Mithras is Jesus

[thybigballs]

Sorry but there is no good evidence for the historicity of Jesus whether it be as a god or as a man.

[JustForBrieLarson]

Every religion is burdensome

[CacheMeOut]

@JustForBrieLarson

JESUS IS A PERSON, NOT A "religion".

'

.

[jusosick]

Whats even more interesting is that there is another heroic figure from Gaul called Hesus. Recall the Gauls were Keltic people. The Kelt\Celts occupied France (Gaul) and Spain (Celt-Iberia) long ago and lived as north as the British Isles which includes the HeBRides. Mithra can be seen sacrificing a bull-like the Druids, the bull being the totem\symbol of a certain empire. Funny that HeBRews made a golden bull upon leaving Egypt that "Moses" destroyed.

[jusosick]

Whats even more interesting is that there is another heroic figure from Gaul called Hesus. Recall the Gauls were Keltic people. The Kelt\Celts occupied France (Gaul) and Spain (Celt-Iberia) long ago and lived as north as the British Isles which includes the HeBRides. Mithra can be seen sacrificing a bull-like the Druids, the bull being the totem\symbol of a certain empire. Funny that HeBRews made a golden bull upon leaving Egypt that "Moses" destroyed.

[chemerich]

I have no problem with paganism nor with Mithras. If you don't like it, you are free to go back home.

[Krtmrsn]

PEOPLE...GROW UP PLEASE... "Religion IS A VIRUS". THE END. It`s humanity that matters the most. Fuck Abraham, Moses, Jesus, [...]..And the asshole Mohammed.

[NowWhatRTheyUp2]

It's really simple ... there was NEVER a Jesus and christianity is based on the pagan religion Mithraism.

[Naiant]

This is just silly. Mithras was born from a rock, not a virgin. The god Mithras is very old, but the Mithraism that promised salvation is post-Christian. Dec. 25 wasn't the birthday of Mithras, but of the Sun, and not even that until long after the origin of Christianity.

[Valthepixie]

@Naiant Jesus was born in a stable, which is actually a cave.... made of rock. Jesus came from a rock as well. Mithras was born of a virgin. Mithra died on a cross to redeem mankind from his sins = salvation. ie what else would he be redeeming mankind for, a chocolate fudge sunday. lol Yes, 25th dec was the birthday of Mithras. And no, it is at least c1000 years before the christian time line.

Did you know the 4 gospels in the bible are anonymous, they have no idea who wrote them or when.

[Naiant]

@Valthepixie You haven't researched what scholars in the field (non-Christian scholars, in fact) have had to say on the matter. Some of it doesn't take much effort; you could do it on your own. Just do some searching on google images, and you will see Mithras killing the bull in a cave rather than being born in it. You'll also see that Mithras ascended to heaven immediately after killing the bull, and was not crucified. The mystery cult of Mithraism is very late, with the [cont.]

[Valthepixie]

@Naiant LOL you think you know me or what I've studied. Like the presenter I also have a phd in theology, only I'm no longer a Christian as a consquence of my knowledge. There are far too many false claims, faked documents and downright lies.

You prove the old addage that 'there are none so blind as those who will not see". You are typically cherry picking to make a false point. Carry on believing codswallop, I couldn't care less how you waste your time.

[Naiant]

@Valthepixie [cont.] first artifacts being late first century. The worship of Mithra by Iranian Pagans is much older, but not the sort of Mithraism we're talking about here. There is no record of Mithras having been born on Dec. 25th; if you have any I'd be interested to see it. If you look up "birth of Mithras" on google images, you'll find lots of images of his being born from a rock.

The information is out there. You need only look.

[Valthepixie]

@Naiant Cont. And if you were half as smart as you're making out to be, you'd know this video is a tiny fragment of an extensive and very professional documentary series.

[stronzo5785]

His first point, about Paul becoming all things to all people to win them to Christ, doesn't even provide an accurate explanation of what "winning to Christ" actually means. Indeed, that could mean anything that the presenter wants it to mean. Exactly who is this presenter, and why is he playing so "fast and loose" with language? What are his qualifications to speak to what Christianity teaches?

