Mithra and some peoples association of him to Lucifer

Some people find the degree having to do with Mithra I believe it to be the 33rd or 32nd to have something to do with Lucifer please someone explain to me why they would believe this? because I see no correlation

reply to post by lucysadvocate


Hello! Your OP should be more developed with a little info on who is Mithra for those who don't know this divinity, and who exactly associate Mithra with Satan.

To try and answer your question; being a pagan God, he would immediately be considered evil? Or some could say it is because he was like a lawyer?

this is what I was talking about www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...

reply to post by lucysadvocate


Mithra is called the light bearer, the dawn among other things. Some consider him the Sun God. Lucifer is called the morning star and the shining one. Usually Mithra is compared to Jesus. There is no doubt that Freemasonary includes the Muslims, Jews and Christians as their initiates and are alluded to in the information posted.

reply to post by lucysadvocate


I'm at the middle, but it seems anyone will be pointed to be Lucifer...

The god Mitra or Mithra was originally a Persian deity considered to be the mediator between mankind and Ahura-Mazda, god of light.

In the 32nd degree, Now you desire to become Priest and King. The 32nd degree gives the Royal Secret and make the initiate a Priest and King of Ahura-Mazda, one of Lucifer's many names.

Yes, the 32nd degree seekers of the Royal Secret of freemasonry offer incense to the Serpent god, Serpenta Manyu. Serpenta Mainyu is another of Lucifer's many names.

Back to reading! Just a question... Did you try to send a message to the author of the site?

I do not know their reputation, though I think its the first time I see it.

what should I send them an email about?

My understanding of Mithras in a purely psychological/esoteric sense is symbolic of the victory of the self over the ego.

The Bull or taurus is the 2nd month - First you got Aries, then Taurus. 2 symbolizes 'otherness' and so a separation in the primordial unity, which in consciousness serves as a symbol for egoic consciousness.

The sacrifice of the Bull in the Mithraic ritual symbolized the sacrifice of the ego to the self. Therefore Mithras is symbolically akin to Jesus.

Originally posted by lucysadvocate
this is what I was talking about www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...

That page has absolutely nothing in common with the 32° (or 33°) of the Scottish Rite Southern Jurisdiction.

Your most certainly an honorable man, Im sure it has absolutely no truth to it. sadly ive learned nothing is either completely true nor completely false

Originally posted by lucysadvocate
Your most certainly an honorable man, Im sure it has absolutely no truth to it. sadly ive learned nothing is either completely true nor completely false

Well, if you happened to have the complete scripts of all the Scottish Rite degrees, including the 32° and 33°, and there were no mention of Lucifer, Baphomet, Mithra, Mothra, Godzilla or Gojira anywhere in the work, wouldn't it be completely false for anyone to assert that such mentions, allegiances, or what have you WERE part of said degrees?

Originally posted by JoshNorton

Originally posted by lucysadvocate
Your most certainly an honorable man, Im sure it has absolutely no truth to it. sadly ive learned nothing is either completely true nor completely false

Well, if you happened to have the complete scripts of all the Scottish Rite degrees, including the 32° and 33°, and there were no mention of Lucifer, Baphomet, Mithra, Mothra, Godzilla or Gojira anywhere in the work, wouldn't it be completely false for anyone to assert that such mentions, allegiances, or what have you WERE part of said degrees?

Actually, Mithra plays a large role in Pike's original ritual of the 32nd degree. Much pertaining to Mithraic philosophy was omitted from the newer revised ritual, but remains in the lecture.

It was Pike's belief that modern Freemasonry is a direct line successor to the ancient Persian Magi, thus the reason he recapitulated the history of Mithraic thought in the ritual.

As another poster stated above, Mithra is generally seen as the Persian equivalent of Jesus or Osiris, not "Lucifer". Indeed, it has been said more than once that Christianity is simply Mithraism mixed with Judaism.

reply to post by Masonic Light


Which would make sense of the whole 3 Magi being present at Jesus' birth...

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by Masonic Light

 

Which would make sense of the whole 3 Magi being present at Jesus' birth...

Indeed. While the number 3 is not mentioned in the account given in the Gospel of Matthew, that Apostle did find it necessary to include the rather strange story of Magi visiting the Christ Child, and bearing gifts.

Several pertinent questions concerning this have never been answered. For example, why would Mithraic priests like the Magi seek "the King of Jews" in order to "worship him"? Did they consider Christ to be the incarnation of Ahura Mazda or Mithras? If so, it would shed additional light on some of the Gnostics as well, since many Gnostic cults considered the Jewish God to be demonic, and not the "Father" that Christ referred to.

reply to post by Masonic Light

For example, why would Mithraic priests like the Magi seek "the King of Jews" in order to "worship him"

Frankly, i think the entire story is allegory, and only later historicized to make it appeal to the masses (who of course, are known to take the mythos as literal)...

