Early Origination of Christianity and Its Conection With Mitra-Mithra of Aryans-libre

8/9/2019 Early Origination of Christianity and Its Conection With Mitra-Mithra of Aryans-libre

1/47

Origination of Christianity from Sun worshiping Tradition

Of Indian and Persian-Mithraism:

By: Bipin R. Shah

Introduction:

!ery ma"or re#igion has their own passionate contro!ersies and opinions regarding its origin

and associated mytho#ogy. The author want to emphasi$e the intent of this artic#e is not to

offend any %e#iefs in the u#timate creator that created us and the cosmos. &ny re#igion that

produces peacefu# coe'istence and message of uni!ersa# %rotherhood shou#d en"oy e(ua#ity

and respect of the man)ind. The su%"ect of this artic#e is discussed %y many scho#ars for

se!era# decades and it may continue %ut from the historica# point of !iew* the peop#e shou#d

)now the e!o#ution of primiti!e thoughts of worship to the current state of wor#d+s re#igions.

&ncient Indo-uropean worship of Persian ,Mithra and Indian ,Mitra

The tradition of ,Mithra+ was o%ser!ed during the ear#y ages of ci!i#i$ation among a## ancient

Indo uropean cu#tures in one form of another. The primary force of the cosmos who ga!e

the #ife to this p#anet and a## the #i!ing %eing to sur!i!e* to faci#itate growth and prosperity

was sun /od ,Mitra to 0edic-Indians and ,Mithra to Persians in the )nown history.

The names of Indra* Mitra* 0aruna and the 1asatyas were a#so attested in a Mitanni 23ittite4

treaty with ancient gyptians. &fter their re#ationship with 3ittite* the gyptian ru#ers a#soswitched their worship to Sun god. The Mitannis were a#so Indo-uropean peop#e of centra#

&sia and worshipped the 0edic /ods.

The Mithras+s span of worship increases as represented %y his presence in other Indo-

uropean cu#tures and traditions* such as ,Mihir in Pashto #anguage* &rmenian-,Mher and

Indian Mehr was the c#an of Pun"a% and Sindh- sun worshiper. The dynasties of ,Maitra)a of

Saurashtra in India were fo##owers of sun god Mitra. Indians a#so used the word ,Saura or

,Sura" in #oca# #anguage to refer to sun /od Mitra. The names of the p#aces and region such

as ,Saurashtra or city of ,Surat indirect#y in!o)es the status of sun /od ,Mitra , that washe#d in high esteem in Indo-Iranian &ryans cu#ture.

5e find ,&gni and ,6ire worshipping as common %ond %etween 0edic-&!estan and Mitanni

%ranch of Indo-uropeans and %ecomes a primary root re#igion for ritua#. The sun star is a

source of sur!i!a# of our near%y uni!erse and it is (uite easy to understand why ancients


2/47

appreciated the sun+s regu#ar appearance e!eryday that in"ects the energy and #ife on e!ery

#i!ing %eings in rather dar) and frigid co#d p#anet of the night and without his presence the

#ife comes to a screeching ha#t. The worship of appeasement to these natura# forces %egun

since pre-historic time and then %ecame the regu#ar ritua#s of worship for the ear#y humans.

7uring the ear#y Rig-0edic time* when the ancestors of the Indo-Iranians were sti## united as agroup* they were a#ready worshippers of the Sun-/od Mitra 2Mithra4. The hymns of the

0edas ce#e%rated thy name* as did those of the &!estan* and despite their differences

%etween their theo#ogica# systems* the 0edic Mitra and the Iranian Mithra ha!e preser!ed so

many traits of resem%#ance that it esta%#ishes the certainty of its origin without any dou%t.

The #and of Indian #andscape is sti## houses the num%er of Sun Temp#es dedicated to Mitra.

The Is#am destroyed Mithra+s heritage in India and Persia %ut 8oroaster ruins in Iran and

centra# &sia sti## attest the presence of Mithras with their associated ritua# and practice. The

Mithras appeared in different forms in many centra# &sian traditions and their archeo#ogica#

e!idence is sti## preser!ed. 3e#ios for /ree)s* #aga%a#us for Syrians* were a## sun /od Mithra.

Sun-/od Mithra occupied a prominent position in a## forms of Paganism in gypt and ancient

Rome.

Bas-Re#ief at Ta(-e Bostan* Iran-&rdeshir-I with Mithras 2#eft4 Indian Mithras 0aruna-Mithra com%ined-India

The etymo#ogists ha!e determined that the word Mithra actua##y deri!ed from Proto-Indo-

uropean word ,Mitra that is we## preser!ed in Sans)rit. #amite ta%#ets of the time of


3/47

7arius* the offerings are recorded fi!e times for ,Mica-Baga where Mica was O#d Persian for

,Mithras and ,Baga meant ,Bhagwan ,in Indian and ,/od in ng#ish. ,9a$ata* the di!inity

of 8aruashtra+s represents co##ecti!e good powers of ,Mithra and &har Ma$da a## ro##ed into

one. The word ,9a$ata has common root with the Sans)rit word ,9a"ati. This a#so meant

worship and ritua# of ,9o"na* ,9ogna or ,9oga in Indian #anguages. But* the 9a$ata forPersian was not meant for ,7e!a. The 0edic peop#e too) it as a re!erse of that and 9o"na or

9ogna for Indians meant for ,7e!as that are considered as good /ods.

&ccording to some recent disco!eries in Mesopotamia* this Mitra god* with whom the

peop#es of urope were unac(uainted with* were worshiper of other Pagan Pantheon from

neigh%oring peop#e of &cadian or hemit mpire and ancient Mesopotamia. Mitra-0aruna*

and the fi!e other ,&ditya ce#e%rated %y the 0edas and Mithra-&hura and the &mshaspands

ce#e%rated %y ancient &!estan 2Persian4 te'ts defines the Creator of the uni!erse as the sun*

the moon* and the p#anets* and other ce#estia# o%"ects that are seen in our s)y and go!erns a##

#ife in this p#anet* co##ecti!e#y ca##ed cosmos. The worship of the cosmos was adopted %y the

Indo-uropeans and others since primiti!e times and it continued unti# the peop#e+s

con!ersion to reformist re#igion of the wor#d #i)e Buddhism* ;ainism* Is#am and modern

Christianity. Indian astro#ogy sti## uses this concept in charting one+s horoscope %ased on our

cosmos. In the &!esta* Mithras is the genius of the ce#estia# #ight. 3e appears %efore sunrise

on the roc)y summits of the mountains< during the day he tra!erses the wide firmament in

his chariot drawn %y four white horses. The 0edic re#igion disp#ays him as a god of #ight*

in!o)ed together with the hea!en* %earing in the one case the name of Indian ,0aruna and

in the other that of ,&hura. Mithra was the protector of truth* the enemy of fa#sehood and

error. The sacred 0eda of India has preser!ed him. & sing#e fragment* and e!en that partia##y

effaced* is a## that has %een especia##y dedicated to him in 0eda. 3e appears main#y in

incidenta# (uotes or sentences* %ut remains the si#ent witnesses of his ancient grandeur

status %y way of ritua#s* worships and practice. O!er =>>> years ago* the day in India %egan

with the prayers to Mithra with fo#ded hand when the roya#s* no%#es and commoners faced

the rising sun in the east at Chittore /rah and 6ort of ;a#ore ca##ed ,Sonar i##ah.

Buddhist !ersion of Mitra:

Bodhisatt!a Maitreya is regarded %y Buddhists as a future Buddha of this wor#d in Buddhisteschato#ogy. In some Buddhist #iterature* such as the &mita%ha Sutra and the ?otus Sutra* he

is referred to as &"ita Bodhisatt!a. Most Buddhists regards Maitreya Buddha as a future

prophet to arri!e for #i%eration. &s a #i%erator, Bodhisatt!a wi## appear on the arth* achie!e

comp#ete en#ightenment* and teach the pure dharma. &ccording to the scriptures* Maitreya

wi## %e a successor of the historic @A)yamuni Buddha of India. The prophecy of the arri!a# of


4/47

Maitreya refers to a time when the 7harma wi## ha!e %een forgotten %y most on this wor#d.

This sounds so simi#ar to ;ewish and Christian %i%#e prophesies. One has to wonder a%out the

power of Mithra+s reach.

6uture Buddha-Maitreya rd

Century BC Mathura and Bactrian coins depicting Mithra %e#ow.

Bactrian /ree) coins of Indo-/ree)s showing Mitra 2Mithra4 in !arious forms

gyptian 5orship of Mithra:


5/47

Mitra and 0edic /ods in Centra# &sia

Mitanni &ryans were the first to introduce Mithra to gyptian Pharaohs that a##owed them to

incorporate into their ear#ier pagan worship of Osiris and &mun. The ,Ra or ,Re was the

designated ancient gyptian so#ar deity. By the 6ifth 7ynasty* Mitra or Mithra had emerged as

a ma"or god in ancient gyptian re#igion* identified primari#y with the midday sun. Themeaning of the name ,Ra may %e uncertain* %ut it is thought that it is a !ariant of or #in)ed

to Persian words #i)e ,Rau* a creati!e power and creator of the earth* that is sun* the star

of our p#anetary system. The ma"or cu#t centre of ,Ra was #ocated at ancient 3e#iopo#is of

gypt or #and of hemit where he was #a%e#ed as the #oca# sun-god ,&tum or ,&tum-Ra. In

#ater gyptian dynastic times* Ra was merged with the god 3orus* as ,Re-3ora)hty and e!en

,Osiris.

Ra and &mun* from the tom% of Ramses I0 2=DEF-=DG BC4 Imentet and Ra from the tom% of 1efertiti

Introduction of Centra# &sian cu#t of Mithra to Roman urope:

The Persian+s 'pansion To /reece and #ater on fo##owed up %y e'ander+s con(uest a##owed

Mithra to meet and merge in union with 3e##enist pantheons a#ong with gyptian /od-

/oddess. This cross cu#tura# continuum e'isted in a## these territories when Roman arri!ed.

5hen Persian ru#ed Centra# &sia a## the way to &nato#ia* they %rought with them the worship

of Mithra that was peacefu# in nature %ut initia##y in!o#!ed the anima# sacrifice. The #oca#

ha%itants were Phrygians* Ionian /ree)s and other &sian Semite tri%es. The Romans

attri%uted their association to ,Mithraic Mysteries to the Persians. The territories of ;udah


6/47

and &nato#ia that Romans had con(uered from /ree)s where a#ready practitioner of ;udaism*

Mithraism or 8oroaster+s re#igion 2simi#ar to Mithra4. The Romans had their own pagan

worships that inc#uded the worship of Roman emperors* so were ear#y /ree)s. The Roman

#earned that &nato#ians were worshippers of Mithra a#ong with other cu#ts of /reece and

gypt. The cross cu#tura# e'change introduced Indian-Iranian Mithra to the Ionian* the ?ydian*the Phrygian* the Thracian* and the Ce#tic-/au# of &nato#ia who incorporated them with their

chosen pagan gods.

though Christianity on#y too) ho#d as an officia# re#igion under mperor Constantine*

Constantine himse#f was a fo##ower of Mithraism and remains so and %y some account

through his #ife unti# he was %apti$ed as Christian at his death %ed. The 9a$ata of Persian was

interpreted as ,ange#s in Christianity. &ccording to Martin 3aug* the ,&mesha Spentas of

8aruashtra+s %ecame the arch-ange# /a%rie# of Christianity. The Mithraic Mystery thus

%ecame the de!iant form of re#igion practiced in Centra# &sian states due to pre!ious

dominance of the &chemenians Persians and then fo##owed %y Indo-/ree)s Se#eucid ru#ers ofBactria.

