Back in the Roman era, Mithraism was perhaps Christianity's leading competitor for the hearts and minds of others. Today Mithraism is religiously a non-factor, but it still "competes" with Christianity, in another way: It is a leading candidate for the "pagan copycat" thesis crowd as a supposed source for Christianity.

On this forum, another 'copycat' by name shakers has raised this topic again. You can read about this lie and the comprehensive debunking of it on this site:

http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html

Jesus died crying for help, complaining that God forsake him , see mathew 27:46

And as for copy catting, we find Nezan, Noetics, etc as copycats against Islam! You see Nezan, when you antagonise Mithraism as non factor, though "competes" and pagan copycat against Christianity, the exact same applies to pagan copycatting and non factoring and though competes is Christianity against Islam!

And as for copy catting, we find Nezan, Noetics, etc as copycats against Islam!

My friend, do you understand what 'copy catting' mean in this context? Mithraism was a false religion as much as islam is today, it was competing with Christianity just as the lie, islam is trying to compete with Christianity today, but God allowed His truth to overcome evil, that is why mithraism today, is consigned to the trash of history and Christianity is marching on as strong as ever. After the death of mithram, the devil developed another lie, islam, and they followers are trying to compete with Christianity but the truth will always prevail. People are now dusting the dustbins of history, trying to recreate mithraism and linking it to Christianity, which has fall flat on its face. I only wanted shakers to know that the old lie has been debunked since. As for islam, we are not copycats, we are only trying to present islam for what it is: a big lie against God and humanity.

the exact same applies to pagan copycatting and non factoring and though competes is Christianity against Islam!

islam and mithraism are both religions of the devil, there are not in the league of Christianity, so no need comparing!

I didnt compare. I simply apply the same principle of mithraism/christianity, similar to christianity/islam!

@Nezan: « #3 on: Today at 02:47:33 PM »

Quote And as for copy catting, we find Nezan, Noetics, etc as copycats against Islam!
My friend, do you understand what 'copy catting' mean in this context? Mithraism was a false religion

Everything is always in context, without being in what it is at first with Christianity!

Now, Mithraism is named and formed after Mithra. Christianity is named and formed after Christ. Islam is not named and or formed after Muhammad (AS). Go figure.

^^ what I can only figure is that islam and mithraism are demonic religions.

Nezan:

^^ what I can only figure is that islam and mithraism are demonic religions.

And tell me what's not demonic about worshipping a Jewish man and calling him GOD?

Look, all are entitled to faith, but none is entitled to abuse. Especially when that abuse is directed at the faith of other people.

There is no reason why you should call another man's religion demonic. The same words may be said for yours, given that you worship a human being, Jesus of Nazareth, and you state that he is God, notwithstanding that he severally stated that he was not God.

Hahaha, worshipping jewish man, indeed

And tell me what's not demonic about worshipping a Jewish man and calling him GOD?

Because His the son of God who died for my sin. I know you wouldnt understand because the devil has blinded your eyes with his latest invention- atheism

Look, all are entitled to faith, but none is entitled to abuse. Especially when that abuse is directed at the faith of other people.

Oh, you mean I should turn the other cheek, right?

There is no reason why you should call another man's religion demonic.

Why not? how will satan reject his own? if you are a satanist, wont you be happy of been addressed as one?

The same words may be said for yours, given that you worship a human being, Jesus of Nazareth, and you state that he is God, notwithstanding that he severally stated that he was not God.

How can you, an atheist, claim to know Jesus and Christianity more than me? Get behind me satan.

Deep Sight:

And tell me what's not demonic about worshipping a Jewish man and calling him GOD?

Look, all are entitled to faith, but none is entitled to abuse. Especially when that abuse is directed at the faith of other people.

There is no reason why you should call another man's religion demonic. The same words may be said for yours, given that you worship a human being, Jesus of Nazareth, and you state that he is God, notwithstanding that he severally stated that he was not God.

I was expecting you to back Shakerz up with his mithraic claims which you said where full of common sense, a good sense of history and devoid of gullible dogmatism. What's up?

Dr; Sir - please do not misquote me.

I stated that his approach was based on common sense, and it referred to History as its basis, its reference-point (i.e: he did not create Mithra in his backyard, did he?). I do not endorse all his views, but his approach shows some reference point in research and not wide-mouthed gullibility of imported foreign dogma.

We can accept dogma if we must, but let it be seen to make some sense at least.