So, i dont think Magi or 3 persian kings came from the orient when Jesus was born. I think the gifts spoken about have the same estorric menaing as the concept of "gifts" - matoth - has in the biblical account where Abraham gives gifts to the sons of keturah. In this sense, the kabbalists interpret matoth as esoteric wisdom.

So, the gifts which the persian magi gave to the infant Jesus (or nascent religion) would naturally be interpreted as esoteric wisdom. And indeed, we see a great deal of zoroastrianism/persian influence in the Christian faith.

Now, my memory of the New Testament is shabby. I havent read it in many years. Were the gifts mentioned? If they were, this too has some hidden significance.

Did they consider Christ to be the incarnation of Ahura Mazda or Mithras?

Well, if its entirely historical, which is what it probably isnt, then Jesus would be the metaphorical reincarnation Mithras. Ahura Mazda, from what i understand about zoroastrianism, is akin to the gnostic Abraxas. Whereas Ormuzd and Ahriman correspond to the later gnostic G-d (of the bible) and the devil, both of which are thought of as only half the picture, whereas Ahura Mazda is the 'unus mundus'... Jesus would then be similar to Mithras who slays the 'bull' - that lower consciousness which percieves good and evil, and then eats its flesh.

Certain motifs in the Jesus myth like him being nailed to a cross (physical reality) to arise three days later (hinting at a synthesis) describes a similar reality. The body - Jesus - is still completely rooted (or nailed) to the physical, but spiritually he effects a 'unification' between the physical and the spiritual, and this gives birth to "christ", the transcendent function of CG Jung, which harmonizes the opposites.

This then means one can feed each part. The animal - the body - with its animal needs, and the spirit with its moral/philosophical needs.

Anyways, thats my take on Christianity/Mithras and the connections between both.

since many Gnostic cults considered the Jewish God to be demonic, and not the "Father" that Christ referred to.

Well, lets not forget the mileu that the gnostics - who sympathized with hellenistic thought - were living in. At that time the Jews were hated for their revolts against the Roman empire. And this brought alot of sufferring on the native inhabitants - Jews - of Judea. So, there was a great deal of animosity for the Jews, and the Jewish religion from the Romans. And with the success of Titus' destroying the 2nd temple, and the success of Hadrians suppression of the Bar Khoba revolt, it gave them a natural feeling of hubris.

But, in what sense can the Jewish G-d be a "demon"? Someone who thinks that understands nothing of Jewish/Kabbalistic thought, and so cant really understand the context behind that gnostic saying.

There are two main names for G-d in the Bible. YHVH and Elohim. Which one is being called a Demon? Surely, if the bible uses two different names, its referring to two different things, or aspects of G-d. Elohim - translated as 'gods' or 'powers' refers to the law and order of reality. These are the 'gods' of pagan mythology. Only referred to as a collective, which is why Elohim is mostly understood (despite it being grammatically plural) as singular.

YHVH - the G-d of Israel (its also important to note that this name is often combined with Elohim) is probably what the gnostic called a 'demon'. Strange, i would say. This name literally means "being", and also suggests "eternity", because within its 3 unique letters the words Haya, Hoveh and Yehi - was, is and will be, can be spelt.

This name overcomes the lower name. It is this name which is called the name of Mercy - because one who seeks to commune with the creator of reality - the ein sof - can speak to him through prayer. Such human supplication elicts a response from the infinite - the eternal. This name is what has purpose for this world. It gives meaning to both the person and external reality.

And this name is a "demon"? The gnostics really dont make any sense when they say that, and they say that knowing that their followers - being ignorant of these basic philosophical/kabbalistic meanings - wont be able to properly interpret that statement. Suggesting that he is some figment created by the human imagination - a "demented Archon" as the gnostics called Him - giving man the impression of having created the world, and given man a fixed, moral law, undermines the entire tone, and significance of the Torah. Elohim already signifies the natural order, ie; the gods of the pagans. YHVH symbolizes a higher order. And gnosticism? seeks nothing more then to return to the lower order of Elohim - with its inherent dualism. But, you could probably say that Jesus - an archetype (or an idol, when worshipped) - replaces the figure of YHVH (who is beyond all defition, beyond on all picture, ie; it seeks to maintain the separation between man - the creature - and G-d, the creator) and symbolizes this Elohim incarnated in man - the dualism of the natural world, embodied in the physical man.......thus necessitating "man" becoming the New Elohim (as the serpent tells Eve "you are Elohim")....

Im not sure i like this whole philosophy, since it has nothing, as you yourself acknowledged, to do with traditional Judaism/Hebrew Bible. It is a pagan belief with cognates in Greece, Babylon, Egypt, Persia and India, with only minor differences.