christian and Mithraic influence by centuries. Finally, there is a quote attributed to the Mithraic rites which echoes almost word for word those of Jesus regarding eating his flesh and blood to attain salvation. Unfortunately, this quotation appears nowhere in the historical records of actual Mithraism, but in a Medieval European text: and it is attributed to Zoroaster, not Mithras!

Parallel: fabricated at best; possibly a backwards example. The lives of Jesus and Mithras It is asserted that Mithras, like Jesus, was an itinerant teacher with twelve companions. Well, Jesus was certainly a teacher. It is questionable how much he actually travelled, despite the fanciful notions that he got himself to India and Tibet during years preceding his public ministry. Of course, what religion does not feature a teacher? Buddha fits that description, as does Moses. Jesus certainly did have the twelve disicples with him, and the number twelve was important enough that a replacement was elected when Judas died. It is usually asserted that the number of disciples reflects the twelve tribes of the Hebrews; whether the fact twelve tribes are recorded reflects some astrological or calendrical significance is irrelevant here. But did Mithras also have twelve companions? Assertions of this are frequent, but citations are scarce. The nearest thing that exists seems to be a drawing of Mithras surrounded by the zodiac--twelve figures, conceded-but hardly companions or followers in the sense that the disciples were. [This, at least, is the most recent reliable interpretation I have seen that is made by actual scholars.] Parallel: nonexistent

The missions of Jesus and Mithras --the heart of their stories-- are absolutely unconnected. Mithras kills a bull. Jesus offers his own life as a sacrifice to God. In no way is Mithras associated with any sort of atoning self-sacrifice. Parallel: nonexistent. Jesus died and rose again. There is simply no credible evidence to show Mithras followed the otherwise well-known 'dead and resurrected god' motif which is, agreed, well-known to mythology and folklore. The sole reference is actually found in the early Christian writer Tertullian's "Prescription Against Heretics" where he states: 'if my memory still serves me, Mithra . . . sets his marks on the foreheads of his soldiers; celebrates also the oblation of bread, and introduces an image of a resurrection, and before a sword wreathes a crown . . . ' So this assertion is made by a Christian --and note he even disclaims the accuracy of the account!-- obviously well into the Christian era. Nowhere does it aver that it is Mithras who is resurrected, or even that a resurrection is enacted, simply that an 'image of a resurrection' is shown. Note that bread appears ceremonially again -- it is once more just as easy to allege that Mithraism adopted this from Christianity, since obviously Mithraism was a very syncretic practice, whereas, despite what it said, the teachings and disputes of the early Church are really quite well documented--certainly much more so than Mithraism or Freemasonry. Parallel: tenuous at best, and possibly a backwards example. The lion is associated with Mithras. In a few accounts, he is accompanied by a lion, in one Armenian variation he is identified with a lion by killing it. However, 'The Lion of the Tribe of Judah' is well known to the Old Testament prophets --as it is is to Masonry-- and in any event, the lion is so well-known and widespread a symbol all over the world that any attempt to draw connections yields nonsense. One might as well assert the influence of the Chin Dynasty on the House of York, as the lion figures so prominently in English and Chinese legend. Parallel: Irrelevant The leader of the Mithraism was known as 'Father' and lived in Rome. The early church and the pope [father] were headquartered in Rome. Well--not quite. It would be a while before the Bishop of Rome claimed exclusive use of the title Pope. Patriarchs in the eastern churches also styled themselves Pope, as does he head of the Coptic Church in Egypt to this day. So 'Pope' and 'Rome' do not necessarily attach to each other like coffee and cream. Further -- and without wishing to inflame any sensitivities-- it would be a few hundred years before the Bishop of Rome

began explicitly asserting his primacy over the other ancient sees of Antioch and Alexandria, both older than Rome. So, leadership of the Church was not necessarily seen as vesting in the head of the Church in Rome during this critical time frame. Parallel: tenuous.

