A Journey from Atheism to Christianity

[JayRob]

You continually hijack threads to say the same things that you can't even believe. None are from firsthand sources??! Tell us that you really did not mean that. Well, at least you observe that there were historians who did record events of Jesus of Nazareth. Now, where are those who recorded the life of Mithras? Hmm.

Where's your evidence of firsthand sources? Don't mention that you have sources but don't post them. Present them if you can. Like i said, it doesn't matter if Mithra existed or not. What matters is "did Christianity COPY from that religion." Why must I keep repeating this?

The historians who recorded the story/folklore of Jesus' life never saw him, never heard him, never saw any of his miracles. They are simply following along with the storyline, but they are not eyewitnesses.

The Mithra religion existed long before Christianity, so if both religion's major teachings are similar, the odds of Christianity copying is much higher than the probability of Mithra authors copying Christianity.

As much as you try and refute it, the bottomline is that you've not produced one shred of evidence showing that the Mithra religion never existed before Christianity came on the scene.

I am firmly aware of the myth of Mithras. I graduated magna cum laude from JSU in '83 after completing my studies including religion and philosophy. Since you haven't answered it, I will ask again:

Was Mithras a real human?​

Like I said earlier, it doesn't matter if he existed or not. Mithra is also a plagiarism from other religions, just like Christianity and Islam and Judaism. I have no problem admitting such.

As far as you graduating with honors, that's fine and dandy, but it's quite obvious that you have little to no education regarding the history of religions around the world. Then again, if you do, you must be in denial of what you already know to be true in your heart.

Heretofore you have stood alone. If those "credible sources" have not sent you to bear such a message, then who commissioned you to do so, sir?

This statement is an excuse to not respond to the overwhelming amount of evidence proving that Christinaity is a religion borrowed from many others. Remain in denial if that helps you feel better. You have that right.

Let me take a stab at this for you.

Now you resorted to putting words in my posts that I didn't say? You're really reaching now. You completely avoided responding to the evidence showing that Christianity's authors copied the symbols of the bread and wine. Instead you filibustered and avoided any chance at explaining HOW Christianity's symbolism came to be the same as the symbolism in Mithraism.

That would have been more than fine. Besides, the person in the film never claimed to be an expert on Christianity; only Mithraism.

The woman was the Director of the Museum of Antiquities. How much of an expert does she have to be? The lady knew her stuff. According to the interviewer, he actually called her an expert (at the 2:35 mark) on the history of Mithraism. Was he lying?

The director had ancient artifacts, historical evidence and writings to back up what she said. What do people like you have? Nothing but doubt and denial with next to nothing to back up your claims. You just don't want to accept it. You have the right to do so for peace of mind purposes.

Perhaps you missed my questions. Let me give them to you again.

What Christian authors are these of which you speak? They were not in the early church. They were not leaders of major orthodox followings (Eastern, Catholic, Protestant). They are not prominent authors of the Christian reformation (Luther, Wesley, etc.). Nor are they noted modern authors (Graham, Hinn, BONNKE, Van Impe, Roberts, etc.). Are these real authors or do you simply refer to the traditions that have been accepted by the vast majority of Christendom in celebrating Jesus birth at the same time as the winter solstice FOR THE NORTHERN HEMISPHERE (since it is the summer solstice in the southern hemisphere)?

Dacon, you should already know the answer to this question, however based on the above statement, you don't.

The entire Council of Nicea in 325 AD is where the leaders of the Christian religion met to discuss church doctrines. At this council, December 25th was the date set for the birthdate of the Jesus figure. Constantine put his stamp of approval on this date because it was also the birthdate of the sun god. The many religious leaders present put his orders into effect.

By you hinting that NO significant leaders of Christiantiy had anything to do with this change is inaccurate.
In fact December 25 is the birthday of the European sun god, MITHRA which precede Christianity by 1400 years.

The answers that I request are not found in your posts: neither previous nor recent. That is why I asked before and am asking again in this post.

They are there, you simply don't want to accept them because they go against the teachings of your religion and your beliefs.

When it comes to decisions regarding your religion, your are subjective to the point of almost being totally blind to actual truth and evidence presented to you. However, when it comes to subjects such as band, politics or sports, where religion isn't involved, you seem to be very objective and logical. Go figure.

 

[JayRob]

I like this statement, wow, JR is acting as if Jesus and Paul were the only two attending Passover... I have been to several TSU – AAAM Games and have never met any of the posters from A&M. Been to several TSU – JSU and have met only two or three JSU poster, only because we made prior arrangements to meet. Goes to and from Memphis several times a month and has never met A&M Bulldog. Been to DC and has never met Obama. Work across from the state capital and has never met the Governor.

So what’s your point

Dr. H, did any of those people you mentioned above claim to raise the dead, cast out demons, claim that they were the son of god, claimed power over evil, claim that they came from heaven, turned water to wine, walked on water, calmed the seas, or promised to return from the sky on a white horse? Do ANY of those persons you mentioned fit this criteria? If not, then your comparison of them to the Jesus figure is ludricous indeed.

If anyone of those people you mentioned above had all the qualities I mentioned and you all lived in the same city and were at the SAME temple in that city at the SAME time, don't you think you would at least KNOW who they are? Yes you would, no matter how much you try and claim that you wouldn't.

 

[dacontinent]

Where's your evidence of firsthand sources? Don't mention that you have sources but don't post them. Present them if you can. Like i said, it doesn't matter if Mithra existed or not. What matters is "did Christianity COPY from that religion." Why must I keep repeating this?

You really shouldn't repeat it ever again. Try these for starters:

• Matthew
• Mark
• Luke
• John
• Acts
• 1 Peter
• 2 Peter
• James
• 1 John
• 2 John
• 3 John
• Jude
• Revelation

The historians who recorded the story/folklore of Jesus' life never saw him, never heard him, never saw any of his miracles. They are simply following along with the storyline, but they are not eyewitnesses.

The historians noted above obviously fall outside of your research sample.

As much as you try and refute it, the bottomline is that you've not produced one shred of evidence showing that the Mithra religion never existed before Christianity came on the scene.

As much as you try to put me in that bag, I have never once stated that Mithraism did not exist prior to Christianity. My only contention is that Jesus of Nazareth and Mithras were not peers.

Conversely, I have asked you repeatedly if Mithras was human. Your best response has been

"...it doesn't matter if he existed or not..."

​

You have not produce as single Mithraism expert who asserts that Mithras was human. Yet, you continue to assert that he was a peer. Put up or shut up.

Now you resorted to putting words in my posts that I didn't say? You're really reaching now. You completely avoided responding to the evidence showing that Christianity's authors copied the symbols of the bread and wine. Instead you filibustered and avoided any chance at explaining HOW Christianity's symbolism came to be the same as the symbolism in Mithraism.

I think you missed the point. Asked you what you knew about those elements. You answered none of them. The words that I put there in red were to show what you should have said.

The woman was the Director of the Museum of Antiquities. How much of an expert does she have to be? The lady knew her stuff. According to the interviewer, he actually called her an expert (at the 2:35 mark) on the history of Mithraism. Was he lying?

The director had ancient artifacts, historical evidence and writings to back up what she said. What do people like you have? Nothing but doubt and denial with next to nothing to back up your claims. You just don't want to accept it. You have the right to do so for peace of mind purposes.

As I have said, I have no problem with the woman being an expert on Mithras. I asked for the expert on Jesus Christ. Where does the Dr. or the interviewer purport to be an expert on the life of Christ? What credentials to the fact do they bring to the table?

Dacon, you should already know the answer to this question, however based on the above statement, you don't.

The entire Council of Nicea in 325 AD is where the leaders of the Christian religion met to discuss church doctrines. At this council, December 25th was the date set for the birthdate of the Jesus figure. Constantine put his stamp of approval on this date because it was also the birthdate of the sun god. The many religious leaders present put his orders into effect.

By you hinting that NO significant leaders of Christiantiy had anything to do with this change is inaccurate.
In fact December 25 is the birthday of the European sun god, MITHRA which precede Christianity by 1400 years.

You must have me confused with Mithras. The Council of Nicea did establish December 25 for the celebration of Jesus' birth, but did not EVER state that it was His birthday. You stated

If the Christian authors would be so bold and careless to copy the EXACT birthdate of previous savior gods, why is it so farfetched to believe that they wouldn't copy other parts of stories and writings from those same religions they stole the birthdate from? It shouldn't be that surprising.
There was a reason Jesus' birthday is on December 25th. He was labelled like unto the sun god of other religions from Osiris to Mithra.