Imprecise language leads to inaccurate conclusions and deception...of which this video is rife.

[Valthepixie]

@stronzo5785 The presenter has a phd in theology and he is a Christian. How unbiased can it get. Why don't you listen to what is being said, go check it out for yourself. Everything he has said is correct. What he is telling you is the tip of the iceburg of monumental deceit.

[stronzo5785]

@Valthepixie, first of all, who is this man? His name, please.

Second, he yanks the second half of 1Cor. 9:22 completely out of context. He never mentions adopting any faith other than Christianity. The context, and the body of Paul's writings, rule out any part of Paul following any other faith but the faith of Christ.

Third, he takes this dramatic context shift (of his own making) to a conclusion which is contradictory to the rest of Paul's work and teaching...yikes.

[Valthepixie]

@stronzo5785 The presenters name is Dr Robert Beckford.

If you can show where Paul does not contradict himself over and over again, theogists may be able to take what he says seriously. As it stands Paul/Saul is a self appointed apostle and self confessed murderer and liar, who preached to convert people using any means including making it up as you go along.

[stronzo5785]

@Valthepixie, your first sentence makes an unsourced assertion, then challenges me to debunk it. I'd say that the burden of proof that Paul contradicted himself "over and over again" lies on you.

Paul himself admitted that he persecuted Christians, but he repented and came clean...over and over again. Categorizing him as a "self-confessed murderer" and using that as an excuse to eisegete his writings after coming clean is irresponsible at best, and willfully ignorant at worst.

[Valthepixie]

@stronzo5785 "your first sentence makes an unsourced assertion".

Why is it the religous always resort to claims of debunking. When in fact they have less than zero substantiation for any of their beliefs.

[stronzo5785]

@Valthepixie...you're entitled to your opinion, but I simply stated a fact with which you didn't disagree. You have made nothing but unsubstantiated assertions, and stated many opinions. I disagree, and am wondering how you arrived at these conclusions.

Normally, thinking people read information and form opinions based on this information. Adopting the opinion of another without checking out their sources is irresponsible. Nothing more, nothing less...just wondering about your evidence.

[Valthepixie]

@stronzo5785 Cont. This is not just Beckfords work. Many theologens have come to the same conclusion in their research. Beckford is voicing a culmination of reaserch from many sources. All such research is built upon, it never comes out of the blue. Why would a profesional Dr of theology make such a mistake, if he did so he would lose all credibilty and imperil his career. Think about what you are saying.

[stronzo5785]

@Valthepixie, Beckford is not alone, I agree. I will tell you this...even the ultra-liberal Westar Institute wouldn't accept him as a fellow. I'm not aware of any peer-reviewed works by this gentleman.

If we rely on his over-reaching conclusions and unsourced assertions as evidence, then we'll believe anybody. Academia largely ignores Robert Beckford...why should we believe what he says uncritically?

[Valthepixie]

@stronzo5785 "I will tell you this...even the ultra-liberal Westar Institute wouldn't accept him as a fellow."

You follow the typical pattern of a religious person about their own religion and people disagreeing. See no evil, hear no evil, slander everyone else to distract from their own evil.

I'm sorry but you are totaly out of order. .

[stronzo5785]

@Valthepixie...I'm just stating information. Beckford's doctorate is in "black theology." He isn't a fellow of the Westar Institute, and I'm still not aware of any peer-reviewed works that he's published. He only makes documentaries and doesn't publish his sources...

I'm not slandering him, simply stating what's on the public record...maybe it isn't me who's out of order.

[Valthepixie]

@stronzo5785 The Westar Insitiute is not that influential globally. It's more of an American thing.

[stronzo5785]

@Valthepixie...which is why I used it to make a point. Beckford's categorization of ancient Eastern Orthodox catechisms as additional, ignored "gospels" which "didn't make the Council of Trent" is so unsubstantiated that only fringe groups like the Westar Institute would be remotely interested, and even they would send him away.

Keep in mind that while you're building strawmen out of my arguments, you're not supporting your own spurious points. I have yet to see you cite a single source...

