Mithras, the true god?

Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh. Yea. no wonder why no1 ever post on here. Not to be mean, but I think Jesus is still real & that this Mithras is a fake.

 

Well it is possible that the two could be one in the same. But with how stories have been twisted through out the century it's tough to know for sure.

 

i agree with Demon.

Is mithras a true god? Well aslong as there are those who believe in him and worship then i guess yes. So they could co exist along side.

 

Well I never take anything the church says seriously until I have confirmed it myself, and I don't take some parts of the bible as literal meaning. Some of it is literal and some of it is symbolic.

So it is possible that Jesus and Mithras, were the same. But then that only means i'm worshiping the same person, just calling him by a different name.

 

It seems to me that heavenly beings (angels and Jesus) could have come at different times to teach the same thing. Because just like in Christian, Mithraism, and Zoroastrianism, if found that coyote leaves the world with the leader of the Native American gods to not come back till the end of the world. If you look there are always similarities in all religions. So that could mean that there was once one religion but it branched off in to other religions kind of like how the Protestants left the Catholics.

 

First of all, I don't care if anyone of you gives me a bad rep, cuz I believe that jesus is real & not mithrus. We learn & talk about different things, history twist up things, & none of us don't even kno if jesus is really is real or if mithrus is real, so do me a favor & don't give me a bad rep cuz you learn about something. Mithrus & jesus might be the same person, so don't call me a newbee cuz I speak my mind & believe that jesus is real & mithrus is not. <_>_<_> Whoever gave me a bad rep is stupid.

 

I might as well give my two cents on this.

NOTE: I thought these things through a bit, so don't be saying I'm close-minded.

Alright, let's start with the birthday. We do celebrate Jesus's birthday on December 25th. But I don't think that's his actual birthday. I think people just decided to celebrate his birthday on that day (coincidence or not, I don't know. And I'm not gonna say if it is or isn't.).

And with the Eucharist. In Catholocism, it's bread and wine. Now, it's supposed to literally be Jesus's body and blood, in the form of bread and wine. I don't know what is believed about Mithras's Eucharist.

And about what I bolded in this quote.

Now, Christianity doesn't believe that the flood was the beginning of history. They go back to when God created the universe, and Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve, being the first people, were around before the great flood that Noah made his Arc and put 2 of every animal.

Let's look at this.

Now, I'm not 100% sure, but I think that the Lord's Day is Saturday in Europe. But also, Sunday is the Sabbath Day, the day of rest. This day was said sacred in the 10 Commandments, which were from Moses's time, years before Jesus was born. So the Sabbath Day isn't from Christianity, but Judiasm. (I don't know if Mithras was before Judaism though, so don't be callin me close-minded for saying that the Sabbath Day is from Judiasm.).

Now, as for my opinion of this based on the information that was provided. It seems to me that Jesus and Mithras are either the same, or something else. This something else is based on the belief that Jesus will return. Mithras could have been the first Messiah, and could have returned as Jesus, just like Jesus is supposed to return when the world ends or whenever it says He will.

That's my view of it all. And it's not liberal, mainly because I don't really like liberal views.

 

Thanks. I'll be sure to remember that.

 

Stories get twisted up as time goes on. There's a ton of controversy over the possibility that Jesus was in fact just a mythical knock-off of a whole bunch of older son's of God. Mithras is really no different.

Also, you need to find articles depicting the words used in the holy texts of the figures. Translations, etc, and try using something other than the encyclopedia.

 

Ok, to be completely honest, I haven't read through this entire thread despite the shortness of its length...so I'm going to take this one point at a time. Be sure to keep up

As a warning, if you are going to debate with me, it's going to be hard core. I'm only warning because the close-mindedness issue bothered me...issue aside, let's go for it. It'll be fun. I’ll try to keep it as short as possible.

One other thing before I begin: I'd like to point out something on the subject of closed-mindedness. Rejecting the opinion of others because they seem close-minded (or because they are close-minded) is also close-minded.

Part One:
(1) Mithra was born on December 25th as an offspring of the Sun. Next to the gods Ormuzd and Ahrimanes, Mithra held the highest rank among the gods of ancient Persia. He was represented as a beautiful youth and a Mediator. Reverend J. W. Lake states: "Mithras is spiritual light contending with spiritual darkness, and through his labors the kingdom of darkness shall be lit with heaven's own light; the Eternal will receive all things back into his favor, the world will be redeemed to God. The impure are to be purified, and the evil made good, through the mediation of Mithras, the reconciler of Ormuzd and Ahriman. Mithras is the Good, his name is Love. In relation to the Eternal he is the source of grace, in relation to man he is the life-giver and mediator" (Plato, Philo, and Paul, p. 15).

…Yes, you are correct. This “mithra” is a god. (That is not to say that anyone should worship him.) He is not, however, the Most High God. I think that I need to illustrate first who God is (not speaking right at the moment about His nature, but rather about His triune Being). God is a triune Being: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Note that all are God—the Most High God. In illustrating this, I am revealing that Jesus is not just any “god.” He is the Most High God. So right off, Lake’s statement that the world will be redeemed to “God” is false, because he isn’t talking about God in the right context. He is not referring to God Himself, but someone else that is not actually God, but another god.

Everything needs to be examined in context. I can pull out a section of Scripture and use it to defend a point that I like, but if I am not defending my point in such a way that reflects the true position of God’s Word, I am twisting Scripture, and my point has no validity. Instead, it is a lie.

The same is true in the above case, although it isn’t Scripture. Jesus has contended with spiritual darkness, and has won. He is Light. He is the Way and the Truth. And through Him the people of the world are redeemed to God (if they will receive Him, for the gift of grace must be chosen). He is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world…not mithra.

The rest of Lake’s statement are lies. God is Love. Mithra, who is not God, but a god, as I have already pointed out, is not Love. He may have the “highest rank among the gods of Persia” and may have been “represented as a beautiful youth and a Mediator,” but this is based off of a polytheistic system. It is not therefore addressing the ultimate God of the universe, Jehovah. There is one high God. Not many. One.

I can prove these points extensively if you’d like. The Bible is pretty clear, as is Jewish history. Mithra is not God. Therefore, Mithra is not Jesus. Furthermore…

Jesus is the Word of God: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it” (John 1:1-5, NKJV)… “And the Word became 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” (John 1:14, NKJV).

Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega—the First and the Last. He is the Beginning and the End. He was before mithra.

About the whole 25th piece: it is not proven that Jesus was born on the 25th of month 12. In fact, many suspect that He was not. (If you want direct evidence for this I’ll be glad to supply you.) But this is beside the point anyway, because I just demonstrated that it’s irrelevant to this argument as to when He was born. God planned this universe, this world, this chain of events, this story (call it what you will) from the end to the beginning. He is the Beginning and the End. Jesus is not restricted by a date in time, which He supersedes simply by His nature as the second Person in the Trinity.

 

Haha. Interesting, also. I am in fact a Christian. But considering that most of the founders of the modern scientific movement (Newton's time) were also Christian, I don't feel that this should inhibit debate ability. Also, the fact that Paul (an apostle) debated with great skill seems to illustrate my point. And if you are not a Believer, but (I assume, my apologies if I am incorrect) an Atheist, that means that you also are going to be fixed on certain things. It's ok to be rigid on certain things

Anyway...

You are correct that I am not going to accept many of the things that you say. I'm not going to agree with false doctrine knowingly. This is not to say that I will refuse to be open-minded. Don't get me wrong. This is a debate forum where people exchange viewpoints. My viewpoint may not always be the correct one, but it is in this case. Truth is not in the eye of the beholder, but is what God declares it to be. Perception is limited. But this is not what this debate is about. This debate is about mithra (at least in the first argument you put forth) not being Jesus. I explained why mithra is not Jesus clearly.

"the triune god is a lie. 3 beings aren't one. Not to say its impossible, but the god you worship is not the god you think you believe in."

Is it impossible because you can't fathom it, or is it because you don't like it? Where is your evidence? I have evidence: answered prayer, and guidance, and healing, among other clear signs. It's also called satanic attack (I was slightly involved in the occult)--from being too active for satan's liking. The God I worship IS. Demons lie. God doesn't.

I'll be addressing the second point shortly.

 

You realise that Mythras is Jesus but a diffrent name in another religion. It's the same person, but I believe he was the one that people from the ancient Roman time believe was him and his true thing. Basicly they were trying to connect Jesus with there religious beliefs in teh diffrent elemental god's. I remeber hearing about that, in fact I think it was church when talking about a bunch of diffrent refrances Jesus is referred as.

 

"You realise that Mythras is Jesus but a diffrent name in another religion. It's the same person, but I believe he was the one that people from the ancient Roman time believe was him and his true thing. Basicly they were trying to connect Jesus with there religious beliefs in teh diffrent elemental god's. I remeber hearing about that, in fact I think it was church when talking about a bunch of diffrent refrances Jesus is referred as."

Incorrect. It's so odd...no demon would ever claim that he (speaking himself) was Jesus. They probably hate the sound of His name. At any rate, they hate references to His blood. This might seem beside the point, but in actuality it's just one avenue I'm using to refute the concept of what is essentially Univeralism. If they were all the same, with the only difference being their name, it wouldn’t bother them, would it? I think not. (I’m really not taking the “scientific” approach in this particular forum, and I apologize for that, because I recognize that viewpoints may be difficult to grasp if there are borders. On this topic, however, if we are going to dispute who God is, I don’t have a choice. Science can only go so far.)

One cannot be reconciled to God in any other Way but Jesus. Universalism suggests that there are many paths to God as opposed to one. But no matter how devoutly they worship, neither Muslims, nor Buddhists, nor Shinto believers, nor Atheists will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven without Jesus. God Himself said this. The flesh is extremely tempted to remark that this seems narrow, unaccepting/unloving, and dogmatic. Please understand that I am speaking this in love. I do not desire that these people be separated from God. At the same time, God can’t be compromised. (I can present more evidence for this at a later time if you want.) Many will claim that they are the Christ. It is necessary to pursue God hotly that we may not be swayed by convincing arguments. (In other words, consider arguments wholistically--purposefully spelled incorrectly to avoid New Age connotation--with the entire being, not the mind only. And seek God.)

I realize the pagan symbolism, etc. in christmas. I have researched (lightly; I have other things to research in my spare time, which isn’t a lot) the winter solstice and the saturnalia. I have also researched Mr. sol invictus, a.k.a. mithras (for the purpose of this argument, anyway). I don’t celebrate it despite the fact that I am a Christian, and “we” tend to tout the holiday like it’s sacred. It’s not in reference to Jesus. It’s in reference to pagan deities. Now if someone would actually present a convincing argument about it I might be persuaded to change my mind. But it’d need to be an extremely well constructed and insightful argument. Anyway, the point is that it used to be for the worship of pagan deities, and according to the research that I have thus far conducted, the church decided to “Christianize” the holiday so that people would worship the Son (Jesus) instead of the un (mithra).

I obviously need to do more research on the subject, because I don’t have a full perspective, and I am very willing to admit that openly. Looking at mithraism, I can see how people might be mislead. Angels of light look nice, don’t they? But they’re liars. False doctrine is coated with “sweet lies” so as to seem attractive and appealing, but in the end, it is still false. It will not be sweet in the end, but bitter. Having a relationship with Christ and thus being Spirit filled, God gives discernment in such things. We are to follow no other god but Him. I echo Paul: let all those who preach another Gospel be accursed.