I gave you some names from different eras in history to try to help to jog your memory. I didn't hint at anything; I came straight at you. Still, you have not produced the name of a single such Christian author. Why is that?

 

[JayRob]

You really shouldn't repeat it ever again. Try these for starters:

• Matthew
• Mark
• Luke
• John
• Acts
• 1 Peter
• 2 Peter
• James
• 1 John
• 2 John
• 3 John
• Jude
• Revelation

• 
  
  There's no evidence outside the bible that any of these people existed. You've shown nothing to support your theory that ANY of these men were firsthand witnesses. Heck, no one knows where any of these men came from either. LOL!! Where was John born? Matthew? Peter? John? James? Jude? Outside of the bible, no one can offer ANY credible history on either of these men. Even writers of history who were alive at that time ignore these men. Telling indeed.
  
  

  The historians noted above obviously fall outside of your research sample.

  
  There's no credible evidence that would suggest that either of the names you mentioned were real people to begin with, so yes, they do fall outside of my research sample. My research deals with facts, not fiction.
  
  

  As much as you try to put me in that bag, I have never once stated that Mithraism did not exist prior to Christianity. My only contention is that Jesus of Nazareth and Mithras were not peers.

  
  It's obvious that his followers considered him to have been real. Whether he was real or not is not the issue. Christians basically tried to destroy the religion because they KNEW it was too similar to Mithraism. Most of the temples and writings on Mithraism were destroyed, but they couldn't destroy everything as the expert showed in the video.
  
  There's no evidence that the Jesus of the bible ever existed either, but his followers believed he did. This is no different than what worshippers of Mithra did.
  Fact of the matter s that Christianity has too many similarities to Mithraism to be ignored. Instead of focusing on the teachings, you want to divert away to the fictional character.
  
  

  Conversely, I have asked you repeatedly if Mithras was human. Your best response has been
  You have not produce as single Mithraism expert who asserts that Mithras was human. Yet, you continue to assert that he was a peer. Put up or shut up.

  
  You got some nerve asking me to put up or shut up. You've not produced much of anything that I've asked you to for months, yet you're asking me to put up or shut up? When you start taking your own advice, perhaps you'll gain more credibility.
  
  The Jesus figure has been shown to be no more real than the Mithra figure, so why don't you put up or shut up by showing that the Jesus figure was real. I've shown time and time again that he's a fictional character whose on the same folklore level as Mithra and Osiris. Most historical writers who lived during the time Jesus is said to have been alive say not ONE word about him. The Dead Sea scrolls say not one word about him. The Romans, who were meticulous record keepers, say not one word about any Jesus figure.
  When you prove that the Jesus figure was REAL, I'll prove to you that Mithra was real.
  
  

  I think you missed the point. Asked you what you knew about those elements. You answered none of them. The words that I put there in red were to show what you should have said.

  
  As far as December 25th is cocerned, I simply stated that this day was changed by LEADING Christians eventhough it was the birthdate of the Roman sun god. Christians used this date so that they could gain more converts. No one knows the date of the Jesus figure's birthdate because he's a fictional character just like Mithra, Osiris, Dionysius, Krishna and others. I've been saying this all along. That's what religions are, copies on top of copies on top of copies. The names are simply changed depending on those in power.
  
  

  As I have said, I have no problem with the woman being an expert on Mithras. I asked for the expert on Jesus Christ. Where does the Dr. or the interviewer purport to be an expert on the life of Christ? What credentials to the fact do they bring to the table?

  
  You said the woman was no expert period. There's no need to backtrack now. Not once did you ask for an expert on Christianity. You claimed the woman wasn't an expert as it relates to Mithraism, now you're trying to change it to her not being an expert on Christianity. You're just going around in circles.
  In the past, I've listed dozens of experts on the bible who've clearly shown that it's no different than most Middle Eastern, Persian, Greek and Roman religions. You can find them by revisiting recent posts of mine.
  
  

  You must have me confused with Mithras. The Council of Nicea did establish December 25 for the celebration of Jesus' birth, but did not EVER state that it was His birthday. You stated
  I gave you some names from different eras in history to try to help to jog your memory. I didn't hint at anything; I came straight at you.

  
  That's what I said. I clearly stated that the Council of Nicea, which was a group of over 300 Christian leaders, set the day of December 25th as the date of Jesus' birth. They didn't have a real date because they couldn't know the real date of a person if he was a fictional character.
  This falls in line with what I've been saying all along. No one knows his birthdate because he's a created character from a created story stolen from previous religions. It's as simple as that. I think that deep down in your heart of hearts you KNOW this, but you'll never admit to it for obvious reasons. That's your right though.
  
  It's quite obvious that it's very difficult for you to be objective when it comes to religion, but hopefully one day you'll come to the reality that ALL religions are based on folklore and fiction, perhaps mixed in with a small percentage of facts. One builds off the other and so on and so on. That's just the way it is, whether you want to admit it or not.
  
  

  Still, you have not produced the name of a single such Christian author. Why is that?

  
  As far as mentioning a single Christian author who claimed that Mithras was real, I already did that, but it seems to have gone straight over your head. I mentioned the Christian, Justin Martyr.
  Martyr never denied that Mithras wasn't real. Instead, he claimed that the devil inspired the religion to pull people away from the coming Jesus figure. If Mithra wasn't real in Martyr's mind, why would this important religious figure even take the time out to address this matter?
  
  In fact here's a few of his quotes on Mithra:
  In his Dialogue with Trypho, Justin Martyr acknowledged the mysteries of Mithra and claimed in chapter LXX that they were "distorted from the prophecies of Daniel and Isaiah":
  
  And when those who record the mysteries of Mithras say that he was begotten of a rock, and call the place where those who believe in him are initiated a cave, do I not perceive here that the utterance of Daniel, that a stone without hands was cut out of a great mountain, has been imitated by them, and that they have attempted likewise to imitate the whole of Isaiah's words?
  
  Martyr does not maintain that the Mithraic mysteries were copied from Christianity; his appeal to "prophecies" purportedly written centuries before is a tacit admission that Roman Mithraism, with rites already developed and known by his time, preceded Christianity.
  
  In any case, Martyr implies here that this Mithraic sacrament preceded Christianity and was not copied from the latter, since the "devil did it" argument is generally, if not always, used to explain away the similarities between Christianity and pre-Christian Paganism. If human beings had merely copied Christian rites and myths, why would Martyr not say so but instead irrationally ascribe the deed to a supernatural agency, thus putting himself at risk for incredulity and ridicule for what is now nearly two thousand years? According to Graves, the pious Faber interpreted Justin as admitting that the Mithraic eucharist predated Christianity, saying:
  
  The devil led the heathen to anticipate Christ with respect to several things, as the mysteries of the Eucharist, etc. "And this very solemnity (says St. Justin) the evil spirit introduced into the mysteries of Mithra." (Reeves, Justin, p. 86)
  
  I could list more quotes, but you get my point. In no case did Martyr ever deny the existence of Mithra.

 

[JayRob]

JR

As I previously stated. I can find similiar comments

“In fact, Mithraism seems to change drastically from its Persian roots when it becomes a Roman cult. Romans adapted the military cult into something much more comfortable and understandable for their form of worship. Scholars Beard, North and Price agree stating, "The form of the cult most familiar to us, the initiatory cult, does not seem to derive from Persia at all. It is found first in the west, has no significant resemblance to its supposed Persian 'origins', and seems largely to be a western construct."

Beard, Mary, John North and Simon Price. Religions of Rome Volume I.
Cambridge university Press. New York NY. 1998 p.279

Seems to be a western construct? How could Mithraism be a copy of a western construct from Christianity when it existed hundreds and hundreds of years before Christianity came on the scene? This is a virtual impossibility.
How did Mithraism copy December 25th when it's worshippers observed this day long before Christianity came on the scene?
In 325AD at the Council of Nicea, guess who took this day as a day recognizing it as the birthdate of the Christian god? The Christians did. Tehy stole from Mithraism and other religions. December 25th birthdate story existed long before Christianity came on the scene.

--Another glaring similarity is the bread and wine ceremony. The historian Plutarch noted:

The Spartan King Kleomenes had held a similar last supper with twelve followers four hundred years before Jesus.
This last assertion is made by Plutarch in Parallel Lives, "Agis and Kleomenes" 37:2-3.

Obviously, the Last Supper with the Twelve predates Christianity by centuries. It would therefore be a mistake to contend that Mithraism copied Christianity, rather than inheriting this motif from earlier Pagan religions.

