#mithras

I'm sorry I have taken fifty years to answer this. I'll mix this a little bit with Annabeth abilities in general and some of her accomplishments. Also please don't mind if I go in a bit of tangent along the way on some things.

So in Mark of Athena, Annabeth goes through this entire monologue how she doesn't have any special powers to even enter the underground section of her Quest.

But the part she talks about Leo is interesting. Leo does have fire abilities but honestly it is the least crucial ability he has.

Leo is a talented builder and engineer and he uses those far more than his fire. It was arguably those former skills that basically had him carry the Lost Hero quest either through disabling traps and fixing up Festus. Leo constantly utilities and hones on those abilities and while he is not exactly the best fighter during the Quest, he is vital in ensuring the Quest even succeeds. He is a bit like Grover in the Lightning Thief and The Titan's Curse in that he has soft skills without whom the quest would be impossible with his guiding, being as a support during fights and dangerous situations and being able to get them a little money to go further.

Back to Leo. Annabeth said Leo would pull the right tools and build something for the job and if that is considered a power well it also serves the point that Annabeth does have powers because of how she solved this conundrum.

So if by Annabeth own criteria on powers. She does in fact have abilities, she is a very talented craftswoman and it is very similar to what we see someone like Leo make of his own inventions. It does makes sense Annabeth might have the ability to use this. Athena is a Goddess of Crafts after all and Annabeth's Frederick is exceptionally gifted in repurposing and remaking things for his own uses. Like in TTC.

But funny enough it is not a skill I think Annabeth appreciates or even considered utilising up until that moment. And I actually that might lend a bit into how rigid Annabeth is in her thinking and tactics and it is also in how Annabeth might also see her mother.

Riordan presents Athena as a mainly warlike and wisdom so much so that the other aspects of her including the craftsmanship is neglected or brushed aside. It would make sense that Annabeth would follow those aspects of her mother to the point she brushes aside other avenues because they are "not useful". It is a shame considering that weaving is a very important aspect of Athena and if you read Greek Mythology especially the Odyssey. We see a lot of noteworthy women like Helen and notably Penelope weaving Laertes funerary shroud which is a rouse to delay her marriage to the suitors. But weaving is considered feminine and Rick Riordan's brand of feminism disparages feminity.

It is quite restrictive thinking but it would line up for how Annabeth can be a bit traditional in her tactics and strategies even if they will actively fail against her.

After all she does use Nobody against Polyphemus

Not a bad strategy but it takes less than two pages before the distraction wears off even with an invisibility hat. Her thinking in BOTL also serves this more traditional thinking and "logical approach", Annabeth has a fixed idea of how things are meant to be which really bites her whenever they are originally trying to navigate the Labyrinth.

I think this is also why she is unable to deal with the fact they need additional help with a mortal because it does not fit in her rigid view on how things must work and must be done. That and she genuinely does not like them explaining another dimension to her hostility to Rachel.

It would make sense if her idea on her abilities reflected that or her lack of developing them up until MOA .

After all Annabeth values her mother wisdom and warlike aspect the most and the aspect of craftsmanship she admires is more of a traditionally male centred one in Architecture. She does not appear to be the sort of person who would invest time into arts and crafts that isn't architecture or knowledge disguised as "wisdom". After all she has "better" things to do.

The trials I think are meant to sort of serve her branching out a little as we do also see this in Blood of Olympus after they deal with the suitors.

But I think the fact it took a bit longer for Annabeth to even come to this conclusion I think we can kind of see it with how Annabeth probably thinks of herself moreso in the light of a warrior or even as a leader. The judo flip was meant to serve as this purpose to demonstrate she was one. (By attacking her boyfriend who was kidnapped and to her knowledge had lost his memories and still had a curse of Achilles where his weak point was his back where she slammed against the ground with)

Riordan grooms Annabeth to be a "leader" and a "warrior". In part I think that most of the Seven are untrained and inexperienced especially Piper and Jason lack of memories do make for her to be a more stable position to be one.

However. What the Judo Flip also intended to prove to Reyna also shows to the reader that Annabeth does not have the emotional capacity nor the complete diplomatic skills to properly be one. And as we seen briefly in BOTL her attempts to be a leader there also fail if not actively hamper the quest. And in fact as we explore with Arachne if not for intervention from Argo II thanks to her pride she would've failed as well.

It was a forced writing choice to make the Flip endear Reyna to Annabeth, considering that most of New Rome does not trust nor respect Children of Minerva and New Rome just came from a battle against a Giant and his army. Annabeth knew this, the first chapter in MOA is Annabeth going over how sensitive this situation is. And up until Annabeth commits the Flip she was doing well on this front in trying and understanding she needed to maintain the peace.

But beyond the egregious "romantic" display. It is a failure of Annabeth being a leader as well, all to show how she is supposedly a warrior.