[Valthepixie]

@stronzo5785 "Beckford's doctorate is in "black theology." He isn't a fellow of the Westar Institute, and I'm still not aware of any peer-reviewed works that he's published"

Beckford is English, not Afro American. If you know his doctorate is in "black theology" then you are most definately aware of his peer-reviewed works. All doctorates are published. The fact his doctorate was nothing to do with race, tells me you are as big a liar as Saul.

[stronzo5785]

@Valthepixie...then simply cite the title of his dissertation (that is what is published when a person earns their doctorate) and the company which published it and a list of scholars who reviewed it (theology faculty will do nicely).

At least, by doing that, you'll cite a source that begins to support your position. I'll not ask for this for the rest of your arguments, since you seem unable or reticent to do so...and I'll remind you of your position, if you request.

[Valthepixie]

@stronzo5785 Read Acts. I'm not interested in your subjective opinion of the presenter.

[stronzo5785]

@Valthepixie...I have, and I'll help you out. Read Acts 9, 22 and 26 for yourself, and note the context in each passage. I don't see a contradiction...only different audiences and some added detail about his companions.

Now, help me out and point these "contradictions' out to me...thanks.

[Valthepixie]

@stronzo5785 Acatually Paul/Saul claims to be Jewish. If he was Jewish as claimed he misquoted the Jewish law so frequently where ever he went the Jews wanted to stone him to death for blasphemy. They could not of course because of his Roman citizenship. If the Jews had killed him the Romans would have utterly destroyed them and salted the earth so nobody could live in the area ever again. He was a wild card, free to say any old pack of lies he wanted with complete impunity.

[stronzo5785]

@Valthepixie, Paul's problem was that he correctly used Jewish law and scripture to prove that Jesus was the Messiah...not the other way around.

The Sanhedrin always knew that Paul was a Roman citizen...but Paul insisted on going to Rome for trial to get a bigger audience. His birth status didn't stop the Sanhedrin from trying to kill him, and Rome wouldn't have cared about the death of one Jew, Roman or not.

Then, you say Paul is a wild card...explain this, please.

[Valthepixie]

@stronzo5785 That is your subjective conclusion. The fact remains Paul/Saul contradicts his own stories repeatedly. He therefore is not a good source for reliable information. Somewhere down the line he is lying.

A wild card is someone who can do what they like with impunity. And you are wrong about Rome not caring about thier citizens. They took over the top reactions to a whole new level.

[stronzo5785]

@Valthepixie...provide some examples that would prove that Paul contradicted himself, please. If my conclusion is subjective, you should be able to do this many times...if you have indeed read the NT, that is.

Rome did care about their citizens, but they didn't "salt the earth" when a single Roman Jew was stoned for blasphemy in Palestine. You're misstating my point...re-read, please.

[Valthepixie]

@stronzo5785 Hmm should I waste my time on someone so intent on their own subjectivity. I'll go half way.. One only need compare his 3 versions about his claim of conversion. You'd think such a monumental extraordinary event would make it easy to remember the basic facts. There are contradictions to every story he retells. Some of them are huge.

Anyone not Roman were the property of Rome. Rome had the right to enhililate whole populations. From past experiance they rarely rebelled. Fear.

[stronzo5785]

@Valthepixie......one more time, please cite a source or two. Where, in the NT, did you find these 3 contradictory versions of Paul's conversion?

Entire conquered populations, yes, to quell insurgencies and solidify their power base. One individual Jew who's father was Roman AND who's death had no widespread political or military significance, no.

[Valthepixie]

@stronzo5785 "one more time, please cite a source or two. Where, in the NT, did you find these 3 contradictory versions of Paul's conversion?"

Outsanding... you are now saying you don't know your own religous book. Try reading it before pretending you know anything about it. You just make yourself look like an idiot.

[stronzo5785]

@Valthepixie...I'm asking you to back up what you say, if you can. Accusing me of not knowing "my own religious book" doesn't absolve you of the burden of proof.  It simply says that you don't know why you have your opinion, but that you just have one.

That's fine, as I've said before, you're entitled to your opinion, no matter how you arrived there. I simply want to know how you got there, that's all...

[Valthepixie]

@stronzo5785 Was Paul an Apostle or a False Prophet? (Audio version)

Copy paste that into Youtube search. The presenter quotes scripture thoughout comparing Sauls stories and demonstrates his contradictions.