Mithraism was a closed fraternal organization: all male, mostly military, and emphasising a goodnatured fraternalism. Christianity was secretive and underground only for the reason it was persecuted. All were welcome, and for the times, it was rather progressive regarding women, especially in comparison to Mithraism, which completely barred females -- as does Masonry. Although many denominations still prohibit women from the clergy, Christianity begins with at least the theoretical proposition that all men and women, of all races, are equal in Christ. This alone is a significant advance over Judaism and most pagan ideologies. Mithraism was an initiatory fraternity, with seven degrees conferred. Christianity can reasonably be seen to have two levels of membership, the catachumenate and the faithful. Mithraic initiates would dress and/or act out in some manner the persona of the degree being conferred: crow, lion, soldier, etc. Christian initiation was usually the single process of baptism and chrismation with oil. Parallels: slight. The problem with drawing parallels is like unto that of star- or cloud- gazing: you look long and hard enough, you will start seeing things that just aren't there. There isn't really a Hunter or a Bear or a Cross made of stars in the sky; that cloud may have looked like an octupus, but it was still just a cloud. The famous 'Martian Canals' come from the same place. There is motivation at work -- the ancients sought order in a Universe which they feared was meaningless; Percival Lowell sought life in a Universe he feared otherwise uninhabited. Likewise, moderns who cannot countenance the possibility that Jesus Christ lived, died, and rose again seek to extinguish the idea that he even lived at all. [You will notice that few people bother challenging the proposition that Mohammed, or Buddha, or Zoroaster lived. Even Moses is usually not called into question. But Jesus of Nazareth? Get out the big box o' erasers.] There is an important principle which today tends to come up in pop-science discussions, often in terms of the global warming controversey: 'Correlation is not causation.' This is sometimes demonstrated in the 'Pirate/temperature graph': a graph showing the decrease in pirates over three hundred years, with the accompanying rise in mean global temperature. There is a correlation! The fewer the pirates, the warmer the earth. The fallacy is in assuming that one is actually causing the other. Similarly, there is a fallacy in assuming that because one group of people employs, say, a cross in a certain ritual, it must mean that all groups using crosses have a common origin. Bread and wine are common emblems throughout western civilisation. Need we really assume that just because Group A employs a ceremonial meal using bread and wine, then Group B, which also does so, took that from A? To show how easily correspondences may be made, look at these interesting parallels between Masonry and my own confession, the Eastern Orthodox Church: -The All-Seeing Eye. The single eye is a frequent symbol of God in the Orthodox Church. Sometimes in a triangle, usually not. -The cloud-covered canopy. The ceiling of an Orthodox church is decorated with ikons of various saints, as well as a central-overhead ikon of Christ Pantokrator, the King of All. Thus, the ceiling is symbolic of heaven: in fact, my own parish church, the ceiling is actually painted

as the sky, sky blue with clouds. -The building mirrors the world. Just as the ceiling is symbolic heaven, the church interior as a whole symbolises the whole world, and as Masonic ritual teaches us, the building is oriented with the altar to the east. -The tyled door. Well, not quite, not anymore. The liturgy of the Orthodox Church is so ancient, it references a time when the new converts, catechumens, were required to leave the sanctuary of the church and wait in the narthex. The doors would be securely closed. Although now longer actually done, the priest still calls out "The doors! The doors!' at one point in the service where this would have occured Oh: does that sound familiar as well? A 'first step' class of membership, not yet privy to the complete teaching? -John the Baptist. Just as John the Baptist is honoured in the Masonic Lodge, he has a particular place of honour in Orthodoxy. In the front of an Orthodox Church, there is always a prominent ikon of the Baptist just to the right of the Christ ikon. So, this is not to suggest a connection between Masonry and Orthodoxy, just to show how easy it can be draw parallels. These are between two modern, well-known, well-documented organizations. The points of tangency are remarkable --there are more-- yet the fact they exist is probably irrelevant. What then do we make of those who would draw earth-shattering meaning from parallels drawn between a Church 2000 years remote, and dare I say it, poorly studied or understood by these self-professed historians, and a quasi-religious movement about which almost nothing beyond the most superficial facts are known: and reputable historians are tentative about what facts are actually known. Those who would draw such conclusions are an embarrasment to real historians [not to mention Christians], and are on a level in terms of credibility and scholarship with those who would find lunar landings at a Nevada soundstage, and hidden gunmen in every photo-blurred shadow of a grassy knoll.