MITHRAS = CHRISTIANITY?

[erowe1]

He put forth an article. Ignore it or dispute the points

Yes. I dispute them. Everybody disputes them. That's the whole of this thread. You use the word "point" very generously. Did you see any evidence offered to support any assertions made in that article? I did not.

Given that fact, what more is there to say about it? Unless RT or you or anyone else can find any support for any of those assertions, wouldn't you agree that the case is closed?

The OP would be no less credible than it now is if we replaced every reference to Mithras in it with the name Peter Pan.

[erowe1]

Do you lack reading comprehension skills?

Apparently not. She has your number I'd say. Speaking for myself, I could do without all of your hate.

[erowe1]

I figure just about everything that is not Jesus, could well be Mithras, what pagan else?

Can you find a single example of that?

So far you're up to zero.

[Eagles' Wings]

Do you lack reading comprehension skills? Or do you just feel the need to show your importance by granting me permissions and telling me what to do?

I am guessing this behavior is your means of ignoring the elephant in the room about claiming I never put forth my position of faith, eh?

~~~peace

-delete-

[Ronin Truth]

Could you find anything in those verses that contradicts the teachings of Jesus?

It all contradicts Jesus. Homework time.

Could you find anything in those verses that reflects any influence by Mithraism?

What ever ain't straight made up by Paul is most probably Mithras.

http://www.problemswithpaul.com/index.html

[erowe1]

http://www.problemswithpaul.com/index.html

Can you find a single example of anything in any of Paul's writings that reflects any influence by Mithraism?

Also, let's suppose there were something Paul wrote that contradicted something Jesus taught (I have never found anything like that, but supposing for the sake of argument such a thing existed), why do you believe it would most likely derive from Mithraism? Do you have any reason for that assumption?

[Ronin Truth]

Can you find a single example of anything in any of Paul's writings that reflects any influence by Mithraism?

Also, let's suppose there were something Paul wrote that contradicted something Jesus taught (I have never found anything like that, but supposing for the sake of argument such a thing existed), why do you believe it would most likely derive from Mithraism? Do you have any reason for that assumption?

Tarsus.

When do your turns answering start?

[erowe1]

Tarsus.

When do your turns answering start?

I'd love to answer whatever it is you have to say about Tarsus. But I don't know what that is.

Are you saying that there's some connection between Tarsus and Mithraism? If so, do you know of any evidence for that?

Furthermore, since nothing in any of Paul's writings reflects any influence by Mithraism (and you clearly know of not a single example), then any connection between Mithraism and Tarsus would not matter, except that it would show that Paul would have to have consciously rejected Mithraism, having encountered it in Tarsus, and yet still exhibiting no influence by it in any of his teachings.

[hells_unicorn]

I made the mistake of coming back to this pointless thread after telling myself I've had enough, and essentially I've come to the conclusion that Ronin has the egocentric tendencies and intelligence of a 4 year old, whereas Moos just admitted to having the "poor me" attitude and attention span of someone maybe 2 months younger than that. I'll use short sentences towards both parties and then I'm calling this thread a joke and leaving Ronin to his own devices:

1. Ronin, there is no difference between you and a person who thinks he's getting alien communications from outer space through a tin-foil hat. You've essentially spent so much time reading crackpots with websites that you've turned into one. Please claim your prize.

2. Moostraks, if you can't handle watching a short video or visiting 5 links that directly debunk the OP, you have no business calling out anyone else on this thread, period. You've added nothing to this discussion, and you have confirmed yet again why you will continue to enjoy a nice comfortable chair in my ignored list. I wouldn't have responded to you at all had I not read some of the rubbish being quoted by others on here, and I'm already regretting spending this much time on you. The problem isn't that anyone here is by any means special, the problem is that you have no idea what you are talking about yet continue to run your mouth, and then cry like a spoiled child when somebody tells you what is what. Grow up.

[Ronin Truth]

I'd love to answer whatever it is you have to say about Tarsus. But I don't know what that is.

Are you saying that there's some connection between Tarsus and Mithraism? If so, do you know of any evidence for that?

Furthermore, since nothing in any of Paul's writings reflects any influence by Mithraism (and you clearly know of not a single example), then any connection between Mithraism and Tarsus would not matter, except that it would show that Paul would have to have consciously rejected Mithraism, having encountered it in Tarsus, and yet still exhibiting no influence by it in any of his teachings.

Paul was supposedly born and raised in the city of Tarsus, a region in SE Asia-Minor (now called Turkey) where Mithras was well known. Biblical scholars are now saying that Paul, the alleged author of 13 out of the 27 (maybe more) books of the New Testament, may have been influenced in his writings by this strong religion of Mithraism. We can see a profound kinship between Mithraism and Christianity.