CHRISTIAN INFLUENCE ON MITHRAISM
Because of the above evidence, we must dismiss the claims that Christianity borrowed from Mithraism in order to codify its own set of beliefs. The ancient form of Mithraism would not have looked anything like Christianity. It in fact was a very pagan form of worship. Ronald Nash writes:
"Allegations of an early Christian dependence on Mithraism have been rejected on many grounds. Mithraism had no concept of the death and resurrection of its god and no place for any concept of rebirth - at least during its early stages.... During the early stages of the cult, the notion of rebirth would have been foreign to its basic outlook.... Moreover, Mithraism was basically a military cult. Therefore, one must be skeptical about suggestions that it appealed to nonmilitary people like the early Christians."5

Nash, Ronald. Mystery Religions of the Near East as quoted in "Mithraism." Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. 1999

Negative

Again, these writers are highly mistaken. Another ceremony inserted into Christianity from pagan religions is the baptismal ceremony symbolism.

Concerning baptism among the pre-Christian "heathen" and Jews, the Catholic Encyclopedia ("Baptism") states:

How natural and expressive the symbolism of exterior washing to indicate interior purification was recognized to be, is plain from the practice also of the heathen systems of religion. The use of lustral water is found among the Babylonians, Assyrians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Hindus, and others. A closer resemblance to Christian baptism is found in a form of Jewish baptism, to be bestowed on proselytes, given in the Babylonian Talmud (Dollinger, First Age of the Church).

Regarding baptism, Bonwick states:

Baptism is a very ancient rite pertaining to heathen religions, whether of Asia, Africa, Europe or America. It was one of the Egyptian rites in the mysteries.

Indeed, the baptism by water to remove sins is an ancient Egyptian motif:

Osiris takes upon himself "all that is hateful" in the dead: that is, he adopts the burden of his sins; and the dead is purified by the typical sprinkling of water.

Dr. H, you may want to check your sources a bit closer before posting them. It's clear that they have no idea what they're putting in print.

The burden of proof is on you, so you are saying that you are not a product of God’s creation? The challenge is for you to prove it! Why are you afraid to deny God and curse Him as I have suggested. Oh! Forgive me; I forgot that you are a coward. Or are you thinking about the scripture below.

I'm not the one making the claim, you are. I've been asking you for months to prove that your god is the one true god and you've not even attempted to touch that question. You can't even tell me who created your god.
Until you can answer these questions, don't bother questioning me about my existence. You have your own work cut out for you in trying to prove where your god came from and how to prove that he's the one true god.

JR stand up and be a man, curse God, you said He was just a figment of our imagination, a fairytale, a myth. If that’s true, this God we worship cannot hurt you [can He]. So you think all you have accomplished, is due to the fact that JR is in charge. If that’s the case shoot yourself in the head with a 9mm [once you die] bring yourself back to life. God said that He gave you the breath of life and when He decides to take it back, you are dead [period].

How many Christians who've killed themselves have been resurrected so far from their graves? You say some of the most outlandish things before thinking about it.
It's enough for me to say that your god is a myth. That's worse than any curse I could ever make, so there you have it.

Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Matthew 10:28

Just empty words in a book. Any author can make such claims, but it takes a REAL god to make it stick and bring it to pass. It's been two thousand years and counting, since those words and STILL no second coming, yet folks like you are still falling for it hook line and sinker. That's your right though.

Now prove that your god is the one true god and tell me where he came from, THEN I'll gladly answer ANY question you have.

 

[dacontinent]

There's no evidence outside the bible that any of these people existed. You've shown nothing to support your theory that ANY of these men were firsthand witnesses. Heck, no one knows where any of these men came from either. LOL!! Where was John born? Matthew? Peter? John? James? Jude? Outside of the bible, no one can offer ANY credible history on either of these men. Even writers of history who were alive at that time ignore these men. Telling indeed.

There's no credible evidence that would suggest that either of the names you mentioned were real people to begin with, so yes, they do fall outside of my research sample. My research deals with facts, not fiction.

Both Polycarp and Papias attest to these men. They were certainly not ignored since their writings shaped the culture of Christendom at that time. Apparently there are more facts than your research has excavated.

It's obvious that his followers considered him to have been real. Whether he was real or not is not the issue. Christians basically tried to destroy the religion because they KNEW it was too similar to Mithraism. Most of the temples and writings on Mithraism were destroyed, but they couldn't destroy everything as the expert showed in the video.

There's no evidence that the Jesus of the bible ever existed either, but his followers believed he did. This is no different than what worshippers of Mithra did.
Fact of the matter s that Christianity has too many similarities to Mithraism to be ignored. Instead of focusing on the teachings, you want to divert away to the fictional character.

Let's try this again. I never asked whether Mithras was real. The golden calf was real. Dagon was real. Ashtaroth was real. None of them were human. Was Mithras a real HUMAN. The expert that you have you presented didn't know and suggested that no one knows. You keep trying to make Mithras a peer. One criteria would have to be that he was human. Jesus of Nazareth was certainly human.

You got some nerve asking me to put up or shut up. You've not produced much of anything that I've asked you to for months, yet you're asking me to put up or shut up? When you start taking your own advice, perhaps you'll gain more credibility.

The Jesus figure has been shown to be no more real than the Mithra figure, so why don't you put up or shut up by showing that the Jesus figure was real. I've shown time and time again that he's a fictional character whose on the same folklore level as Mithra and Osiris. Most historical writers who lived during the time Jesus is said to have been alive say not ONE word about him. The Dead Sea scrolls say not one word about him. The Romans, who were meticulous record keepers, say not one word about any Jesus figure.
When you prove that the Jesus figure was REAL, I'll prove to you that Mithra was real.

Been there, done that. Eyewitnesses (Jews, Greeks, Romans); documentation; its all there. Eusebius used the library of Caesarea for his research. Still waiting for your evidence on Mithras

As far as December 25th is cocerned, I simply stated that this day was changed by LEADING Christians eventhough it was the birthdate of the Roman sun god. Christians used this date so that they could gain more converts. No one knows the date of the Jesus figure's birthdate because he's a fictional character just like Mithra, Osiris, Dionysius, Krishna and others. I've been saying this all along. That's what religions are, copies on top of copies on top of copies. The names are simply changed depending on those in power.

No, sir. That is not what you stated. You said:

If the Christian authors would be so bold and careless to copy the EXACT birthdate of previous savior gods, why is it so farfetched to believe that they wouldn't copy other parts of stories and writings from those same religions they stole the birthdate from? It shouldn't be that surprising.
There was a reason Jesus' birthday is on December 25th. He was labelled like unto the sun god of other religions from Osiris to Mithra.

​

Still waiting for the names of the Christian authors who said Jesus' birthday is on December 25.

You said the woman was no expert period. There's no need to backtrack now. Not once did you ask for an expert on Christianity. You claimed the woman wasn't an expert as it relates to Mithraism, now you're trying to change it to her not being an expert on Christianity. You're just going around in circles.
In the past, I've listed dozens of experts on the bible who've clearly shown that it's no different than most Middle Eastern, Persian, Greek and Roman religions. You can find them by revisiting recent posts of mine.

You are ... er ... mistaken.
What I asked was

Which of those persons was the expert on Christianity?

There is no need for me to backtrack. If you think I tried to discredit this woman as being an expert on Mithras, please post the quote where I did that.

You presented her as an expert on Mithras. I just asked for her credentials with regard to Christianity. She did not mention any on the film nor did the interviewer.

That's what I said. I clearly stated that the Council of Nicea, which was a group of over 300 Christian leaders, set the day of December 25th as the date of Jesus' birth. They didn't have a real date because they couldn't know the real date of a person if he was a fictional character.
This falls in line with what I've been saying all along. No one knows his birthdate because he's a created character from a created story stolen from previous religions. It's as simple as that. I think that deep down in your heart of hearts you KNOW this, but you'll never admit to it for obvious reasons. That's your right though.

There are tons of websites on the Council of Nicea. Please post the link to one where the council set the day of December 25th as the date of Jesus' birth.

As far as mentioning a single Christian author who claimed that Mithras was real, I already did that, but it seems to have gone straight over your head. I mentioned the Christian, Justin Martyr.
Martyr never denied that Mithras wasn't real. Instead, he claimed that the devil inspired the religion to pull people away from the coming Jesus figure. If Mithra wasn't real in Martyr's mind, why would this important religious figure even take the time out to address this matter?