[stronzo5785]

@Valthepixie...wait, you're citing a video on YouTube as your source? Didn't you read the NT for yourself?

All the while, you've cast aspersion on me for disagreeing with your "salient" points, and to back up your assertions, you quote that bastion of academia, YouTube. Don't you read books, or even use Google or Wikipedia? Don't you fact check what you watch on the Web?

Yikes...

[Valthepixie]

@stronzo5785 So you agree that for different audiences Saul/Paul tells a different version of the same story. Llying to suit the circumstances does not increase his reliability, quite the opposite. Saul is not adding extra details but contradicting ones he's already stated.

[stronzo5785]

@Valthepixie...since when is sharing additional details which don't contradict the content and ending of the story contradiction or lying? Of course It is, if someone wants you to think so, and you are willing to re-define words to suit their purpose (not your purpose, but theirs).

Here's the final word...think for yourself, and check facts. If you don't know, ask questions from many sources. Seek and you shall find...YHWH bless.

[Valthepixie]

@stronzo5785 Granted some of it is additional. But, for example claiming only he saw the light in one version, then in another claiming all that were there saw it, is a contradiction. Big difference.

YHWH is a tetragrammaton and means lord in Hebrew. The name of the Jewish/Christian/Islamic deity is El of the Elohim. It originated from ancient Sumeria, present day Iran/Turkey, which is where the garden of Eden is claimed to be.

[Valthepixie]

@Valthepixie You say "think for yourself". This will make your brain hurt. If there is a deity that knows everything before it happens, and creates everything for a purpose with that foreknowledge. What free will do you think you'd have. ? Because if you managed to exercise free will, you'd prove the deity wrong. We would be unable to do anything other than that foreknown path. Think about it. ;)

[stronzo5785]

@Valthepixie..so far, you haven't provided an actual book for a reference. You get your information from YouTube, and spew other people's thoughts as your own.

I just asked you for a source for your assertions. You provided a YouTube video...do you know how to read a book? Do you remember what they look like? Or...do you want someone with a degree in "black theology" to think for you.

My brain is just fine, thank you...is yours okay?

[Valthepixie]

@stronzo5785 As I said before. It's not worth my time. Because it would'nt matter if I resurrected Jesus and he told you to your face. You'd still cling to what ever some freek earning a living off the back of your belief has told you to believe. You tell me to "think for myself and check the facts", but you haven't even read the bible you believe in. What does that make you.

You are vilifying anyone who disagrees. Even tho the proof in under your nose, Read the bible yourself.

[Valthepixie]

@stronzo5785 El is the name by which the supreme Canaanite deity is known. This is also a name by which God is called in the Old Testament -- El, the God (Elohim) of Israel (el elohe yisrael: Gen. 33:20). In most prose it occurs more often with an adjunct: El Elyon (the most high God, Gen. 14:18), El Shaddai (traditionally, God Almighty, Gen. 17:1), El Hai (The living God, Josh. 3:10), and very commonly in the plural of majesty, Elohim.

El of the Elohim, Elohim being plural and feminine.

[stronzo5785]

@Valthepixie...a contradiction happens when two statements cannot be true simultaneously. Which central facts were invalidated in the accounts of Paul's conversion? Please, you made the assertion, be specific. Paul saw a bright light on the road to Damascus, and his companions added their validation in Acts 22. where is the contradiction?

YHWH is the personal name for God, given to Moses on Mount Sinai. Source the remainder of your assertions, please...still no sources, and many opinions.

[Valthepixie]

@stronzo5785 ".think for yourself, and check facts"

El of the Elohim had 2 wives, 1 of which Jerusalem is named after. He also had an only begotten mediator son called Baal. It didn't become a mono deity religion until the Israelites left Egypt where they had a competition between their deities. El won, and very compassionately ordered them to massacre any followers of the other deities including his own sons. They obeyed and slaughtered half their own people.

Practice what you preach.

[stronzo5785]

@Valthepixie...source your assertion about "El" having 2 wives. No Jew I know worships El, but they do acknowledge Elohim as God, singular. Which tradition do you follow?