That aside Annabeth does not really have the room to be either a leader or warrior in MOA. Annabeth was never made to be fully a warrior (her main weapon being a dagger does not really give her the reach for that). That and the Seven are too scattered doing their own things in MOA for her to make really much of a difference with their individual arcs requiring they have a mini arc one way or another despite Riordan's attempts to push Annabeth as the Leader of the Seven. Annabeth's arc in MOA is also divided with her solo quest against Arachne which also does not help. Plus she is also out of the count and "mostly" helpless in HOH due to losing her main weapon for most of the book. Not really room to either things there.

Annabeth does seem to appreciate some aspects of weaving like seen here in Circe's spa.

But well as we later see in MOA when she is chased by the spiders she is able to create a bridge she never really seem that interested in it beyond its beauty. She would admire it yes but Annabeth didn't see the use in it until that point.

And this is a wild thing to say as someone who has known she was a demigod since she was seven. Why only now is she seeing the use in weaving despite the flexibility of such a skill.

Annabeth's rigidity in her thinking might be why. I think I mentioned her being a static character before and I do believe that also translates to her thinking. Even in TLO her main role on the battlefield shes uses ideas and inventions made by others like Daedalus and nudging from her mother with the shield and the automatons.

They do help but Annabeth does not really make new ideas. She's not much an innovator on that front. She borrows from others and while they do work it's not really until MOA we even see her branch a little differently and even still she is very restricted. I'll take the case in how we can kind of see that with the Mithras cultists.

It's really interesting comparing and contrasting Annabeth to someone like Percy who uses every single thing on the battlefield even if it doesn't seem like anything much. In MOA Otis and Ephialtes throw him a a bit of Wonder bread.

It is a literal joke on Bread and Circuses. On my reread I completely forgot about this but it still shocked me with Percy's versatility in how he immediately flipped it around against the hydra and tried to use the arena against Ephialtes.

Percy uses anything and EVERYTHING against his foes. The environment, a literal gag, the works. It's similar to how he also uses the moon food against the Nemean Lion but Percy as a fighter is incredibly adaptable. He will use anything and everything against his foes and that goes for his powers too. I think it is also what makes Percy's fights so memorable.

Annabeth does not really show the same versatility and if she does it is often offset with her opponents making her victory sometimes moot or un-engaging. Annabeth mainly deals with two main groups of enemies, the Mithras Cultists and Arachne.

So the Mithras Cultists. Why is Annabeth victory against them un-engaging for the most part.

They are actual dumbasses and not even fun ones, they are just forgettable and not even a good challenge. It's not wonder I blanked them out in favour for Arachne.

It's not like Percy doesn't have stupid opponents too, heck Otis and Ephialtes are up there but his foes usually have a bit of menace and power that makes them trickier to bring down. Not to mention others he has to bring down through unconventional means. The moment against the Dolphins and Chrysaor is impressive and hysterical

It's works because again despite being outmatched, Percy knows his opponents weakness and how to exploit it with the elements around him. It is also a group effort in getting the dolphins to believe the bit and Chrysaor himself inadvertently feeds into it by confirming that Dionysus was indeed their Camp Director. Chrysaor ain't no slouch, he is smart and is one of the best fighters in the series but the dolphins aren't, they are the weak link in the group and they are understandably still a bit traumatised by their transformation. So getting rid of them helps them bum-rush Chrysaor.

And that is a problem with a lot of Annabeth's opponents. They are deliberately dumbed down to the point where it makes it easier for Annabeth to walk over them or have moment she can "outsmart" them. Annabeth smarts is more so her making educated guesses and rather than the making it actual research she learnt about about Mithras she has learnt about prior. Aphrodite gives her a hint about Mithras earlier in Charleston but she did not follow up on that.

It's a lost moment because Annabeth doesn't even come across as too knowledgeable here. Like wow she can understand a mosaic, groundbreaking!

Not to mention the misogynistic Mithras cultists are just scream "impossible" whenever Annabeth figures out something that is obvious by context clues that is also the dead bodies that are her siblings around her. These idiots lose any menace or threat by how bumbling they are and aren't even that enjoyable.

And again it is a shame because Annabeth actually uses her knowledge on architecture to her advantage in order to bring down the room and defeat them. Like THAT is smart, something Annabeth probably spent a long time learning coming in handy and if Rick used it against actual decent opponents it probably would be more satisfying but alas.

So she eventually she meets Arachne. She is actually menacing and actually interesting in terms that is strongly implied she WAS the better weaver in the contest. That and Annabeth knows she is screwed if she doesn't out scheme her. That and she is probably the smartest of of Annabeth main foes. Still that is not a lot.

