Mithra

It is false to say that Jesus was born on 25th of December,if memory serves Jesus was born in the spring..Mithra may have been born then,but Jesus was not..

Edited on November 7, 2009 at 11:16 AM Permalink

Tommy, according to the research I have done, Jesus was actually born in September and it coincides with Rosh Hashanah. Similar to how the supposed resurrection coincides with Passover.

Jacqui, there are many parallels with Mithra and the religion of Zoroastian. There are also many parallels with various pagan celebrations such as the high holidays that coincide with the solstices and equinoxes. Toss in the Summarians and it gets very interesting indeed.

Permalink

i thought GODzilla killed him....oh, wait, thats mothra...nm

Permalink

According to Luke 2:8 the shepherds were out in the fields watching their flocks at night. This is apparently unlikely to take place in the winter and is thought by some to have been late September,

But the spring springs to my mind ;-)

Permalink

While you are looking Jacqui, you may want to look into Gnosticism.

Permalink

darryl will just love Gnosticism ;-)

Permalink

LOL Tommy.. poor Darryl again ;)

I believe Jesus was born in Sept.. And I believe if I am not mistaken it was during tax season ;)

Permalink

Didn't check the link, maybe later. We know that Jesus was born when lambs are born because that is when Shepherds watch flocks by night--to guard the newborns and help with any problem births.

Permalink

I believe that the reason Christianity has lasted is because it is from God and satan always wants to copy God but always seems to do it in a misguided twisted way.. So this is only my opinion but it seems the best answer to that. He will also copy God as he sends his self in the form of a man to make everyone think he is actually God incarnate. He will set in the temple in Jerusalem as God one day, but it won't last. Jesus Christ will put an end to him once and for all.

Permalink

I am taking heart palpitations,.I've just agreed with Brenda ;-)

apart from satan setting in the temple in Jerusalem as God one day ?

Edited on November 7, 2009 at 2:32 PM Permalink

LOL Tommy... ;)

Permalink

T-T-M wrote:I am taking heart palpitations,.I've just agreed with Brenda ;-)

apart from satan setting in the temple in Jerusalem as God one day ?

Edited on November 7, 2009 at 2:46 PM Permalink

Jacqui wrote:So, I read a lot. I like religious historical fiction. Dan Brown's Angels & Demons, and The DaVinci Code....Raymond Khoury's The Last Templar, and The Sanctuary......Julia Navarro's The Brotherhood of The Holy Shroud. These books make me think. I know they are fiction, but the substance of them often sends me off to research names and dates and events and practices and such. And it has been interesting and enlightning. It has helped me to understand the history of Christianity and other religions so much better.

So, I just finished the novel "Resurrection" by Tucker Malarkey.

"Resurrection is a story of renewed faith inspired by gospels said to have been squelched by early Christian leaders. But Resurrection also is the story of the brave Gemma who, because she's a woman, and a stubborn one at that, must fight social, cultural and religious restrictions to pursue the events surrounding her father's death....Malarkey, whose first novel, An Obvious Enchantment, dealt with African Islam, writes deftly about spiritual discovery, and the religious history she weaves into her story gives the novel some heft." - USA Today

My "Aha!" moment in this book was the mention of Mithra. I don't know if I had ever seen this mentioned before in my readings, so I googled it, and was quite surprised at the results. It's fascinating, to say the least, and I am surprised that there is little or no mention of this in modern conversations. Is anyone familiar with this, who can contribute to my education?

Here's one of the links I found Click here

Thanks for your comments!

Excerpt from the book: Click here

All I am going to say is it is all pagen.

Permalink

The Gospels in the Bible are not pagen. Pagen comes in when oh a Church adds rituals that are not scriptual.. Easter is an example. Nothing scriptual about it. Taken from the Goddess Ester.. At the time the Romans wanted to seperate themselves from the Jews in all ways..

But the bible has nothing pagen in it. :)

Permalink

Jacqui wrote:Brenda, is it possible that the absence of Christianity doesn't necessarily mean the devil, but the presence of another belief or religion? And that Christianity survived because the leaders then suppressed it? For example, from what I am reading, one of the Lost Gospels may have been written by Mary Magdalene, who was supposed to have been closest to Jesus. (Some suggest that she was his wife.) That would suggest that women had a very important role back then. Traditional churches have always fought against women ascending to important roles in the church.....look at the fight for women to become ordained in the Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches? Can you see that any admission that Mary could be just as important an apostle could very well turn the church over on it's ear?

My point is, the religious leaders have dictated the direction of religion by various means- banning books, burning at the stake, and goodness knows what's hidden in the innards of the Vatican library. How do we know we have all the information we need to make the really important determination that the Bible as we know it is a complete document? Can you understand why blind faith is just not enough for some?

When one follows christendom and the churches that is = blind faith,.....when one studies the bible that is not blind faith cos one has proved Gods word to be true,and in doing so prove the churches wrong..

Churches are very powerful,but not near as powerful as God,its easy for God to make sure that what He wants included as His word is in the bible,if its not in the bible as we know it,then it was not to be there,.....I have faith that God can do/make sure this is the case,.and it is not blind faith.

Edited on November 7, 2009 at 3:15 PM Permalink

Jacqui wrote:Not sure if I understand you. What in my article is pagan?

The entire article is pagan...

Permalink

I mean,.if God is alive and true,.and He created our universe,..how easy would it be for Him to make sure that all that we need to know about Him and His purpose are in His word ??? ..its easy peasy imo

Permalink

There may be no mention because this is a repeated theme that has grown exponentially with the internet and is constantly debunked. Some ancient god/hero myth is brought up and all the correlations and similarities to Jesus are listed. Horus, Ceasar, Krishna...Mithra....and many more. It happens all the time.

However, if you dig you will find that most of the "similarities" are simply made up and the original myths don't really contain any such similarities, or the similarities claimed are so non-similar that somebody is obviously stretching the boundaries of logic. Example> Some claim that Mithra was born of a virgin. No, he was formed from a rock as fully grown man. But rocks can't have sex, so they are virgins! lol

Read both sides of the argument, and read only sourced articles--then read the sources and what they used as sources. I did this when investigating the Horus/Jesus connection and found that any such connection was purely wishful thinking and most of the claimed similarities were not found in the original myths and legends.

Permalink

Jacqui wrote:

LadyDi821 wrote:

Jacqui wrote:Not sure if I understand you. What in my article is pagan?

The entire article is pagan...

There are two things I brought up in my post-Mithra, and the Lost Gospels. Are you suggesting that they are both pagan? I don't get what you are saying.

The story of Mithra precedes the Christian version by at least 600 years. According to Wheless, the cult of Mithra was, shortly before the Christian era, "the most popular and widely spread 'Pagan' religion of the times.

The gospels are not pagan .. They are from the bible.. They are God's words. :)

Edited on November 7, 2009 at 3:25 PM Permalink

Well.. I don't think and this is just me.. If God wanted or did not want anything to be missing in the Bible.. He would make sure they were not.. But I look at the Bible as is. Perfect and what God wanted.. Someone else may not agree with me. Just as some people don't believe God inspired the words of the men who wrote the words..

I just don't in my mind have any doubts.

Permalink

Jacqui wrote:

T-T-M wrote:I mean,.if God is alive and true,.and He created our universe,..how easy would it be for Him to make sure that all that we need to know about Him and His purpose are in His word ??? ..its easy peasy imo

Yes, but wouldn't he also have avoided confusion by deleting or clarifying the ambiguous portions of the Bible that create the obvious confusion that so many Christian sects fight and argue over today?

If the bible is studied,there is no confusion,.there is a theme that runs the entire length of the bible from Genesis to Revelation,..I am not confused at all,..I know that there are people who are though.

Edited on November 7, 2009 at 3:47 PM Permalink

Jacqui wrote:And that's fine if this is what you think and believe, Diane. What I am trying to accomplish here, is a discussion on how Mithra influenced Christianity, as well as how the exclusion of the Lost Gospels could impact modern day Christianity.

Well,the inclusion of something that God did not put into His word would deffo cos confusion.

Permalink

You should read up on the Sumerian legacy also,they invented the wheel,the plough,irrigation,were the first to build stone arcs and multi-storied buildings,developed mathematics,divided the circle by 360 degrees,we still base our definition of time on the Sumerian number system and most importantly writing.They have similar stories of creation,creation of man animals and women(from a rib even),but there texts are approximately 1000 years older then any of the OT texts. ; )

Permalink

A first version of OT was agreed upon some time between 90 and 100 AD. This version contained 24 books, equal number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet. Today’s Old Testament with its 39 books was not agreed upon until in the 15th century AD. This is also the version of OT which Protestantism accepts as authoritative.

That is quite a few revisions in the word"of"god,I guess 15th century people were closer to him then others. ; )

Permalink

darryl wrote: A first version of OT was agreed upon some time between 90 and 100 AD. This version contained 24 books, equal number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet. Today’s Old Testament with its 39 books was not agreed upon until in the 15th century AD. This is also the version of OT which Protestantism accepts as authoritative.

That is quite a few revisions in the word"of"god,I guess 15th century people were closer to him then others. ; )

Does'nt cut any ice with me darryl,.tis still the bible,.God is strong enough not to let anything in there that He does'nt want in there my friend,.keep trying though lol ;-)

Permalink

T-T-M wrote:

darryl wrote: A first version of OT was agreed upon some time between 90 and 100 AD. This version contained 24 books, equal number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet. Today’s Old Testament with its 39 books was not agreed upon until in the 15th century AD. This is also the version of OT which Protestantism accepts as authoritative.

That is quite a few revisions in the word"of"god,I guess 15th century people were closer to him then others. ; )

Does'nt cut any ice with me darryl,.tis still the bible,.God is strong enough not to let anything in there that He does'nt want in there my friend,.keep trying though lol ;-)

So he wanted people from 100 AD through the 15th century to believe differently? ; )

Permalink

darryl wrote:You should read up on the Sumerian legacy also,they invented the wheel,the plough,irrigation,were the first to build stone arcs and multi-storied buildings,developed mathematics,divided the circle by 360 degrees,we still base our definition of time on the Sumerian number system and most importantly writing.They have similar stories of creation,creation of man animals and women(from a rib even),but there texts are approximately 1000 years older then any of the OT texts. ; )

You really should study it yourself,as things tend to get a lil muddled through word of mouth. ; )

Permalink

darryl wrote:

T-T-M wrote:

darryl wrote: A first version of OT was agreed upon some time between 90 and 100 AD. This version contained 24 books, equal number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet. Today’s Old Testament with its 39 books was not agreed upon until in the 15th century AD. This is also the version of OT which Protestantism accepts as authoritative.

That is quite a few revisions in the word"of"god,I guess 15th century people were closer to him then others. ; )

Does'nt cut any ice with me darryl,.tis still the bible,.God is strong enough not to let anything in there that He does'nt want in there my friend,.keep trying though lol ;-)

So he wanted people from 100 AD through the 15th century to believe differently? ; )

Is that how you see it ? ...I dont,I see the same theme running through the bible from Genesis to Revelation.

Permalink

Jacqui wrote:Brenda, is it possible that the absence of Christianity doesn't necessarily mean the devil, but the presence of another belief or religion? And that Christianity survived because the leaders then suppressed it? For example, from what I am reading, one of the Lost Gospels may have been written by Mary Magdalene, who was supposed to have been closest to Jesus. (Some suggest that she was his wife.) That would suggest that women had a very important role back then. Traditional churches have always fought against women ascending to important roles in the church.....look at the fight for women to become ordained in the Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches? Can you see that any admission that Mary could be just as important an apostle could very well turn the church over on it's ear?

My point is, the religious leaders have dictated the direction of religion by various means- banning books, burning at the stake, and goodness knows what's hidden in the innards of the Vatican library. How do we know we have all the information we need to make the really important determination that the Bible as we know it is a complete document? Can you understand why blind faith is just not enough for some?

Permalink

<<<<<<<<< Heart palpitations,...again ;-)

Permalink

T-T-M wrote:<<<<<<<<< Heart palpitations,...again ;-)

Permalink

T-T-M wrote:

darryl wrote:

T-T-M wrote:

darryl wrote: A first version of OT was agreed upon some time between 90 and 100 AD. This version contained 24 books, equal number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet. Today’s Old Testament with its 39 books was not agreed upon until in the 15th century AD. This is also the version of OT which Protestantism accepts as authoritative.

That is quite a few revisions in the word"of"god,I guess 15th century people were closer to him then others. ; )

Does'nt cut any ice with me darryl,.tis still the bible,.God is strong enough not to let anything in there that He does'nt want in there my friend,.keep trying though lol ;-)

So he wanted people from 100 AD through the 15th century to believe differently? ; )

Is that how you see it ? ...I dont,I see the same theme running through the bible from Genesis to Revelation.

Well of course you do!But you are reading from a different bible then what it started out as.it used to be that each christian sect had their own version of the bible.And each was very suspect of the others bible. ; )

Permalink

darryl wrote:

T-T-M wrote:

darryl wrote:

T-T-M wrote:

darryl wrote: A first version of OT was agreed upon some time between 90 and 100 AD. This version contained 24 books, equal number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet. Today’s Old Testament with its 39 books was not agreed upon until in the 15th century AD. This is also the version of OT which Protestantism accepts as authoritative.