You distract, yet cannot tell anyone why you believe what you believe. What church do you attend? Why do you listen to Muslims for information about Christianity?

[Valthepixie]

@stronzo5785 "No Jew I know worships El, but they do acknowledge Elohim as God, singular."

That my dear is a lie. I doubt you know any Jewish people. And if you did they would tell you exactly the same as I have.

[stronzo5785]

@Valthepixie, I found where you got this tripe. A Muslim author, Misha'al Ibn Abdullah Al-Kadhi, published a number of books on mythology, and your screed is a near-verbatim from his book, "What did Jesus say?" Problem is, he got it from Caananite writings, not Hebrew traditions.

Of course, you can (and probably will) deny it, because his works are out of print and are used by no serious scholar, save Muslim polemicists.

[Valthepixie]

@stronzo5785 Actually I acquired the information from the Hebrew tradition. The oldest being in ancient Sumerian cuneiform. Every single Jew on the planet will tell you the same. It only seems to be less well known among the Christian sects, mostly because Christians are too lazy to do any research or ask any questions.

Is that the sum of your argument, deny and vilify. Why stop at half measures; walk around with a bag on your head so you can pretend you are centre of the universe.

[stronzo5785]

@Valthepixie, perhaps, then, you can provide a reference, ya know, where you "acquired" the data...thx in advance, and please make sure your sources are credible and peer-reviewed. Oh, and no YouTube videos, please...

I don't remember vilifying you or your opinions...I just wanna know how you arrived at your conclusion. I've been very upfront with my sources, but you haven't. I attack ideas, not people...oh, and I'm not your "dear."

[Valthepixie]

@stronzo5785 I'm not wasting my time sitting your examinations, or finding source material for you. As I said before, it would not matter if I resurrected Jesus and he told you to your face. You would still refuse to acknowledge any errors in the Christian dogma.

I used that Youtube video because it quotes and lists the scriptures I was refering too. Not because that is my only source. You really should be more objective if you want to argue a point.

[Valthepixie]

@Valthepixie Ancient Sumeria is where the Jews originated. It is where Eden is. One would expect their earliest writings to be in Sumerian cunifore, and guess what, they are. ;)

[stronzo5785]

@Valthepixie...one citation of Sumerian cuneiform which comes close to any of the writings found in Genesis would be helpful, here. Thanks in advance...

[stronzo5785]

@Valthepixie, then list the scriptures, and I'll address them. Surely if you have fact checked your source, you'll be able to do this, and, if you did, you'd've seen the games that that video plays with punctuation and the fact that that video doesn't say which translation it uses. Go to the sources, directly, and see if the reference has been used fairly and correctly.

You're angry at me for asking you for your references? Golly, who using "vilify and deny," now?

[Valthepixie]

@stronzo5785 This is the start of a traditional Jewish story:

While travelling upon the sea as a young God, El met two goddesses, Asherah and her companion Rohmaya. He roasted a bird for them and asked them if they would rather be his daughters or His wives. They agreed to

become his wives. From this union derive Shachar (Dawn) and Shalim (Dusk or the Evening Star)."

The city of Jerusalem is named after the second. Yerushalayim literally means "City of Dusk".

[stronzo5785]

@Valthepixie, sounds like you're renaming Sumerian mythology as Hebrew. Unless you can link the two by more than a word shared between the two languages, one a derivative of the other, your points are weak.

Clear quotations from Jewish sources would be a good place to start, instead of wild conspiracy and conjecture...thanks again for your references, in advance.

[Valthepixie]

@stronzo5785 LOL Genesis is in ancient Sumerian. :)

[stronzo5785]

@Valthepixie, the events of Genesis do occur in Sumeria, but the original text was written in Hebrew. I specifically asked about language, not location.

Sorry, but you context-shift very quickly, and you need some focus, here.

[Valthepixie]

@stronzo5785 Nope, Genesis is most definately in Sumerian cuniform. Hebrew doesn't come into it until much later. Thousands of years later actually. Genesis is a tiny, mistranslated, mangled out of all recognition, fragment of the original sumerian creation epic.