In fact here's a few of his quotes on Mithra:
In his Dialogue with Trypho, Justin Martyr acknowledged the mysteries of Mithra and claimed in chapter LXX that they were "distorted from the prophecies of Daniel and Isaiah":

And when those who record the mysteries of Mithras say that he was begotten of a rock, and call the place where those who believe in him are initiated a cave, do I not perceive here that the utterance of Daniel, that a stone without hands was cut out of a great mountain, has been imitated by them, and that they have attempted likewise to imitate the whole of Isaiah's words?

Martyr does not maintain that the Mithraic mysteries were copied from Christianity; his appeal to "prophecies" purportedly written centuries before is a tacit admission that Roman Mithraism, with rites already developed and known by his time, preceded Christianity.

In any case, Martyr implies here that this Mithraic sacrament preceded Christianity and was not copied from the latter, since the "devil did it" argument is generally, if not always, used to explain away the similarities between Christianity and pre-Christian Paganism. If human beings had merely copied Christian rites and myths, why would Martyr not say so but instead irrationally ascribe the deed to a supernatural agency, thus putting himself at risk for incredulity and ridicule for what is now nearly two thousand years? According to Graves, the pious Faber interpreted Justin as admitting that the Mithraic eucharist predated Christianity, saying:

The devil led the heathen to anticipate Christ with respect to several things, as the mysteries of the Eucharist, etc. "And this very solemnity (says St. Justin) the evil spirit introduced into the mysteries of Mithra." (Reeves, Justin, p. 86)

I could list more quotes, but you get my point. In no case did Martyr ever deny the existence of Mithra.

Neither do I deny the existence of Mithras. The existence of Mithras nor Mithraisms existence prior to Christianity has never been contested by me anywhere in this thread. I have simply asked for ANY proof that Mithras was a real HUMAN. To this point NOTHING has been presented to even suggest that he was a REAL HUMAN.

 

[JayRob]

Both Polycarp and Papias attest to these men. They were certainly not ignored since their writings shaped the culture of Christendom at that time. Apparently there are more facts than your research has excavated.

Neither of these men were eyewitnesses, so their attesting, as others, is purely secondhand. In other words, it' no better than your attestation or mine.

Let's try this again. I never asked whether Mithras was real. The golden calf was real. Dagon was real. Ashtaroth was real. None of them were human. Was Mithras a real HUMAN. The expert that you have you presented didn't know and suggested that no one knows. You keep trying to make Mithras a peer. One criteria would have to be that he was human. Jesus of Nazareth was certainly human.

You keep saying that Jesuse was real, but there's no evidene that he was real. There's no evidence that Osiris or Dionysus was real. Mithra is a copy of Osiris just as Jesus is a copy of Osiris and Mithra. You can try and avoid the copied history all you want, but you can't escape the fact that the Jesus figure has no eyewitness history outside of the bible.

Been there, done that. Eyewitnesses (Jews, Greeks, Romans); documentation; its all there. Eusebius used the library of Caesarea for his research. Still waiting for your evidence on Mithras

Show me where Mithra's core teachings are different than the core teachings of the Jesus figure. You keep trying to get the focus off of the teachings and on to a fictional character. BOTH are fictional, so that solves that. The fact of the matter is who copied from whom? Christianity copied from several religions, so you have your work cut out for you in trying to explain why it's so similar to other religions as well. Mithraism is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

You are ... er ... mistaken.
What I asked was

There is no need for me to backtrack. If you think I tried to discredit this woman as being an expert on Mithras, please post the quote where I did that.

You presented her as an expert on Mithras. I just asked for her credentials with regard to Christianity. She did not mention any on the film nor did the interviewer.

It doesn't take an expert on Christianity to compare a previous religion to a religion that came on the scene hundreds of years later, that had similar teachings. The woman was an expert in Mithraism. You asked me to produce one. When I did, you backtracked and asked for an expert on Christianity. All the woman has to do is compare the teaching of Mithraism to that of Christianity to see the likeness or differences. No one has to be an expert on Christianity for that.

There are tons of websites on the Council of Nicea. Please post the link to one where the council set the day of December 25th as the date of Jesus' birth.

If you really want to know, you'll find it. You know that you don't have a leg to stand on, so why continue to be in denial of the obvious? Christianity is a plagiarized copy of Mithraism along with other religions and you know it.

Neither do I deny the existence of Mithras. The existence of Mithras nor Mithraisms existence prior to Christianity has never been contested by me anywhere in this thread. I have simply asked for ANY proof that Mithras was a real HUMAN. To this point NOTHING has been presented to even suggest that he was a REAL HUMAN.

That's because you want to read or not read into obvious statements by the Christian, John Martyr. Martyr obviously believed that Mithra was real or he would've said so. He didn't deny the existence of Mithra, but obviously you're not as objective.

 

[dacontinent]

Neither of these men were eyewitnesses, so their attesting, as others, is purely secondhand. In other words, it' no better than your attestation or mine.

Was or was not Polycarp a student of John? If yes, then he most certainly can attest to John. I await your answer to the question.

You keep saying that Jesuse was real, but there's no evidene that he was real. There's no evidence that Osiris or Dionysus was real. Mithra is a copy of Osiris just as Jesus is a copy of Osiris and Mithra. You can try and avoid the copied history all you want, but you can't escape the fact that the Jesus figure has no eyewitness history outside of the bible.

Evidence? Like a birth or death certificate? No. We do have recorded history. You reject the account of a trained Pharisee (Jew) in Josephus. Apparently you do the same for Cornelius (Roman). Both eyewitnesses and neither Christian.

Show me where Mithra's core teachings are different than the core teachings of the Jesus figure. You keep trying to get the focus off of the teachings and on to a fictional character. BOTH are fictional, so that solves that. The fact of the matter is who copied from whom? Christianity copied from several religions, so you have your work cut out for you in trying to explain why it's so similar to other religions as well. Mithraism is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

Finally. I guess that means that you assert that Mithras is fictional. I have no work to explain the similarities nor dissimilarities of the religions. My point has nothing to do with the religions; it has everything to do with the figures of Mithras and Jesus as not being peers.

It doesn't take an expert on Christianity to compare a previous religion to a religion that came on the scene hundreds of years later, that had similar teachings. The woman was an expert in Mithraism. You asked me to produce one. When I did, you backtracked and asked for an expert on Christianity. All the woman has to do is compare the teaching of Mithraism to that of Christianity to see the likeness or differences. No one has to be an expert on Christianity for that.

You presented your expert in Post #52. Allow me to refresh your memory from Post #61 - that's 9 posts later.

You are hilarious.
Please find me one expert on Mithras who will state conclusively that Mithras was EVER born on Earth.
Who told you that Jesus' birthday was December 25?

You should sell this to Comedy Central. You will make a fortune.

​

I asked for such an expert because of the comments presented by the expert that you gave us with the video. She said she didn't know. You have produced no further experts on Mithras contending that Mithras was ever human.

If you really want to know, you'll find it. You know that you don't have a leg to stand on, so why continue to be in denial of the obvious? Christianity is a plagiarized copy of Mithraism along with other religions and you know it.

If you want to be credible for what you claimed to be a fact

If the Christian authors would be so bold and careless to copy the EXACT birthdate of previous savior gods, why is it so farfetched to believe that they wouldn't copy other parts of stories and writings from those same religions they stole the birthdate from? It shouldn't be that surprising.
There was a reason Jesus' birthday is on December 25th. He was labelled like unto the sun god of other religions from Osiris to Mithra.
...
The entire Council of Nicea in 325 AD is where the leaders of the Christian religion met to discuss church doctrines. At this council, December 25th was the date set for the birthdate of the Jesus figure. Constantine put his stamp of approval on this date because it was also the birthdate of the sun god. The many religious leaders present put his orders into effect.
...
That's what I said. I clearly stated that the Council of Nicea, which was a group of over 300 Christian leaders, set the day of December 25th as the date of Jesus' birth. They didn't have a real date because they couldn't know the real date of a person if he was a fictional character.
This falls in line with what I've been saying all along. No one knows his birthdate because he's a created character from a created story stolen from previous religions. It's as simple as that. I think that deep down in your heart of hearts you KNOW this, but you'll never admit to it for obvious reasons. That's your right though.

​

One more time for clarity: You have contended that the Council of Nicea set Jesus' birthdate as December 25. That is incorrect.

That's because you want to read or not read into obvious statements by the Christian, John Martyr. Martyr obviously believed that Mithra was real or he would've said so. He didn't deny the existence of Mithra, but obviously you're not as objective.

