₦airaland Forum

davidylan:
I will start from here, please i detest with every fibre of my being, the hypocritical and false allegation that i "avoid the verses" you quote. What is obvious here is that you have DELIBERATELY AVOIDED the fact that i pointed out several glaring and DELIBERATE OMISSIONS in your article. It is funny you prefer to side-step them rather bawling about how i have "avoided" your own verses.

Again you are mangling verses together to force your own point of view and not that supported by the scriptures itself. From Acts and beyond . . . ALL THE DISCIPLES, including those who walked physically with Christ acknowledged Christ AS GOD!

Lets start first with the prophecy of Isaiah - [size=13pt]Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be on his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.[/size]

What on earth was Isaiah saying here? Calling a mere "man" born of a woman the "Mighty God"?

John 1: 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.

Huh . . . what was brother John talking about here? Surely he cant be more knowledgeable than Dr. Deep Sight?

Its interesting how a lot of these unintelligent blowhards simply ignore these blatant verses only to pitch their tents on deliberately distorted portions of the bible and start demanding arrogantly for "explanation". Perhaps if they didnt stop running away from "explaining" their own vapid claims we would be inclined to do so too.

All right David. Still dodging explaining my verses?

Ok, I will humour you. Since you demand explanations of your verses, I will do so straight away.

On Isaiah – NOTICE that he says that the child born will be called “Mighty God” and “Everlasting Father”. I ask you – is Jesus the Father? No – he is the son, and he made it very clear that he is not the Father in two statements –

“The father is greater than I” – John 14:28 and -

“Of that day no one knows, not the angels, n[b]or the son[/b], but only the Father”. Mark 13:32.

THEREFORE it is clear that when Isaiah calls him “Everlasting Father”, it is meant in a representative fashion: to wit – He represents the Father. Thus “Mighty God” must be understood in the same way: he represents God. This is clear because you cannot deny that Jesus is not the father. That much he himself made clear in the two quotes above. So Isaiah’s statement is representative. Please read the Bible with a compound approach.

On John 1:1; I will go into the Greek words that were used originally, so you will see that John 1:1 is a mistranslation. I am reaching for my exhaustive Bible Concordance.

Yes, I got it; the word “theos” translated as “God” there means, and I quote now from my copy of Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. The word appears as: ό٩эӨ  -

This word is “Theos” which means – (I quote) “Godly, godward.” It states that the “theos” used in that verse is of uncertain affinity, and figuratively refers like a “magistrate”. Thus a correct translation should have read “the word was godly” or “the word was divine.” This would have been in tandem with the next verse, which you should note, contradicts the first verse by stating that the word was WITH God.

We will come back to this if you want.

Now, I have indulged you and answered your verses in clear and succinct terms backed by Bible reference. I have shown I do not run away or avoid questions.

Please stand up now and address my own verses, at least I have addressed yours:

Again, we start with the first verse I quoted:

Mark 10:18 – “Do not call me good, only God is good.”

Have at it, David!

cHeMiCaL mEnAnCe:
[color=#006600][b]I never thought I'd quote ABUZOLA. He said, "Deep Sight stands for nothing" Today, you are on one side and tomorrow you are on another. I used to think you stood for something. I'm not saying you dont, I'm just saying I have no idea what it is you stand for.
        Also used to think you were smart but, as someone said, "Light travels faster than sound, people appear smart until they speak" I take back the deep insight comment.

Very good. So you denounce me on account of the fact that i disagree with you. Is that not the very same mentality that infers you dislike criticism or people who disagree with you. And from this its very easy to see why you don't want anybody to criticize your pastors! Its a sin to disagree with you or your Pastors (publicly) right?

Yes?

The above still proves the oneness of accord, and if you will look closely, you will see that you are helping to argue my own point, because he is stating that seeing him amounts to seeing the father BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT HE IS IN THE FATHER AND THE FATHER IS IN HIM.

He explained what that meant when he stated: that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

This is pretty clear, David. The part where it says - "may they also be in us" - would you suggest that once you are "in God" in the context meant here, then you, David, are God? No, please let's absorb his meaning clearly.

Also remember that when the Jews accused him of making himsef equal with God, he responded saying that even men are called "gods"!

So moving along now, since you are avoiding the verses i quoted, let's address them and flog them out one by one.

The first one is Mark 10:18 - "Do not call me good, only God is good." Address that David.

Jesus himself explained the term "I and my Father are one" severally. He stated unequivocally that he and his father were one in the same way as we should be one with him. Now are you Jesus? No. But you are one with him in spirit (if you quit your rude ways that is) as a christian, yes?

Thus the oneness was a oneness of accord, and not an ontological or existential oneness as an entity.

This verse elucidates and proves the point:

John 17:20-23: “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.”

Its abundantly clear that its a spiritual and not ontological or existential oneness. There. That's Bible proof.

So go ahead now and address the several verses i quoted in the opening post ! ! !

So we should stand by while they use your tithes to buy private jets? Dont you know that "Touch not his anointed" has become exactly the sort of immunity that political office holders have in Nigeria, that permits gross corruption?

David - in case you didn't notice, the authour is me.

I am a writer, and i'm into "Faction" - a genre that mixes fact with fiction.

Don't suppose that my tale was intended as reality - it is not. I merely used it as a platform for bringing up the various verses i quoted.

So far you have addressed only one verse.

Please i would like you to address all trhe verses, one at a time, if you can.

Cheers.

I am here, what is your stress?

Have you seen the thread i opened for you on Golgotha and Divinity?

^^^ Thought i had already done that in the first post?

viaro:
Deep Sight,

Yes, I am quite satisfied within the context of your explanations. I also dare say that your summations summarily addressed the initial 4 questions (a, b, c & d) in my previous observations. That was why I hinted earlier that there's all possibility that my initial inferences might have been skewed from what you intended to convey. The weakness in mine was that I applied broad strokes to your simple assumptions. My apologies.

On the other hand, your postulations are very interesting - as long as we follow your ink and style. I'd not go into technicalities here; but this one got me thinking a lil deeper:

That's okay. The huge problem for me (not for you) is that I cannot fathom or conceptualize "absolute emptiness in stark blackness". That would necessitate three things:

(a) it would necessitate my defining what is -
* absolute
* emptiness
* blackness

(b) it would also require me to define my index for -
* the degrees of "absolutes"
* the degrees of "emptiness"
* the degrees of "blackness"

(c) whereupon from (a) and (b) above, the resultant indices would
form the basis for my correlation between all factors aforementioned.

Phew! I sincerely hope that my musings there are not tangential to the grain of this fine discussion. However, the point in all that is that I am not convinced as yet that either emptiness or blackness is nothing. No. Blackness is actually something existing in relation to other indices - or it would not be "blackness". Emptiness, for me, would actually point to something as well, however hard to conceptualize that 'something' might be. More on this later.

However, your point is well noted and appreciated; and consequently I would not like to muddy the waters. Within the context of your postulations and all things considered, you have addressed my initial concerns. But some might argue (and rightly so) that they may not quite stand up in the wider context of other factors (such as existence between expanding dimensions: possibly the 10th dimension).

Cheers.

Viaro - With this singular post, you have no idea how high my estimation of you has leapt. You have always deployed very sound reasoning, but I must say in this you have exceeded yourself. This is absolutely brilliant. You are now within my Secret Hallowed Cult of Revered Nairaland Minds, entering as the fourth person!

I would like to make a few comments.

(a) it would necessitate my defining what is -
* absolute
* emptiness
* blackness

(b) it would also require me to define my index for -
* the degrees of "absolutes"
* the degrees of "emptiness"
* the degrees of "blackness"

Absoluteness is only a degree that shows an extreme, in this instance, the extreme of nothingness. Now within this peculiar extreme, we can no longer speak of degrees because nothing exists! (I know it’s a nightmare trying to conceptualize such a state). The adjectives I used (“black”, “empty”) were mere words struggling to imagine what such a state would be like.

However, the point in all that is that I am not convinced as yet that either emptiness or blackness is nothing.

Exactemente! Now here, you are really onto it. . . emptiness itself is something! That is the singularity! And that is how nothingness is the “mother” of somethingness.

The dark golden disk of the sun had since crept below the horizon, darkness fleeing into the world in its wake. On the hills of Golgotha, the man shivered and gasped as the weight of his body pulled down his torn arms more firmly through the nails the soldiers had hammered through his frail wrists. He could barely breathe, and the sweat and blood had become a dry clam all over his body.

A soft breeze pulled its way from the west, and the man was grateful for it, for his insides had become a humid boiling oven. . . he knew that Death was close.

Kneeling at the base of the stake, his grieving mother choked on her tears, the searing pain of the barbarous torment of her dying son forming an indelible scar on the tapestry of her eternity.

Huddled about her were the man’s siblings, and his friends in their mournful wait to receive the remains of the soon to be departed teacher. . .

The man cast one final sorrowful look at the group about the stake, breathed his last, and departed the world.



Years passed.

Then centuries.

He didn’t know what happened at the moment of death. Somehow, he felt himself hovering over the clouds. . . he could neither move upwards or down.

More centuries passed.


Now he could see the world clearly. Everywhere, people called his name. In great temples far and wide, people worshipped him. And there he was. . . held fast and motionless, in a timeless place above the clouds. . .

At length the clouds began to light, a strong and heady scent filled the air, and the Angel Gabriel floated silently to his side.

“Jesus,” whispered the angel. The name was called with soul moving tenderness. “You belong above. They have held you fast with their prayers, they imprison you with their worship. . .”

The man was astounded. “Worship me. . .?” he muttered, his brows furrowed in deep confusion. . . “But I told them to worship only God. . . I told them not to call me good. . . I told them only God is good. . .[Mark 10:18].

Silent, Gabriel regarded the scene below. The worship of the sons of men drifted upwards in various brightly coloured threads and coiled around the spirit of Jesus of Nazereth, holding him fast in limbo, as his delicate soul was not made for worship. . .

The man shook his head and tried to clear his memory.
“I told them” he insisted. “I said it several times. I told them through Paul that there is only one God, and that I was only a mediator [1Timothy 2:5].

I told them the Father is much greater than I am [John 14:28].

I told them not to hold on to me, because I too have a God, I told them clearly that I worship God, and that I would ascend to my GOD [John 20:17].

I told them to know God only, and that God merely sent me [John 17:3].

Why on earth would they call me God, when I said all these things!??”

Restless, but immovable, he continued his thoughts – “Did I not tell tem clearly that I do not know all things, and that only the Father knows all things [Mark 13:32]?

Did Cephas not write that I have a God and Father who I worship [1st Peter 1:3].

Did Luke not tell them that I was only a mere man accredited by God [Acts 2:22]

Gabriel remained silent by his side. He seemed helpless and dejected. “They also hold on to your death as their salvation.” He whispered mournfully.

“I can’t believe this” the man said. “Did they not record that I prayed to God to avert the cross? Surely they know my prayers in Gethsemane” [Luke 22:42]

“It seems they misunderstood everything” Gabriel offered.

“But how could they?” The man was still perplexed. They heard me complain about their plans to kill me simply because of the words God sent me to give them [John 8:40].

They heard me ask on the stake that God forgive their act of Killing me [Luke 23.34].

They heard me tell the parable of the Vineyard also. That parable should have made it clear!” [Mathew 21: 33-46].

Jesus and the great angel were silent for a while.

“I feel like my time there was wasted” Jesus said after a few moments.

“Don’t worry,” said the Angel, “Your God, the Living Light, will right the wrong, HE is sending the Comforter to teach them your words aright. . .”

“Don’t worry, dear Jesus. . don’t worry. . .”

_{Davidylan – Please can you address the biblical quotes above and explain them to me so I can be clearer on these. If you can help it, I want a discussion based on the Bible, and no insults, if you can help that too. Thanks.}

Pastor AIO:
(infinity/infinitely small) . . . ,1/7, 1/6, 1/5, 1/4, 1/3, 1/2,1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, . . . . (infinity/infinitely large)

Pastor. . . you are feeling me right?

Hello Viaro -

Your analysis is superb, and i give you top marks for it.

You have actually hit at the very core of the cosmological discussion. . . because zero represents nothingness, and the question has always been - "How could something come out of nothing?"

I have two answers to your supposition involving the zero factor, and i can only hope that they would be satisfactory.

The first answer is this: The Zero factor should not be of concern to us because it stands for nothingness. We are living already within somethingness. We have deduced an expansion from the point of the big bang. That point we call a singularity. A singularity is perforce single, thus 1. Thus nothingness does not come into the equation at all. This is the first and more direct answer.

The second answer is more comprehensive, but i fear, difficult to communicate. What is nothingness really? Can you imagine such a state. Fine. Conceptualize it. Absolute emptiness in stark blackness. If you conceptualize this aright, you will see that it is by its very nature infinite. Emptiness is emptiness in an eternity of emptiness. And this emptiness being ifinite cannot be segregated, because it is nothing. It is accordingly one infinity. One single infinity. That is what i mean by the term "Oneness of Infinity". Interlaced in this subtle answer i have laid out is, i believe, the very equation that leads nothingness to be somethingness - namely - a singularity - which i call God.

I hope this addresses your concerns, even as i accept it may be too difficult for most to grasp.

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

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

Chrisbenogor:
So what criteria do we use in knowing what is dogmatic crap and what is spiritually useful?

You sense with your spirit, you listen with your conscience, an alert and living inner voice cultivated by a sense of the inner harmony of creation.

It will not fail you Chris, try it.

davidylan:
The problem with all these hubris is that NO WHERE have you taken up the fact that you and Shakerz have simply produced horribly distorted and patently false claims as FACTS with which to disparage christianity.

Rather than waste your time making irrelevant points, why dont you start with providing evidence for the dross you copied off About.com?

I'm starting to think you're just another waste of energy like Huxley . . . all literary bluff but very little intelligence.

It seems each time your limited cranial capacity is outed, you trot out cliched lines like "limited, narrow mind". I might have a little mind but i know enough not to be taken by false claims on the website simply on the basis of popularity.

Like i said earlier, if we were to just believe the internet then Obama is a Malaysian terrorist born in Kenya. I wager that claim is way more popular than your hillarious claims of Mithraism being similar to christianity despite the fact that we dont begin to see any Mithraic documentation until at least 200 AD.

What a small brained idiot.

^^^There we go again. Still unable to get the grammatical differnce between an issue and a fact. English na problem sha.

Show me where i claimed it was a fact? I severally stated that these are still being debated.

David, i dont have the energy to teach you basic English today.

Goodnite.

DAVID - (Sorry having to post this here again, we seem to be having this same discussion in two threads)



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!

Chrisbenogor:
I am at odds with you for very many reasons, there is nothing wrong in believing in God and damning religion, what I do not understand is what version of God you believe in. It seems your God metamorphoses every time you come up with one issue or the other, one day you are saying that job was inspired and another day you are discrediting the bible, you cannot eat your cake and have it, I find the criteria you use is choosing what was inspired or not to be very wanting. It just seems you are playing the best of both sides "believe in God but choose the version you believe in" and this is just a tip of the iceberg, if I need to know what david will do I would simply dash to the bible you on the other hand , whatever *sighs*

LOL. Interesting. Well i must say that this is useful feedback, and i admit i must come across as confusing. Don't worry, you will get to understand me with time. For now, let me just say this: Ancient Religious texts are not useless: but some have been corrupted, mistranslated, misinterpreted, and even adjusted outright. Thus the rational theist must know how to weigh and balance, and see what is dogmatic crap, and what is spiritually useful.

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!

Pastor AIO:
Oh, please let's leave it in the religion section.

What do we mean by intelligence anyway? I've found that even amongst professional experts (psychologists) the definition of intelligence is vague at best.

In discussions I usually prefer a definition that says Intelligence is the ability to acquire and store information. The information may be acquired by direct perception or it may be acquired by deduction from perceived information. We are surrounded by information and everyone is individually tuned into a certain type of information. An artist might be better adept at processing colours and shapes and lines, while a geologist might be better at acquiring information about the terrain. A meteorologist might be able to extract a lot of information by just looking at the sky, but unlike the geologist the terrain is a closed book to him, he is not even interested in looking at the earth. etc

We need to know what we mean by intelligence. Is IQ test result truly a representation of the intelligence of a person? All of this has serious consequences for religion.

Pastor, i think what you have defined is more in the realm of knowledge and memory than intelligence. Intelligence has to do with the function or capacity to resolve problems, be they mathematical, deductive or otherwise.

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.

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.

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?

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

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?

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.

First off, nobody should accuse me of flogging this issue to death. As i have said before, it cannot be discussed enough, and will still be discussed long after we are all dead.

If, according to scientific thinking, the Universe started from a singularity, then that singularity is [1].

Given either big-bang or steady-state expansion theorems, in terms of abstract quantification we have -

← Infinity ← 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 [size=16pt][1] [/size] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 → Infinity →

Where the [1] = The singularity = The oneness of Infinity = God.

The idea of a Oneness of Infinity in abstract terms conclusively proves the existence of God.

Tudor? Krayola?

_{p.s - since long-winded arguments were not too successful, i will be pouring down legions of different proofs thick and fast on this thread.}

^^^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.

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.

Let's put it this way. The environment may encourage or restrain the application of intelligence.

If you place two equally intelligent people - one in a temperate cool room, and another in a boiling oven, you might find that there could be differences in the results of their work.

That's not necessarily a difference in intelligence, but a difference in what the environment will condition.

P.S: What's this doing in the Religion Section?

davidylan:
It was more than enough to convince me that both shakerz and deepsight are deluded, misinformed, conspiracy theorists who lack the intelligence to factually debunk the bible without copy-pasting the LIES and FRAUD of others.

For the avoidance of doubt I DO NOT subscribe to any of the Mithraic claims AS YET, and i am still looking into the available records.

The pat i gave Shakerz on the back was simply in cognisance of his attempts which he based on common sense and history. I much prefer that approach to raw, uncensored, unedited, gullible dogmatism.

davidylan:
Sometimes you wonder if these dudes have sawdust for brains.

Men. . . ! yabbis full your mouth o.

^^^ As i stated above, i intended it as a joke. Maye it should be moved to the Jokes Column. Or deleted if offensive. Nothing more was intended.

Frankly i am angry its on the Frontpage. It does not deserve to be there. More serious issues should be there.

^^^Somehow or the other Noetic has actually won a bit of my respect, notwithstanding that i regard his views as rather extreme indeed. This is because he does not shirk from a rigorous debate, although he appears spectacularly incapable of adjusting to the reality that the world is full of diversity, and nobody, not even God, could expect all or even most humans to adapt to a uniform culture or religion.

Davidylan on the other hand. . . is just. . . well. . . something else.

Although i love serious theological debates, i also love a good practical joke, this thread was intended as such, and i am rather surprised and dissapointed that it has made it to the NL frontpage. It was intended only for the Religion caucus, people who have debated each other for a while, and are quite familiar with the jokes. I would urge the moderator to remove this thread from the Front Page, cos its really just a practical joke.

I do not seek to ridicule anybody, as every man is entitled to his faith.

I just find some of their comments amazing, that's all.