The Mithraism was introduced to uropean Roman wor#d through Roman so#diers who had

intermarried with #oca#s &nato#ians and &sian Semite and ;ews. This was further faci#itated %y

pro#onged a%sence of so#diers from home so they too) #oca# mistress. Simu#taneous#y* they

sent s#a!es and trader-!isitors from con(uered territories of &sia to Rome. The trade #in) with

Persia and India a#so he#ped introduce the tradition and ritua#s of Mithra. The e'pansion of

Roman mpire a## the way to &nato#ia* /reece and gypt %rought these new cu#tura#

dimensions to ancient Rome.

Mytho#ogy of Mithra in Roman wor#d and its simi#arities with ;esus+s story:

The name of the Persian god Mithra 2proto-Indo-Iranian Mitra4* adapted %y the /ree) as

3e#ios and &ttis* assumed a new and distincti!e imagery on /ree) mode# in the Roman wor#d.

The 5riters of the Roman mpire wor#d referred to this as a mystery re#igion %y phrases

which can %e ang#ici$ed as ,Mysteries of Mithras or ,Mysteries of the Persians or

,Mysteries of Magi* The high priest of Persian Mithra introduced the magic of hea#ing

through ancient )now#edge )nown from India* Persia and east. The name of this comming#ed

re#igion in an a#tered form was du%%ed as ,Roman Mithraism due to its practice* ritua#s and

presence in Rome proper. 5e see !arious depiction of Buddha in Caucasian form as we## asMongo#ian form.


7/47

Ostia &ntica Mithraum near Rome 2#argest Trading Port of Rome4

It is a natura# conc#usion that these mysteries were popu#ar in the Roman mi#itary as they

spent considera%#e time in &sian territories. The Mithra 2&!estan4* the Mitra 20edic4 and8oroastrian 2ya$ata4 di!inity was %orn from !irgin according to the #egend of Mithra.

Maha%harata* simi#ar#y attest that one man superior to the hero &r"una was ,in!inci%#e

arna concei!ed %y the Sun /od ,Mitra to !irgin unti* the mother of Panda!as. unti+s

persona# p#eading to arna may ha!e sa!ed &r"una+s #ife according to Maha%harata. ;esus

Christ was %orn of 0irgin Mary and he was regarded as the son of /od. The !irgin %irth %e#ief

of Mithras comes a#ong with many other !irgin %irths of Indo-uropean /ods. The Roman

!ersion of Mithras introduces some additiona# features from Syria. These features were

pic)ed up through incorporating !arious centra# &sian #oca# cu#ts and re#igious traditions from

the days of Mesopotamia.

Roman Mithraism and Modern Christianity:

5hen ,Roman !ersion of Mithraism compared against the modern Christianity* they appear

to %e identica# twins and no significant di!ersion can %e o%ser!ed. This can %e e'p#ained

easi#y as they %oth originated in centra# &sia. 5e do not )now for sure* if the origina# teaching


8/47

of Christianity was e!er a#tered when formu#ating canonica# te'ts that came into e'istence

se!era# centuries #ater after ;esus+ death* %ut we shou#d not %e surprised* if it did. though

some atheists argue a%out the historicity of ;esus %ut this is not a new phenomenon. !ery

/od #i)e figures #i)e Buddha* Maha!ira* rishna and Shi!a and others were and are simi#ar#y

(uestioned %y atheists. ;esus teachings as recorded in 1ew Testament were good mora# "udgments for humanity to fo##ow. The messages from the other teachers are !ery simi#ar.

The fo##owing of these paths #aid down %y those ear#y teachers ma)es us more human. So* it

ma)es #itt#e difference as to how ear#y Christianity may ha!e %een e!o#!ed. The historians

a#ways #i)e to e'p#ore the historicity of these great teachers and prophets regard#ess of what

teachings they introduced through !arious canonica# te'ts and those schisms ha!e continued

in a## the re#igions of the wor#d* and the Christianity is no e'ception.

Some Simi#arities of Mithra and ;esus:

=. Mithra and ;esus %oth were %orn of a !irgin on 7ecem%er DGth in a ca!e. They %oth

attended %y the shepherds. astern Mithraism confirms the !irgin %irth %y Sun-/od

%ut does not furnish any further detai#s. ;esus was !isited %y Magi of the east.

D. Both of them were considered the great tra!e#ing teacher and master.

. Both had =D 2twe#!e4 companions or discip#es* so did Buddha and Maha!ira.2Pro%a%#y

tied to sacred 1umero#ogy.

H. Both promised their fo##owers immorta#ity #i)e Buddha and Maha!ira+s 1ir!ana.

G. Both had the power to perform the mirac#es* #i)e hea#ing sic)* wa#)ing on the water etc.

. Both u#timate#y sacrificed themse#!es for wor#d peace and %rotherhoods.

J. They were %uried in a tom% and after three days they were resurrected.

F. ;esus is ce#e%rated each year at the time of 3is resurrection 2#ater to %ecome aster4.

E. Both were ca##ed ,the /ood Shepherd #eading their ,f#oc)s.

=>. They were identified with %oth the ?am% and the ?ion. So* was Maha!ira+s #ion and

Shi!a+s 1andi.

==. Both were considered to %e the ,5ay* the Truth and the ?ight* and the ,?ogos*

,Redeemer* ,Sa!ior and ,Messiah. 2Simi#ar to Tirthan)ara and Bodhisatt!a4.


9/47


10/47

name ;esus who threw the coins at the coin changers in anger. ;osephus may ha!e

constructed his #ife imitating Mithra to neutra#i$e the ;ewish re%e##ion under the ,6#a!ius

Pro"ect designed to su%due the re%e##ious su%"ects of the empire. ;osephus argued that the

re%e##ion was primari#y dri!en %y re#igious %e#iefs than Roman ru#e. The ;ewish peop#e were

a#so tired of 3erod+s reign as we##. The ;ews ha!e #ong %e#ie!ed that they are promised %y/od who wou#d send Messiah to #i%erate the ;ews from the oppression. ;osephus ad!ised

Titus and 0espasian that this was the mainstay of %e#ief that is )eeping the re%e##ion a#i!e. In

a way* we can draw the same para##e#s %etween moderate Is#am and 5ahha%i %rand that

fue#s the !io#ence.

The scho#ar#y efforts to connect the eastern Mithra to western Mithra ha!e found some

simi#arities %ut not a##. Other de!iant features were pic)ed up a#ong the way at different time

during the centuries of the history incorporating #oca# cu#ts of centra# &sia. Much of what is

)nown a%out Roman Mithras comes from pictures and mura#s that ha!e ,1O TIT?S* so the

!ast ma"ority of scho#ar#y wor) on this character is a %it specu#ati!e interpretation from theorigina# disp#ays in mura#s* archeo#ogy and numismatic as no te'tua# references are a!ai#a%#e

e'cept gi!en %y 0edic-&!esta-Mitanni te'ts and gyptian references of Mitra.

6or this artic#e* we wi## forget the Indo-Persian aspect %ut rather focus primari#y on Roman

wor#d and try to understand what ,cu#t of Mithraism as practiced in Roman wor#d meant

and how it cou#d ha!e inf#uenced the Christianity without getting direct#y in!o#!ed in the

authenticity and historicity of ;esus that many %e#ie!e in. 5e wi## #ea!e that in the hands of

Bi%#ica# and Catho#ic scho#ars who ha!e studied this su%"ect through their entire adu#t #ife.

Bi%#e Museum- Mithra shei#igtum


11/47

;osephus 6#a!ius* his %iography and his possi%#e Ro#e in ,unintentiona#

formation of ar#y 6orm of the Christianity:

&. Tri%es of ;ews under Roman Occupation:

It is important to understand the ;ewish nationa#ity and their %e#ief system that e'isted

during Roman period 2=st century &74. 7uring the first century &7* ;udah 2;ewish nation4 was

di!ided into many sects and schoo#s of re#igious thoughts. The priest#y and scho#ar#y c#asses of

importance were ssenes* Pharisees and Sadducees. The ssenes were considered more

heretics %y traditiona# %e#ie!ers and they were e'c#uded from re#igious center of power.

The ssenes a%andoned the city of ;erusa#em in protest against the way the Temp#e was

%eing run %y priest#y aristocratic c#ass. This group went out in the desert to prepare for the

way of the ?ord* fo##owing his commands* as they saw it* as prophesi$ed %y the prophet

Isaiah. The ssenes went to the desert to get away from what they see to %e the wor#d#iness

of ;erusa#em and the corruption of the ;ewish Temp#e. The temp#e priests contro##ed the

re#igious affairs of the ;ews and the priest#y c#ass was not fo##owing the #aws of &%raham. The

ssenes were %est )nown as apoca#yptic sect and the creators of the 7ead Sea Scro##s. Some

specu#ate that ;esus may either %e#ong to ssenes sect due to its wondering and

unaccounta%#e years of his #ife.

The most conspicuous of the sect of the ;ews were the Pharisees who were not e#ite c#ass %ut

firm#y %e#ie!ed that they had the support of common peop#e and they correct#y fo##owed the

interpretation of ;ewish Messianic #aws. The Pharisees were officiating priest c#ass of theorder organi$ed %y prophet $ra in ear#ier time* howe!er they must ha!e #ost their co!eted

position during the Ba%y#onian capti!ity. &s the Pharisees+ ho#d got wea)er* the Sadducees

too) o!er the ro#e of priest#y duties and contro# of Temp#e+s wea#th during 3erodian period.

;osephus and &post#e Pau# %oth %e#ong to Pharisees group of ;ews and the Pharisee group

had years of e'perience in running and regu#ating ;ewish re#igious ethics and #aws that were

#aid down %y Prophet $ra 2&$aryadu in Persian4. $ra was freed %y Persian Kere'es and sent

to Pa#estine to preach his re#igion in ;erusa#em then under the contro# of Pharisees.

;osephus statement regarding common peop#e in 1ew testament strong#y indicates thatmost ;ews were "ust fo##owers of ;ewish re#igion and ;osephus wanted to ma)e them

independent of the main #iturgica# groups of priest#y c#ass that were Sadducees during

3aro#d+s time. This was ;osephus+s way to reesta%#ish the $ra+s order in a simi#ar way the

Prophet $ra had esta%#ished si' hundred years ear#ier during Persian era of ;ewish history.