One more time: Mithras was REAL. All idols are real. The problem is that very few of them are human.

 

[JayRob]

Was or was not Polycarp a student of John? If yes, then he most certainly can attest to John. I await your answer to the question.

John who? First of all, there's no evidence that any John wrote the books that bear the name John. Nobody knows who this John is. He's fictional too. Polycarp wasn't an eyewitness either, so you can't depend on him either. As a matter of fact, Polycarp didn't come on the scene until 50 or 60 years after the Jesus figure.

Evidence? Like a birth or death certificate? No. We do have recorded history. You reject the account of a trained Pharisee (Jew) in Josephus. Apparently you do the same for Cornelius (Roman). Both eyewitnesses and neither Christian.

What three lines Josephus wrote have been shown to be fraudulent. You already know this. Besides, he wasn't an eyewitness either. He came on the scene decades after the Jesus figure supposedly left the earth.
And who is Cornelius? Cornelius who? He's no more a real character than John. They're just names put in a book. There's no history of either of these folks outside the bible.

Finally. I guess that means that you assert that Mithras is fictional. I have no work to explain the similarities nor dissimilarities of the religions. My point has nothing to do with the religions; it has everything to do with the figures of Mithras and Jesus as not being peers.

You don't want to focus on the teachings of both religions because you don't have a leg to stand on. In your mind, you KNOW without a doubt that they are too similar for there to be a coincidence.
You make the claim that Osiris was a human, but ignore the fact that the Jesus figure has glaring similarities to him as well.
Face it Dacon, the die has been cast. You can't escape facts. You can ignore them, but you can no longer say that there's no evidence that Christianity's a copied religion.

You presented your expert in Post #52. Allow me to refresh your memory from Post #61 - that's 9 posts later.

​

I asked for such an expert because of the comments presented by the expert that you gave us with the video. She said she didn't know. You have produced no further experts on Mithras contending that Mithras was ever human.

Justin Martyr clearly indicated that Mithras was real. You can ignore the words of one of the most noted Christians of his day all you want to, but that's your prerogative. You asked for one and I gave you one. Take it or leave it.
It's amazing that you would deny that Mithra was real, but you don't deny that Osiris was real. Mithras is a COPY of Osiris. If Osiris was real, Mithra was real. It's as simple as that. Osiris=Mithra=Jesus.

If you want to be credible for what you claimed to be a fact

​

One more time for clarity: You have contended that the Council of Nicea set Jesus' birthdate as December 25. That is incorrect.

What was December 25th all about at the Council of Nicea if it wasn't about the birthdate of the Jesus figure?

One more time: Mithras was REAL. All idols are real. The problem is that very few of them are human.

You stated that Osiris is real. Mithras is a copy of Osiris just like Jesus is a copy of Mithras. Jesus was no more real than either of them.
The Dead Sea scrolls fully support what I'm saying. Not one word of any Jesus was ever mentioned in the scrolls, many which were written during and after Jesus' supposed time on earth.
No credible historian living at that time wrote about him. You struggle to find one or two credible historians, but even the ones you named have been found to be fraudulent. Shouldn't you at least be honest enough to admit that?

 

[JayRob]

The 3:00 minute mark on is very telling indeed. I couldn't have said any of it any better. The proof is absolute beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Jesus figure is taken from previous religious figures and the religion of Christianity is borrowed.

<object style="height: 344px; width: 425px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/R6THwSYY_aU?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/R6THwSYY_aU?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></object>

 

[dacontinent]

John who? First of all, there's no evidence that any John wrote the books that bear the name John. Nobody knows who this John is. He's fictional too. Polycarp wasn't an eyewitness either, so you can't depend on him either. As a matter of fact, Polycarp didn't come on the scene until 50 or 60 years after the Jesus figure.

You are having a little troiuble following. Polycarp was a student of the Apostle John. Polycarp, therefore, attests to John as a person (Post #81). So, it is rather clear that SOMEBODY outside of the Bible knows who this John is and he was not fictional.

What three lines Josephus wrote have been shown to be fraudulent. You already know this. Besides, he wasn't an eyewitness either. He came on the scene decades after the Jesus figure supposedly left the earth.
And who is Cornelius? Cornelius who? He's no more a real character than John. They're just names put in a book. There's no history of either of these folks outside the bible.

Questioned? Sure. Found to be fraudulent? I don't think so. He was a Pharisee. I guess when he came along the Pharisees who trained him did not keep Jesus a secret from him. Isn't it interesting that while Josephus' rival, Justus of Tiberias, does not question the authenticity of those statements, modern critics do?

You don't want to focus on the teachings of both religions because you don't have a leg to stand on. In your mind, you KNOW without a doubt that they are too similar for there to be a coincidence.
You make the claim that Osiris was a human, but ignore the fact that the Jesus figure has glaring similarities to him as well.
Face it Dacon, the die has been cast. You can't escape facts. You can ignore them, but you can no longer say that there's no evidence that Christianity's a copied religion.

Because things have similarities does not make one a copy of the other. That's true of commodities and religions. You are smart enough to know that.

I just checked to be certain: you are the only poster who mentions Osiris. So, for the record (again), I believe Osiris was just as real as Mithras: both idols. Is there any proof that Osiris was a real human? Just asking.

Justin Martyr clearly indicated that Mithras was real. You can ignore the words of one of the most noted Christians of his day all you want to, but that's your prerogative. You asked for one and I gave you one. Take it or leave it.
It's amazing that you would deny that Mithra was real, but you don't deny that Osiris was real. Mithras is a COPY of Osiris. If Osiris was real, Mithra was real. It's as simple as that. Osiris=Mithra=Jesus.

Where does Justin Martyr indicate that Mithras or Osiris was human??!!

What was December 25th all about at the Council of Nicea if it wasn't about the birthdate of the Jesus figure?

[Hopefully for the last time...] It was about when to celebrate his birthday. It never addressed His birthdate.

You stated that Osiris is real. Mithras is a copy of Osiris just like Jesus is a copy of Mithras. Jesus was no more real than either of them.
The Dead Sea scrolls fully support what I'm saying. Not one word of any Jesus was ever mentioned in the scrolls, many which were written during and after Jesus' supposed time on earth.
No credible historian living at that time wrote about him. You struggle to find one or two credible historians, but even the ones you named have been found to be fraudulent. Shouldn't you at least be honest enough to admit that?

Apparently you still haven't read the scrolls that I asked you about in an earlier thread. I understand.

Credibile historians who chronicled life in Israel in the first century:

• Matthew
• Mark
• Luke
• John
• Paul
• Peter
• James
• Jude
• Flavius Josephus
• Justus of Tiberia
• Publius Cornelius Tacitus
• Philo of Alexandria
• Suetonius

Of course, you find none of them credible.

 

[Dr H..]

JR

So John is a “fictional character”

Please explain why some of the early church fathers, mentioned John in their writings:
Irenaeus mention in his letter John and Polycarp in his letter to Pope Victor “Do your homework”

“For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp to forego the observance [in his own way], inasmuch as these things had been always [so] observed by John the disciple of our Lord, and by other apostles with whom he had been conversant; nor, on the other hand,”

Irenaeus describes Papias as "the hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp

“Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.”
Polycarp disciple of the apostle John and by him ordained bishop of Smyrna was chief of all Asia, where he saw and had as teachers some of the apostles and of those who had seen the Lord.

Jerome “Illustrious Men”

What we have here as before, everyone is wrong except for JR. we have Irenaeus and Polycarp, writing about John, yet ole JR say he is a “Fictional Character”

JR can explain practically all that's in existance, except his existance.

 

[JayRob]

You are having a little troiuble following. Polycarp was a student of the Apostle John. Polycarp, therefore, attests to John as a person (Post #81). So, it is rather clear that SOMEBODY outside of the Bible knows who this John is and he was not fictional.

Where does John attest to Polycarp? Nowhere. Polycarp's name isn't even mentioned in the bible. You're taking an unknown person at his word just like you're taking an unknown Matthew, Mark, Luke and John at the words of the NT authors. No credible extrabiblical evidence supports the lives of either of these men you mention.

The question was if Polycarp was a witness of the Jesus figure? The answer is an astounding no. You keep falling into the same empty traps of no evidence.

Questioned? Sure. Found to be fraudulent? I don't think so. He was a Pharisee. I guess when he came along the Pharisees who trained him did not keep Jesus a secret from him. Isn't it interesting that while Josephus' rival, Justus of Tiberias, does not question the authenticity of those statements, modern critics do?

No dedicated Jew would've ever called the Jesus figure a "god" to begin with. Most Jews, to this very day, don't dare call him a god.
The devout Jews who wrote the Dead Sea scrolls didn't bother to mention his name at all, and they were true Jews.

The Josephus lines have been known for decades and decades to have been a fraud. Even Christians know and admit this. I think you know it too. You just thought that I didn't.

As far as Justus of Tiberius is concerned, here's what a noted historian wrote about him and his non-relationship to the Jesus figure:

"Justus of Tiberias.....'I have read the chronology of Justus of Tiberias ... and being under the Jewish prejudices, as indeed he was himself also a Jew by birth, he makes not one mention of Jesus, of what happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he did.'
– Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, 9th Century

Because things have similarities does not make one a copy of the other. That's true of commodities and religions. You are smart enough to know that.

Dacon, it's not just the matter of one or two or three similarities of the religions, but there are dozens and dozens and dozens of major similarities between the two. One would have to be totally blind academically and in total denial to not see the stark similarities. You seem to be kin to both. It's startling indeed, truly startling that you don't want to admit the obvious.

I just checked to be certain: you are the only poster who mentions Osiris. So, for the record (again), I believe Osiris was just as real as Mithras: both idols. Is there any proof that Osiris was a real human? Just asking.

You recently stated that Osiris was real, so why are you now asking me? It's irrelevant if he was alive or not. The fact of the matter is that his teachings spread to various parts of the world and became vital parts of all major religions, including and especially Christianity.

Where does Justin Martyr indicate that Mithras or Osiris was human??!!

I presented his quote to you. Martyr never denied that Mithra wasn't real. Instead of arguing about Mithra being real or not, he focused on the teachings of Mithra. He didn't focus on the life of Mithra, he focused on the teachings of Mithra.
Martyr stated that the devil used the Mithra religion to steer people away from Christianity because the teachings of both religions were too similar and this greatly concerned Christian leaders. Instead of acknowledging that Christianity stole/borrowed from Mithraism, he criticized the very religion they were copying and chose to ignore the glaring similarities.

[Hopefully for the last time...] It was about when to celebrate his birthday. It never addressed His birthdate.

Dacon, cease with the semantics and diversions. The fact of the matter is that the early Christians used the birthday of the Roman sun god, December 25th, as the birthday of the Jesus figure. It's as simple as that.

Apparently you still haven't read the scrolls that I asked you about in an earlier thread. I understand.

And you still have presented evidence showing that the Jesus figure was mentioned ONE time in the many volumes of the Dead Sea scrolls. If you knew that he was mentioned, you would've presented your evidence a long time ago. You have nothing to show such.....nothing at all. If you do, I challenge you to post it.
Cont'd......

 

[JayRob]

Cont'd from previous thread:

Dacontinent claims that the following men are:

Credibile historians who chronicled life in Israel in the first century:

• Matthew
• Mark
• Luke
• John
• Paul
• Peter
• James
• Jude
• Flavius Josephus
• Justus of Tiberia
• Publius Cornelius Tacitus
• Philo of Alexandria
• Suetonius

Of course, you find none of them credible.

Dacon, the above fallacies you posted is pretty disturbing, especially Philo's name.

There's no evidence outside the bible that anyone knows who Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were and there's no extrabiblical evidence of a Peter, James or Jude either. They're just names in a book. No birthdate, no history, no nothing outside the bible. These men who were supposedly leading disciples of this "great" Jesus figure are not mentioned in the annals of history anywhere by any credible historian.

[I]Josephus writings about Jesus has been found to be fraudulent. Not a single writer before the 4th century – not Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, etc. – in all their defences against pagan hostility, makes a single reference to Josephus’ wondrous words.

The third century Church 'Father' Origen, for example, spent half his life and a quarter of a million words contending against the pagan writer Celsus. Origen drew on all sorts of proofs and witnesses to his arguments in his fierce defence of Christianity. He quotes from Josephus extensively. Yet even he makes no reference to this 'golden paragraph' from Josephus, which would have been the ultimate rebuttal. In fact, Origen actually said that Josephus was "not believing in Jesus as the Christ."[/I]

--Justin of Tiberias's never wrote one word about the Jesus figure as shown earlier.

--Caius Suetonius (c.69–140 AD)
Nowhere in any of Suetonius's writings does he mention 'Jesus of Nazareth.' Suetonius did write a biography called Twelve Caesars around the year 112 AD and of Emperor Claudius he says:

"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of one Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome."
Jesus in Rome in 54 AD? Of course not. But the unwary can be misled by this reference.

'Chrestus' does not equate to 'Christ' in English but to 'The Good' in Greek, It was a name used by both slaves and freemen and is attested more than eighty times in Latin inscriptions. Clearly, Suetonius was explaining why the Jews (not Christians) were expelled from Rome and is referring to a Jewish agitator in the 50s – not to a Galilean pacifist of the 30s. Yet even this report is questionable. The historian Cassius Dio gives a more convincing account of the same Claudian "expulsion":

"As for the Jews, who had again increased so greatly that by reason of their multitude it would have been hard without raising a tumult to bar them from the city, he did not drive them out, but ordered them, while continuing their traditional mode of life, not to hold meetings." – Roman History, 60.6.
It is also said that Suetonius, in his Life of Nero, described Nero's persecution of the Christians:

'Punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief ...' (16.2)
We have moved from 'rebellious Jews' to 'mischievous Christians'.

--Cornelius Tacitus (c.55-117 AD) First of all, Tacitus was not an eyewitness of the Jesus figure either. He was born decades later.

Christianity has no part in Tacitus's history of the Caesars. Except for one questionable reference in the Annals he records nothing of a cult marginal even in his own day.

Sometime before 117 AD, the Roman historian apparently wrote:

"Nero looked around for a scapegoat, and inflicted the most fiendish tortures on a group of persons already hated for their crimes. This was the sect known as Christians. Their founder, one Christus, had been put to death by the procurator, Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. This checked the abominable superstition for a while, but it broke out again and spread, not merely through Judea, where it originated, but even to Rome itself, the great reservoir and collecting ground for every kind of depravity and filth. Those who confessed to being Christians were at once arrested, but on their testimony a great crowd of people were convicted, not so much on the charge of arson, but of hatred of the entire human race.

Their deaths were made farcical. Dressed in wild animals' skins , they were torn to pieces by dogs, or crucified, or made into torches to be ignited after dark as substitutes for daylight."
Tacitus (Book 15, chapter 44):

As we have seen, the term 'Christian' was not in use during the reign of Nero and there would not have been 'a great crowd' unless we are speaking of Jews, not Christians.

No Christian apologist for centuries ever quoted the passage of Tacitus – not in fact, until it had appeared almost word-for-word in the writings of Sulpicius Severus, in the early fifth century, where it is mixed in with other myths.

--Philo:
Why you put Philo's name in the bunch in highly deceptive. It is intuitively satisfying to think that someone was behind the towering legend. Yet like the worship of Horus or Mithras a human life was neither necessary nor helpful. As it happens, we have an excellent witness to events in Judaea in the first half of the first century AD: Philo of Alexandria (c25 BC-47 AD). Yet Philo says not a word about Jesus or Christianity!

In other words, Philo was the ONE person who should've written about this Jesus figure, but he says NOT ONE WORD ABOUT JESUS OR CHRISTIANITY.

Dacon, of all those names you mentioned, not one has credible extrabiblical standing.....NOT ONE.

 

[JayRob]

JR

So John is a “fictional character”

Please explain why some of the early church fathers, mentioned John in their writings:
Irenaeus mention in his letter John and Polycarp in his letter to Pope Victor “Do your homework”

“For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp to forego the observance [in his own way], inasmuch as these things had been always [so] observed by John the disciple of our Lord, and by other apostles with whom he had been conversant; nor, on the other hand,”

Irenaeus describes Papias as "the hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp

“Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.”
Polycarp disciple of the apostle John and by him ordained bishop of Smyrna was chief of all Asia, where he saw and had as teachers some of the apostles and of those who had seen the Lord.

Jerome “Illustrious Men”

What we have here as before, everyone is wrong except for JR. we have Irenaeus and Polycarp, writing about John, yet ole JR say he is a “Fictional Character”

JR can explain practically all that's in existance, except his existance.

Dude, don't try and skip the questions I asked you by diverting to this post. Why are you running?

How can you prove that your god is the one true god and second, WHO CREATED HIM? Now answer the questions and quit running.