In-as-much as Mithraism was so popular in Rome, it is no wonder why the pagan Emperor Constantine, who believed in the sun god, Mithras, designated a certain day of the week to him, Sunday, which means, “the day of the sun.”

The original "Christian" faith became a mix of pagan, Mithramic, Jeudeo/Christian teaching. This lead to the confusing mix of theology that we have today within the "Christian" community. This apostacy from the original simple and plain teachings of Christ was accelerated by the persecutions and killings of any who tried to support the "old" ways. Maybe this solves the mystery of the “ungodly” marriage between Mithraism and the cult of Jesus. As it turns out, it was all for political convenience! But, Christians think they are better than that today. In short: The "Christianity" they have today has almost no relationship, in doctrine or in way of life, to the "the original teachings of Jesus."

In my mind, there are two Jesus' teachings. Jesus the Jew and Jesus the Gentile, which by the way is really Paul's Jesus. And guess which one Christians follow? The ex-pagan Constantine liked Paul's Jesus over Jesus the Jew. Jesus and all the others upon whom this character is predicated are personifications of the sun, and the Gospel fable is merely a rehash of a mythological formula revolving around the movements of the sun through the heavens.

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

[Ronin Truth]

Yes. I dispute them. Everybody disputes them. That's the whole of this thread. You use the word "point" very generously. Did you see any evidence offered to support any assertions made in that article? I did not.

Given that fact, what more is there to say about it? Unless RT or you or anyone else can find any support for any of those assertions, wouldn't you agree that the case is closed?

The OP would be no less credible than it now is if we replaced every reference to Mithras in it with the name Peter Pan.

I dispute that. I have no evidence to present. I just do. So there.

BTW, ahem, for the search challenged:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post6001315

[erowe1]

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

I still don't get this. You're just copying and pasting assertions made by some other yahoo on the internet. Notice that in that copy and paste job, not a single bit of evidence is offered to support the claim that Mithraism was popular in Tarsus.

Do you know of any such evidence? If so, why do you refuse to share it?

Do any ancient authors refer to Mithraism being popular in Tarsus?

Are there any archaeological remains in Tarsus that show the presence of Mithraism there?

When you read assertions that other people make on websites, do you ever stop to ask what the evidence is to support those assertions before you decide to believe them and then go around repeating them just as baselessly as the people you read them from, so that someone else can then come along and read you making the assertion and then go and repeat it elsewhere, insisting it must be true because Ronin Truth put it on the internet?

[Jamesiv1]

Just another thread on the board (brick in the wall?) where people try in vain to prove how badly the other guy's belief system sucks.

Proving yet again that beliefs matter little - how we behave towards each other is really all that counts.

I rebuke all you guys.

[erowe1]

beliefs matter little - how we behave towards each other is really all that counts.

^That is a belief.

[Ronin Truth]

I still don't get this. You're just copying and pasting assertions made by some other yahoo on the internet. Notice that in that copy and paste job, not a single bit of evidence is offered to support the claim that Mithraism was popular in Tarsus.

Do you know of any such evidence? If so, why do you refuse to share it?

Do any ancient authors refer to Mithraism being popular in Tarsus?

Are there any archaeological remains in Tarsus that show the presence of Mithraism there?

When you read assertions that other people make on websites, do you ever stop to ask what the evidence is to support those assertions before you decide to believe them and then go around repeating them just as baselessly as the people you read them from?

tarsus mithraism

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...40.5NrQNShw_aU

Let me guess, you can't/won't find any in there either.

[Jamesiv1]

^That is a belief.

right. I just proved my own point lol

[erowe1]

tarsus mithraism

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...40.5NrQNShw_aU

Let me guess, you can't/won't find any in there either.

You're right. I couldn't find any evidence in there supporting any connection between Tarsus and Mithraism. Could you?

ETA: I would encourage you actually to read some of the web pages that come up in that Google search. I'm certain that if you do, you will see how ridiculous the OP of this thread is. I recommend that you start with the very first hit. But also, don't miss this one that I saw further down on the first page, which very directly addresses the claim that Mithraism was big in Tarsus, and actually presents the actual archaeological evidence.
http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/2...ras-in-tarsus/

[Ronin Truth]

I still don't get this. You're just copying and pasting assertions made by some other yahoo on the internet. Notice that in that copy and paste job, not a single bit of evidence is offered to support the claim that Mithraism was popular in Tarsus.

Do you know of any such evidence? If so, why do you refuse to share it?

Do any ancient authors refer to Mithraism being popular in Tarsus?

