I read voraciously. But that is the point I wanted to make at that moment. You were wrong to claim that Paul knew Jesus.
Apparently you need practice reading threads. I know they stack, and sometimes you have to go back a page to keep with the "thread" of the topic, but...obviously you missed where this was already discussed. But you can still pretend you won the booby prize
Nope, look up when those people supposedly died. Go to a legit site and read about "who authored the NT texts.
Wouldn't it be better to argue from evidence rather than some modern "authority"? The names on the books are all attested by every piece of ancient evidence on the subject. There are certainly moderns in academia who claim that the gospels are anonymous -- a claim that, as far as I know, only started being made in the last few decades. Since they are not anonymous in any sense that would be recognised for any other text, you might try to find out what, if any, reason is given for this extraordinary claim, what evidence is offered for it, and argue based on that. At the moment all you're doing here, surely, is making an argument from an authority whom you can't name? That's not how we arrive at facts, surely? All the best, Roger Pearse
LOL! You know he is correct. Why don't you just own up to a mistake? I said - "None of the writers actually knew such a person." You said - Paul You could not have missed that ACTUALLY KNEW!
Note that he is telling us the MITHRA practices were before Jesus and Christianity. He even was called the Christos - annointed one. "And this is a great thing to see in the whole world, the lion vanquished by the blood of the Lamb: members of Christ delivered from the teeth of the lions, and joined to the body of Christ. Therefore some spirit or other contrived the counterfeit that His image should be bought for blood, because he knew that the human race was at some time to be redeemed by the precious blood. For evil spirits counterfeit certain shadows of honor to themselves, that they may deceive those who follow Christ. So much so, my brethren, that those who seduce by means of amulets, by incantations, by the devices of the enemy, mingle the name of Christ with their incantations: because they are not now able to seduce Christians, so as to give them poison they add some honey, that by means of the sweet the bitter may be concealed, and be drunk to ruin. So much so, that I know that the priest of that Pilleatus was sometimes in the habit of saying, Pilleatus himself also is a Christian. Why so, brethren, unless that they were not able otherwise to seduce Christians?" (ANF) Saint Augustine Tractatus in Joh. Evang. VII, 6. Augustine (early 5th century A.D.) [=Mithras] {Cumont, ii, p.59} A page of Mithra quotes. http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mithras/#Tertullian
There are 14 attributed to Paul, and 7 that there is little doubt were written by Paul himself. Paul legitimately wrote at LEAST seven NT books. If you have different info--share it.
I already told you I read it as contemporaries--not personal associates. I "actually know" a lot of people I have never "actually met." If you're going to be hung up on semantics, feel free. Paul actually knew Jesus--he personally persecuted Jesus and his followers--he was present at the stoning of Stephen. In Acts 7:58, Paul (then Saul) is first mentioned. He is the "young man" at whose feet Stephen was lain. This was shortly after the death of Jesus. Acts 8 further recounts Paul's persecution of Christians. Paul "knew" Jesus--they were contemporaries. He never met Jesus (that is recounted in the Bible), but he was most definitely alive during some of the same years as Jesus--which is the relevant point, after all, to whether books of the Bible where authored by people who lived during the purported time of Christ. Furthermore, although two books are called Peter, at least one is considered to actually have been written by Peter, whom there is NO DOUBT "knew" Jesus as in actually having met him, and walked with him for several years. Oh...excuse me..."several" implies more than three, and Jesus' proclamation of the kingdom was only a three year tour, so "semantically" "several" isn't unmistakably accurate...
The same way all other religions grew.....PEOPLE BELIEVED THEM. Belief is all that is needed to form a strong foundation for a religion.... Look at Mormonism.....barely 160 years old and millions of followers. And Bhudism......It's one of the largest religions on earth. So does that mean that there is truth in their beliefs? No....it means that alot of people believe in it.
Again, you are relying on the semantics of ONE statement. The only thing attested to there is the image of a lion in Mithraic (assuming that is the group Augustine is referencing) symbolism. Lions are EVERYWHERE in symbolism--they are big, majestic, and ferocious creatures. There is nothing impressive there. Lions and lambs are in the OT together too. Lions (ferocious) fed on sheep (meek). To reverse that image is nothing new.