The scenes with Arachne are honestly fascinating because both Annabeth and Arachne are foils and I do think both of them do share empathy in how Athena treated each other and respect for their work. Or at least Annabeth respects Arachne work.

They both have connections to Athena and at this current moment that connection is antagonistic and poor. They both are prideful people who regard their work above it all, Annabeth has described in the past how sometimes she wouldn't mind doing everything from scratch and remake the world in her own image and Arachne obsession with her skill and weaving wants it broadcasted to the top of the mountain celebrated for what it is.

Annabeth takes advantage of Arachne's desires for her recognition building her this fantasy.

This is another aspect of Annabeth's own weaving abilities in that she is even able to calculate the dimensions and plans for the trap Arachne will make herself.

Arachne hubris plays incredibly well here with how Annabeth strokes her ego and eventually leads herself into it and not even five seconds later Annabeth tests her luck.

The trap does hold Arachne in place and I do think Annabeth latent weaving abilities in knowing the calculations help in that but Arachne is still a threat for a reason and despite being restrained she initially is still hopeful her art will be seen. Rather than let her wistfully believe that while she is still in danger Annabeth shows exactly how she has the exact same flaw and taunts at her foe way too early and nearly gets killed. If not for the timely arrival of the Argo II.

And heck she gets sent to Tartarus because Annabeth still underestimates Arachne and her webs and forgot how dangerous she was and what was underneath her. It is a good encounter but man do I wish Annabeth actually learned something more about her pride and even how it lead her and Percy to Tartarus. But well....No.

Alas that's Riordan for you with lots of potential and a bit if not a lot of disappointment. No such character development for Annabeth on that front in actually showing she actually learned anything about being more careful and how her flaw which has killed heroes in tragic and interesting ways in how they themselves often orchestrate their own tragedies by their natures. But alas. Outside of Riordan favouritism of her in the narrative, I don't see it ending well for Annabeth if she doesn't learn from her pride. And after Tartarus I don't see her learning.

An exceptionally beautifully carved Mithraic altars found in Inveresk, East Lothian, Scotland, are going on display for the first time. The Roman altar dates to the 140s - when southern Scotland was reoccupied under Antoninus Pius.

📷 National Museums Scotland and Duncan McGlynn.

I recently started learning about Judaism and the differences between that beautiful religion and christianity. Something that I noticed with the latter is how Jesus, or Joshua, may not have actually been a God at all but just a man (TM). This made me wonder about where in the ever loving fuck that deification came from and that led me to learning a little bit about Mithraism. So Judaism does not have that perfect God v evil Devil or any intermediary at all. Islam has a similar portrayal for God to that of Judaism but does acknowledge some rendition of a devil figure but not as blatant as Zoroastrianism or christianity. They do have a prophet but not exemplified in the same way as Joshua. I believe that both are just messengers, just men that spoke lovingly of the same God. Joshua is not that God but is for some reason associated with Him as if these were one and the same. In Mithraism, specifically, Mithras is considered a son of that God and was born to save humanity from some evil devil. His day is supposedly Sunday and He had twelve followers that represented the zodiac. I am wondering if the deification of Joshua was just an assimilation with Mithras. So, christianity has then greatly diverged from the original thought and belief that is Judaism even though both express great disdain over deification of a human. I am wondering if the misrepresentation of Joshua today is due to Constantine who adopted worship of Mithras and combined that with christianity which is what we have today. The irony is that christians supposedly hate Constantine but will defend him in the same breath. So all of this regarding a holy trinity, that does not exist in Judaism, and the deification of Just a Man (TM) is a lie from the time of Constantine. I'm worried that this is just me falling for some shit again because I started thinking that christianity is therefore false and a horrid disfigurement of two ancient religions. That it's just Neo-Nazi cult overall, even if it wasn't originally that. I am wondering that the christianity from before the influence from Zoroastrianism was supposed to be more like Islam with following the teachings of a messenger and working to grow closer to the same God. But due to the influence of Zoroastrianism and Constantine, christianity became bastardized and no longer resembles what it was supposed to be.

Am I falling for something? I greatly appreciate your perspective if you are able. Thank you for any advice or help that you can give.

So, Constantine didn't invent Christian mythology. It was well-established by his time.

There's also no evidence that Jesus's disciples represent the Zodiac. Besides the Star of Bethlehem and the Magi, astrology doesn't really play a role in Christianity. If this was a big thing early Christians believed, they would've openly said so. As it is, there's another reason for the number twelve to be significant to early Christians - the Twelve Tribes of Israel.

Furthermore, I can't find any reputable sources to back up the claim that Mithras had twelve disciples. Everybody repeats this, but nobody ever cites a primary source.

I have found a page that debunks many of the alleged similarities between Jesus and Mithras, and I recommend reading it.

"The whole earth is nothing but a vast altar upon which every living thing must be sacrificed without end, until the death of death."