[stronzo5785]

@Valthepixie, scholarship disagrees. Duane Garrett in his book Rethinking Genesis, on page 191, remarks about the Hebrew cuneiform used to write the book of Genesis:

"Genesis 1 has NO PARALLEL anywhere in the ancient world outside the Bible. The creation myths from Egypt and Mesopotamia can hardly be set alongside Genesis 1 as a parallel in any meaningful sense. It must be regarded as an example of a genre unique to the Bible"

Sorry, but unless you can quote your own research, you're wrong.

[Valthepixie]

@stronzo5785 There is no argument among Jewish scholars about the Sumerian origins of the Jews. Genesis is the Christian version of the Hebrew verion of the original Sumerian creation epic. Genesis is a tiny fragment of it.

What is it you don't get about the bible being a copy of other peoples beliefs and mangled into a sows ear.

[stronzo5785]

@Valthepixie, until you can quote a source, from a book, which you have actually read, you simply spew ignorant conjecture and change the subject to your whims. I read books, made of paper and written by people who have looked for knowledge. You listen to and quote YouTube videos as authoritative sources, and assume yourself educated.

I also know how to stay on topic. Mithras is NOT Jesus, your Islamic sources are willfully ignorant, and you know not truth from lie. May God bless...

[Valthepixie]

@stronzo5785 Mithra is most definately Jesus seeing as Mithra historically comes before Jesus. Both had virgin births, were baptised, had 12 followers, performed miracles, had a eucharist, died on a cross as a saviour, rose again 3 days later on 25 dec. etc They are not islamic sources but plain in your face facts. The gospels are anonymous. In fact there is not a single document in the NT that is not surounded in controversy over its authenticity. Try proving the NT material is authentic.

[stronzo5785]

@Valthepixie, allow me to quote from Mithraic Studies: Proceedings of the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies, page 508:

"The only domain in which we can ascertain in detail the extent to which Christianity imitated Mithraism is that of art."

Muslims (and others, as well) spew this tripe around and don't check their facts. Also, try finding a credible text-critical NT scholar who has written that the certainty of the NT is below 95%.

[Valthepixie]

@stronzo5785 If that were true it's still 100% more than Christianity has to substantiate itself. It is not true however, many historians, theologists and philosphers have documented and commented on it. Unlike Christianity all the sources are external, so it has much more weight.

[stronzo5785]

@Valthepixie, you continue to speak vaguely. You make any possible assertion, and never tell us where you got your information, though I doubt you are truly interested in truth. You only want to bait me, and I find your efforts mildly amusing and insincere.

You only want to cast aspersion, at the cost of your own credibility. You are transparent, and I'm tired of educating you. May the God of the Bible bless you, and I am praying for you...

[Valthepixie]

@stronzo5785 Quid pro quo. Instead of bashing people over the head with your unsubstantiated religion. Why not put your time to something more constructive, like getting an education.

As for your blessings and prayers, they will not make any difference because if there was such a being, I would have no free will and my destiny would already be written in stone. That's how dumb your religion is.

[NowWhatRTheyUp2]

@stronzo5785 There is no such thing as gods, or a god. Primitive humans witnessed something too advanced for them to understand. Religion = superstition, it's fear tactics, pagan rituals, inhibits intellectual growth.

[Valthepixie]

@stronzo5785 I love they way you chirstians cling to stories with zero substantiation, despite there being plenty of evidence that says its copied from other religions. But demand shed loads of substantiation and examinations for credibily, when you have less than nothing yourself. Watch the video above, just that tiny amount of factual evidence is 100% more than you christians have on the authenticity of documents that make up the bible.

Pot calling the kettle black is all you ever do. ;)

[Valthepixie]

@stronzo5785 "...wait, you're citing a video on YouTube as your source?"

No actually I said. "The presenter quotes scripture thoughout comparing Sauls stories and demonstrates his contradictions."

[stronzo5785]

@Valthepixie...so, you read the passages cited in that video and saw the games played with punctuation, right? You also read the passages quoted in context, right? You are also aware that that video simply presents refuted Muslim arguments, right?

Did you seek knowlegable sources to find out if these passages had been cited correctly, at least? Obviously not...your source is a Muslim with an agenda. Would you let someone who doesn't care for you be a character witness for you?

[Valthepixie]

@stronzo5785 "You are also aware that that video simply presents refuted Muslim arguments, right?"

There you go with the debunking wish again. You'll be cursing me to eternal fires of hell and damnation next.

Just goes to prove the old addage 'there are none so blind as those who will not see'. Also why it's a total waste of time trying to debate anything with a religious person, their subjectivity get's in the way of reality.

[dpjennin1982]

I don't think Jesus was born on December 25th. Think about it. I mean come on. Santa Clause sends gifts to all children around the world the night before. It sounds like Christmas is more of a man made tradition, then a religious holiday

[shawry86]

all religious holidays are man made traditions....xmas is just a pagan one

[diezelish]

Yep. Your're right. Easter and xmas are all pagan or mithras worship. "santa clause knows when you been bad or good"?.... Only our Creator, the MOST HIGH knows that. peace to u

[diezelish]

Was the MessiYAH born in September? I think when he was born, at that time, it was only 10 months, not 12.(excluding july and august later added by the Roman Empire). If you read the story of his birth, it definitely wasnt winter. DECI means ten right? December is the 10th month

[dicko2704]

Jesus was most likely born in the summer as the shepherds were out at night when the angel came to them. the reason why christmas is on 25th december is beacuse the christians wanted to "christianise" the pagan holiday that was on that day

[diezelish]

Yeah, I agree with you on "christianizing" a pagan ritual. But why don't you think it was the fall?

[dicko2704]

ive always assumed summer because the shepherds were watching their flock at night. ive never noticed a scripture that mentions the time of year though. if there is one, be sure to point it out

[diezelish]

O ok. close enough. Yeah that's why i assume it was fall because of the sheperds.But I DO think the time was end summer/ begining fall. Well, we both agree it wasn't december.lol peace to u man

[dicko2704]

yeah i'll to agree that. if it was december, the shepherd would have frozen there asses off haha. bless you brother

[diezelish]

LOL!! Yep exactly!The sheep too,at the same time starve to death. lol.....bless you too bro.

[diezelish]

Yeah. i agree

[doctorw2]

mithra originated in persia i know because he is in zoroastian scripture which is about 6000 years old. the romans stole and corrupted the idea of mithra worship as did the hindus though they called him mitra. Jesus could not be likened to mithra because jesus was not born on december 25 neither was he born in a cave and he certainly didnt kill a primordal bull whose blood brought life to the earth.

[martynblackburn1977]

It was the church in 440AD who declared the birth of Jesus in line with pagan tradition. Jesus is not much different to Mithra in his role as the savior, because Mithra was exactly that. Jesus not born in a cave? Ever been to Jerusalem lately and seen the birth place of Jesus - ah! It's a cave. Anyway, Jesus was sacrificed as the lamb which is mirrored in Mithraism as the sacrifice of the bull; reflected in the cult of Horus, where Horus is the young calf, the bull of Hathor/Isis.

[doctorw2]

yes i know about all that, i think that humanity has always held these saviour archtypes as a collective race memory jesus is a common hebrew name in the first century i believe that he is known by another name but, i believe that since he is the light of every man and woman born in the world every civilization has understood him in their own language and culture such as the logos,the tao,the dharma,mithra, horus, ect.

[martynblackburn1977]

Yes. The Aramaic name of Jesus is Yeshua and it shares a similiarity with the Khemetic Iu-su or Yu-su. The su was the coming son - Horus. The Hebrews often took Egyptian names and made them their own. The Iu-su was Horus as the coming messiah and perhaps Jesus' name Yeshua (and Yeshu, in the Talmud) reflects a tradition. Names held sacred meaning for Jews as it did for Egyptians. The Hebrew language in particular shows many similarities with the Khemetic Egyptian.

[doctorw2]

you have good scholarship great research!

[HomoLibero]

eh my god is stronger than yours!

[21juiceb]

Who did Jacob have to come through? Isaac. Who did Isaac have to come through? Abraham. In Gen.13:14-18, the Lord established his chosen seed through Abram(Abraham). Gen.14:13 clearly states that Abram was a Hebrew. Are you saying that the Bible is wrong. Sura 3:84(We believe in Allah, and what has been revealed to us and what has been REVEALED TO ABRAHAM, Isma'il, ISAAC, JACOB AND THE TRIBES, AND IN (THE BOOKS) GIVEN TO MOSES, JESUS, AND THE PROPHETS, FROM THEIR LORD). Explain that.