Deep Sight:

Dr; Sir - please do not misquote me.

I stated that his approach was based on common sense, and it referred to History as its basis, its reference-point (i.e: he did not create Mithra in his backyard, did he?). I do not endorse all his views, but his approach shows some reference point in research and not wide-mouthed gullibility of imported foreign dogma.

We can accept dogma if we must, but let it be seen to make some sense at least.

Again this is purely stupid. to say Shakerz claims are anything close to "common sense" and refer to "history" as its basis just exposes you for the ridiculous crook you are. Willing to believe any piece of crap that satisfies your own hatred of the foundations of christianity.

You say shakerz's approach does not indulge in the gullibility of imported foreign dogma . . . i wont even bother to comment. Even a cat knows better.

Davidylan (Phd.) -

Let's have at it -

davidylan:

Again this is purely stupid.

Insults welcome as always. . .

davidylan:

. . . exposes you for the ridiculous crook you are.

Haba now, i be lawyer o, no dey call me crook before NBA come withdraw my certificate o. . .

davidylan:

to say Shakerz claims are anything close to "common sense" and refer to "history" as its basis just exposes you for the ridiculous crook you are.

Right. Let’s examine this objectively and with a microscope.

I stated that his reference point is history. This as a fact is incontestable. See the Wiki Quote below –

The Mithraic Mysteries or Mysteries of Mithras (also Mithraism) was a mystery religion which became popular among the military in the Roman Empire, from the 1st to 4th centuries AD. Information on the cult is based mainly on interpretations of monuments.
Earliest archaeology
The earliest Mithraic monument showing Mithras slaying the bull is thought to be CIMRM 593. This is a depiction of Mithras killing the bull, found in Rome. There is no date, but the inscription tells us that it was dedicated by a certain Alcimus, steward of T. Claudius Livianus. Vermaseren and Gordon believe that this Livianus is a certain Livianus who was commander of the Praetorian guard in 101 AD, which would give an earliest date of 98-99 AD.[9]
An altar or block from near SS. Pietro e Marcellino on the Esquiline in Rome was inscribed with a bilingual inscription by an Imperial freedman named T. Flavius Hyginus, probably between 80-100 AD. It is dedicated to Sol Invictus Mithras.[10]
CIMRM 2268 is a broken base or altar from Novae/Steklen in Moesia Inferior, dated 100 AD, showing Cautes and Cautopates.
Other early archaeology includes the Greek inscription from Venosia by Sagaris actor probably from 100–150 AD; the Sidon cippus dedicated by Theodotus priest of Mithras to Asclepius, 140-141 AD; and the earliest military inscription, by C. Sacidius Barbarus, centurion of XV Apollinaris, from the bank of the Danube at Carnuntum, probably before 114 AD. [11]
The last is the earliest archaeological evidence outside Rome for the Roman worship of Mithras, a record of Roman soldiers who came from the military garrison at Carnuntum.[12] The earliest dateable Mithraeum outside Rome dates from 148 AD.[13] The Mithraeum at Caesarea Maritima is the only one in Palestine and the date is inferred.[14]

Although it is clear that grey areas exist, and the dating is also vague, what remains for certain  is that this movement existed (will you assert that it did not) and also bore certain similarities to some of your dogma.

Accordingly I limit myself to stating that Shakerz argument used as platform the indisputable existence of this movement.

You noted yourself that it was not certain if this was purely Roman or even Greek. I am not sure that you assimilated the obvious implication. If it has Greek origins, that would only place it at an earlier point in history in terms of origin, and accordingly strengthen the claims that your dogma was influenced by the older movement.

Digest accurately the fact that I have not stated the claims to be true, but the following is certain –

1. The movement existed about the time of the initial expansion of Christianity
2. The movement’s dogma bore certain similarities to your dogma
3. Sharkerz constructed his argument based on this.

Now he may very well be wrong or right, but I hope you are lucid enough to see the correctness of my assertion that it was an argument with history as its reference point. Now the details of the history, of course, are still being debated.

Unless of course, you are willing to assert that the movement was a figment of Shakerz’s imagination. I doubt that even you would go that far.