Are there any archaeological remains in Tarsus that show the presence of Mithraism there?

When you read assertions that other people make on websites, do you ever stop to ask what the evidence is to support those assertions before you decide to believe them and then go around repeating them just as baselessly as the people you read them from, so that someone else can then come along and read you making the assertion and then go and repeat it elsewhere, insisting it must be true because Ronin Truth put it on the internet?

Sure, I often question their motives. So I look for lots of corroborations, as in preponderances of evidence from a fairly wide variety of sources.

Still no guarantee of Divine Gospeldom. But the odds increase sufficiently enough to make for some pretty interesting threads.

[Ronin Truth]

You're right. I couldn't find any evidence in there supporting any connection between Tarsus and Mithraism. Could you?

Of course because I actually look. You're just one more of those 'my mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts', types of guys.

[erowe1]

Of course.

Such as what?

Seriously, I looked and looked and couldn't find any. Throw me a bone here.

[erowe1]

So I look for lots of corroborations, as in preponderances of evidence from a fairly wide variety of sources.

Would you please share any of the evidence you have found?

Any at all?

It's conspicuous that you have gone this whole thread, after so many solicitations for evidence for any of your claims, and repeatedly refused to present any. If you have it, why not share it?

Do you know of any ancient texts that support any of the claims that you have made?

Do you know of any archaeological findings that do?

[Ronin Truth]

Would you please share any of the evidence you have found?

Any at all?

It's conspicuous that you have gone this whole thread, after so many solicitations for evidence for any of your claims, and repeatedly refused to present any. If you have it, why not share it?

Do you know of any ancient texts that support any of the claims that you have made?

Do you know of any archaeological findings that do?

Still just waiting for your offered (yet to be delivered) evidences. (Hint: thread post #23)

contextomy fallacy

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...03.ZrmrnIDGS8o

[Paulbot99]

Tempted by Mara, the Evil One (Satan), while fasting. He was baptized in water with the Spirit of God present. Buddiah healed the sick and fed 500 from a small basket of cakes and even walked on water. He came to fulfill the law and preached the establishment of a kingdom of righteousness and obliged followers to poverty and to renounce the world. He transfigured on a mount. Died (on a cross, in some traditions), buried but arose again after tomb opened by supernatural powers. Ascended into heaven (Nirvana). Will return in later days to judge the dead. Buddiah was called: "Good Shepherd," "Carpenter," "Alpha and Omega," "Sin Bearer," "Master," "Light of the World," "Redeemer," etc.

Anyone who knows the basics of Buddhism would facepalm here.

1. Buddha never taught he would he would judge the living and the dead. Neither did any strain of Buddhism!

2. Buddha died as an old man after being given a final meal by a blacksmith. I have yet to see any Buddhist tradition mentioning a crucifixion. In addition, he did not rise from the dead. According to Buddhist tradition, he reached Nirvana on his deathbed

3. It is anathema in Buddhist tradition to preach the the resurrection of the dead. The goal is Nirvana, a sort of nonexistence where you exit the cycle of death and rebirth.

4. Buddha didn't preach about any kingdom. Just Enlightenment/Nirvana.

http://www.souledout.org/wesak/storybuddha.html

http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/india/buddha-life.asp

And, for goodness' sake, Mithras was born from a rock:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithra...asIMG_5339.JPG

Honestly, this is just bad scholarship. It is one thing to have a belief, but to make a bunch of claims at once with no proof relying on old memes... This not only insulted Christianity, it insulted Buddhism and reason as well.

In addition, I give you this video:

[erowe1]

Still just waiting for your offered (yet to be delivered) evidences. (Hint: thread post #23)

contextomy fallacy

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...03.ZrmrnIDGS8o

If you're still waiting it's only because you have ignored every piece of evidence given in every link provided to you in this thread, including those in your own google searches.

[moostraks]

Apparently not. She has your number I'd say. Speaking for myself, I could do without all of your hate.

Seems quite clear there must be a problem on her end because she repeatedly joins in to perpetuate that which I have taken great pains to answer a number of times, but it is all in the derail eh?

Up is down, you had to clip my post to say something with a completely different perspective, same story different day of your dishonest discussion tactics.

If only, if only you and the small but noisy clan of religious folks could shame every one into silence who finds your perspective a bit off from the document you use to support your religious beliefs. GL with that because there is always going to be someone to call you out for your games you play.

[erowe1]

you had to clip my post to say something with a completely different perspective,

I only clipped words that didn't change the meaning one iota so that people could see what exactly you said without getting bogged down by all the extra verbiage you put in to make it harder to understand. Was there anything inaccurate about that quote?

