Are you claiming that Christianity was "not" spread by the tip of the sword or just saying that this is not really related to the topic under discussion ? What are the ancient sources to which you refer ?
Neither. I'm afraid the whole context of my comments has been lost here. Sorry! All the best, Roger Pearse
I think it is a mistake to see it as evidence in any special way on this question. There is acres of early Christianity literature and archaeology that predates it. Indeed I myself have handled a hand-written book, manufactured and written in 450 AD, which contains a copy of one of the works of the Church Fathers (the Chronicle of St. Jerome). It is a curious feeling to hold in your hands something made when there was still a Caesar on the throne. All the best, Roger Pearse
Yes it very obviously is Mithras and as such is listed under Mithras related quotes! And anyone that can read knows it means predates.
A religion being around does not mean the God/s or prophets actually existed. Do Zeus and Isis and the Gods of all the religions exist?
yes. personal christian icons date from earlier than that. quite possibly (I am not so sure on this but I think it most likely) they were carried like talismans - in much the same way orthodox christians will carry them today, have them on their walls, and pray to them, or in the same way that some catholics carry St Christopher's medals, wear scapulas, carry a picture of a saint with them, or have pctures of saints on their walls at home.
LOL! And YOUR argument isn't biased by your Christian belief? You were obviously, as I pointed out, trying to break it up, and inserting your own ideas. Everyone should indeed read the whole thing as it makes it very plain that he is trying to explain away Mithras having the same details. Ive taken a few more lines from above, and below the original quote (go read the whole thing.) They prove what I have already said Mithras before Iesous. Impure spirits knew that Jesus Christ would come, they had heard of His coming from the angels, they had heard of it from the prophets, and they expected him. They expected that He would come, but they were ignorant of the time . Therefore SOME SPIRIT or other contrived the COUNTERFIT 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? Do not, then, SEEK CHRIST ELSEWHERE than where Christ wished HIMSELF TO BE PREACHED TO YOU; (the above sentence proves they are talking about Christ/Christos Mithras.) At this point he covers the Gospel about Jesus, telling us this is the real one. Interestingly further down, he also mentions Jesus and the anointed stone HUMMMMM! You think it might be because Mithras is the anointed from the stone? He also talks about Jesus and the lamb there are carvings of Mithras with a lamb. You will see he also is often shown with the rayed head Jesus is shown with. Just put Mithra or Mithras in Google and choose images. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701007.htm
The evidence is otherwise, but of course you're welcome to believe whatever you like, if it is that important to you. Could you say, however, just why this is so important to you? All the best, Roger Pearse
Just to recap the discussion: * A poster quotes an excerpt. * I point out the full text, and read through it, and indicate (very politely) that there may be a misunderstanding. * The poster responds by ignoring what I wrote and reiterating. * I point this out, again politely. * The poster responds with religious abuse. * The remainder of the post still ignores my post and consists of reiteration (for about the third time). Perhaps I might ask other posters: do I ask this poster to apologise for this gross misbehaviour, or just killfile him now? All the best, Roger Pearse
That is bull - I replied to your "full quote" post, including my post several above this one on this page!
I think that answers my question. I do think that the misuse of anonymity online, in order to behave badly, is a problem for us all. There is no lack of politicians desperate to control what is said online. Politicians here in the UK are passing law after law to criminalise what people say; indeed one poor soul was recently thrown in prison for something he said on his facebook page. Others have been tracked down and dragged into court for what they said on pages which they presumed were private, when a supposed "friend" informed on them. In this climate of increasing interference with free speech, anonymity is really important. Yet there is less and less of it. Again here in the UK one anonymous scumbag posted abuse on a page setup in memory of a suicide. He was dragged into court and thrown in prison. No-one can endorse the kinds of behaviour we see from trolls. Vulnerable teenagers have been driven to suicide by such people. Wikipedia is increasingly becoming impossible for normal people to contribute to, because of high levels of troll-behaviour. If people know that their identities are associated with what they say, they will worry more about their reputation. Consequently, all this troll behaviour will simply be used by the politicians to insist that everyone using the internet must "register" or something of the kind. That will be the pretext, just as "protecting the kiddies" is the pretext for controlling what sites can be accessed. Yet the *effect* will be Orwellian. I don't know what the answer is; but I think we need to be quite a lot less tolerant of trolls and troll-like behaviour. They're not harmless; they are, indeed, quite literally murderous scum in some cases, and their actions are harmful to all of us online. Everyone online is a person, with feelings. We ought to remember that. All the best, Roger Pearse
Rather convenient that you left out the rest of the sentence! Most of this has nothing to do with our debate - and I am not an unknown - That is my picture, my name, and this site obviously has the rest of my info which includes my name. It is very telling that you call me a troll for being on the other side of the debate - YOU are calling me a troll for vigorously defending my positions - JUST AS YOU DEFEND YOUR POSITION! Does that make you a troll? You not liking my position, does not make me a troll!