The next thing I stated: “Common Sense”

Without much ado, let me quote the comments from Shakerz that exhibit Common Sense –

1. God is one. Not three, not two, not one, not indivisible as if he is some kind of pie.
2. God is unique. Unique in the perfect sense, that his attributes are not like his creation in any sense. If you can point to something that may resemble God in the least, like a tree or man, then that is not God. Notions of God becoming Man seem to have rooted in more paganistic cultures, those different from monotheism.
3. God is Self-Sufficient---he does not rely on others, he does not sleep like we do or eat as we do, he is unique in that sense. He does not pray to others, he is the ever-living.
4. God is not in everything--he is distinct from his creation in that he does not abide in it. You cannot find god apart of your toilet. Rather Gods knowledge is everywhere, we say God is close to you, we say he is nearby in knowledge of proximity.
5. God Does Not Die--He is ever living, ever existing and so on.

These very attributes are the very reason we worship him, and that we say none is worthy of worship. Really, a god who is killed by a handful of men, who cannot forgive, who resembles his creation, who is not unique in the perfect sense, who puts a barbarious doctrine of original sin on the innocent, is he worthy of Worship? rEALLY? Is he worthy of praise?Ask yourself and be honest. Most people will be hardpressed disagreeing with the conception of God that i posted above, it is sound and natural


Lastly God is all wise and in a certain way does not do irrational things.

Without elaboration, I can safely say that the above is evidence of common sense.

You disagree?

Deep Sight:

Right. Let’s examine this objectively and with a microscope.

I stated that his reference point is history. This as a fact is incontestable. See the Wiki Quote below –

His reference point was NOT history and that in itself is an incontestable fact.

Deep Sight:

The Mithraic Mysteries or Mysteries of Mithras (also Mithraism) was a mystery religion which became popular among the military in the Roman Empire, from the 1st to 4th centuries AD. Information on the cult is based mainly on interpretations of monuments.
Earliest archaeology
The earliest Mithraic monument showing Mithras slaying the bull is thought to be CIMRM 593. This is a depiction of Mithras killing the bull, found in Rome. There is no date, but the inscription tells us that it was dedicated by a certain Alcimus, steward of T. Claudius Livianus. Vermaseren and Gordon believe that this Livianus is a certain Livianus who was commander of the Praetorian guard in 101 AD, which would give an earliest date of 98-99 AD.[9]
An altar or block from near SS. Pietro e Marcellino on the Esquiline in Rome was inscribed with a bilingual inscription by an Imperial freedman named T. Flavius Hyginus, probably between 80-100 AD. It is dedicated to Sol Invictus Mithras.[10]
CIMRM 2268 is a broken base or altar from Novae/Steklen in Moesia Inferior, dated 100 AD, showing Cautes and Cautopates.
Other early archaeology includes the Greek inscription from Venosia by Sagaris actor probably from 100–150 AD; the Sidon cippus dedicated by Theodotus priest of Mithras to Asclepius, 140-141 AD; and the earliest military inscription, by C. Sacidius Barbarus, centurion of XV Apollinaris, from the bank of the Danube at Carnuntum, probably before 114 AD. [11]
The last is the earliest archaeological evidence outside Rome for the Roman worship of Mithras, a record of Roman soldiers who came from the military garrison at Carnuntum.[12] The earliest dateable Mithraeum outside Rome dates from 148 AD.[13] The Mithraeum at Caesarea Maritima is the only one in Palestine and the date is inferred.[14]Although it is clear that grey areas exist, and the dating is also vague, what remains for certain is that this movement existed (will you assert that it did not) and also bore certain similarities to some of your dogma.

Accordingly I limit myself to stating that Shakerz argument used as platform the indisputable existence of this movement.

This again exposes you for the charlatan you undoubtedly are. The above quote from wikipedia are NO WHERE in Shakerz's post . . . NONE of the mithraic claims Shakerz makes are found ANY WHERE on the wikipedia site you claimed, infact they are only found on conspiracy websites!

Deep Sight:

You noted yourself that it was not certain if this was purely Roman or even Greek. I am not sure that you assimilated the obvious implication. If it has Greek origins, that would only place it at an earlier point in history in terms of origin, and accordingly strengthen the claims that your dogma was influenced by the older movement.

According to your own wikipedia link . . . The mysteries of Mithras w[b]ere not practiced until the 1st century AD[/b].[6] The unique underground temples or Mithraea appear suddenly in the archaeology in the last quarter of the first century AD.[7]

This means mithraic myths did not appear until WAY AFTER CHRIST's DEATH AND ASCENSION!

Deep Sight:


1. The movement existed about the time of the initial expansion of Christianity
2. The movement’s dogma bore certain similarities to your dogma
3. Sharkerz constructed his argument based on this.

1. True, but a lot of the so-called "similarities" had occured long before mithraic mysteries appeared.
2. No they do NOT! It is instructive to note that you still stick to this false claim that even your own wikipedia site does not support!
3. That makes Shakerz and you out to be liars.

Deep Sight:

Now he may very well be wrong or right, but I hope you are lucid enough to see the correctness of my assertion that[b] it was an argument with history as its reference point.[/b] Now the details of the history, of course, are still being debated.

I've already debunked this stupid assertion. Shakerz was not constructing his point based on "history". For example he talks about Mithra having 12 disciples . . . well this has NO BASIS in history AT ALL.

Deep Sight:

The next thing I stated: “Common Sense”

Without much ado, let me quote the comments from Shakerz that exhibit Common Sense –
Without elaboration, I can safely say that the above is evidence of common sense.

You disagree?

I completely disagree . . . what Shakerz has done is the typical islamic nonsense. Tell us what God can and cannot do. For example . . . "God is not in everything"? On what basis did he make that determination? Did God tell him that specifically or did he cull it from his quran?

He says "God does not die" . . . hmmm how does he know? If he said allah does not die that would have been perfectly acceptable. When did Shakerz become a spokesperson for the God of others?

If you bothered to read the latter part of your own wikipedia link, you'd see where it completely destroys the fallacy of mithraic similarities to christianity. But i'm sure you're not really interested in facts.

Let me even humor deepsight a bit . . . this is what Shakerz had to say -

[size=15pt]your concept of God, of the trinity, of the redemption, of the resurrection and original sin mimic the believes of Mithriasism? Really, look at the history of the Midterrean religion and the similarities, such as Mithra having 12 deciples or that he was part of the trinity, that he came to wipe the sin of mankind or that he died on the cross, it is endless.[/size]

Can you please show us WHERE IN HISTORY this claims are anywhere supported?

Shakerz continues his meaningless rant that deepsight considers "common sense" . . .

The quran was indeed right, the bible has been corrupted. Look at the history of the textual variants, the hundreds of manuscripts errors and the political envrioment sorrounding the work of the scribes.

Isnt this laughable? The quran appears almost 4000 yrs AFTER the first 5 books of Moses and then makes the fantastic claim that it is all corrupted? Isnt it funny that the same quran relies on 100% "revelations" of things that were written in the bible by FIRST HAND WITNESSES and yet the quran authoritatively claims it is the bible that is corrupt?

Is it the same quran that states that Mary (born more than 2000 yrs later) was the sister to Aaron and Moses?

you gotta laugh at the sheer stupidity of these folks.

slown down now, let me read one post at a time, i am still typing a response and you have four new posts already!

First off: It seems you have deliberately refused to read these statements of mine:

Now he may very well be wrong or right,

^^^Again, it seems to have missed you that i myself have not endorsed the Mithraic claims.

What i prefer is the approach, which i think you will do well to assimilate.

Your usual insults are most welcome sir.

Is there a part of the word "approach" that you do not understand?

Whatz hapining happeeeneen happening hia??

Guys, le-mee read some and decode, eh?


_{Davidylan, it would be nice to discuss without the knife blows, you know. We know sometimes others tend to be "stupid" (yes, it's always "others" when they disagree with us. . . but that is seriously confusing issues for me (just like poor old Dawkins who wields a scimitar at fellow scientists for not joining in on his new atheism crusades. A discussion would be nice, no?}

Deep Sight:

First off: It seems you have deliberately refused to read these statements of mine:

Is there a part of the word "approach" that you do not understand?

The word "approach" is not the problem, it is the fact that you endorse an approach that is clearly founded on false allegations that worries me. The rush to bless posts that use just about any fraudulent tactic in its attempt to undermine christianity is what baffles the mind.

Viaro, point taken. Thanks.

Davidylan (Phd.):

I realize the subject of the comprehensive history of Mithraism is much deeper than you and most may have perceived.

We have talked about Greece and Rome, but proper research reveals that the Mithraic legends predate both empires and may be found as far away as Persia. . .

This is from the Encyclopedia Britannica -

in ancient Indo-Iranian mythology, the god of light, whose cult spread from India in the east to as far west as Spain, Great Britain, and Germany. (See Mithraism.) The first written mention of the Vedic Mitra dates to 1400 bc. His worship spread to Persia and, after the defeat of the Persians by Alexander the Great, throughout the Hellenic world. In the 3rd and 4th centuries ad, the cult of Mithra, carried and supported by the soldiers of the Roman Empire, was the chief rival to the newly developing religion of Christianity. The Roman emperors Commodus and Julian were initiates of Mithraism, and in 307 Diocletian consecrated a temple on the Danube River to Mithra, “Protector of the Empire.”

In the Christian era, worship of the Sun spread throughout the Mediterranean world and formed the principal rallying point of paganism’s last years. Closely associated with the sun cult was that of Mithra, the Sun’s ally and agent who was elevated to partake of communion and the love feast as the god’s companion. Sun worship was popular in the army, and particularly on the Danube. Aurelian, one,

Accordingly your research needs to be more exhaustive. We need to see what dogma could be traced or associated with any and all of the ancient Mithraic strains.

More on the Persian origin –

Mithraism was one of the major religions of the Roman Empire which was derived from the ancient Persian god of light and wisdom. The cult of Mithraism was quite prominent in ancient Rome, especially among the military. Mithra was the god of war, battle, justice, faith, and contract. According to Mithraism, Mithra was called the son of God, was born of a virgin, had disciples, was crucified, rose from the dead on the third day, atoned for the sins of mankind, and returned to heaven.

Before proceeding further, one thing which i will definitely suggest to you is the likelihood that the scarcity of documentation on such a wide-spread religion may not be unconnected with the drastic activities of the Roman Church in proscribing and burning anything that it considered "contrary" or "heretical"

This is from About.com’s section on Ancient and Classical History

Among the recorded possible similarities between Christianity and Mithraism are the following:
• Virgin birth
• Twelve followers
• Killing and resurrection
• Miracles
• Birthdate on December 25
• Morality
• Mankind's savior
• Known as the Light of the world

Although I accept that these similarities are indeed debatable, i limit my case for the purpose of this discussion to the fact that the issue exists historically, thus giving rise to the debate. Thus Shakerz capitalizes on an existing historical debate. He did not create any of these issues in his kitchen, if you search on-line you will see it’s a popular historical debate.
The existence of the issues (debated or not) is affirmed in this quote from About.com’s section on Ancient and Classical History:

Studies in Mithraism
Cumont and Ulansey on Mithraism - The Roman soldiers religion
By N.S. Gill, About.com
Many elements in the story of Jesus' life and birth are either coincidences or borrowings from earlier and contemporary pagan religions. The most obviously similar of these pagan mystery religions is Mithraism. Most of the information available about this ancient religion, the favorite of Roman soldiers, comes to us from the two volumes by Belgian scholar Franz Cumont, "Textes et monuments figurés relatifs aux mystères de Mithra" (1896 and 1899). More recently, David Ulansey has added to the discussion with his "The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries: Cosmology and Salvation in the Ancient World."
Roman Mithraism was a mystery religion with sacrifice and initiation. Like other mystery cults, there is little recorded literary evidence. What we know comes mainly from Christian detractors and archaeological evidence from mithraic temples, inscriptions, and artistic representations of the god and other aspects of the cult.
In an EAWC (Exploring Ancient World Cultures) essay entitled "Mithraism," Alison Griffith explains Cumont's theory of a Zoroastrian origin for the Roman Mithraist religion. While this theory is disputed, there was a Mitra in the Hindu pantheon and a minor deity named Mithra among the Persians as well. Cumont came to believe the religion spread westward from Eastern Roman provinces. However, as Griffith explains, there is little evidence of a Zoroastrian Mithra cult and most evidence for Mithraic worship comes from the western portion of the empire from which Cumont correctly deduced that "Mithraism was most popular among legionaries (of all ranks), and the members of the more marginal social groups who were not Roman citizens: freedmen, slaves, and merchants from various provinces, " No women were allowed.

Thus I stand by my assertion that his approach stemmed from a historical issue, and the mere fact that debates persist does not change my perception of the choice of approach especially as I also stated clearly that he may be right or wrong, but he had at least chosen history (even if some parts are debated) as the platform for making an argument.
What I despise is the platform you use: which is a reverse-self-validating platform. In other words, to validate the bible, you will seek quotes from the bible itself. That makes no sense and proves nothing, and I would urge you not to write your doctoral thesis in such a manner, that’s if you haven’t already completed the doctorate, which I understand you have?
I am hoping you will stick to your statement above indicating that you have “noted” Viaro’s adjuration to be more decent in arguing, and stop hurling insults as though the onset of maturity is still far in the distance.

