Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: SunkenCiv

Very interesting. Thanks.

Why were the Romans, so opposed to Christianity, so tolerant of Mithracism, which was from the arch-enemy Parthia?


3 posted on 08/30/2010 7:21:37 PM PDT by Michael Zak (is fighting the good fight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Michael Zak
Why were the Romans, so opposed to Christianity, so tolerant of Mithracism, which was from the arch-enemy Parthia?

Because early Christians were Jews, and the Romans had just destroyed the 2nd Temple in Jerusalem because of Jewish insurrection.

5 posted on 08/30/2010 7:28:09 PM PDT by wayne_shrugged
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Michael Zak
Why were the Romans, so opposed to Christianity, so tolerant of Mithracism, which was from the arch-enemy Parthia?

Because early Christians were Jews, and the Romans had just destroyed the 2nd Temple in Jerusalem because of Jewish insurrection.

6 posted on 08/30/2010 7:28:14 PM PDT by wayne_shrugged
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Michael Zak
Why were the Romans, so opposed to Christianity, so tolerant of Mithracism, which was from the arch-enemy Parthia?

Because early Christians were Jews, and the Romans had just destroyed the 2nd Temple in Jerusalem because of Jewish insurrection.

7 posted on 08/30/2010 7:28:30 PM PDT by wayne_shrugged
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Michael Zak
Why were the Romans, so opposed to Christianity, so tolerant of Mithracism, which was from the arch-enemy Parthia?

Because early Christians were Jews, and the Romans had just destroyed the 2nd Temple in Jerusalem because of Jewish insurrection.

8 posted on 08/30/2010 7:28:30 PM PDT by wayne_shrugged
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Michael Zak

Also because Christians were pacifists, Mithraism was popular with the legions.


9 posted on 08/30/2010 7:32:14 PM PDT by spyone (ridiculum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Michael Zak

“Why were the Romans, so opposed to Christianity, so tolerant of Mithracism, which was from the arch-enemy Parthia?”

Christianity forbids worship of any other God. The Christians would not worship Caesar.

The Romans I understand were very pluralistic, as long as you bowed the knee to Caesar.

We still struggle with the relationship between church and state.


11 posted on 08/30/2010 7:33:40 PM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Michael Zak

I’m only gonna tell ya this four times, so...

/joke alert

It wasn’t from Parthia, IMO, there’s nothing exactly like Mithraism elsewhere, but the Romans apparently felt perfectly comfortable with wholesale acceptance of deities from conquered peoples, just as they got used to having the Roman Senate vote on deification of various emperors.

The Romans equated various members of their own pantheon with new introductions, as well as the Greek pantheon. Somewhat analogously, the Egyptians wound up with a deity called Serapis which was apparently the invention of one of the Ptolemaic pharaohs and/or his handlers.

Before the Romans, the Etruscans worshipped their version of Apollo, which they may have brought with them (the Etruscans came from the Aegean and Anatolia) or may have acquired (or reacquired) via their trade and cultural contacts with the Ionian Greeks. Apollo wasn’t a Greek deity, but borrowed from Anatolia, and his origin is another mystery. It would be more important, probably, if there were actually large numbers of worshippers of Apollo, Mithras, Zeus/Jupiter, etc etc.

There are some worshippers of the old Greek gods, oddly enough, they live in Hindu Kush, surrounded by Moslems. They claim descent from Alexander the Great’s soldiers, and are a cultural survival from antiquity. Quite amazing really.


12 posted on 08/30/2010 7:40:37 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Democratic Underground... matters are worse, as their latest fund drive has come up short...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Michael Zak
Why were the Romans, so opposed to Christianity, so tolerant of Mithracism, which was from the arch-enemy Parthia?

Roman paganism, like most polytheistic religions, could easily absorb most new religious impulses. Got a new religious idea? The Roman would say, "I'll believe that...too," i.e., along with everything else I believe. In particular, one could worship Mithras and still participate in the emperor cult, attend the festivals in honor of Jupiter, etc. Christianity couldn't be absorbed in the same way.

Also, soldiers, like athletes, are on the superstitious side. Mithras gave the Persians victory? Well, we will worship Mithras too.
17 posted on 08/30/2010 7:54:48 PM PDT by ancientart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Michael Zak

Probably because the Romans preferred turning the other guy’s cheek-with a Gladius.


19 posted on 08/30/2010 8:50:00 PM PDT by PzLdr ("The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am" - Darth Vader)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Michael Zak
Why were the Romans, so opposed to Christianity, so tolerant of Mithracism, which was from the arch-enemy Parthia?

Because Mithracism did not prevent you from worshiping the god-emperor.

Christians could not worship the divine emperor. It was forbidden. And while the Empire admitted reluctantly that Jews were a special case Christians who were multicultural and multiracial were not considered such. They were a unpatriotic lot who didn't pour out a offering to Roma Dia or the emperor.

22 posted on 08/30/2010 9:00:20 PM PDT by Harmless Teddy Bear (there are huge chunks of time...at night...where I'm just asleep...for hours...it's ridiculous....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson