jgibson000

You are assuming here (on the basis of Wikipedia no less!) not only an identification between the Avestian Mithra and the Zoroastrian Mithras, but also one between the Zoroastrian deity and -- against David Ulansey, Manfred Claus, Vermaseren, Klauck, and virtually every modern student of Roman Mithraism -- the Roman one.

Moreover, you still haven't provided me with any primary source that backs up the claim that -- even if Mithas and Mithra are identical -- **Romans** knew Mithras to have been born on Dec. 25th and had long commemorated his birth on that day.

So you'll forgive me from saying that I don't think you've come anywhere near making the case I am asking to be made.


Jeffrey Gibson

jgibson000

Thanks!

Jeffrey Gibson

Kosh

Granted, but at least he's not an atheist grasping at anything to disprove Xianity!

jgibson000

Besides being wholly irrelevant, that's hardly a guarentee that anything he says is informed, let alone reliable or true.

In any case, may we stick to matter at hand -- i.e., the presentation of a primary source that documents that **Romans** not only knew the Mithras (**even if** ultimately derived from the Persian Mithras) to have been born on the 25th of December but had **long before** the 4th century CE celebrated that day as the date of his birth?

Do you yourself have direct knowldege of any such source?

Jeffrey Gibson

Kosh

Grumpy, aren't we?

I don't have time to look any further, so I'll defer to one of our Mithra experts here.

Chris Weimer

I just want to take this second to welcome you, Dr. Jeffrey Gibson, to Internet Infidels.

Quick question - whatever happened to JBS? I have this paper that I wrote...

FatherMithras

Theos and logos? Hmmm... sounds like un unoriginal idea stolen from pagans. The more one reads and looks objectively, the more and more obvious the unoriginality and blatant contradictions in the bible become apparent. The Orthodox church is very good at explaining away it's bullshit due to the fact they claim the real, deep truth is an unknowable mystery.

The trinity doctrine resulted from a certain thological stances that became popular after the fact, and thus books that supported it were taken as canon. Plenty of alternative scripture, that was followed and was as verifiably "accurate" as the stuff that we now have. Politics gave us the doctrine based on certain viewpoints. Regardless, the One Trinity idea is a messy way for christians to bring home the :unknowable paradoxical mystery" of their religion. They claim their ridiculous bullshit reading of contradictions is actually superior. No wonder I left the church in disgust!

FatherMithras

Grasping at anything? Ummm... there's so much going for us in the evidence department it's overwhelmingly against the evidence to be a theist. We don't HAVE to grasp at uneducated, unsupported assertions and flawed logic to support our case. Apologetics and theists of every stripe have to use lies and misidentification like ID and claims of scriptural innerrancy with flawed support based on the undirect, unsupported interpetations to even pretend to claim pseudo legitimacy.

An atheist grasping at straws? Someone's confuising atheist with "A theist".

jgibson000

You think so? I'd be grateful if you'dshow me how my pointing out a fact and calling you back to the matter at hand evinces "grumpiness".

Did you look at all?

OK. And who are they?

Jeffrey Gibson

jgibson000

Thanks for the welcome, Chris. As to JBS -- it seems to have disappeared. Unfortunately, I have no further information on it.

But why not submit your article to a print journal?

Jeffrey