@Nezan: « #9 on: Today at 04:37:46 PM

Quote
And tell me what's not demonic about worshipping a Jewish man and calling him GOD?
Because His the son of God who died for my sin. I know you wouldnt understand because the devil has blinded your eyes with his latest invention- atheism

And he works for Nigerian Government in Abuja. Holder of many a secret of the nation. God help us, all.

Quote
Look, all are entitled to faith, but none is entitled to abuse. Especially when that abuse is directed at the faith of other people.
Oh, you mean I should turn the other cheek, right?

I thought thats Christ injuction on you? I get it, you dont follow him but somebody else!

Quote
There is no reason why you should call another man's religion demonic.
Why not? how will satan reject his own? if you are a satanist, wont you be happy of been addressed as one?

I am almost certain that Satan is demon, while the Muslims curse him, what will the Christian do to their God, Jesus but just that?

Quote
The same words may be said for yours, given that you worship a human being, Jesus of Nazareth, and you state that he is God, notwithstanding that he severally stated that he was not God.
How can you, an atheist, claim to know Jesus and Christianity more than me? Get behind me satan.

And Nezan knows Islam more than every muslim, since he says we are demon worshipper, and we say no. He says Allah is moon God, but we say no, but God of all things, creations. Can we see whats going on here? While he worships Jesus, Ghost and Father, and we in Islam never say that any of the three is a demon, he has the gul to believe that Muslims who worship one singular Lord are worshippers of demon! Again, what a gul that man has!

We are back to the nauseating rigmarole again.

Deep Sight:

Davidylan (Phd.):

I realize the subject of the comprehensive history of Mithraism is much deeper than you and most may have perceived.

We have talked about Greece and Rome, but proper research reveals that the Mithraic legends predate both empires and may be found as far away as Persia. . .

your own wikipedia link made mention of the Persian link to mythraism, you shld have paid better attention. The mere fact that the mithra mythology (the very words used by the encyclopedia britannica you quoted) does not seem to have any coherent story is enough of a red flag to tell you it may not even be a historical fact at all. I'm sure if the bible was this inconsistent it would be a major weapon employed by conspiracy theorists like you.

Deep Sight:

Accordingly your research needs to be more exhaustive. We need to see what dogma could be traced or associated with any and all of the ancient Mithraic strains.

This is absolute rubbish:

1. My "research"? What a nerve! You claimed Shakerz post (using mithraic claims) was a historical fact devoid of gullible dogma, why didnt you do your own "exhaustive research" then before making such bogus claims?

2. If you need to see or trace any similarities between mithraic myths and christianity then YOU DO THE RESEARCH and tell us.

Deep Sight:

Before proceeding further, one thing which i will definitely suggest to you is the likelihood that the scarcity of documentation on such a wide-spread religion may not be unconnected with the drastic activities of the Roman Church in proscribing and burning anything that it considered "contrary" or "heretical"

This again is your own opinion and a fraudulent attempt to white-wash the fact that there is barely ANY credible historical evidence for mithraism which you call a "wide-spread" religion (based of course on no facts at all!).

To claim that Roman catholic church is responsible for destroying both greek and persian versions of the mithraic myths is just laughably ridiculous. Please come up with better excuses.

The bible has tons of documentary and archeological evidence . . . and yet you despise, dispute and castigate it. You on the other hand you so easily believe mithraic myths with a scarcity of evidence? Your bias is sickening.

Deep Sight:

This is from About.com’s section on Ancient and Classical History

So i went back and copied the dross you lifted from About.com WITH NO SHRED OF EVIDENCE OF COURSE . . .

Among the recorded possible similarities between Christianity and Mithraism are the following:
• Virgin birth
• Twelve followers
• Killing and resurrection
• Miracles
• Birthdate on December 25
• Morality
• Mankind's savior
• Known as the Light of the world

The first thing to note is that this website says this are "recorded" possible similarities . . . but are they REALLY recorded?

1. Virgin birth - I'll just quote from your wikipedia source . . . Joseph Campbell, who was not a Mithras scholar, described the birth of Mithras as a virgin birth, like that of Jesus.[77] He gives no ancient source for his claim.
Mithras was not thought of as virgin born in any ancient source. Rather, he arose spontaneously from a rock in a cave.[78]. In Mithraic Studies it is stated that Mithras was born as an adult from solid rock, "wearing his Phrygian cap, issues forth from the rocky mass.

Not only so, carvings show Mithra as being born from a rock. Yeah . . . "recorded" indeed . . . if only deepsight would be honest enough to provide us this "recorded" proof.

2. Twelve followers - Roman tradition RECORDS Mithra as having 2 companions (Cautes and Cautopatres), Hindu (again the 4th source of Mithraic myths apart from Greek, roman and Persian - what a "consistent" myth) sources claim Mithra had just one companion (Varuna).

Where is the "recorded" evidence that Mithra had 12 disciples? Of course About.com doesnt have to provide any verifiable proof.

3. Killing and resurrection - There is no recorded evidence that Mithra ever even died, one wonders how we can talk of a resurrection. We do know that Mithra sacrificed a bull though . . .

4. Miracles - This is actually true . . . but Moses, Elijah, Elisha, even Pharaoh's magicians are performed "miracles". So what is new?

5. Dec 25 birthdate - Again from your own wikipedia source - Clauss states that t[b]here were no public ceremonies of the mysteries of Mithras: "the Mithraic Mysteries had no public ceremonies of its own.[/b] The festival of natalis Invicti [Birth of the Unconquerable (Sun)], held on 25 December, was a general festival of the Sun, and by no means specific to the Mysteries of Mithras."[82]

6. Mankind's saviour - Again your own wikipedia source - According to Robert Turcan[84], Mithraic salvation had little to do with the other-worldly destiny of individual souls, but was on the Zoroastrian pattern of man's participation in the cosmic struggle of the good creation against the forces of evil [85]

7. Known as the light of the world - No such documentation exists.

8. Morality - what does this mean? Ghandi was moral . . . did he copy from Christ too?

Deep Sight:

Although I accept that these similarities are indeed debatable, i limit my case for the purpose of this discussion to the fact that the issue exists historically, thus giving rise to the debate.

It does not historically exist, it is simply a figment of the really vacuous imaginations of those desperate to undermine christianity. If it truly exists one wonders why there is such a paucity of documentary evidence. You can of course accuse the Roman christians of destroying such evidence though.

Deep Sight:

Thus Shakerz capitalizes on an existing historical debate. He did not create any of these issues in his kitchen, if you search on-line you will see it’s a popular historical debate.

Again i repeat - THIS IS NOT A HISTORICAL DEBATE! There is NOTHING historical about these despicable lies.
If you search online you will find that Obama was born in Kenya!

Deep Sight:

The existence of the issues (debated or not) is affirmed in this quote from About.com’s section on Ancient and Classical History:

What is most troubling about this hypocritical and utterly disgusting deliberate attempts to misinform others is that you say that the "existence" of these issues is AFFIRMED by a baseless quote from someone who provides no HISTORICAL context to his claims?

Deep Sight:

Thus I stand by my assertion that his approach stemmed from a historical issue, and the mere fact that debates persist does not change my perception of the choice of approach especially as I also stated clearly that he may be right or wrong, but he had at least chosen history (even if some parts are debated) as the platform for making an argument.

I also stand by my assertion that you sir, are an unintelligent conspiracy theorist and an inveterate liar.

Deep Sight:

What I despise is the platform you use: which is a reverse-self-validating platform. In other words, to validate the bible, you will seek quotes from the bible itself. That makes no sense and proves nothing, and I would urge you not to write your doctoral thesis in such a manner, that’s if you haven’t already completed the doctorate, which I understand you have?

What i however despise is the fact that you dont even provide any validation for your own baseless claims.

Deep Sight:

I am hoping you will stick to your statement above indicating that you have “noted” Viaro’s adjuration to be more decent in arguing, and stop hurling insults as though the onset of maturity is still far in the distance.

I only noted Viaro's comments . . . they by no means form the basis of my future responses to such horrible castigations from the likes of you. I reserve civil discourse to those who at least are credible.

David -

It seems to me that you are so far gone in your dogmatic ecstasy, in the craze to defend the foreign myths introduced to you by Colonial Masters, that you have lost all sight of the written word.

Because you should have seen within my post my several references to the fact that the claims indeed remain debatable and are still debated till this day. Thus 99% of your egoistic and insult-ridden write up was completely irrelevant and needn't be responded to by a rational debater.

