Reply to Roger -
You lose all credibility in your argument by calling known Mithraic text as fake
I'm sorry that you start talking about me, on what must be a matter of fact. Do these texts exist?
You call these "known Mithraic text". They are not. You need to produce your evidence for these "known Mithraic text". Which books discuss them? What language are they in? Where can I find the full text, original and translation?
If you look into this, you will quickly find that I am right, and you will learn something.
You are being had. These texts do not exist. That is, there is no such ancient text as those you quoted. You will find them in no library, used by no scholar -- because the source you used just made them up. People do lie, you know; and if you live very long you will encounter this sort of thing.
Disagree? Then don't bother with rhetoric. You need to produce the texts; find some authoritative source that references these texts. If the texts exist, if the authors exist, if these are known to classical and Mithras scholars, then you should be able to find references to them in some reliable source. Try Google Books as a starter.
You see, I really DO know what data has come down to us about Mithras. I really HAVE read the accounts by people such as Manfred Clauss, Franz Cumont, etc. That's why I can recognise a fake. These are fakes.
(If they DID exist they would be very exciting indeed. My own habit, when anyone references an ancient text, is to go and look at it.)
which means by the same standards we can say that about any text you claim on your argument because you must keep an even standard. We can conclude by your own standard that the NT is fake,
Are you denying that the NT is an ancient text? That there are thousands of manuscripts of it? If so, I refer you to any scholar of biblical studies.
Or are you engaged in denying that what it says is true? We're discussing the former question, for your reference.
which we all know came from Q which was burned by the followers of John.
Your ancient source for this claim needs to be produced now. <hint>
We also find over 50,000 errors in the Nt proving once more the NT is a charade.
And this claim is relevant how?
It's as if you are just posting the first thing that comes into your head, without considering whether it is relevant or not; so long as it rubbishes the NT, it's good, in your eyes. That is rather pathetic. Perhaps instead of all this rubbish you could say why you are afraid the NT might be true (as you evidently are)?
I can also test you to prove your knowledge of the texts and cult figure is also phoney. Shall we precede with the simple test, I assure you it has easy questions that a third grader could answer.
Oh dear. By all means ask any "question" you like, so long as you do so in Latin.
You must be very young. Stop behaving like this, and start producing evidence that the two texts that I labelled fakes actually exist; or else acknowledge, what we both know is true, that you have no idea and just repeated some hearsay you found convenient.
Some of your coreligionists, when cornered, become dishonest. Feel free to demonstrate the low moral standards of those who believe as you do, if you think that would help you.
All the best,
Roger Pearse