• 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!

Jesus: The Missing Years in the East

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
I'm tellin' 'ya.....
:D


Chakra decongestants that his Indian guru gave to him as a gift when he left India.
OK......... I'm sold........... :p
Mauritian beach.............:beach:
Ganges..........................:canoe:
Instruction.....................:namaste
The return to Palestine........:super:
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
OK. Go ahead. Please cut to the chase and clinch it for me.

Unfortunately that's not going to happen. Two reasons:

1) I'm not pretending to know what I'm talking about - I actually know quite a bit about this subject matter. It's far more mundane (less exciting) than making up something that undermines Christianity and/or legitimate scholarship. One of the many tragedies is that you're choosing poor sources for the surface stuff. It doesn't take much to prove that this stuff is bogus - it's basic.

When someone is building an argument / "translation" off of a text that doesn't exist, that's a sign that they are lying to you. If you can find a reputable scholar (yes, they would be a scholar if they could judge this stuff) that has read the text that your source is translating from, then you would have some credibility.

Because of the peer review process, if such a text were known, it would be very, very easy to find.

But you're not going to find it because it doesn't exist. You are being lied to by a fool who didn't bother to even match his argument up with stuff that is known.

2) I don't have a website that is dedicated to selling you a big pile of crap. I may as well be completely invisible.
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
:d


chakra decongestants that his indian guru gave to him as a gift when he left india.
ok......... I'm sold........... :p
mauritian beach.............:beach:
Ganges..........................:canoe:
Instruction.....................:namaste
the return to palestine........:super:

:facepalm::D
 
Last edited:

godnotgod

Thou art That
Unfortunately that's not going to happen. Two reasons:

1) I'm not pretending to know what I'm talking about - I actually know quite a bit about this subject matter. It's far more mundane (less exciting) than making up something that undermines Christianity and/or legitimate scholarship. One of the many tragedies is that you're choosing poor sources for the surface stuff. It doesn't take much to prove that this stuff is bogus - it's basic.

When someone is building an argument / "translation" off of a text that doesn't exist, that's a sign that they are lying to you. If you can find a reputable scholar (yes, they would be a scholar if they could judge this stuff) that has read the text that your source is translating from, then you would have some credibility.

Because of the peer review process, if such a text were known, it would be very, very easy to find.

But you're not going to find it because it doesn't exist. You are being lied to by a fool who didn't bother to even match his argument up with stuff that is known.

2) I don't have a website that is dedicated to selling you a big pile of crap. I may as well be completely invisible.

You done?
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
No death, no renewal. Just the eternal and unconquerable.

But to make the claim of being 'eternal and unconquerable', implies being deathless. Otherwise, there is no point in making the claim, which is that one is unconquerable by death.

Your statement is like saying there is only light without darkness. You cannot know light without darkness. Likewise, you cannot know what the unconquerable is without also knowing what the conquered is.

And so, Mithras is the 'unconquerable' because he triumphed over death.
 

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
But to make the claim of being 'eternal and unconquerable', implies being deathless. Otherwise, there is no point in making the claim, which is that one is unconquerable by death.
That's not what unconquerable means. Unconquerable by death is deathless. Unconquerable means you can't be conquered.

Likewise, you cannot know what the unconquerable is without also knowing what the conquered is.
And they knew what being conquered was. That doesn't mean that they believed Mithras had been conquered.

And so, Mithras is the 'unconquerable' because he triumphed over death.
Wrong. Immortals didn't need to "triumph over death".
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
That's not what unconquerable means. Unconquerable by death is deathless. Unconquerable means you can't be conquered.

Right. In this case, we are talking about the Sun and a Solar deity. If it/he could be conquered, it/he would die. For the Sun, it's either life or death. So death is the criterion of being conquered. It's not like a mortal being conquered, who can still live on afterwards. But an immortal could be conquered he would then be subject to death. He would become a mortal.


And they knew what being conquered was. That doesn't mean that they believed Mithras had been conquered.

Wrong. Immortals didn't need to "triumph over death".

Then how would you know he is unconquerable?
 

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Right. In this case, we are talking about the Sun and a Solar deity. If it/he could be conquered, it/he would die.
Not at all. The chariot of the sun can be taken, struck and put out by lightening, and conquered in other ways without dying.


For the Sun, it's either life or death.

You're just making this up.

So death is the criterion of being conquered.

It isn't.

It's not like a mortal being conquered
The gods were usually depicted as petty superheroes who could be defeated, conquered, could surrender, be enslaved, etc. Again, you're making stuff up.

Then how would you know he is unconquerable?
Because people said it was. Why? Because no matter how bad the weather was, no matter how cold the day or how bad the harvest the sun always rose and set. It was everlasting, undying, unconquerable. This wasn't true for all peoples or and certainly not for all mythoi. But for Sol invictus and similar cults/deities, there was nothing above the sun and nothing greater. In others, we still didn't have a sun who conquered death. In fact, we had a conquered or subdued sun.
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
[Because people said it was. Why? Because no matter how bad the weather was, no matter how cold the day or how bad the harvest the sun always rose and set. It was everlasting, undying, unconquerable. This wasn't true for all peoples or and certainly not for all mythoi. But for Sol invictus and similar cults/deities, there was nothing above the sun and nothing greater. In others, we still didn't have a sun who conquered death. In fact, we had a conquered or subdued sun.

Right, 'undying'. That's what I said.

The myth of Jesus and Mithras and Mitra are all the same myth, expressed in different ways.
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
*I claim this thread for Spain*

Not so fast...I claim it for Las Vegas and 1st Century Nazareth.

On Yalda festival, Iranians celebrate the arrival of winter, the renewal of the sun and the victory of light over darkness.

Considered the longest night of the year, Yalda eve is the night when ancient Iranians celebrated the birth of Mithra, the goddess of light.
Yalda, which means birth, is a Syriac word imported into the Persian language. It is also referred to as Shab-e Chelleh, a celebration of winter solstice on December 21--the last night of fall and the longest night of the year.

Ancient Persians believed that evil forces were dominant on the longest night of the year and that the next day belonged to the Lord of Wisdom, Ahura Mazda.

As days start lengthening, ancient Iranians believe that at the end of the first night of winter which coincides with December 21 this year, darkness is defeated by light and therefore they must celebrate the whole night. As the 13th-century Iranian poet Sa’di writes in his book Boustan: “The true morning will not come until the Yalda Night is gone.”

Early Christians linked this very ancient Persian celebration to Mithra, goddess of light, and to the birth anniversary of Prophet Jesus (PBUH). In birth, sun and Prophet Jesus (PBUH) are close to each other, says one Iranian tale of Yalda.

Celebrating Yalda Night
 
Last edited:
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Not so fast...I claim it for Las Vegas and 1st Century Nazareth.

On Yalda festival, Iranians celebrate the arrival of winter, the renewal of the sun and the victory of light over darkness.

Considered the longest night of the year, Yalda eve is the night when ancient Iranians celebrated the birth of Mithra, the goddess of light.
Yalda, which means birth, is a Syriac word imported into the Persian language. It is also referred to as Shab-e Chelleh, a celebration of winter solstice on December 21--the last night of fall and the longest night of the year.

Ancient Persians believed that evil forces were dominant on the longest night of the year and that the next day belonged to the Lord of Wisdom, Ahura Mazda.

As days start lengthening, ancient Iranians believe that at the end of the first night of winter which coincides with December 21 this year, darkness is defeated by light and therefore they must celebrate the whole night. As the 13th-century Iranian poet Sa’di writes in his book Boustan: “The true morning will not come until the Yalda Night is gone.”

Early Christians linked this very ancient Persian celebration to Mithra, goddess of light, and to the birth anniversary of Prophet Jesus (PBUH). In birth, sun and Prophet Jesus (PBUH) are close to each other, says one Iranian tale of Yalda.

Celebrating Yalda Night

haha this was funny until I read it.:p
 

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The myth of Jesus and Mithras and Mitra are all the same myth, expressed in different ways.
Myth means "story" (well, actually, it can mean anything from story to "word", but here it means "story"). Myths of Jesus are stories about Jesus. Myths of Mithras would be stories about him. Same with Mitra. What myths?
 
Top