• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Search results

  1. R

    The True Origin of Reality

    This appears to be heckling; sorry. All the best, Roger Pearse
  2. R

    The True Origin of Reality

    Pardon me for being deeply sceptical, but I note a series of problems with this trivial statement. Firstly, it contains a logical fallacy. For instance, I am older than you, but this does not mean that you are my ******* child! Truly it does not! This is the "post hoc, propter hoc"...
  3. R

    The True Origin of Reality

    It may be relevant to point out that the earliest extant copy of any Zoroastrian text is 10th century AD. The copies we rely on are much later than that. The Avestan literature was not committed to writing until the middle of the 4th century AD, under the Sassanid Persian kings, when the...
  4. R

    Mithras the true Savior

    May I offer a thought, which is not mine, but which I found in an atheist writer in a library in the days before I got into the habit of noting which books I had read? (So I can't give a reference). He suggested that there are two types of religion going around; communal and creedal. With a...
  5. R

    Mithras the true Savior

    The reference was certainly to Ingie. :-)
  6. R

    Mithras the true Savior

    I don't really understand the point made here. Do any of us agree with people, even when they are wrong on facts, purely because we share their religious position? and disagree with them on a matter of fact, even if they are right, if they happen not to be of the same persuasion? I don't...
  7. R

    Mithras the true Savior

    No, they do not. And the archaeology shows why - it didn't exist.
  8. R

    Mithras the true Savior

    Which, of course, it doesn't. There is scholarship that suggests that the word "Mithras" is a gloss here, tho. If you try omitting it, the passage makes better sense. By the fifth century AD the cult of Cybele had even managed to invent some "scriptures". Paganism was syncretic; borrowing...
  9. R

    Mithras the true Savior

    I see nothing in this that says "Mithra/Mithras was before Jesus". :rolleyes:
  10. R

    Mithras the true Savior

    You asserted that a Google for Mithras would show images of him with a halo. This does not appear to be true. I queried this, and you've ignored that, and just made further claims. :rolleyes:
  11. R

    Mithras the true Savior

    I'm afraid no such quotation exists. The archaeology says otherwise.
  12. R

    Mithras the true Savior

    Interesting: because I'm not seeing any. Sol, the sun, wearing a rayed crown ... yes. There might be some image somewhere that has Mithras wearing the sun crown. But a halo? Where?
  13. R

    Mithras the true Savior

    All of the archaeology for Mithras dates from 100 AD or later; and the archaeology is our best source for the cult. All of the literary sources date from 80 AD or later. Plutarch, writing around 100 AD, says that the Cilician pirates of 68 BC worshipped Mithras. But since he is writing 168...
  14. R

    6000 years

    True. You'd have thought that it would at least make this clear. Incidentally I don't think any of us here is responsible for whatever appears in Wikipedia, and we mustn't blame people for being misled by it. People are led by the Wikipedia PR, and the fact that Google rates it so highly in...
  15. R

    6000 years

    Thanks. I don't think that is the date Eusebius is using for Adam, but rather a later point in Adam's life (i.e. I think I saw something to that effect; have a search for "Adam" in those texts to find it). That's why he, unlike later writers, talks about Adam rather than creation. All the...
  16. R

    6000 years

    There's some cross-purposes here: we're discussing whether or not a claim made in Wikipedia is true, as to whether Eusebius or Jerome did or did not give a date for the creation in their works. All the best, Roger Pearse
  17. R

    6000 years

    Let's look at this claim. The name of Adam is probably what we need to look for. I don't think any of this is direct quotation, you know. Here is Jerome's Chronicon. Complete. In English: St. Jerome, Chronicle (2004-5).* Preface of Jerome; Preface of Eusebius Jerome, Chronicle (2005)...
  18. R

    6000 years

    The trouble with Wikipedia is that it is a collection of hearsay, edited by people with little education. See if you can find any specific reference in this to the actual text, and to where precisely Eusebius says this. (Both the Chronicon of Eusebius, and Jerome's expansion of it, are...
  19. R

    6000 years

    There is something smelly about this list. For one thing, I translated the Chronicle of Eusebius, and I know, therefore, that it starts in the 15th year of Abraham. Why? because Eusebius doesn't believe the creation can be calculated accurately. In fact later on he states that all dates...
  20. R

    please don't compare Jesus to Mithras

    Surely time for a public safety warning here: If you can't tell the difference between a lump of sandstone and a human virgin, please do NOT experiment, as serious and intimate injuries may result. Instead, seek advice from your father. He will probably know the difference. Atheists...
Top