Singularly, you seem spectacularly incapable of digesting the grammatical difference between "a historical issue" and "a historical fact".

For a man of your supposed learning, this is depressing. I will make certain not to judge all PHD holders by the shocking limitations of mind that you continuously exhibit.

The core fact remains that your dogma is singularly the most outlandish myth in the known world and it begs belief that men of education could wolf it down without questions. There is absolutely no difference between you and the adherents of the Brotherhood of the Cross and Star, who regard their leader, Olumba Olumba Obu, as God. You could similarly be compared to those who accept the teaching that Guru Maharaji is the re-incarnated Christ, and therefore God.

Could you tell me at what point in your theologically deficient development you convinced yourself that a first century Jewish Carpenter is almighty God?

I certainly hope you are aware that such a presumption is as bogus as it betrays a slavish adherence to your Colonial Masters, because only such a slavish adherence could entice you to accept such ridiculous dogma. Can you tell me if you know anything about the Council of Nicea, presided over by Constantine the Great of the Holy Roman Empire, at which the doctrine of the Trinity was formally decided upon as official Church Dogma?? Are you aware that the sitting Pope refused attendance in protest on account of the fact that he thought the dogma to be bunkum?

I would urge you to begin to think for yourself, and cease to permit the thoughts of other men, decided centuries ago in the most corrupt circumstances to become your guiding "light".

O, and as for the insults, you can keep raining them on; they only confirm to all viewers what a childish and petty mind you are bedevilled with. It also begs belief on the sort of Christianity you so valiantly defend, because most people can say for certain that you will be the last person to enter the so called "Jesus Heaven" that you and Noetic have dreamed about. There is nothing even remotely Christ-Like about your continuous insults.

Anyhow, it's probably in tandem with your avowed conviction that Christianity is a religion without ethics.

Gosh, what a little mind!

Deep Sight:

David -

It seems to me that you are so far gone in your dogmatic ecstasy, in the craze to defend the foreign myths introduced to you by Colonial Masters, that you have lost all sight of the written word.

Because you should have seen within my post my several references to the fact that the claims indeed remain debatable and are still debated till this day. Thus 99% of your egoistic and insult-ridden write up was completely irrelevant and needn't be responded to by a rational debater.

Singularly, you seem spectacularly incapable of digesting the grammatical difference between "a historical issue" and "a historical fact".

For a man of your supposed learning, this is depressing. I will make certain not to judge all PHD holders by the shocking limitations of mind that you continuously exhibit.

The core fact remains that your dogma is singularly the most outlandish myth in the known world and it begs belief that men of education could wolf it down without questions. There is absolutely no difference between you and the adherents of the Brotherhood of the Cross and Star, who regard their leader, Olumba Olumba Obu, as God. You could similarly be compared to those who accept the teaching that Guru Maharaji is the re-incarnated Christ, and therefore God.

Could you tell me at what point in your theologically deficient development you convinced yourself that a first century Jewish Carpenter is almighty God?

I certainly hope you are aware that such a presumption is as bogus as it betrays a slavish adherence to your Colonial Masters, because only such a slavish adherence could entice you to accept such ridiculous dogma. Can you tell me if you know anything about the Council of Nicea, presided over by Constantine the Great of the Holy Roman Empire, at which the doctrine of the Trinity was formally decided upon as official Church Dogma?? Are you aware that the sitting Pope refused attendance in protest on account of the fact that he thought the dogma to be bunkum?

I would urge you to begin to think for yourself, and cease to permit the thoughts of other men, decided centuries ago in the most corrupt circumstances to become your guiding "light".

O, and as for the insults, you can keep raining them on; they only confirm to all viewers what a childish and petty mind you are bedevilled with. It also begs belief on the sort of Christianity you so valiantly defend, because most people can say for certain that you will be the last person to enter the so called "Jesus Heaven" that you and Noetic have dreamed about. There is nothing even remotely Christ-Like about your continuous insults.

Anyhow, it's probably in tandem with your avowed conviction that Christianity is a religion without ethics.

Gosh, what a little mind!

Can anyone please educate me on what the above drivel has to do with anything so far?

^^^ David, this link might assist you in understaning my posts -

http://www.learn-english-online.org/

Deep Sight:

^^^ David, this link might assist you in understaning my posts -

http://www.learn-english-online.org/

Perhaps you might also benefit from understanding the virtues of honesty.

Mr dipsite, you are crazy