;osephus de!ised a strategy of resurrecting and re%randing his re#igious program in the


12/47

Roman en!ironment. If the Sadducees can %e e#iminated %y the Romans that wi## he#p

remo!e one ma"or o%stac#e in accomp#ishing his main o%"ecti!e. This is considered a possi%#e

moti!e why ;osephus wanted to cooperate with Romans and recruited the he#p of fe##ow

Pharisee Pau# 2Sau# of Tarsa4.

Through the contact with Persian during their ancestors+ capti!ity in Ba%y#on* The Pharisees

got ac(uainted with Mithra worship of Persians we## as the cu#t !ersion of Mithra in &nato#ia.

The Pharisees are )nown to e!ery%ody from the 1ew Testament in different #ight. Once we

get past this accusation or the anti-Pharisee po#emic of the gospe#s. They seem to ha!e %een

a scho#ar#y group or a group of ;ews who were meticu#ous o%ser!ers of the ancestra# #aws and

strategic in their mission against a## )ind of ad!ersities. The Pharisees a#ways c#aimed the

)now#edge of the Torah of Moses and the o%ser!ance of the #aws. &fter the destruction of

the Second Temp#e in J> C* Pharisaic %e#iefs %ecame the #iturgica# and ritua#istic %asis for

Ra%%inic ;udaism* which u#timate#y produced the current ;udaism . The Pharisees earned

some notoriety %y their references in the 1ew Testament to the conf#icts %etween

themse#!es and ;ohn the Baptist. Some /enti#es ho#ds them responsi%#e for ;ohn and ;esus+

death. The Pharisee thought that in order to accomp#ish their o%"ecti!e* they had to

co##a%orate with Romans rather than fight* a s#ight change in their strategy that ;osephus

sieged up on at the right time and it seems #i)e it wor)ed.

The %oo) D of Macca%ees was #i)e#y written %y a Pharisee. This wor) inc#udes se!era#

theo#ogica# inno!ations that are found in Christian tradition as a propitiatory prayer for the

dead* "udgment day* intercession of saints* and merits of the martyrs. Pharisee %e#ie!ed in

the resurrection of dead. Pau# c#aimed himse#f to %e of Pharisee origin. The first e!idence

emerging from the canonica# te't is that ;osephus )new Pau# and he was pro%a%#y his friend

or ac(uaintance. The writer of the new testaments has identified Sau# or Pau# of Tarsus as a

3erodian with access to the imperia# court. This is a strange statement %ecause he was a

Pharisee %y ;osephus+s account.

&ccording to Phi#ippians H:DD* the reference regarding Sau# of Tarsus:

,# the saints greet you* especia##y those of Caesars househo#d.

In a way this is a remar)a%#e statement as to who made it or who they referred toL. Is thisstatement is referring to Pau# or ;osephusL Pau# is said to %e e'ecuted %y 1ero a#ong with his

supporters. ;osephus statement imp#ies that he sa!ed him in the Rome. 7id ;osephus

introduced this statement or someone e#se didL 7id Pau# ac(uire the inf#uence with Roman

CaesarL


13/47

The Pharisees+ opponents* of course* were the Sadducees* who were no #ess pious than the

Pharisees* %ut the Sadducees did not %e#ie!e in the authoritati!e nature of the ancestra# #aws

2$ra ?aw4. 3owe!er* the Sadducees apparent#y had a great dea# of fo##owing among the we##-

to-do aristocrats and wea#thy priest#y c#ass* and seem to ha!e %een characteri$ed primari#y %y

two things. One* they opposed the Pharisees and two< they denied %e#ief in the resurrectionof the dead. They are the most #i)e#y to %e du%%ed as ,3erodian %y Romans and they did

contro# the temp#e during 3erod+s time.

This made the Sadducees famous as we see !ery c#ear#y in the 1ew Testament passages

where Sadducees !ehement#y denies the %e#ief in the resurrection. So* it appears to us that

why the ssenes re"ected %oth of these other groups who were competing for power and

inf#uence to contro# the richest Temp#e of &sia. 7uring 3erod reign* the Pharisees were ;ewish

inte##ectua#s and scri%es in!o#!ed in prophesy whi#e Sadducees contro##ed the Temp#e wea#th

and en"oyed the support of 3erod* the /reat and were e#e!ated to the priest#y c#ass. On the

other hand* the other factions Sircarii and 8ea#ots too) their re#igious understanding as theyunderstood it and a##owed themse#!es to %e manipu#ated %y other sects.

The o%"ecti!e of Pharisee is to ser!e their own po#itica# agenda of contro##ing the treasure

whi#e destroying Roman power and e#iminating their sympathi$er and co##a%orators. The

o%!ious %eneficiaries wi## %e the Pharisee who ;osephus and Pau# %e#onged to. nder Roman

oppression the s#ogan of the re%e#s was ,we wi## )i## a## co##a%orators* we wi## ha!e no ing

%ut on#y /odN. Since Sadducees were responsi%#e for up)eep* maintenance and co##ection of

tri%ute for the temp#e and they and their friends formed the aristocratic c#ass of ;ewish

society %ut were "udged %y re%e#s and other common ;ews as corrupt and co##a%orator withRomans. The Sadducees ne!er "oined the ;ewish re%e#s.

The Pharisees fina##y changed themse#!es to ra%%inic form of 2modern4 ;udaism. This %rief

history of ;ewish history of first century &7 is necessary to get comprehensi!e understanding

of ear#y Christianity and the power po#itics among !arious ;ewish tri%es and how the ;udaism

inf#uenced the ear#y history of Christianity.

B. Pau#+s change of attitudes and dramatic con!ersion to Christianity:

Sau# of Tarsus 2Pau#4 was a nati!e of Tarsus. Tarsus was the capita# city in the Roman pro!ince

of Ci#icia north of &ntioch in southern Tur)ey. Pau# descri%es himse#f as a 3e%rew %orn of

3e%rews and a mem%er of Pharisee sect and one who ad!anced the ;udaism %eyond many of

his peers. 3e $ea#ous#y persecuted the ear#y fo##owers of ;esus of 1a$areth and !io#ent#y tried

to destroy the new#y formed Christian church* according to canonica# te'ts. Pau#s dramatic


14/47

con!ersion on the road to 7amascus radica##y changed the course of his #ife when he %ecame

Christians. This is echoed in ;osephus+s account and a#so recorded in Christian canonica# te'ts.

Pau# of Tarsus of &nato#ia and their !isiting P#aces.

C. Short %iography of Ben Matityahu or ;osephus 6#a!ius of Romans

3e came from Pharisees c#ass of ;ewish fami#y* a scho#ar#y type and an e'ce##ent scri%e and a

writer. 3e was %orn as Ben Matityahu and %ecame famous as Romano-;ewish historian of the

first century &7. 3e is the on#y contemporary source of history that can !erify the e'istence

of ;esus and his #ife. 3e was romani$ed and then he ac(uired the Roman name andciti$enship. 3e is famous#y )nown as ;osephus 6#a!ius* the name he assumed after his master

%ecame an emperor. 3e wrote the anti(uity of the ;ews around EH &7 and descri%ed ;esus in

two short paragraphs. Those references are contained in his %oo) of anti(uity of chapter =F

and D>.


15/47

Some Indian historians so easi#y %#ame co#onia# historians that they may ha!e distorted

India+s history. ;osephus earned the same distincti!e honor %y other ;ewish historians of

distorting ;ewish history. 3owe!er* it must %e said that primary responsi%i#ity of )eeping the

history of the peop#e #ies with the nati!e peop#e themse#!es.

;ewish Prophet Isaiah 2Fthcentury BC4 Sau# of Tarsus 2ear#y re#igion- ;ewish4 %ecame &post#e.

3e was a Roman Citi$en.

&ccording to some ;ewish historians* they wi## ne!er )i## their own %rothers and they do not

ta)e genti#e+s c#aim that ;ews were responsi%#e for ;esus+ Crucifi'ion. The detractor of

;osephus c#aims that after a## he was writing the history of ;ews under the sponsorship of

Romans. The (uestion and origination of Christianity gi!es some credence to the ;ewish

arguments and (uestion the authenticity of %oth ;osephus and Pau#+s account.

;osephus "oined the re%e##ion with Sirca##i against Romans and fought a#ongside with the

re%e#s during the 6irst ;ewishRoman 5ar. &s as a head of ;ewish forces in /a#i#ee he was

captured* when his forces were defeated %y Roman /enera# 0espasian and his Tri%une son

Titus. The Roman forces captured him and too) him to 0espasian. 3e had #earned to

prophesi$ed as a scho#ar coming from #ong #ine of scho#ar#y c#ass. ;osephus predicted that0espasian wi## %e chosen as the ne't Roman emperor. &t that time* we do not )now if

0espasian too) this as a f#attery or %e#ie!ed in his power of his prophesy %ut decided to sa!e

his #ife and used him as an interpreter and a negotiator. ;osephus pro!ided crucia#

inte##igence that guaranteed the fai#ure of ;ewish insurgency against Roman that he admitted

in his own %iography.


16/47

7uring the ear#ier stage of the re%e##ion* ;osephus himse#f may ha!e proc#aimed the ;ewish

Messianic prophecies that pro%a%#y ignited the 6irst Roman-;ewish 5ar. 3e does not ma)e a

c#aim in his %iography %ut some of his statements #ead us to that conc#usion. ;osephus )ept

promising re%e##ious ;ewish fo##owers that their /od had communicated through him that thene't Messiah wou#d come and free the ;ewish peop#e from Roman %ondage #i)e he did during

first e'odus out of gypt and freedom from Ba%y#onian capti!ity. This )ind of rhetoric may

ha!e contri%uted to the high mora#s of ;ewish fighters %ut they had no chance to win

mi#itari#y against the Roman. 7uring the Roman sei$e of Masada* they were forced to commit

the mass suicide when they ran out of food and water. They did not want to %ear the

conse(uences of surrender to Romans for s#a!ery or crucifi'ion. Those who sur!i!ed the

re!o#t ended up in %ondage* s#a!ery and su%"ugation with deep psycho#ogica# scars that

#ingered on for many centuries. This traumatic history of ;ewish nation started with the

capti!ity and e'odus from gypt* fo##owed %y &ssyrian capti!ity in Ba%y#on and the first

Roman-;ewish war with Roman occupation of ;udah* se!enth century &7 Mus#im aggression

against ;erusa#em and re"ection in urope with D>th century of 1a$i persecution. This type of

singu#ar e'perience of persecution is unpara##e#ed in the entire human history. India was the

on#y country in the wor#d that protected and she#tered the ear#y ;ewish immigrants. Their

synagogue and street named after the famous ;ewish persona#ity #i)e Prophet $ra ser!es as

testimonia# to India+s to#erance* #o!e and hospita%#e nature of 3indu peop#e. To this date*

India can c#aim that distinction in spite of the Chinese and Is#amic hosti#ities. India remains

the home of !enera%#e ho#y 7a#ai ?ama of Ti%et.

nd Of ;u#io-C#audian 7ynasty Of Rome:

p on 1ero+s death* the power strugg#e ensued in imperia# Rome and three emperors came

and gone in short inter!a#s. In > &7* 0espasian emerged and was insta##ed as a Roman

emperor. This ended ;u#ian-C#audian dynasty and a#so the Patrician dominance of Roman

power in the senate. The rise of Mi#itary dri!en emperorships or e(uestrian order changed

the power structure of Roman mpire and su%se(uent rise of the ear#y Christianity in the

form of so#-In!ictus to present form of Christianity. This a#so %rought the ethnic di!ersity in

Roman+s power structure and mi#itary order.

0espasian ne!er forgot ;osephus+s prophesy and in gratitude 0espasian granted ;osephus his

fu## freedom and a##owed him to use the emperors fami#y name of 6#a!ius %y granting him

the Roman citi$enship. # of ;osephus+s descendants thereafter used the name 6#a!ius.

;osephus then fu##y defected to the Roman side. 3e a#so %ecame an ad!isor and friend of

0espasians son Titus* ser!ing as his trans#ator. 3e accompanied him in his mi#itary


17/47

assignments in ;udah and &nato#ia. 5hen Titus #ed the Siege of ;erusa#em* ;osephus was

there and %ecame an eye witness. Titus #ed assau#t on ;erusa#em #ed to the citys tota#

destruction and the #ooting of Second Temp#e. ;osephus recorded this important phase of

;ewish history* with specia# emphasis on the first century &7 that descri%es the 5ar with

Roman and the fa## of Masada. 7ue to the imperia# sponsorship of his wor)* it is characteri$edas pro-Roman propaganda %y some historians.

The 6#a!ian dynasty responded to the threat of &ristocratic ;udaism of Sadducees %y

promoting more peacefu# !ersions ad!ocated %y ;osephus that was the com%ination of:

=. 1ew Ra%%inic ;udaism within Pa#estine headed %y Pharisee group of priests re#ated to him.

D. The resurgence of the Proto-Christianity of Phi#o of e'andria and &nato#ia that was the

,So# In!ictus ,2in!isi%#e Sun4 of re!ised form of Persian Mithras.

Bust of Titus 6#a!ius

Titus 6#a!ius %#essed this strategy and pro%a%#y sponsored it under the #eadership of

;osephus. 3is %rother 7omitian continued it as it was %ecoming more successfu# and popu#ar

among Romans as we##. The Romani$ed groups of high priest of Pharisees were recruited %y


18/47

;osephus and were reoriented towards ;osephus+s strategy. 5e do not ha!e any definite

e!idence of their socia# gathering or acti!ities. 5e do ha!e some c#ues from ;osephuss

writing:

,It was /ods wi##* ;osephus c#aims. 5hi#e e'onerating his ro#e in the destruction of thetemp#e* he ca##s the second temp#e a materia# temp#e that was destroyed %y Titus. 3e e'a#ts

the ;ews to %ui#d a Spiritua# Temp#e* instead of the materia# one.

These words certain#y can %e construed to aim at Roman ;ewish Christian ears* not the ;ews

of ;erusa#em.

9ounger Bust of ;osephus-Roman &t an o#der age in ;ewish Ro%e &nti(uity of ;ews-3is ear#y wor)-JG &7

There are two additiona# manuscripts %y ;osephus wrote that are preser!ed< ,&gainst &pian

way that he finished in EJ &7 and his own auto%iography- ,;osephus+ #ife* comp#eted two

years #ater and he died sometime around =>D &7.

The Roman historian Suetonius 2E =DD &74 ma)es reference to those ear#y Christians of first

century &7 in his wor) on ,7i!us C#audius -DG and descri%es the agitation and re!o#t %yRoman ;ewish community that resu#ted in e'pu#sion of ;ews %y C#audius in HE &7. The

Maniac and 1utty mperor 1ero issued series of edicts and one of that in!o#!ed the

punishment of Christians around G &7. Suetonius descri%es the Christianity as a ,heretic and

superstitious. Tacitus and P#iny repeat the same in their history narrati!es.


19/47

3istorians de%ate whether or not the Roman go!ernment correct#y distinguished %etween

Christians ;ew and Re%e##ious ;ews prior to 1er!as modification of the 6iscus ;udaicus in E

&7. 6rom this point forward* those Roman ;ews practicing ;udaism paid the ta'* whi#e the

Roman Christian ;ews did not. This shows a c#ear distinction %etween who were pro Romans

0s. those who were against it. This in turn can %e understood as those who worshipped so#-In!ictus !s. Pure Messianic ;udaism.

But out of these re#igious and po#itica# conf#icts of first century &7* the most important thing

for Roman was the treasure tro!e of the second temp#e that can %e used to %ui#d the Roman

monuments in Rome and that a#ways increased the Roman mperor+s power and prestige.

The Siege of ;erusa#em and Treasure of Temp#e:

The ;ewish re%e##ion had many phases and the fina# phase was the city of ;erusa#em and may

ha!e in!o#!ed the dispute in co##ection and proper remittance of ta'es to Romans. ;osephus

tried to negotiate a surrender of ;erusa#em on %eha#f of Titus to spare the inha%itants %ut he

fai#ed. The Romans resumed the hosti#ities and (uic)#y %reached the first and second wa##s of

the ;erusa#em. Titus* the Son of 0espasian crucified around the wa## the ;ewish deserters to

intimidate the residents. The 3a#f star!ed and sieged popu#ation of ;erusa#em e'hausted %y

scarcity of food and water fina##y engaged into the %itter street fighting that they cannot

possi%#y win and they were crushed %y Romans.

&ccording to ;osephus* up on his urging* Titus had ordered that the second Temp#e of ;ew

shou#d %e spared %ut as the fighting around the gates continued* a Roman so#dier hur#ed a

torch inside one of the windows* which (uic)#y set the entire %ui#ding a%#a$e. The #ater

Christian chronic#er Su#picius Se!erus* possi%#y drawing on the #ost portion of Tacitus

3istories* c#aims that Titus fa!ored destruction of the ;ewish Temp#e so he can strip the

treasure of the temp#e to %ui#d the new monument in Rome. The Roman co#iseum and the

&rch %ui#t %y Titus disp#ays his !ictory o!er ;ews and his use of the #ooted treasures of sacred

temp#e of ;ews. This ser!es as testimonia# to Tacitus+s c#aim. ;osephus is again ma)ing

statements to minimi$e his ro#e in this entire ug#y episode.

;erusa#em was sac)ed and much of the popu#ation )i##ed* dispersed or ta)en as s#a!es.

;osephus c#aims that =*=>>*>>> peop#e were )i##ed during the siege* of which a ma"ority were

;ewish. O!er EJ*>>> were captured and ens#a!ed inc#uding ma"or #eaders of re%e#s and

priest#y aristocrats. Many f#ed to areas around the Mediterranean and &sia Minor. Titus

so#dier c#aimed him to %e a ,!ictor %ut under ;osephus+s ad!ise he reported#y refused to

accept a wreath of !ictory and he c#aimed that he had not won the !ictory on his own* %ut


20/47

had %een the !ehic#e through which ;ewish /od had manifested his wrath against his own

chosen peop#e for their de!iations of o#d ru#es of &%rahams. This a#so a!oids the guessing

game of his potentia# competitors in Rome who may ha!e am%ition to succeed his father

some day.

Construction of Roman Co#iseum and &rch Of Titus:

In spite of his hum%#e c#aim of !ictory o!er ;ews* Rome rewarded Titus+s triumph with an arch

ca##ed ,The &rch of Titus constructed at Roman 6orum ce#e%rating his accomp#ishments.

?ater on* he %ui#t the Roman Co#iseum. & decade of ci!i# war among patrician fami#y had

gi!en rise to this new c#ass of Mi#itary /enera#s who attained the ran) of no%i#ity. One such

fami#y was the /ens 6#a!ia* which rose from re#ati!e o%scurity to prominence in "ust four

generations* ac(uiring wea#th and status after the patrician mperors of the ;u#io-C#audian

dynasty ended.

&rch of Titus shows ;ewish s#a!es Second Temp#e constructed %y 3erod* the /reat

Transporting the #oots-e'hi%it on arch of Titus 7estroyed %y Romans


21/47

Construction of co#iseum and arc of Titus that were funded from the treasures #ooted from ;ewish Temp#e.

Co#iseum P#a(ue %y Titus Reconstructed !iew of Co#iseum and Rome


22/47

TITS &S PO1TI6K M&KIMS:

&fter 0espian death* the Titus %ecame the emperor and he assumed the tit#e of Pontife'

Ma'imus. The importance of this shou#d not %e minimi$ed as this tit#e fina##y %ecomes the

tit#e of Pope. The Pontife' Ma'imus 2?atin* meaning of it Ngreatest pontiffN was the high

priest of the Co##ege of Pontiffs 2Co##egiums Pontificum4 in ancient Rome. This was the most

important position in the ancient Roman re#igion* open on#y to patricians unti# DGH BC. Titus

was the first ,non-patrician p#e%eian to occupy this important post as it ga!e him the tota#

contro# of the temp#e+s treasury and ru#e ma)ing authority o!er a## temp#es in the empire.

This re#igious office was first po#itici$ed %y &ugustus when he too) contro# of that function

%ecause of co##ection of ta'es.

The e(uestrian order of ,so# In!ictus was thus %orn and #ater on perhaps duringConstantine+s time* the word NPontife'N %ecame a term used for Christian %ishops* inc#uding

the Bishop of Rome and the tit#e of NPontife' Ma'imusN was app#ied within the RomanCatho#ic Church to the Pope once the re#igious tit#e was di!ested from emperorship. Since thetime of Renaissance to this date* the tit#e appears on 0atican %ui#dings* monuments and coinsof popes.

Titus put an end to ,The ?aw of Ma"esta 2Treason4 that was used repeated#y against anyno%#es or commoners with the system of informers 27e#ators4 %y pre!ious C#audio-;u#ianemperors. This practice* against himse#f or anyone e#se was made i##ega# %y dec#aring:

NIt is impossi%#e for me to %e insu#ted or a%used in any way. 6or I do naught that deser!es

censure* and I care not for what is reported fa#se#y. &s for the emperors who are dead andgone* they wi## a!enge themse#!es in case anyone does them a wrong* if in !ery truth they aredemigods and possess any power.

&s mperor he %ecame )nown for his generosity* and Suetonius states that upon rea#i$ing hehad %rought no %enefit to anyone during a who#e day he remar)ed* N6riends* I ha!e #ost aday. 3e refused to %anish his own %rother 7omitian when he #earned he was p#ottingagainst him.


23/47

Titus as Pontife' Ma'imus 2DG>-D>&74 ?ucinius- so# In!ictus 2>F-DG &74 Pro%us- so# In!ictus 2DJ-DFD &74

Suetonius &ccount of 6ire in Rome and 1ero+s attempt to %#ame on Christianity:

Suetonius who was the contemporary historian of that time in E &7 ma)es a c#ear

distinction of this incident %y %#aming 1ero+s agent for starting the fire and then %#ame

,Chrestiani* usua##y ta)en to mean Christians. Suetonius ma)es no connection to the

Christians in great fire %ut ca##s ,Cresthus #i)e a person.

7uring the ru#e of C#audius 2H=-G= &74* Suetonius says that ;ews instigated %y ,Cresthus

were e'pe##ed from the city for causing distur%ances. Suetonius and Tacitus+s identification of

,Cresthus and other scho#ar+s assertion to connect that Christianity shou#d %e (uestioned as

they did not en"oy the freedom of speech. There are no c#ear distinctions made who they

were referring to L 7oes this mean ;ewish dissidents who fo##owed ear#y form of Christianity

through Mithraism or the peop#e fo##owing ;esus or "ust one person named , Cresthus that

was not the ;esus+ name %ut re%e##ious Messianic ;ewish s#a!e preaching arri!a# of new

Messiah %ut not necessari#y ;esus.

The Tacitus &nna#s passage 2=G.HH4* which has %een su%"ected to much scho#ar#y ana#ysis*

fo##ows a description of the si'-day /reat 6ire of Rome that %urned much of Rome in ;u#y H

&7. The )ey part of the passage reads as fo##ows 2trans#ation from ?atin %y &. ;. Church and

5. ;. Brodri%%* =FJ4:


24/47

,Conse(uent#y* to get rid of the report* 1ero fastened the gui#t and inf#icted the most

e'(uisite tortures on a c#ass hated for their a%ominations* ca##ed ,Chrestiani 2Some say

Christianity4. Chrestus* from whom the name had its origin* suffered the e'treme pena#ty

during the reign of Ti%erius at the hands of one of our procurators* Pontius Pi#atus* and a

most mischie!ous superstition* thus chec)ed for the moment* again %ro)e out not on#y in;udea* the first source of the e!i#* %ut e!en in Rome* where a## things hideous and shamefu#

from e!ery part of the wor#d find their centre and %ecome popu#ar. &ccording#y* an arrest

was first made of a## who p#eaded gui#ty< then* upon their information* an immense mu#titude

was con!icted* not so much of the crime of firing the city* as of hatred against man)indN.

3ere the )ey words are ,their centers and hideout pro%a%#y refers to Mithraism and

Chrestus pro%a%#y a persona# name of re%e# who is fo##owing this mo!ement. Tacitus must %e

in terror of writing any truth that wi## go against 1ero. Tacitus then adds that the most

Romans suspected that mperor 1ero had started the fire himse#f . To di!ert attention from

himse#f* 1ero accused the Christians of starting the fire and persecuted them. Tacitus did

suggest that 1ero used the Christians as scapegoats. 6#a!ius C#emens got simi#ar#y accused as

,Christian when 0ite##ius * 1ero+s henchman #earned that his %rother 0espasian was

marching towards Rome from &sia to face 0ite##ius* a 1ero+s agent who was responsi%#e for

setting fire to the Rome. The murdered C#emens was the unc#e of future emperor of Titus and

7omitian and %rother of 0espasian and fo##ower of Mithra. 3ow this e!ent may ha!e p#ayed a

ro#e in ad!ancing so# In!ictus as a stepping stone for introduction of the modern Christianity

now %ecomes o%!ious. Titus+s repe# of the ?aw of Ma"esta up on assumption of the power

was dri!en %y his unc#e+s )i##ing that was used %y 1ero+s henchman.

1o origina# copies of the Tacitus &nna#s e'ist and the sur!i!ing copies of Tacitus wor)s deri!e

from two principa# manuscripts* )nown as the Medicean manuscripts* written in ?atin* which

are he#d in the ?aurentian ?i%rary in 6#orence* Ita#y. It is the second Medicean manuscript

dated to ==th century &7.

The o#dest references of ;esus that are found in ;osephus+s wor) are ca##ed ,Testimonium

6#a!ianum.

= reference 2Boo)-=F4:

,&t this time there appeared ;esus* a wise man* if indeed one shou#d ca## him a man. 6or he

was a doer of start#ing deeds* a teacher of peop#e who recei!ed the truth with p#easure. &nd

he gained a fo##owing %oth among many ;ews and among many of /ree) origin. 3e was the

Messiah. &nd when Pi#ate* %ecause of an accusation made %y the #eading men among us*


25/47

condemned him to the cross* those who had #o!ed him pre!ious#y did not cease to do so. 6or

he appeared to them on the third day* #i!ing again* "ust as the di!ine prophets had spo)en of

these and count#ess other wondrous things a%out him. &nd up unti# this !ery day the tri%e of

Christians* named after him* has not died out. 2;osephus 6#a!ius* &nti(uities of the ;ews*

=F:-H4.

D references 2Boo)-D>4:

In %oo) D>* which is the #ast %oo)* in the form of a su%ordinate c#ause concerning the

e'ecution of the ,%rother of ;esus ca##ed Christ* whose name was ;ames. So* who was

e'ecutedL ;esus or his %rother ;ames and ;esus indeed sur!i!ed L. This remains the mystery.

The %#ac) te't in the a%o!e #oo)s #i)e the insertion %y Christian scri%es at a #ater time wor)ing

for use%ius. The high#ighted te't in Red appears to %e more origina# te't of ;osephus as per

some scho#ars. The argument for and against #ies as fo##ows:

&. 7id the ;osephus himse#f wrote this in &ramaic Te't or it was changed during trans#ation

into /ree) and Syrian te't when the te't was rewritten in the rd through Hth century &7 L

B. In addition to that* we ha!e !arious gospe#s that are written #ater and modified se!era#

centuries #ater %y many un)nown authors that create the historica# s)etch of ;esus and his =D

apost#es and the %irth of Christianity in 1ew Testament. Christianity* as we )now it* %y

uni!ersa# recognition is a the creation of St Pau#* the Pharisee ;ew who was sent to Rome

around = &7* where he founded the first Christian community at Rome. The Pau#+s church issti## there in Rome* Ita#y. The re#igion imposed %y Pau# in Rome was (uite different from that

was preached %y ;esus in Pa#estine and put into practice %y ;ames the ;ust* who was

su%se(uent#y the #eader of the Christian community of ;erusa#em %y some account. Some say

that was ;ames who was crucified and ;esus escaped. The ear#ier Christian preaching was in

#ine with the way of #i!ing and thin)ing of the sect )nown as the ssenes as descri%ed a%o!e.

The doctrina# contents of Christianity as shaped at the end of the =st century &7 was

e'traordinari#y c#ose to those of the sect of the Pharisees* to which Pau# and ;osephus %oth

%e#onged. This suggests the c#ose co##a%oration %etween ;osephus and Pau#. ;osephus

rea#i$ed that on#y way to spread his !ersion of his !ersion of re#igion in Rome was to in!o#!eanother Pagan cu#t that was permissi%#e to ser!e as su%terfuge to attach to the princip#es of

ear#y Christianity. The cu#t of Mithraism %ecame that !ehic#e and a#so was )nown as so#-

In!ictus.

&ccording to the officia# !ersion* Pau# was e'ecuted pro%a%#y in J &7 %y 1ero* together withmost of his fo##owers. ;osephus+s account suggests a different !ersion. Initia##y* Pau# was sent


26/47

to ;erusa#em so he can %e "udged %y the temp#e priests. &t that time* ;osephus was in;erusa#em trying to free Pau# from the temp#e priests. The head priest Sanhedrin whi#e

"udging Pau#+s preaching accusing him of seditious in nature and against the #aw. Pau# said:

NBrethren* I am a Pharisee* the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I

am ca##ed in (uestionN. This created a dissension among the "udges and at that time*;osephus or someone wor)ing for ;osephus who was a high ran)ing priest and trusted %yRomans rose and said:

N5e find no e!i# in this man: %ut if a spirit or an ange# hath spo)en to him* #et us not fightagainst /od.

3e ordered the Roman so#diers to set him free and ta)e him away. The apost#e Pau# was thenhanded o!er to the Roman go!ernor* 6e#i' in ;erusa#em* who )ept him under arrest for sometime* unti# he was sent to Rome* together with some other prisoners 2&cts DJ:=4* to %e "udged%y the emperor 1ero* to whom* as a Roman citi$en* Pau# had appea#ed. In Rome* he spenttwo years in prison 2&cts DF:E4 %efore %eing set free in &7 or H &7.&nother record of ;osephus suggests that after sa!ing him in ;erusa#em* he was a#so a%#e tosa!e Pau#* %ut not a## the fo##owers that inc#uded many friends and re#ati!es of his Phariseegroup. In his auto%iography 2?ife* .=4* ;osephus says:

NBetween the age of twenty-si' and twenty-se!en I em%ar)ed on a "ourney to Rome* for thefo##owing reason. 7uring the period when 6e#i' was a go!ernor of ;udaea* 6e#i' had sent somepriests to Rome to "ustify themse#!es %efore the emperor 21ero4< I )new them to %e e'ce##entpeop#e* who had %een arrested on insignificant charges. &s I desired to de!ise a p#an to sa!ethem* I "ourneyed to Rome.N Somehow* ;osephus succeeded in reaching Rome in time* where

he made friends with iturus* a ;ewish mime that was we## appreciated %y 1ero. Than)s toiturus* he was introduced to Poppaea* the wife of the emperor* and through her inf#uence*he succeeded in freeing the priests 2?ife* .=4. The sa!ed priest was pro%a%#y Pau#. It istherefore easy to conc#ude that ;osephus went to Rome* at his own persona# ris) ande'pense* specifica##y to free Pau# and his companions* and that it was due to his inter!entionthat the apost#e was re#eased.

Pau# and ;osephus considered a "oint priority to sa!e the ;ews from the narrowness of;udaism of ssence that was ad!ocated %y ;esus. ;osephus thought %y amending that wi##ma)e re!ised !ersion appea# to many and wi## a##ow it to ma)e it as a uni!ersa# re#igion. This

wi## #in) a## nations across the entire Roman mpire. They were a#so in agreement on othersignificant points< Their %e#ief in the doctrines of the Pharisees* which were those that werewho##y recei!ed %y the Roman church* in the &cts of the &post#es* 2&cts DD.>4.

7. ;. ?o!e a Christian Minister* TS1* SBC has this to say on connection %etween Christianityand Mithraism:


27/47

NThe Roman mpire %egan their officia# recognition of sun worshipping during the time ofMarcus &ure#ian when he instituted the cu#t of NSo# In!ictusN. There is !irtua##y no difference%etween the cu#t of So# In!ictus and that of Mithraism or for that matter Catho#icism. In theyear >J &7* mperor 7ioc#etian* a Sun 5orshipper* was in!o#!ed in the dedication of atemp#e to Mithra* and was responsi%#e for the %urning of 3o#y Scripture 2which made it

possi%#e for #ater emperors to formu#ate Christianity* and thus %egan the Roman !ersion ofthe Nni!ersa# Christo-pagan Mystery Re#igion.N. &fter the rein of 7ioc#etian* the Romanmperor Constantine* who was an ear#y Christo-pagan emperor maintained the tit#eNPontifus Ma'imusN the high priest of paganism* and remained a worshipper of Mithra. 3iscoins were inscri%ed: NSO? I10ICTO COMITIN* which is interpreted as NCommitted to theIn!inci%#e SunN. 7uring his reign* pagan Sun worship was %#ended with the worship of theTrue Creator 2syncretism4* and officia##y tit#ed NChristianityN %y the 2#ess than ho#y4 Romanmpire and its officia# church the 2#ess than ho#y4 catho#ic 2uni!ersa#4 church.

&twi## and 6#a!io Bar%iero+s Interpretation of the e!ents:

The scho#ar#y opinions on the authenticity and accuracy of ;osephus+s te't !ary considera%#y.

Considering (uestiona%#e %ac)ground of ;osephus and his own history with Romans* the

concerns are somewhat "ustified. though* we find simi#ar inaccuracy in dating or genea#ogy

issues with many historica# te'ts of the other ci!i#i$ation. 5hat this one ma)es an e'ceptiona#

case is that the author had #i!ed during the #ife of ;esus and him %eing a ;ew* it is e'pected

that we #earn more from him on the account of ;esus in more accurate detai#s. ;esus was the

;ewish Messiah and the founder of the ear#y Christianity. ;osephus was a scri%e and a scho#ar.

3e is either de#i%erate#y omitting detai#s or there were no detai#s to share. It is a#so possi%#e

that someone other than him e'cised and edited his te'ts without ;osephus+s )now#edge.

Some e'perts indeed thin) that ;osephus+s te't is a#tered without his )now#edge and

appro!a#* considering what they did to Roman historian and poet 0irgi#. 5hi#e another group

of e'perts %e#ie!e that Titus commissioned ;osephus to write the history for po#itica# purpose

to create a ;ewish Messiah that the ;ews were waiting for* so he can pi!ot the ;ewish

re%e##ion in different direction and through missionaries pacify them to Roman way of #ife.

;osephus pro%a%#y had his own agenda of rec#aiming contro# of ;ewish temp#e to the

Pharisees %ut do it in a way so it %inds a## the pro!inces of the Roman mpire in to a sing#e

theo#ogy and then c#aim himse#f to %e Pontife' Ma'imus with the he#p of emperor Titus. 5e

do not )now for sure how much they succeeded as Christianity seems ha!e their own wings

and #egs to f#y.

On#y thing we can conc#ude that in #ater history of the Christianity* the Pope %ecame a##

powerfu# figures and )ing ma)ers in the Roman Catho#ic wor#d. # )ings* du)es and Roya#ty

made a point to )eep Pope as a centra# re#igious authority and to this day 0atican sti## en"oys


28/47

the city-state status and fu## contro# of Catho#ic 7iocese #i)e a corporation. The Powerfu#

popes in ear#y history sanctioned the crusades against the Mos#ems in!aders of ho#y p#aces

and a#so made a trip to con!ince &tti#a* the 3un to spare Rome and return to his own

territory. This power e(uation can %e compared in the same way with Is#am* where it is hard

to separate po#itica# components of Is#am from re#igious core.

It appears through !arious ana#yses and historica# accounts that ;osephus and Pau# p#ayed a

significant ro#e in formu#ating ear#y phase of Christianity.

&merican %i%#e scho#ar ;oseph &twi## %e#ie!es that Romans used ,Christ as propaganda to

pacify the re%e##ious su%"ects. 3e c#aims that many para##e#s e'ist %etween the story of Titus

6#a!ius and ;esus Christ+s missions* meaning %oth happen to %e in same p#ace at same time

pro%a%#y with ;osephus as an eye witness. 3e a#so c#aims that !arious gospe# is the

com%ination of one continuous story of ;esus. 3e uses the para##e# mytho#ogy of ;esus with

sun god Mithra as a %orrowed from ancient stories. The common e#ements in that entire

story of ;esus are ;osephus* Pau#* Mithra* ;esus and Titus 6#a!ius.

The Indians can compare this to the myth of em%ryo transfer theory of ;aina Maha!ira and

dream theory of Buddha* or %irth story of arna or rishna of Maha%harata. If &twi##+s theory

is right* the Christianity did not start out as a re#igion %ut more #i)e a pagan cu#t of ,Mithra

that was practiced in &sian territories of Imperia# Rome. It is hypothesi$ed that when Mithra

cu#t mo!ed to Rome* it came in Pagan form. The ido# of &sian Mithra was rep#aced with

&po##o of the /ree) that was con!erted to Modern ;esus on the Cross. 3owe!er* the

Mithraum or temp#e of worship that was %ui#t %ecame an ear#y church where Pau# and other

preachers spo)e the ;esus+ #ife* spread the messages and discuss mirac#es. The church

acti!ities were centra##y contro##ed %y Romans and propagated against re%e##ious opposition

in occupied territories. The pro%a%#e s)etch of the ,6#a!ius Pro"ect was %ased on high

accepta%i#ity of son of /od- Mithra in &sia Minor and ;udah. If the re%e##ion can %e ended in

&sia* then the 1orthern /ermanic Tri%es re!o#ts can %e dea#t with mi#itari#y.

The Ionian /ee)s a#so had their own sun god named ,&ttis or ,3e##os who was the consort

of Phrygian /oddess ,Cy%i# 2e(uated as /oddess earth4. 6#a!io Bar%iero suggests that

,Mithra and ;esus were two sides of the same coin. 6#a!io Bar%iero is a retired admira# in the

Ita#ian 1a!y and author of the three %oo)s. 3e %e#ie!es that after the )i##ing of priest#y c#ass

of a## Sadducees and the sac) of second Temp#e %y Titus* the Pharisees got the upper hand

and sei$ed the re#igious authority o!er ;ews.


29/47

In his %oo) ,&nti(uities of ;ew* ;osephus creates an impression %y conceding two %asic

fundamenta# facts regarding ;esus:

=. ;osephus %e#ie!ed in the resurrection of ;esus.

D. ;osephus a#so ac)now#edged ;esus+ status as the Messiah of prophecies.

3is positions were therefore (uite consistent with the %e#iefs of Pharisee as we## as

Romani$ed ;ewish Christians. In the same te't* he a#so made a specia# effort to disp#ay his

sympathy towards the ;ewish Christians* where he spea)s with great admiration of ;ohn the

Baptist as we## as of ;ames* the %rother of ;esus.

Ta)ing into account 6#a!io Bar%iero ana#ysis* it can %e conc#uded that the ,Mithraism of &siawith its Pagan deity of Mithra %ecame a co!er for a new re#igion that was the ear#iest form ofChristianity of Rome %ut was not recogni$ed as an officia# re#igion of Roman mpire unti# the

proc#amation %y Constantine* the /reat.

Mithraeum or the site of worship %ecame a gathering p#ace for the %e#ie!ers and %ecame asecret organi$ation for mutua# assistance to e!ade Roman watch %ut in their pri!acy theywere a##owed to worship any /ods they #i)ed or were mandated to worship imposed %y theirmasters.. This %and of %rothers and sisters can %e compared to the Messianic ;udaism* or the(uestrian order of ancient Rome* or the order of 6ree-Masonry or the nights of Temp#ar ofthe recent history.

The coins of mperor constantine

The most significant proof of the e'istence of Mithraism is the coin of first Christian )ingmperor Constantine the /reat. 3e was an affi#iate of ,So# In!ictus Mithras and ne!erdisowned it* not e!en when he open#y em%raced Christianity and dec#ared himse#f to %eN/ods ser!antN and a sort of Nni!ersa# BishopN or ,Pontife' Ma'imus.

The %iographer use%ius e(uated him as the N1ew MosesN* %ut Constantine was %apti$edon#y on his death %ed* and he ne!er stopped minting coins with Mithraic sym%o#s on one side


30/47

and Christian on the opposite side 2see a%o!e4. 3e e!en erected in Constantinop#e a co#ossa#statue of himse#f wrapped up in Mithraic sym%o#s.

mperor Constantine The /reat in Mithraic 6orm

The emperor Constantine %e#ie!ed that ;esus Christ and So# In!ictus Mithras were %othaspects of the same Superior 7i!inity. 3e was certain#y not the on#y one to ha!e thiscon!iction. Tertu##ian writes that ,the pagans %e#ie!e that the Christian /od is the Sun*%ecause it is a we##-)nown fact that we pray turning towards the rising Sun* and that on theSuns day we gi!e ourse#!es to "u%i#ation.N 2Tertu##ian* &d 1ationes =* =4. Tertu##ian attemptsto "ustify this su%stantia# commona#ity %etween Christianity and Mithraism in the eyes of thefaithfu# Christian.

If &twi##+s disco!ery and Bar%iero+s ana#ysis is correct then the Romans in!ented the who#e

story with ;osephus+s assistance with commona#ity of mutua# interest. It is a#ways apossi%i#ity that after Roman recei!ed the #imited cooperation from ;osephus and Pau#* the

Roman scri%es may ha!e a#tered the ;osephus+s ear#y te't. &twi##* a %i%#ica# scho#ar is

e'pected to present his finding at the ne't conference in ?ondon in Octo%er D>= %ut he is

going to do it in a way that does not hurt Christian+s %e#ief and !a#ues. 3e #i)es to draw a

para##e# that why the go!ernment does the things that a#ters the truth hoping that it wi##

resu#t in common good %ut sometimes gets unintended outcomes.


31/47

&twi## c#aims that he found many stri)ing simi#arities %etween Titus 6#a!ius mi#itary campaign

stops and ;esus Christ+s appearance at !arious p#aces of his mission in gospe#s that #ed him to

the conc#usion that this is no coincidence of occurrences. 3e made this disco!ery whi#e

studying the ancient te't of first century &7 historian ;osephus+s wor) a#ong with !ariousgospe#s

.

&ttis at shrine of Ostia &ntica near Rome Phrygian /oddess Cy%e#e at /etty Museum-G> &7

The Phrygian /oddess Cy%e#e is descri%ed as ,u%e#eyan Mother and e(uated as the earth

/oddess. In India* ?a'mi u%era is a#so descri%ed as earth /oddess a#ong with ,Ram-Sita and

,Rama of Ramayana came from so#ar race and was an incarnation of Sun-/od. These

simi#arities in %e#ief system are sti## present among a## Indo-uropean peop#e in one form or

another.