More Mithra info. "And whereas the legendary Peter thus closely conformed in symbol to the "God out of the Rock," the chief priest of the Mithraic cult at Rome compared no less closely with the Christian bishop, ultimately distinguished as Papa = Father. Among the grades of the Mithraists were that of the Patres Sacrorum, or Fathers of the Mysteries, and that of the Pater Patrum, Father of the Fathers, whose seat was at Rome; and while there was a sacred Mithraic cave under the Capitol, we know from monumental remains that Mithraic worship was conducted on the Vatican Mount, where also was a temple of the Mother-Goddess Cybelê, and where also dwelt the Archi-Gallus, or arch eunuch, the head of the cult of Cybelê and Attis. 3 As the ruling tendency of the later paganism was to combine or "syndicate" all the leading cults, and as Roman patricians were then wont to hold at once the priesthoods of various Gods, it is not surprising to find that in the year 376, under the emperors Valens and Valentinian, one Sextilius Agesilaus Ædesius was Pater Patrum Dei Solis Invicti Mithræ," 335:3 Beugnot, Hist. de la Destr. du Paganisme en Occident, 1835, i, 159. Pagan Christs, by John M. Robertson, [1911], http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/cv/pch/pch74.htm
I suggest you re-read that as it is saying - Therefore some spirit or other contrived the counterfeit JESUS (Mithra) that His image should be bought for BLOOD, because HE KNEW that the human race was AT SOME TIME to be REDEEMED by the precious BLOOD. In other words it is saying a demon made a counterfeit Jesus (MITHRA) BEFORE Jesus right down to the blood ritual, as it says HE KNEW humans AT SOME TIME TO BE REDEEMED by the BLOOD (of Jesus.) Also at the bottom it mentions Christos we know the followers of Mithra were called a form of Christians, after their Christos Mithra. And if you do a Mithra pitcure search you will find he is connected in far more ways - sacrifice of a ram - serpent - rayed head - popes wore a version of his hat, etc.
Did you read the sermon in context from the Calvin College site your link sourced? Perhaps you should. Your conspiracy theory is silly, frankly.
The above is based on a book from 1835. But Mithraic studies do not begin until 1899, when Franz Cumont collected all the sources for the first time. Beugnot had no access to the data, whoever he was. Robertson himself was a crank. There are reviews of his book in contemporary classical journals, which deal rather harshly with his claims. Some of what he says is correct; but much is wrong, much is slanted, and it all involves that age-old technique for misrepresentation: selection, omission, and editing. We could discuss the specifics if you like? I'm reasonably familiar with the entire base of data on Mithras. Just a general warning: never believe any of this sort of stuff ("Mithras=Jesus! Har har!") unless you have seen the ancient sources that back it up. Where none are offered, presume hearsay. There is a HUGE amount of hearsay about Mithras around, all of it *factually* false. (Opinions, of course, are each to his own and mine are no doubt no better than anyone elses - I refer here only to stuff that can be simply looked up and verified and requires no judgement) All the best, Roger Pearse
I suggest you ask a professor of ancient history at any university. He will advise you otherwise. We might like to ask ourselves why any religious position -- such as the one here -- involves trying to dispose of facts; for, whether Christianity is true or not, that Jesus of Nazareth walked the earth and founded a religion that changed the world is not in doubt. No honest intellectual position tries to deny that; dishonest debating positions might. We need to avoid statements based primarily on malice, rather than honesty. It is quite likely, by the way, that Hercules etc were based dimly on some bronze-age hero or other. The Greeks themselves were aware of this possibility (I forget the jargon term for thsi theory). But what they do not have, as Jesus does, is evidence from the time when they lived. All the best, Roger Pearse
He does in a sermon--the source does link to it--but the context shows it is an utterly irrelevant comment to the point that the poster quoting it is attempting to make.
Thank you -- but I didn't see the bit in this that said Mithras predated Christ? Are we perhaps at cross-purposes?
That's why I said to the original poster: "The only thing attested to there is the image of a lion in Mithraic (assuming that is the group Augustine is referencing) symbolism." http://www.politicalforum.com/4654355-post86.html Sorry--I think I may have misinterpreted what you were asking in your original post.
Obviously Jesus was a real person. The idea that the largest religion on the planet would've originated from someone who didn't actually exist is just plain ludicrous. In reality, virtually all of the stories in the Bible - or any ancient religious text for that matter - have some kind of human origination or motivation. Of course, there is not enough evidence to conclude as a scientific fact that JESUS H. CHRIST was a real person, but that kind of evidence does not exist for virtually every historical figure ever. Yea, there may be some tombs here and there or some texts or some historical relations, but, for the most part, we don't have indisputable evidence to conclude that ANY of them ACTUALLY existed. All we have are the historical documents and archaeological findings, and none of that is enough to conclude scientifically that Julius Caesar even existed. Unless you think a centuries old piece of stone is "proof" that he was real... "Jesus", whoever he REALLY was, definitely existed and started the "Christian" religion.