 

[JayRob]

JR

So John is a “fictional character”

Please explain why some of the early church fathers, mentioned John in their writings:
Irenaeus mention in his letter John and Polycarp in his letter to Pope Victor “Do your homework”

“For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp to forego the observance [in his own way], inasmuch as these things had been always [so] observed by John the disciple of our Lord, and by other apostles with whom he had been conversant; nor, on the other hand,”

Irenaeus describes Papias as "the hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp

“Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.”
Polycarp disciple of the apostle John and by him ordained bishop of Smyrna was chief of all Asia, where he saw and had as teachers some of the apostles and of those who had seen the Lord.

Jerome “Illustrious Men”

What we have here as before, everyone is wrong except for JR. we have Irenaeus and Polycarp, writing about John, yet ole JR say he is a “Fictional Character”

JR can explain practically all that's in existance, except his existance.

Dr. H, it's obvious you are a Christian, but you don't even know your own Christian history.

First of all, all of the books supposedly written by John were not included in the bible. Who made that decision?
Second, at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, the Catholic church decided which books would be included in the bible. Who gave them that authority?
How do we know that the books they chose weren't written by imposters claiming a fake and/or fictional John?

Why do you only quote folks from he Catholic church like Jerome, Iraneus and Papius? That's like trusting the wolves to guard the hen house.
The Romans were the VERY ones who controlled what would be added and taken away from the bible? They were the very ones to make up stories and add to and take away whenever they pleased.

How do you know they didn't make up stories to draw in pagans? How do you know that they didn't make up characters to draw in others to the Christian religion? You don't.

The early church fathers were in on the authorship of many books of the bible, books that were said to have been written by John, Peter, James, Paul, Thomas and others. Many of those books never made it to the bible.
Who wrote those stories? Why weren't those books added to the bible if they had John's name on them? How do you explain that?

The books attributed to John in the Apocryphal were written long after he supposedly died.
The books in the bible with John's name are not consistent with each other and there are questions by noted historians as to who wrote them. How do you explain that?

"The Secret Acts of John" was not added to the bible. Why not, if John wrote it since it has his name on it? The Acts of John was not added. Why not since it has his name on it?

There are dozens and dozen of books and letters that were not added by the Christian leaders. Christians have no more of an idea who wrote THEM than they have of who wrote the first four gospels.
The Roman Christians simply chose which books would be added and which wouldn't be and they did this of their own volition, with NO OUTSIDE HELP from an imaginary god. They created Christianity.......period.

You just grew up hearing it, believing it, being indoctrinated with it to the point that it became not only a part of you, it became YOU. You never questioned it's validity, you merely tagged right along with the crowd, without having ANY earthly idea as to who wrote those books and neither did I.
Thank goodness though my eyes are now open to it's sordid and deceptive history and thank goodness I escaped it's clutches of deceit.

 

[dacontinent]

Where does John attest to Polycarp? Nowhere. Polycarp's name isn't even mentioned in the bible. You're taking an unknown person at his word just like you're taking an unknown Matthew, Mark, Luke and John at the words of the NT authors. No credible extrabiblical evidence supports the lives of either of these men you mention.

The question was if Polycarp was a witness of the Jesus figure? The answer is an astounding no. You keep falling into the same empty traps of no evidence.

I know you can read. I guess you are just having trouble following the quotes.

As the student, Polycarp - who is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible - attests to John being a real person. That negates your claim that the Apostle John was not real. Polycarp is an extra-biblical witness of John, not Jesus. It was never contended that Polycarp was a witness of Jesus. If you don't know how Polycarp was, then look him up.

Just for the record, I need no extrabiblical evidence of anything, nor do I need to prove anything to anyone from an extra-biblical perspective. I believe the Bible.

No dedicated Jew would've ever called the Jesus figure a "god" to begin with. Most Jews, to this very day, don't dare call him a god.
The devout Jews who wrote the Dead Sea scrolls didn't bother to mention his name at all, and they were true Jews.

You're right. A Jew dedicated to God would call Jesus God.

The Josephus lines have been known for decades and decades to have been a fraud. Even Christians know and admit this. I think you know it too. You just thought that I didn't.

What would some Christians have to admit about the writings of Josephus?

As far as Justus of Tiberius is concerned, here's what a noted historian wrote about him and his non-relationship to the Jesus figure:

"Justus of Tiberias.....'I have read the chronology of Justus of Tiberias ... and being under the Jewish prejudices, as indeed he was himself also a Jew by birth, he makes not one mention of Jesus, of what happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he did.'
– Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, 9th Century

So, do you want us to believe that Photius was some kind of medium who conjured the spirit of Justus to interview him as to why he makes no mention of Jesus even though Justus was not born until after Jesus died. After all, it was 800 years after Justus was dead that Photius reached this conclusion.

It amazes me how the opinions of critics hundreds or thousands of years later is deemed more credible than the accounts of the people who were actually there.

You recently stated that Osiris was real, so why are you now asking me? It's irrelevant if he was alive or not. The fact of the matter is that his teachings spread to various parts of the world and became vital parts of all major religions, including and especially Christianity.

I asked you if Osiris was a REAL HUMAN, just like I asked you about Mithras. You seem to want to make Osiris a peer of Jesus without the former being a REAL HUMAN.

I presented his quote to you. Martyr never denied that Mithra wasn't real. Instead of arguing about Mithra being real or not, he focused on the teachings of Mithra. He didn't focus on the life of Mithra, he focused on the teachings of Mithra.
Martyr stated that the devil used the Mithra religion to steer people away from Christianity because the teachings of both religions were too similar and this greatly concerned Christian leaders. Instead of acknowledging that Christianity stole/borrowed from Mithraism, he criticized the very religion they were copying and chose to ignore the glaring similarities.

We are finally getting somewhere. I agree with Justin Martyr. Mithras was a real idol. I'm sure that you know what an idol is. Since idols do not have the ability to communicate and Mithras was not a human and not a peer of Jesus, how was Mithras able to teach?

Dacon, cease with the semantics and diversions. The fact of the matter is that the early Christians used the birthday of the Roman sun god, December 25th, as the birthday of the Jesus figure. It's as simple as that.

It took a long time for you to admit that.

And you still have presented evidence showing that the Jesus figure was mentioned ONE time in the many volumes of the Dead Sea scrolls. If you knew that he was mentioned, you would've presented your evidence a long time ago. You have nothing to show such.....nothing at all. If you do, I challenge you to post it.
Cont'd......

Go back and read Post #46 again and you'll know why I am not posting anything here. You don't believe it when I post it. Consequently, I will continue to point you to the resources and let you draw you own conclusions. You haven't done your homework so you remain ignorant.

 

[dacontinent]

Cont'd from previous thread:

Dacon, the above fallacies you posted is pretty disturbing, especially Philo's name.

...

That post was commendable.:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

I simply posted credible 1st century historians of Israel, already knowing what the did and did not write about. The point being that these folks, the Essenes, and the Israeli and Italian governmental antiquities are what we have for 1st century historians on Israel. If the folks who were there did not contend with each other, then all of these johnny-come-later's merely offer their conjectures.

 

[JayRob]

I know you can read. I guess you are just having trouble following the quotes.

As the student, Polycarp - who is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible - attests to John being a real person. That negates your claim that the Apostle John was not real. Polycarp is an extra-biblical witness of John, not Jesus. It was never contended that Polycarp was a witness of Jesus. If you don't know how Polycarp was, then look him up.

I know what is SAID of Polycarp by certain writers, but I also know about the fabrications and lack of external evidence for Polycarp as well. The name Polycarp is barely known in early Christianity. His name is mentioned not one time in the bible as being related to John in any way.

Note the following: "We are told that among the martyrs in Smyrna, Polycarp alone is "especially remembered by all, so that he is spoken of even by the Gentiles in every place," and Christ is referred to as "the Shepherd of the Catholic Church throughout the world" (19). But the task of the historian is to demonstrate the plausibility of an assumed historical situation. At what point could it be said that Polycarp was "spoken of by Gentiles in every place"? Or if this is merely hyperbole, why would this not be true for everything else in the writing?"

[B"]If Polycarp's fame was so widely spread, even among Gentiles (§ 19), it is very odd that his name appears so rarely in the writings of early Christianity. Either Polycarp was famous or he wasn't. And if he was famous, we certainly "have a right" to see this reflected in early Christian history."[/B]
Darrell J. Doughty, Professor of New Testament; Drew University, Madison, NJ, 07940

Just for the record, I need no extrabiblical evidence of anything, nor do I need to prove anything to anyone from an extra-biblical perspective. I believe the Bible.