Other !idence of connection of so#ar worship and ear#y Christianity:

&s shown a%o!e* C#ement of e'andria descri%es ;esus dri!ing the chariot of the sun across

the s)y as shown in a mosaic form at St. Peter+s Basi#ica 2shown a%o!e4 dated to the fourth

century &7. It shows ;esus on the right of the chariot* whi#e he ascends to the hea!en*

represented %y the sun.


32/47

On some coins of the fourth century &7* the Christian %anner at the top reads NSo# In!ictus.N

& #arge part of the Roman popu#ation %e#ie!ed that Christianity and the worship of the sun

were c#ose#y connected* if not necessari#y the same.

;esus was often ca##ed %y the name ,So# ;ustitiae* 2Sun of ;ustice4 and was represented %ystatues that were simi#ar to the young &po##o. This way it %ecame the %ridge %etween

Mithraism and Christianity in their own iconic depiction.

Once Christianity was #egitimi$ed %y /reat Constantine in the Roman mpire* the Romans

2%oth ;ews and /enti#es4 )ept on worshipping %oth the Sun and Christ. Pope Innocentius

authori$ed the resumption of ceremonies in honor of the Sun in H=> &7* hoping that it wi##

sa!e Rome from the sac)s from the 0isigoths. Pope ?eo the /reat simi#ar#y wrote in H> &7

that the most Christians* when entering St Peter+s church must first turn towards the sun and

%ow in its honor. The %ishop of Troy open#y continued to profess his worship of the sun e!en

during his episcopate.

&twi## %e#ie!es when Romans e'hausted a## their efforts to suppress the re%e##ious pro!ince

of ;udah* they created ;esus through ;osephus+s wor) fo##owed %y !arious gospe#s %y Pau#* a

co##a%orator. Since ;ews were #ed to %e#ie!e that the sa!ior or Messiah is a%out to arri!e to

free them of the %ondage from Roman. This "udgmenta# ad!ice was pro%a%#y rendered to

Roman %y the ;osephus. Romans conc#uded that %est way to counter this is through a re!erse

program of ,so# In!ictus. Their hope was to counter $ea#ous missionary acti!ities of re%e#s %y

introducing peacefu# missionary acti!ities with Proto-Christianity. &twi## conc#udes as many

other scho#ars ha!e o%ser!ed in the past this missing #in) of ;osephus and &post#e Pau# to

Christianity. &twi## ha!e now matched the dates and se(uence of e!ents surrounding ;esus

with ;osephus and Titus.

Roman Mithra from Centra# &sia:

& c#ue comes from the phesians G.=H-The /ospe# of Pau#:

6or anything that %ecomes !isi%#e is #ight. Therefore it says*,&wa)e* O s#eeper* and arise from the dead* and Christ wi## shine on you.

This is #i)e indirect#y in!o)ing Mithra* the Sun /od.


33/47

Beth pha synagogue* with the sun in the centre* surrounded %y the twe#!e $odiac conste##ations and

with the four seasons-#ocated at /i#%oa Mountains near Beit Shean* Israe#.

Roman Imperia#-rd cent. Christian mperor Constantine with Mitra Mosaic of Christ as So# In!ictus

So# In!ictus Pessinus rd

century &7- So# In!ictus nder necropo#is at St.peter+s Basi#ica


34/47

thnic di!ersity of &ncient Rome and Its mperors:

Roman mpire at its height %ecame more ethnica##y di!erse with its e'pansion and con(uests

of other territories. On east* it touched the Persian %order of &rmenia and on the 1orth it

went as far as south of Ri!er Rhine and west to 3adrian wa## in Britain. In the south* it

contro##ed ?aptis Magna of 1orth &frica. They were the master of Mediterranean region. The

mighty Indo-Parthians* 3uns of east* Cathegians* pine /au#s and Ce#ts and Phrygians and

Ionians of &nato#ians were and continue to remain a constant threat and tying up the %est of

Roman #egions in defending the con(uered pro!inces of the empire that were at far away

distance. The Romans were getting prosperous as the o%edient gypt has %ecome the %read

%as)et and &sia Minor and &nato#ia was the ma"or supp#ier of cotton* sa#t* o#i!e oi# *wine

producing regions a#ong with critica# minera# commodities. They ser!ed as an important trade

route to si#) roads from east for importation of rare #u'urious items not a!ai#a%#e in the

Roman mpire.

7uring Dnd and rd century &7* Rome rea#i$ed that spontaneous and persistent re%e##ions in

Pa#estine 2;udah4* Syria and /a#atians pro!inces wi## re(uire dip#omacy com%ined with

mi#itary efforts. The di!erse ethnicities were reaching the Roman aristocrats fami#y through

intermarriage and system of po#ygamy. The mi#itary wings of aristocrats were getting more

powerfu# o!er Patrician+s ho#d of power in the senate* &s emperorship was shifting to mi'ed

origin fami#y of P#e%eians. The e'amp#e of ethnicity mi' and re#igious importation was (uite

e!ident from the fo##owing e'amp#e of Septimius Se!erus.

;u#ius Bassianus 2=FJ -D=J &74 was a Syrian 3igh Priest at mesa. Bassianus was a high priest

for the Temp#e of the Sun 2so#-In!ictus4. &n &ramaean Syrian nomadic tri%e+s Sun /od was

ca##ed ,#-/e%a#. Bassianus was a mem%er of the Roya# fami#y of mesa 21ow city of 3oms*

Syria4. The Roya# 6ami#y was a part of the #oca# Syrian &ramaean aristocracy and was a c#ient

)ingdom of the Roman mpire. The %eginning of his priesthood is un)nown %ut %y =FJ &7* he

%ecame a high priest of mesa. Bassianus was a son of a ;u#ius and his paterna# unc#e was

;u#ius &grippa* who ser!ed as a Primipi#aris who was a former #eading Centurion of Praetorian

/uards.

So# In!ictus and Its Introduction to Rome:

6uture emperor ?ucius Septimius Se!erus 2&fricanus4 had !isited mesa* %ased on a promising

horoscope that he wou#d find his future wife in Syria. ?ucius was from ?aptis Magna of Ber%er

origin. Bassianus introduced Se!erus to his two daughters. 3is e#der daughter ;u#ia Maesa

was married to a Syrian no%#e /aius ;u#ius &!itus e'ianus and they had two daughters ;u#ia

Soaemias Bassiana and ;u#ia &!ita Mamaea.


35/47

Two important p#aces of reference: mesa 2Syria4 for &ure#ian emperors. dessa in &rmenia-St. Thomas of India

3is younger daughter ;u#ia 7omna was not married. Se!erus and 7omna* married thereafter.

7omna %ore Se!erus two sons. ?ucius Septimius Bassianus 2Caraca##a- =FF- D=J&74 and

Pu%#ius Septimius /eta 2=FE- D== &74. Caraca##a and /eta wou#d %ecome future Roman

mperors and heirs to their father. These #ines of emperors made ,So# In!ictus in!isi%#e sun

more !isi%#e and officia# %y inc#uding them in their coinage. This was one of the officia#

introductions of ,so# In!ictus or Mithra to the Roman that was practiced %ehind c#osed door.

The wi!es and Chi#dren of cross cu#tura# marriage p#ay an important ro#e in this re#igious

introduction and di!ersification especia##y with the he#p of sympathetic emperors.

Caraca##a was of mi'ed Ber%er and Syrian descent and was ca##ed Marcus &ure#ius Se!erus.

/eta emerged as Pu%#ius Septimius %ut in!o#!ed in assassinating his %rother at mesa.

#aga%a#us who fo##owed was a#so a Ber%er-Syrian and was )nown in Roman history as

Marcus &ure#ius &ntonius. This Marcus was the cousin of the first Marcus &ure#ius who was

assassinated. &fter defeating the usurper Pu%#ius* he decreed and made So# In!ictus

2#aga%a#us4 of mesa* the ma"or Roman re#igion. 3e himse#f assumed the tit#e of Pontife'

Ma'imus and presided o!er the ceremony. In spite of his effort* his downfa## is attri%uted to

his eccentricity and se'ua# scanda#s.


36/47

Roman 7enarius of #aga%a#us #aga%a#us with his se'ua# de!iation

Septimius Severus and family Roman-Mithra killing Bull Sol-Invictus plaque of Mithra

http://www.livius.org/jo-jz/julia/julia_maesa.html

,;u#ia Maesa was %orn on J May of an un)nown year. Because her first daughter was %orn

in =F> &7* and Roman gir#s typica##y married at the age of fifteen* she may ha!e %een %orn in

=G &7 or a few years ear#ier. 3er father was ;u#ius Bassianus* the high priest of the sun god

#aga%a#us of mesa* a ho#y city in Syria. Maesa married to a Roman )night named /aius

;u#ius &!itus e'ianus. The coup#e had two daughters* ;u#ia Soaemias 2%orn=F> &74 and ;u#ia

Mamaea* who was a %it younger. The Roman emperor &ure#ius 2Caraca##a4 was the first

Roman emperor a statesman and inte##igent* scho#ar#y wise man and worshipped the cu#t of

Mithra due to his fami#y+s affi#iation. This cu#t was a#ready popu#ar in Syria and )nown as thecu#t of #aga%a#us. The #aga%a#us meant Sun /od of the mountain and the statue was

%rought to Rome and com%ined to gather that %ecame ,so# in!ecti!e 2in!isi%#e Sun4 of the

Roman mpire.


37/47

Caraca##a 2nic)name4 renamed himse#f as an mperor &ure#ius and /eta 2nic)name4 as Pu%#ius Se!erus* and3e#ioga%a#us was #aga%a#us or second Marcus &ure#ius. 2Both names are suggesti!e of sun-/ree)-3e#ios andSyrian- #aga%a#us.

5e a#so )now that the many ear#y Roman mperor starting from &ugustus e(uated them

with the ,/od. The main guiding princip#e was to esta%#ish their authority as ,u#timate and

uncha##engea%#e %y the peop#e they ru#ed. n(uestiona%#y* ;u#ius Cesar may ha!e #earned

that from the gyptian+s history on how Pharos ru#ed and maintained their authority.

i

Roman &ureus depicting #aga%a#us. The re!erse reads ,Sanct 7eo So#i #aga%a# 2To the 3o#y Sun /od #aga%a#4*

and depicts a four-horse* go#d chariot carrying the ho#y stone of the mesa temp#e. The si#!er coin in the right

shows the coin of Coin of mperor Pro%us* circa DF>* with So# In!ictus riding a (uadriga* with #egend SO?I

I10ICTO* Nto the ncon(uered SunN: the mperor 2at #eft4 wears a radiated so#ar crown* worn a#so %y the god.

&fter &ure#ian* the ne't coin appeared under Christian emperor Constantine who worshipped

Christianity and Mithraism. Some say* Constantine was %apti$ed as Christians at his death

%ed. 6a#!io Bar%erio c#aims that the forma# introduction of Mithra cu#t was introduced in

Rome around ear#y third century &7. %y 6#a!ius dynasty.