That is quite a few revisions in the word"of"god,I guess 15th century people were closer to him then others. ; )

Does'nt cut any ice with me darryl,.tis still the bible,.God is strong enough not to let anything in there that He does'nt want in there my friend,.keep trying though lol ;-)

So he wanted people from 100 AD through the 15th century to believe differently? ; )

Is that how you see it ? ...I dont,I see the same theme running through the bible from Genesis to Revelation.

Well of course you do!But you are reading from a different bible then what it started out as.it used to be that each christian sect had their own version of the bible.And each was very suspect of the others bible. ; )

darryl,.you do not believe in God,what is it you want me to believe ?

Permalink

T-T-M wrote:

darryl wrote:

T-T-M wrote:

darryl wrote:

T-T-M wrote:

darryl wrote: A first version of OT was agreed upon some time between 90 and 100 AD. This version contained 24 books, equal number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet. Today’s Old Testament with its 39 books was not agreed upon until in the 15th century AD. This is also the version of OT which Protestantism accepts as authoritative.

That is quite a few revisions in the word"of"god,I guess 15th century people were closer to him then others. ; )

Does'nt cut any ice with me darryl,.tis still the bible,.God is strong enough not to let anything in there that He does'nt want in there my friend,.keep trying though lol ;-)

So he wanted people from 100 AD through the 15th century to believe differently? ; )

Is that how you see it ? ...I dont,I see the same theme running through the bible from Genesis to Revelation.

Well of course you do!But you are reading from a different bible then what it started out as.it used to be that each christian sect had their own version of the bible.And each was very suspect of the others bible. ; )

darryl,.you do not believe in God,what is it you want me to believe ?

I don't want you to believe anything Tommy,just showing you why I myself cannot take any of it as fact.many throw out there what they "believe"which is their "opinion"which they have every right to,but they present their opinion as fact,and act like I am misguided and maybe a little less intelligent and lost,I counter.So I give my opinion back.Nothing more.

Permalink

darryl wrote:

T-T-M wrote:

darryl wrote:

T-T-M wrote:

darryl wrote:

T-T-M wrote:

darryl wrote: A first version of OT was agreed upon some time between 90 and 100 AD. This version contained 24 books, equal number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet. Today’s Old Testament with its 39 books was not agreed upon until in the 15th century AD. This is also the version of OT which Protestantism accepts as authoritative.

That is quite a few revisions in the word"of"god,I guess 15th century people were closer to him then others. ; )

Does'nt cut any ice with me darryl,.tis still the bible,.God is strong enough not to let anything in there that He does'nt want in there my friend,.keep trying though lol ;-)

So he wanted people from 100 AD through the 15th century to believe differently? ; )

Is that how you see it ? ...I dont,I see the same theme running through the bible from Genesis to Revelation.

Well of course you do!But you are reading from a different bible then what it started out as.it used to be that each christian sect had their own version of the bible.And each was very suspect of the others bible. ; )

darryl,.you do not believe in God,what is it you want me to believe ?

I don't want you to believe anything Tommy,just showing you why I myself cannot take any of it as fact.many throw out there what they "believe"which is their "opinion"which they have every right to,but they present their opinion as fact,and act like I am misguided and maybe a little less intelligent and lost,I counter.So I give my opinion back.Nothing more.

You are presenting your opinion as fact,.....so,it could well be a draw,even ;-)

Permalink

So you are stating as a fact that the bible you read is the exact same bible as it was in 100 AD? ; )

Permalink

darryl wrote:So you are stating as a fact that the bible you read is the exact same bible as it was in 100 AD? ; )

I am stating that I believe in God,and that He claims that the bible is His word,if that is the case ( which I believe it is ) ,then God has given us what we need in the bible as we know it...I believe that God is more than capable of doing this.

Permalink

Okay Tommy.Don't get defensive on me now.And for the record,I don't believe in Mithra either. ; )

Permalink

darryl wrote:Okay Tommy.Don't get defensive on me now.And for the record,I don't believe in Mithra either. ; )

I'm not being defensive darryl,that was the best way I could explain how I feel mate ;-)

Edited on November 7, 2009 at 7:14 PM Permalink

Good enough then.I just didn't want you to think I was trying to disrespect you.Smileys don't always work to convey the mood of the conversation. : )

Permalink

<<<Runs!!!!So have you read about ancient Sumeria?LOL

Permalink

darryl wrote:<<<Runs!!!!So have you read about ancient Sumeria?LOL

Possibly the folk of Shinar,.yes,amazing stuff ;-)

Permalink