Go back and read your own words. What was the object of the preposition "for" when you said you had a distaste for...? The object of the preposition was "you."

While you're at that, you might also go back and read the love verses that you keep telling us are so important to you and consider taking them to heart.

I know I speak for the whole forum when I say that your hate is not wanted here.

If you have a contribution to make that makes this thread better rather than worse and that doesn't involve spewing vitriol, then you're welcome to make it.

[moostraks]

Yes. I dispute them. Everybody disputes them. That's the whole of this thread. You use the word "point" very generously. Did you see any evidence offered to support any assertions made in that article? I did not.

Given that fact, what more is there to say about it? Unless RT or you or anyone else can find any support for any of those assertions, wouldn't you agree that the case is closed?

The OP would be no less credible than it now is if we replaced every reference to Mithras in it with the name Peter Pan.

Irt whether the OP had exchanged Mithras with Peter Pan, I would look at it much the same way. It was a long OP and I skimmed it, and felt no inspiration to be either offended or terribly curious. I likewise skimmed the responses and saw what tone the thread had taken and dismissed it. I came back when I saw RJB was in here and checked to see how he was doing because I enjoy his posts and wondered if maybe the thread got on track and if it was worthy of a look as I had a few minutes down time.

I read his frustration and thought maybe I could help and found that to be a royal mistake and time waste because I may not utter a word without having to discuss a statement of my faith yet again. My suggestions were never a position on the original subject matter because I still don't care about it as it could, as you said, just as soon have been Peter Pan for my interest in it. You will notice I don't get bent out of shape over flying spaghetti posts either.

Now, in scrolling back up to respond to this post by you, my eye caught that HU is stomping around again about me and something to the effect of I may have overlooked a couple links on the first page? If he posted them it would not surprise me. I already stated my eyes glazed over. I pick and choose how much I can stomach of what passes for discussion and by whom and I don't use the censor feature but avert my eyes. The first page fairly quickly descended into drama and I wasn't really terribly interested but killing some time initially anyways. Again, if I were as offended by the threads existence as some are I would refrain from bumping it and start a does not equal thread for brevity' sake to pass on the information one feels is necessary to those who might be unwittingly sucked into the thought of this to be true, and people will read or pass on it depending on the OP. I would likely look at one by certain folks if they chose to do such.

***for the sake of total transparency, I skimmed OP, first page, then googled and dismissed after, iirc, a wiki page.

[moostraks]

I only clipped words that didn't change the meaning one iota so that people could see what exactly you said without getting bogged down by all the extra verbiage you put in to make it harder to understand. Was there anything inaccurate about that quote?

Go back and read your own words. What was the object of the preposition "for" when you said you had a distaste for...? The object of the preposition was "you."

While you're at that, you might also go back and read the love verses that you keep telling us are so important to you and consider taking them to heart.

I know I speak for the whole forum when I say that your hate is not wanted here.

If you have a contribution to make that makes this thread better rather than worse and that doesn't involve spewing vitriol, then you're welcome to make it.

No, you used the same tactic as SF who boiled my explanation of faith down to 7 words and then decided he would try and force me to argue from there. If the words were superfluous I would not have used them. I was clear in what drives my displeasure towards several folks here and it has nothing to do with a black and white totality because my faith is you are all His children, just some folks are unpleasant and I explained my opinion as to such.

So you speak for the whole forum now? I see.

I have not been spewing vitriol. I know it may seem as though one is being hateful for not rolling over and begging for forgiveness from you or accepting the erroneous claims some of you seemingly delight in making but just on your word you may not make things so.

~~~peace

[erowe1]

No

You're not denying that you told Louise that you had a distaste for her, are you? Anyone can go back and read that those are your exact words. You don't get to surround your hateful words with meaningless fluff and then get upset that somebody quoted the important part and not the meaningless fluff.

[moostraks]

You're not denying that you told Louise that you had a distaste for her, are you? Anyone can go back and read that those are your exact words. You don't get to surround your hateful words with meaningless fluff and then get upset that somebody quoted the important part and not the meaningless fluff.

New system on iPad complaining about copy paste for definition. Look it up. Most accurate portion to focus on would be displeasure. Displeasure why was explained to you, but see what you want. That you are trying this hard to make your point speaks volumes imo...

The meaningless fluff you are dismissing is the very specific qualifier of my displeasure. People are complex beings.