38/47

& go#d mu#tip#e of Nncon(uered ConstantineN with So# In!ictus* struc) in =. The use of So#s image appea#ed

to %oth the educated citi$ens of /au#* who wou#d recogni$e in it &po##os patronage of &ugustus and the arts<

and to Christians* who found so#ar monotheism #ess o%"ectiona%#e than the traditiona# pagan pantheon. On the

right mura# indicate a 7edication made %y a priest of ;upiter 7o#ichenus to So# In!ictus and the /enius of themi#itary unit ,e(uites singu#ars

The Roman emperors after the end of ;u#io-C#audian dynasty came from the Roman

e(uestrian order that means coming from Mi#itary order of P#e%eian. One important e#ement

of The Roman e(uestrian order was 2NOrder of Mounted )nightsN4* simi#ar to the mythica#

order of ing &rthur+s ,nights of The round Ta%#e.. They constituted e(uestrian order

ran)ing %e#ow the origina# patricians 2Roman Patricii4* a hereditary caste that monopo#i$ed

po#itica# power during the ear#y era of the repu%#ic. The non-patricians 2p#e%eians4 a#so ha!e

%ecome the peop#e of mi'ed origin due to their #ong mi#itary careers o!erseas. This can %e

easi#y compared to Indian 0edic shatriya and ,0rtya shatriyas of the #ater period or

&gni!ansh shatriyas. & mem%er of the e(uestrian order was )nown as an ,(ues

2e(ui!a#ent to Sans)rit-&s!a4 meaning ,horse mounted they occupied the Praetorian

/uard+s ran)s during 0espasian+s time and therefore %ecame the ,second order of roman

aristocrats. 7omiti##a* the #der was the wife of the Roman mperor 0espasian. She was a

daughter of 6#a!ius ?i%era#is* a hum%#e Roman c#er). Before her marriage* she was a forma#

mistress to an &frican Roman )night of e(uestrian order. She was the mother of Titus 6#a!ius

Caesar. Titus was a mi#itary commander and tactician* ser!ing under his father in ;udaea

during the 6irst ;ewish-Roman 5ar and associate of ;osephus.

The #ast %oo) of the 1ew Testament is common#y )nown today as the NBoo) of Re!e#ationN

or NThe Re!e#ation %y ;ohnN. The traditiona# date for the Boo) of Re!e#ation is towards the

end of the reign of 7omitian 6#a!ius. The Re!e#ation was written against the %ac)ground of

the administration of the 6iscus ;udaicus under 7omitian. This wi## further support the

ma"ority opinion a%out the date for this %oo)* towards the end of 7omitian+s reign+.


39/47

The different punishments for Christians that can %e found in this apoca#yptic %oo)

2imprisonment* %anishment and e'ecution4 c#ear#y point in the direction of the 6iscus

;udaicus and the distinction it made %etween ;ewish peop#e practicing ;udaism and ;ewish

Christians who fo##owed so#-In!ictus. This distinction is a#so !ery present in the #etters to the

se!en churches in Re!. D and * and a#so in the !ision in Re!. J a%out the =HH >>> and theinnumera%#e mu#titude. Both in the se!en #etters and in the !ision* as mentioned a%o!e* a

c#ear distance %etween Christian communities that inc#uded ;ewish Christians and

mainstream ;udaism can %e detected.

0ettius &gorius Praete'tatus (Pater Patrum of Rome4:

0ettius &gorius Praete'tatus was a senator and he#d !arious appointments in Roman

administration %ut the most important was the ,Pater Patrum or head of a## Pagan churches

of Rome that inc#uded the important church of the ,cu#t of Mithra. 3e died in Rome during

FH &7. 3is name and his re#igious and po#itica# appointments are written on the %asementof St Peters Basi#ica* together with the names of a #ong #ist of other Roman senators*

spanning the period from >G to E> &7. The one thing that they ha!e in common is that they

a## are NPatresN of Roman Mithras. This is c#ear e!idence that it was here* inside the 0atican

that the supreme #eader of the Mithraic organi$ation resided* at the side of the most sacred

Basi#ica of Christianity* erected %y Constantine the /reat in D> &7. 6or at #east J> years the

supreme #eaders of two Nre#igionsN that were a#ways supposed to %e competitors* if not

sworn enemies* #i!ed peacefu##y and in perfect harmony side %y side. There two standing

memoria#s in Rome that certifies his worship of Mithra. 3er is ?atin and ng#ish trans#ation.

,o the shades of 0ettius &gorius Praete'tatus* augur* priest of 0esta* priest of So#* mem%er of the Board of6ifteen* initiate of the senate of 3ercu#es* hierophant of ?i%er and the #usinian mysteries* neocorus 2L4*

tauro%o#iate 2i.e. had undergone the tauro%o#ium in the cu#t of Cy%e#e4* pater patrum< and in the state:

candidate for Quaestor* r%an Praetor* Corrector of Tuscany and m%ria* a consu#ar of ?usitania* proconsu# of

&chaia* r%an Prefect* senatoria# #egate G times* Praetorian Prefect of Ita#y and I##yria twice* consu#-ordinary-

designate< and &conia 6a%ia Pau#ina* no%#e woman* initiate of Ceres and the #eusinian mysteries* initiate of

3ecate at &egina* tauro%o#iate hierophant.

The ?atin: Basis magna marmorea. In hortis Matthaeiorum* u%i adhuc e'tat. &gorii 0ettio &gorio Praete'tato

!2iro4 c2#arissimo4. a4 On the first co#uum: Pontifici 0estae pontifici So#is (uindecem!iro auguri tauro%o#iato curia#i neocoro hierofante patri sacrorum.

%4 On the second co#umn: Quaestori candidato praetori ur%ano correctori Tusciae et m%riae consu#ari

?usitaniae proconsu#i &chaiae praefecto ur%i praef2ecto4 praet2orio4 II Ita#iae et II#yrici consu#i

designato.

c4 On the right side: 7edicata )a#2endis4 fe%r2uariis4 d2omino4 n2ostro4 6#2a!io4 0a#entiniano &ug2usto4 IIIet

utropio cons2u#i%us4. Both of this confirms his ro#e as priest of ,So# In!ictus.


40/47

0i##a Mattei at Cae#ian 3i## in Rome Capito#ine Museum* Rome FJ &7

There are more words of praise %y &conia 6a%ia Pau#ina* the wife of 0ettius for H> years and

one noteworthy comment she ma)es is !ery re!ea#ing and compati%#e with Persian Mithra.

There were %#ood sacrifices consistent with Mithra+s %u## mytho#ogy of pagan worship. ;u#ia

confirms through the a%o!e inscription that the %#ood sacrifices such as the ,Tauro%o#ium

2as portrayed in T0 series Spartacus and Rome were a## secret and nocturna# ritua#s within the

church. 5ithin a decade of his death* a## p#aces of pagan worship wou#d %e c#osed and

rep#aced with Christianity. Same para##e#s are drawn with ritua#s of Indo-Persian. # Parthian

emperors were crowned %y 3ouse of ,Suren with %#ood Ceremony.2 /onophores 2One of the

a##eged Magi4 %e#onged to 3ouse of Suren4. Sisodiya Rana a#so performed the %#ood ritua#s atthe inauguration with same %#ood ritua#s that they o%ser!ed from /uhi#ot and Maitra)a of

Saurashtra.

&rcheo#ogica##y* The Mithraeum of the Se!en Spheres seems to ha!e %een e'ca!ated for the

first time %y Petrini* in the years =F>D-=F>H. 6our inscriptions were found:


41/47

The dedication of an a#tar to So# Mithras %y ?. Tu##ius &gatho:

L. TVLLIVS AGATHO

DEO INVICTO SOLI

MITHRAE ARAM D. D.

E AN QVE DEDICAVIT OB

HONORE DEI M. AEMILIO

EPAPHRODITO PATRE

& restoration of the shrine and its !esti%u#e 2 pronaos4 %y &. 7ecimius 7ecimianus:

A. DECIMIVS A. F. PAL. DECIMIANVS S. P. RESTITVIT

A. DECIMIVS A. FIL. PAL. DECIMIANVS AEDEM

CVM SVO PRONAO IPSVM QVE DEVM SOLEM MITHRA

ET MARMORIBVS ET OMNI CVLTV SVA P. RESTITVIT

Red un#ined ?atin Te't a%o!e under#ines the Mithra worship.

3e was the #ast pagan head of the church of Mithra ritua#. Timothy 6ra)e in his artic#e ,The

;esus Mysteries writes that at the site of 0atican* there once stood the Temp#es of Sun /od

&ttis and /oddess Cy%e#e a#ong with Mithraum where sacrifice to of the %u## were made and


42/47

a piece of sacrifice a#ong with %#ood was offered to de!otees after the sermon. In the present

catho#ic church communion* these two sym%o#ic items are rep#aced as , %read of Christ with a

#itt#e sip of red wine rep#acing the ancient offering of %u## meat and %#ood at the ceremony.

N3e who wi## not eat of my %ody and drin) of my %#ood* so that he wi## %e made one with meand I with him the same sha## not )now sa#!ation.N

&t the heart of these mysteries* there is a good reason to %e#ie!e the hands of %ri##iant

;osephus who )new many eastern and &sian cu#tures where simi#arities of the %e#iefs

persisted and it is not too difficu#t to create a mytho#ogy for the ,Prophet hungry masses

who were waiting for centuries for the arri!a# of another messiahs.

St. Pau &post#e Preaching Mithra !ersion of Christianity

The satirist Ce#sus o%ser!ed that the new re#igion was nothing more than a pa#e ref#ection of

their own ancient teachings of /ree)s. ar#y %ishops #i)e ;ustin Martyr* Tertu##ian and


43/47

Irenaeus* were !ery distur%ed and %#amed these simi#arities were the resu#t of dia%o#ica#

mimicry. Other a%surd arguments e!er ad!ocated was none other than ,the 7e!i# made us to

do this , or in a )inder word of p#agiarism %y anticipation.

use%ius of Caesarea Pamphi#i was a Roman historian and Christian scho#ars. 3e was

appointed as the Bishop of Caesarea in Pa#estine during =H &7. 3e wrote ear#y se!era#Christian wor)s. The suspicion of a#teration of the ;osephus te't fa##s on the shou#der of

use%ius. & copy of the origina# 3e%rew 0ersion of the /ospe# of ,Matityahu 2;osephus4* and

many of Origens own writings* the margina# comments in e'tant manuscripts note that

use%ius* Pamphi#us and his friends and pupi#s corrected and re!ised much of the %i%#ica# te't

in their #i%rary

Early Origination of Christianity and Its Conection With Mitra-Mithra of Aryans-libre

Documents

Transcript of Early Origination of Christianity and Its Conection With Mitra-Mithra of Aryans-libre