[santosan9]

You are approving that Mohamad is Hebrew too because he came from Ismail.

[21juiceb]

How did you make that assumption? Ishma'il is the father of the Arab nations. The Bible tells you that Abraham will be a father of many nations. Through Isma'il came the Arab nations, and through Isaac came his chosen seed.

[santosan9]

It is stated in the Bible that Ismail will be the greatest nations. Just take a look at this world. Who has the most Black Money in this world? The progenies of Ismail. Who inhereited this earth? The progenies of Ismail.

You only need to observe and not just look and hear but also to listen.

[21juiceb]

Your are correct. Ishmael was given the promise of 12 princes and to be able to become a great nation. That's why they have the riches and resources that they have today. That's all they get. The inheratence of the chosen seed was given to Isaac. According to Gen. chap. 22, Isaac was reconized as Abraham's only son. The Bible also says in Job9:24 that the earth is given the hands of the wicked. The fact that Ishmael is one of the nations that are ruling points out who the wicked nations are.

[diezelish]

Mohamad a Hebrew!! That's bull

[YAHshaYAHthemessiYAH]

@santosan9 but he's not an Israellite!!! thats what counts... even Esau is a Hebrew,, but he's not an Israelite from Jacob,, who's name was changed 2 Israel...

[christopheergin]

@santosan9 wel i dont know if hes hebrew but one thing is sure , hes not jew!! and every prophet must come after Isaac!! not ishmael

[21juiceb]

The Jews that were b4 Christ were called Jews/Hebrews/Israelites, From the time of Abraham all the way to the time of Christ and the disciples. The Christians during the time of the disciples were those who followed Christ. #1 it wasn't a religion, and #2 unlike your modern day Christians, they were persecuted for following Christ.

[santosan9]

Abraham was not a JEW. Jew only existed from the progeny of Jacob aka Israel. And Abraham existed way before Israel. So how can Abraham become the Children of Israel (Jews from Juda)?

[diezelish]

Possible

[21juiceb]

Show me the scripture that says that the Jews who prayed to Jerusalem were Muslims. Now it's time for you to understand something. Islam didn't even exist before Muhammad was born. The Patriarchs were long b4 Muhammad. How can you even make the assumption that Abraham was a Muslim. And as for the Kaaba;Habakkuk 2:18-20(Woe unto him that saith to the WOOD, Awake; TO THE DUMB STONE, ARISE, IT SHALL TEACH! Behold, IT IS LAID OVER WITH GOLD AND SILVER, And there is no breath in the midst of it.

[santosan9]

Show me in the scripture the Jews were Christians before Jesus!

[21juiceb]

Before Islam came about, the Arabs were following 360 different gods for each day of the year under Persian mythology. Before Muhammad came along, there were Arabs who prayed to Jerusalem and worshiped the God of Israel. After Muhammad started converting people to Islam, he made them pray toward the Kaaba in Mecca. Muhammad used the Kaaba so that those who were following Persian mythology wouldn't have a problem converting to Islam. The Kaaba is an idol without any shadow of a doubt.

[santosan9]

Get your facts right. Those Jews and Arabs who prayed towards Jerusalem were "muslims". Before you open your mouth talking nonsense, muslims simply means Believers in English.

Kaaba was built upon by muslims i.e. Abraham and Ishmael but was seized overtime by the ruling pagan kings. Abraham even destroyed most of the idols in there except for 1 big idol of which he wanted to make a mockery out of it to the pagan king.

Kaaba is the ONE direction that muslims face to when praying. Not idol.

[diezelish]

Yeah. Our months and days of the week are named after different pagan "gods".

[WH0isliketheLord]

What is a more pagan than Islam.Worshipers of the pagan moon God.You pick one pagan God from 300 and anoint him as (the God). Foolish pagan moon worshiper there is no salvation for you.

[santosan9]

Since when muslims worship the moon? You are poisoned.