You have as much right to believe whatever you please just as I have the right to show where the bible is fallible and unsubstantiated.

You're right. A Jew dedicated to God would call Jesus God.

A devout Jew would never call a man "god", especially back then. I'm sure you already know this.

What would some Christians have to admit about the writings of Josephus?

They don't have to admit anything. It's well-known that the part that says Josephus wrote about Jesus is fraudulent.

So, do you want us to believe that Photius was some kind of medium who conjured the spirit of Justus to interview him as to why he makes no mention of Jesus even though Justus was not born until after Jesus died. After all, it was 800 years after Justus was dead that Photius reached this conclusion.

The facts are there for you to accept or reject. I'm sure that out of loyalty to fiction, you'll choose to reject.

It amazes me how the opinions of critics hundreds or thousands of years later is deemed more credible than the accounts of the people who were actually there.

How do you know these people were even there? You don't know any of that. All of the poeple are said to be fiction any how. You don't know what to believe or not believe in the bible, so you believe everything.

I asked you if Osiris was a REAL HUMAN, just like I asked you about Mithras. You seem to want to make Osiris a peer of Jesus without the former being a REAL HUMAN.

I have spoken with facts. You can continue to beat a dead horse if you want too.

We are finally getting somewhere. I agree with Justin Martyr. Mithras was a real idol. I'm sure that you know what an idol is. Since idols do not have the ability to communicate and Mithras was not a human and not a peer of Jesus, how was Mithras able to teach?

Idols have the ability to set doctrine? Idols have the ability to teach? LOL!!

Go back and read Post #46 again and you'll know why I am not posting anything here. You don't believe it when I post it. Consequently, I will continue to point you to the resources and let you draw you own conclusions. You haven't done your homework so you remain ignorant.

Your postings for the most part have not been found credible, that's why I don't believe most of it. I showed you videos of ancient relics, I post statements from credible sources, I posted statements from credible Dead Sea scroll historians.
On the other hand, what do you post? Information that's either questionable and/or outright fraudulent, yet you seem to have NO shame in doing so. That in itself speaks volumes.

The burden of proof is still on you, but so far you've come up empty.

 

[JayRob]

That post was commendable.

All of my posts are commendable.

I simply posted credible 1st century historians of Israel, already knowing what the did and did not write about.

It should be quite obvious that the historians you posted aren't as credible as you thought.

The point being that these folks, the Essenes, and the Israeli and Italian governmental antiquities are what we have for 1st century historians on Israel. If the folks who were there did not contend with each other, then all of these johnny-come-later's merely offer their conjectures.

Hebrew and Israeli archaeologists have no evidence of any Exodus or Moses. The Essenes copied OT books. They didn't have any credible evidence of a Moses either. All they had were the writings from the Greek OT. The Italians were supported by the Catholic church, so you know who controls the Italian government.

Israeli archaeologists can't find one shred of evidence to support the Jesus figure as being a god and the Jewish Talmud goes so far as to say the following about Mary and Jesus: Sanhedrin 106a . Says Jesus' mother was a whore: "She who was the descendant of princes and governors played the harlot with carpenters." Also in footnote #2 to Shabbath 104b of the Soncino edition, it is stated that in the "uncensored" text of the Talmud it is written that Jesus mother, "Miriam the hairdresser," had sex with many men.

About Jesus it says: Gittin 57a. Says Jesus is in hell, being boiled in "hot excrement."

If these people respected the Jesus figure, there's no way they would've had this to say about him in their most holy book.
Nevermind though, cause both the Talmud and bible are fictional to begin with.



.

 

[JayRob]

The 3:00 minute mark on is very telling indeed. I couldn't have said any of it any better. The proof is absolute beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Jesus figure is taken from previous religious figures and the religion of Christianity is borrowed.

The God Who Wasn't There
<object style="height: 344px; width: 425px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/R6THwSYY_aU?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/R6THwSYY_aU?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></object>

I see you guys voluntarily chose to ignore outright evidence from credible experts of the fallacy of the Jesus figure and the religion whose named after him.

 

[dacontinent]

All of my posts are commendable...

For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith. Rom 12:3 KJV

Praying for you is quite enjoyable.

It should be quite obvious that the historians you posted aren't as credible as you thought...

Actually, it's just the opposite.

Hebrew and Israeli archaeologists have no evidence of any Exodus or Moses. The Essenes copied OT books. They didn't have any credible evidence of a Moses either. All they had were the writings from the Greek OT. The Italians were supported by the Catholic church, so you know who controls the Italian government.

Israeli archaeologists can't find one shred of evidence to support the Jesus figure as being a god and the Jewish Talmud goes so far as to say the following about Mary and Jesus: Sanhedrin 106a . Says Jesus' mother was a whore: "She who was the descendant of princes and governors played the harlot with carpenters." Also in footnote #2 to Shabbath 104b of the Soncino edition, it is stated that in the "uncensored" text of the Talmud it is written that Jesus mother, "Miriam the hairdresser," had sex with many men.

About Jesus it says: Gittin 57a. Says Jesus is in hell, being boiled in "hot excrement."

If these people respected the Jesus figure, there's no way they would've had this to say about him in their most holy book. Nevermind though, cause both the Talmud and bible are fictional to begin with...

The Talmud is fictional enough for you to quote that it records that Jesus was born of Mary. Now, why would a people bother writing about the life of a historic figure of their own culture - whom they rejected - and validate Him as a person if He didn't even exist? You make this way too easy. You probably thought this post was commendable, too.

 

[dacontinent]

I know what is SAID of Polycarp by certain writers, but I also know about the fabrications and lack of external evidence for Polycarp as well. The name Polycarp is barely known in early Christianity. His name is mentioned not one time in the bible as being related to John in any way...

Finally, you validate Polycarp as being an extrabiblical person who attests to the Apostle John. I almost want to go back and count the number of commendable posts that it took you to get here.

A devout Jew would never call a man "god", especially back then. I'm sure you already know this.

Devout Jews, a number of them Pharisees, show that you are wrong.

They don't have to admit anything. It's well-known that the part that says Josephus wrote about Jesus is fraudulent.

The facts say otherwise.

The facts are there for you to accept or reject. I'm sure that out of loyalty to fiction, you'll choose to reject.

That is exactly what you have done. Amazing.

How do you know these people were even there? You don't know any of that. All of the poeple are said to be fiction any how. You don't know what to believe or not believe in the bible, so you believe everything.

Wow. With all of the eyewitness ... with the Talmud validating these people as the enemies of Judaism ... you present NOTHING to invalidate their having lived and assert that you present facts. :shame::shame::shame:

Idols have the ability to set doctrine? Idols have the ability to teach? LOL!!

You are the one said that the teachings of these idols were peer with the teachings of Jesus. Jesus lived and taught. What did your idols teach? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Your postings for the most part have not been found credible, that's why I don't believe most of it. I showed you videos of ancient relics, I post statements from credible sources, I posted statements from credible Dead Sea scroll historians.
On the other hand, what do you post? Information that's either questionable and/or outright fraudulent, yet you seem to have NO shame in doing so. That in itself speaks volumes.

The burden of proof is still on you, but so far you've come up empty.

Surely - bwaa-a-a-a-a-ha-ha - you - :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: - jest.

I almost hurt myself laughing at the beginning of this thread. I actually thought it was getting serious for a while. Now, I am right back where I was.
:weee: :lol: :weee: :lol: :fart: :weee: :lol: :weee: :lol:

 

[Dr H..]

JR

Polycarp mentions John in his writings, now [according to you] since Polycarp, is not mention inthe bible, his information is null and void. Think, back you said "they are fictional characters" because they are not mentioned outside of the bible.

There are millions of first century Christians that are not mentioned in the bible, does that mean there writing are null and void.

 

[dacontinent]

JR

Polycarp mentions John in his writings, now [according to you] since Polycarp, is not mention inthe bible, his information is null and void. Think, back you said "they are fictional characters" because they are not mentioned outside of the bible.

There are millions of first century Christians that are not mentioned in the bible, does that mean there writing are null and void.

Dr. H, I think you missed part of JayRob's argument. First, there was no one outside the Bible to substantiate that the Apostle John existed. Then, when I presented the facts about Polycarp, JayRob ruled that he was null and void because he WAS NOT mentioned in the Bible. THEN-N-N-N-N-N, I was reminded that JayRob had ruled the Bible fiction anyway. A-A-A-A-A-And, he had the audacity to say that "all [his] posts are commendable".

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :fart: :fart: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: