Mithras and Christianity

Before i even start this post, i want to say one thing....i am NOT trying to prove anything against christianity.....i am going through a weird time right now with my own religion, not questioning God, because i think i will always believe, without doubt in some higher Being. But just organised religion....this is my problem right now.

So anyway, i started looking things up....and i found a site about Mithras...there seemed to be amazing conincidences between this pagan religion and christianity....and therefore...also Islam. I had heard things before about the Sumerians having a place called Eden....i knew that the name for hell in the Quran (Jahaana)(?)...most likely came from the word Gehenna, which was a city somewhere. I also read that 140 civilisations have a flood story.

So i found this site...(i'll give the link in a minute) and what i really need, is someone in the know...to tell me if this is true. I am aware that stuff you read on the Net is biased sometimes....and it is hard to distinguish truth from fiction.
I am already pretty sure that Christian holidays came from pagan traditions, but what about the rest, what about this, for example:

The Vatican Hill in Rome considered sacred to Peter was previously sacred to Mithras. The cave of the Vatican was a Mithraeum until December 25, 376 AD, the birthday of the sun god, when a city prefect suppressed Mithraism and seized the grotto in the name of Christ. Mithraic artefacts found in the Vatican Grotto were taken over by the Church.

The head of the Mithraic faith was the Pater Patrum, the “Father of Fathers”, who sat in the Vatican cave. The Mithraic Holy father wore a red cap and garment, and a ring, and carried a shepherd’s staff. The head of the Christian faith, the bishop of Rome, adopted the same title and dressed himself in the same manner, becoming the “Papa” or “Father”—the Pope—who subsequently sat literally in the same seat in Rome as the Pater Patrum! The throne of St Peter at Rome is older than the Church. From the carved motifs decorating it, it was Mithraic.

if anyone can help me out here, i would appreciate it. Right now, i am of the opinion that maybe, just maybe, all our books WERE written by men, telling stories of old....but also that there WERE messengers and Prophets, just that some of them have been recorded more than others. If i believe Muhammad and Jesus to have been Prophets, why not Zarathustra?...why not Krishna?....or Buddha?

Help me out...please. Is this stuff written on this site, propaganda, or truth?

www.askwhy.co.uk...


[edited thread title to use proper capitalization -nygdan]

[edit on 10-1-2007 by Nygdan]

Originally posted by geek101
So i found this site...(i'll give the link in a minute) and what i really need, is someone in the know...to tell me if this is true.

But how are you going to know who is in the know? Will you need someone else to inform you as to who is an authority on the subject so that you can listen to them?

www.askwhy.co.uk...
The Vatican Hill in Rome considered sacred to Peter was previously sacred to Mithras. The cave of the Vatican was a Mithraeum until December 25, 376 AD, the birthday of the sun god, when a city prefect suppressed Mithraism and seized the grotto in the name of Christ.

Ok. According to who?

www.askwhy.co.uk...
Mithraic artefacts found in the Vatican Grotto were taken over by the Church.

Then how would anyone know?

www.askwhy.co.uk...
The head of the Mithraic faith was the Pater Patrum, the “Father of Fathers”, who sat in the Vatican cave.

THere was no head to some sort of organized world mithraism. Each cult center would, as I understand it, have a "Father".

www.askwhy.co.uk...
The Mithraic Holy father wore a red cap and garment, and a ring, and carried a shepherd’s staff. The head of the Christian faith, the bishop of Rome, adopted the same title and dressed himself in the same manner,

Ask yourself...so what?

Lets pretend its completely true. The christians adopted pagan customs, signs, sigils, clothes, etc. Heck, they even spoke latin, a pagan language, and lived in pagan cities.

So what?

What does it matter what clothes a person wears? What does it matter if their ritual is similar to other's ritual? Or on the same or similar days? You can't tell what a person beleived based on any of that.

Right now, i am of the opinion that maybe, just maybe, all our books WERE written by men, telling stories of old

Pretty clearly, that is the case.

....but also that there WERE messengers and Prophets, just that some of them have been recorded more than others. If i believe Muhammad and Jesus to have been Prophets, why not Zarathustra?...why not Krishna?....or Buddha?

Why not try bud lite?

Is this stuff written on this site, propaganda, or truth?

Everything is propaganda. Especially stuff on the internet. I can give you some Mithra studies papers, if you'd like. But you're never going to get a handle on these subjects through other people's web pages. Especially ones that blatantly are set up to make people question their faith. Better to look at what the actual Mithra scholars, or christian scholars and muslim scholars, are actually saying, then see how it jives.

[edited to include urls' in ex tags -nygdan]


[edit on 10-1-2007 by Nygdan]

Check out the tag for this thread, "Mithras", there are a lot of ATS threads that deal with him.

Keep in mind also that there is the Mithras worship of the Roman empire, and the Mithra Worship of the Persians. It used to be thought that hte Roman practice was a continuation of the Persian one. But, as I understand it, thats not considered to be the case now.

And, of course, there are lots of places outside of Persia and Rome that worhsipped a figure called Mithras, Mithra, Mitre, etc.

Here is a paper by someone that works with the actual evidence. Its a study of a cup that has figures on it that seem to illuminate us on some mithraic practices and their setup.

www.savefile.com... (file will only be available with that service for a limited time)

If I recall correctly, you are relatively young and thus, perhaps, might be a student at a university. If you are, you are lucky, because you have access not only to the physical library, but also interlibrary loan, and, more importantly, journal archives.

Check to see if you have access to JSTOR articles. IF you do, a search through their archive on "Mithras" will turn up a wealth of really worthwhile information.

[edit on 10-1-2007 by Nygdan]

I found myself arguing against this assertion a few months ago and found this site. While my own faith is not shaken by these arguments, I am finding them more and more accepted as unquestionable truth by those that don’t or won’t believe. Take a look and see what you think.

tektonics.org...

i am compelled to reply to your post; i sense how you are feeling so i hope i can help still that a little bit. i understand yet really all i can offer you is something i'm not usually handing out in bushel-loads; and that is my 'opinion.'

However, i think it might help because i, too, encountered a dilemna myself some years back when i realized that there is not much uniqueness, really, in any religion! And since 'm an information/learning junkie, my only way of dealing with it personally was to investigate. And i did...deep AND wide.

And what i found was not so threatening once i opened my mind to one thing and one thing only: there IS a God...and He is ALIVE.

The rest i personally resigned as 'details' and let go of attachments and did my best not to form new ones. i never was one to worry about which religion was 'right' because i have always felt that the reason there are so many different 'flavors' of seeking God in this world is linked to the same reason we have differing cultures, languages, governments, etc. - and obviously it is the way God intended it to be - He made us differing on the outside but i truly think we are much the same inside and require essentially the same from God and from each other (love and acceptance in order to thrive in our uniqueness while still contributing to the whole); and it is only our methods and practices employed that make it APPEAR to be different.

If we all spoke english and only ate grilled cheese sandwiches then i guess christianity would probably be fine for everyone. But we don't.

AND if God exists outside of time (is immortal) along with our spirits when we aren't in this world, then surely from the very beginning (of our conceptual order of 'time') we have each brought along within us, quite unconsciously and so totally raw in the essence, a bit or hint of the truth of life which goes beyond the grave 'reality' - and so therefore the idea of resurrection was not something suddenly sprung upon this world 2000 years ago....and truly if you look into ancient evidence the idea has been around as long as the idea of death being some kind of end has, too. It's a truth we all inherently KNOW inside but our superficial way of applying it has tricked us for a long time into thinking that there is only one possible answer among a myriad of similar conclusions!

And it's not about 'false messiahs imitating' a truth that was supposedly not revealed yet nor is it about evil spirits trying to mislead us. It is about, and IMO, proves, the underlying concept of life as being permanent and all-inclusive - obviously it must be true if it the idea has been 'haunting' all various religions since the dawn of time!

We get far too attached to our own 'version' of the truth and needing to feel ours is THE one we feel we must somehow disprove the others. And not based on true differences but based on things very comparable to the difference between chocolate and vanilla ice cream: all ice cream is made up of certain ingredients (milk, sugar, eggs) but there are countless varieties on the basic recipe; and the choices are very distinct and so become totally a matter of personal choice.

But ice cream is still ice cream!

No one is 'wrong' for liking rocky road instead of tin roof sundae....why should anyone be wrong for calling God or Christ by a different name when the ideal and desired results are the same for both the individual and all of human society? (which ideally would be: inner peace and social harmony among all men - all religions can provide the basis for that if they aren't held as war banners in the attitude of the inquisition or crusades!) All religions can be either 'good' or 'evil' for the individual but that war is a personal war - and there is a time for every purpose....balance is the result NOT defeat/victory over one's preferred flavor of devil!

One more thing - just generally concerning the idea of 'monotheism' as addressed in that site you linked to.

Duality (good VS evil and God vs the devil) can never purely be considered 'mono' because there are two forces...and even in the canonized Bible it never says that there is a source of Good (GOD) differing from a source of 'evil.' In Isaiah (45 or 49 chapter) it clearly says, from God's perspective, that HE - and HE ALONE - is the source of BOTH. And when it says 'Hear O Israel, the LORD your God is ONE' it is not communicating 'one' as in a solitary and discreet individual God who is separate from man or creation...the word used is 'echad' which means, essentially 'united.' God is ONE in intent, action, purpose, and ideal.

Unity is something that can and will include all men...in God...and yet still God will still be just ONE. I tend to like a new word much better than 'monotheism.'

Unitheism!

Originally posted by Nygdan

Lets pretend its completely true. The christians adopted pagan customs, signs, sigils, clothes, etc. Heck, they even spoke latin, a pagan language, and lived in pagan cities.

So what?

What does it matter what clothes a person wears? What does it matter if their ritual is similar to other's ritual? Or on the same or similar days? You can't tell what a person beleived based on any of that.

You're right in the sense that none of that stuff you mentioned matters. However, it DOES matter if one religion is claiming to be a revealed religion if some of what has been revealed was known long before.
One of the greatest hypocrisies i found was muslims who criticised the Bible and specifically the story of Jesus, claiming it to be taken from the Mithra story....and yet fail to see that the Quran tells the same story!

I found out also that the history of the Quran is not how i first thought. Of course it is hard to tell lies from truth, especially on the Net, so i have been using a fair amount of logic too. I think as a muslim, i have heard so much myths about the Quran in particular, that i WOULD like to study this more, to find out if certain things are true.

Thanks for your comments and also for that file which i will read in a minute. As for your comment about me being young

Not really unfortunately....well, not that old either but definitely not that young (35)
But thanks for the help...i will keep searching

Originally posted by queenannie38
i am compelled to reply to your post; i sense how you are feeling so i hope i can help still that a little bit. i understand yet really all i can offer you is something i'm not usually handing out in bushel-loads; and that is my 'opinion.'

Thank you so much for that post queenannie.....its nice to know there are others in the same boat.
I DO believe in God, no doubt....i dont think i could ever not believe in something like that.
And i agree totally about the "details".....when i first started studying islam, i let go of the hadiths (the man made extras)....and then i found myself with another problem...the translations of the quran....it was obvious to even me, as a non arabic speaker that there were words that had been mistranslated....so then you think:
"well, then how do i know which is correct?"
And then you think...God says the Quran is easy to understand yet some verses, which you think SHOULD be easy....turn out to have various translations.
And thats when i started thinking....hey, what if i just believe in God, treat people with kindness and be humane, and honour commitments...and maybe thats enough.

So thank you for your post....it was well written and conveyed what i am feeling right now.

Originally posted by geek101
Thank you so much for that post queenannie.....its nice to know there are others in the same boat.

I'm glad you were able to use my words!

Thinking about boats - a song by The Police, called 'One World':

One world is enough For all of us
One world is enough For all of us

It's a subject we rarely mention
But when we do we have this little invention
By pretending they're a different world from me
I show my responsibility
One world is enough For all of us
One world is enough For all of us

The Third World breathes our air tomorrow
We live on the time we borrow
In our world there's no time for sorrow
In their world there is no tomorrow
One world is enough For all of us
One world is enough For all of us

Lines are drawn upon the world
Before we get our flags unfurled
Whichever one we pick
It's just a self deluding trick
One world is enough For all of us
One world is enough For all of us

I don't want to bring a sour note
Remember this before you vote
We can all sink or we all float
'Cos we're all in the same big boat
One world is enough For all of us
It may seem a million miles away
But it gets a little closer everyday
One world...

© The Police

"well, then how do i know which is correct?"

Another sand trap!

Simple solution: Without a 'right' there is no longer a 'wrong!'

Problem solved!

Those that must insist that is not a solution are part of the problem for they are desiring to be 'right' more than they are desiring to correct what is presently wrong with our world. I gladly forfeit my right to being 'correct' in order that not one single soul will be declared as 'in error.' Small sacrifice, HUGE reward.

And thats when i started thinking....hey, what if i just believe in God, treat people with kindness and be humane, and honour commitments...and maybe thats enough.

Truly - if you do what you do to the best of your ability and honor truth and love eachother...what MORE can any of us do? And be successful?

We can only just be true.
True to truth.
True to our God.
True to love.
True to ourselves.

Nothing false will stand too long on a foundation that is truth.

(Christ is my own personal 'truth' but that is still just an outer covering for a universally applicable ideal - Christ (a rose) by any other name smells just as sweet! And loves just as fully and truthfully!)

God bless you~!

There is much truth on the site that you linked. As Nygdan pointed out it is a site to get you to question your faith.

The site points out that religions come from Zoroastrianism. This is true. Zoroaster is Nimrod of Babylon. There is another prophet Zoroaster from Persia in 550 BC but he is not the origianal as evidence proves.

The religion went to India and is the root of Hinduism, though there are plenty of attempts to prove otherwise. This site gives the truth on the origin of religion. From Hinduism came Taoism, Buddhism, Shintoism etc, etc, etc, etc.. You will find the sun, moon and stars in all of these religions. Japan is the land of the rising sun etc. etc.

Zoroastrianism also went to Egypt where Nimrod who is Zoroaster is known as Osiris. Babylonian Nimrod, Semiramis and Tammuz are Egyptian Osiris, Isis and Horus. Nimrod at his death became Baal, who is Ra in Egypt.

December 25 is the birthday of the sun god Baal and the rebirth of Nimrod as Tammuz. Dec 25 is also the birthday of Horus, Crishna, Mirtha, Osiris, Hercules, Dionysus, Baahis, Indra, Attis, Sol Invictus and Budda off the top of my head.........there are more. Jesus was not born on Dec. 25, it is the Deceivers way to deceive. Baal is Satan by the way.

These are some of the sun gods.....there are more. If you want to check moon gods you will find that Allah is a moon god. You will see the crescent moon on masques and you will find moon calanders etc. etc, etc, etc.

All of this is sent by the master of deceit to blind the world from the truth.
The Catholic Church is Mystery Babylon of revelations. When the Roman empire worshippers of Sol Invictus the unconquerable sun couldn't kill all the Christians they simpley backed the Bishops of Rome and formed the Catholic church. It was always an extension of the Roman Empire.

Not only was Jesus birthday changed to Dec 25th, the day of worship, the Sabbath, was changed to SUNday in honor of Baal which means Lord.........hence the Lords Day. The things within the Catholic church come from Egypt which came from Babylon. The Catholics make the sign of the cross which is really an upside down 'T' in honor of Tammuz. (though they don't know this) The forty days of Lent are forty days of morning the death of Tammuz who was killed by a wild boar.
..........hence eating a ham for Easter. The round communion cakes come from Egypt and Babylon and signify the sun. The host is put on the altar in a monstrance which is a sunburst.

We can track this stuff all over the world. What is an obelisk? Why is there one in St. Peters sq. (the catholic explanation is crock) Why is the Washington monument an obelisk. Why is Isis, lady liberty sitting in New York harbor. Isis is Semiramis as is Ishtar, Astre, Estora, Diana, Madonna, etc.etc, etc, etc.

To conclude.

Jesus is the prophesied Messiah who died for the sins of man. Don't let religion or the deceiver fool you from this truth. You are not saved by good works or having more good works than bad. That's religion.....from the deceiver. You are saved by faith in the Messiah who paid the price for your sins.




[edit on 11-1-2007 by Sun Matrix]

Originally posted by queenannie38


Unitheism!

Unitheism - also know as the Antichrists one world religion.

sun matrix........i dont believe that whole thing about Allah being a moon god, but apart from that.....nice post.

There is one thing i have been wondering about in the past couple of days.....after looking at timelines of religions and ancient books.
One would think, logically, that if Adam was the first man on earth, then the earliest religions...would surely have been closer to monotheism. But thats not what you find. indeed, most early scripts deal with many gods, animism, or just some belief in a supernatural.
So i cant figure this out. Surely, if the FIRST man came directly from God Himself, then why do none of the early scriptures reflect this?

I am not losing my faith by the way. But as i said before, being a muslim (pretty much the same as being a Christian, i guess), you tend to hear things and accept them. Things like the Quran has scientific miracles in it etc.
So i do think it important to study and to find out for oneself if these things are true.

And after looking into things for even such a short space of time, i can see that things are not as they seemed. But that question.....the one about monotheism and early religions.....is the one thats bugging me right now.

Doesnt anyone else think that they should have been less diluted?....more focused on God as One Being? And doesnt anyone else think it odd that this is not the way things are?

From what I've read, it seems most ancient religions, while being pantheistic, usually had a 'Top God' or 'Sky God'- One that they believed was unreachable, hence needed all these specialised 'mini-gods' to lord over specific things like fertility, hunting, etc.

It's interesting that you seem to take both sides of the argument and oppose them both. On one hand you are wondering why there are so many similarities between world religions, and on the other you are wondering why all these different cultures had there own diluted religions.

If one is taking a Quranic viewpoint, I believe there is a passage that tells that there were many more prophets than mentioned by name in the Quran. There is also a passage that mentions that every 'people' were sent a messenger. So, while the messages of the early prophets might be specific to their particular cultures, it would be plausible that there is a overall similarity between them.

Living in Asia, I've met a very large number of muslims who believe that Zoroastar and Buddha were actually Prophets of God (in fact, if you take a look at the Zoroastrian creed, aside from a monotheistic strain, you'll notice remarkable similarity to Islam: "I proclaim myself a devotee of Mazda, a follower of Zarathustra". Ahura Mazda is believed by Parsis be the "One Uncreated Creator of All").

If one is taking a scientific viewpoint, the earliest scriptures found (or any remenants of the first religions) came a long, long, long time after the first Homo Sapiens appeared on this planet

[edit on 12-1-2007 by babloyi]

Originally posted by babloyiIf one is taking a Quranic viewpoint, I believe there is a passage that tells that there were many more prophets than mentioned by name in the Quran. There is also a passage that mentions that every 'people' were sent a messenger.

hi Babloyi.......i dont know if i'm taking both sides of the argument....maybe i am, maybe i am just wholly confused right now

That verse in the Quran you mention, i have been thinking about that too. It's sometimes easy to see who the messengers from Eastern countries were (Buddha, Zarathustra, etc)......but what about England?....Europe?....America?

Originally posted by babloyi
There is also a passage that mentions that every 'people' were sent a messenger. So, while the messages of the early prophets might be specific to their particular cultures, it would be plausible that there is a overall similarity between them.

I'd think that this has to be the case in later religions, such as islam and christianity, which rely heavily on judaism, but aren't mere sects of judaism.

And if Abraham can be a prophet of god for a muslim or christian, but not himself a muslim or christian, then indeed, why not people like Zoroaster, Mani, and the like? Especially for Islam, there is the idea that the other prophets were holy, but not perfect, and thus their messages were corrupted. So Jesus is a great prophet, but the christians have erred, and the result is christianity. Mohammed ends up getting the 'perfected' message from god, and thus there is no more need for any further prophets. So why not Mani or Zoroaster or even Mazdak also being prophets of the one god, but their message being corrupted by the people in their error.

And there is no reason why this shouldn't work for Christians too. Abraham is a holy prophet of god, but didn't accept christ, wasn't baptized in christ nor received communion, etc. And according to christians, christ existed since the begining, so why no revelation in the begining? Even Adam isn't are of a Jesus, nor Enoch, nor Eljah, and they 'walk with god'. So if it makes 'sense' to god to have a period of time in which there is no revelation of christ, well, why limit god to man's linear concept of space and time at all? So why not have prophets after jesus, who were prophets of the Trinitarian God, but who's message simply didn't concern the messiah and Jesus, such as Zoroaster, Mani, and even Mohammed? If the Jews can have a special relationship with the Christian religion, why not other religions?

[edit on 12-1-2007 by Nygdan]

But, getting back to the Mithras Cults, this is a movement that doesn't have a prophet.

As far as similarities to christianity, the worshippers in the Mithraeum would, apparently, circumambulate the mithraeum as part of their worship. They'd do this apparently as a representation of the movement of the Sun and his associates through the heavens, with different points in the mithraeum representing different points in the heavens or different aspects of the night sky. This could be said to be similar to the movement of the christian faithful through the Stations of the Cross.

But, at the same time, can anyone REALLY say that, thus, individuals that walk through the stations of the cross aren't christians, and that they are devotees of Mithras, a god that they've probably never even heard of?

Afterall, its a ritual practice, not a theology.

Mithraic Theology is different from christian theology. Christianity is in effect an extension of Judaism. Its like the Ba'hai relative to Islam, the messiah/mahdi has come and revealed the truth about god. Jesus's sacrifice saves man from his state of mortal sin, and will permit entrance into heaven at the End of Days.

Mithras doesn't 'save'. There is no state of 'sin' that man needs to be saved from. When the christian goes through the stations of the cross, they are paying attention to the events in the passion, the crucifixtion of christ and the central act that defines christianity. When they are eating their bread and drinking their wine, they are doing it because christ commanded them to and they beleive that it is a magico-religious act that sets them right with god. When the Mithras worshippers paraded around the 'cave', they were re-enacting the movement of the sun through the solistitial gates, and thus recapitulating the movement of the soul through the universe, from the distant heavens, into the material world, and then back out of it. When they had their communal meal of bread and wine, they were re-enacting a meal that Mithras had with the gods in the heavens themselves.
The theology is simply different.

Besides, if we want to say that the pre-existence of other religions upon which a new one is based demonstrates that the new religion is 'false' or 'flawed' or 'just a copy', then I don't think that there's a single religion anywhere that we can really say is 'original'. Islamd and Christianity directly collapse into Judaism, no matter what is going on with Mithras. And the Roman mithras worship was pre-existed by persian and indian mithras worship. And then all of that was pre-existed by zoroaster. Even Judaism, upon examination, begins to look more like a medeteranean "paganisic" religion, with a cult center in jerusalem, idols to Asherah in the temple, burning incense before bronze serpent idols in the holy of holies, magic amulets, and a panopoly of angels and demons presided over by a big father god in the sky or on the mountaintop.

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
There is much truth on the site that you linked. As Nygdan pointed out it is a site to get you to question your faith.

It reads more like a site to get Christians to adopt societal values. I have some dislike for sites that proselytise for something which they won't discuss by throwing stones.

The site points out that religions come from Zoroastrianism. This is true.

Not really.

Zoroastrianism also went to Egypt where Nimrod who is Zoroaster is known as Osiris.

Such a strange assertion would require some evidence of such a thing, which is not forthcoming. Since Osiris predates Zoroaster rather substantially, this cannot be right.

December 25 is the birthday of the sun god Baal and the rebirth of Nimrod as Tammuz. Dec 25 is also the birthday of Horus, Crishna, Mirtha, Osiris, Hercules, Dionysus, Baahis, Indra, Attis, Sol Invictus and Budda off the top of my head.........there are more.

We would need to see some primary sources to back up all this. I can tell you for a fact that none such exist for Mithras -- the idea is merely modern disinformation, of a pretty crude kind.

Sol Invictus did have a festival on 25 Dec. This is first documented in 354 AD, lots of 'net assertion notwithstanding.

When the Roman empire worshippers of Sol Invictus the unconquerable sun couldn't kill all the Christians they simpley backed the Bishops of Rome and formed the Catholic church.

Again so strange an assertion requires some primary evidence to be produced. Surely?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Originally posted by roger_pearse
Such a strange assertion would require some evidence of such a thing, which is not forthcoming. Since Osiris predates Zoroaster rather substantially, this cannot be right.

Can you provide rough dates for Zoroaster and Osiris

Originally posted by Sun Matrix

Originally posted by roger_pearse
Such a strange assertion would require some evidence of such a thing, which is not forthcoming. Since Osiris predates Zoroaster rather substantially, this cannot be right.

Can you provide rough dates for Zoroaster and Osiris

I will treat this curious query as sincere. My answer:

Use google!

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Originally posted by Sun Matrix

Originally posted by roger_pearse
Such a strange assertion would require some evidence of such a thing, which is not forthcoming. Since Osiris predates Zoroaster rather substantially, this cannot be right.

Can you provide rough dates for Zoroaster and Osiris

I already knew that you couldn't provide the answer to my request, that's why I asked. I also understand the timeline inconsistencies and the reasons for such. The prophet Zoroaster lived in the 6th and 7th century BC and yet........................

Zoroastrianism is considered among the oldest monotheistic religions and is named for its prophet Zarathushtra - in Greek, Zoroaster. Tradition holds that the faith was founded around 8000 B.C., though there is wide disagreement among scholars about the faith’s true historical origins; many say it perhaps emerged around 1200 B.C. or even centuries later.

www.religionnewsblog.com...

There is no certainty at all about the age in which Zoroaster lived. Some say that Zoroaster lived about 6000 B.C. Others maintain that he flourished in the middle of the seventh century B.C.

www.dlshq.org...

I suggest you do a little google yourself

Originally posted by roger_pearse

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
When the Roman empire worshippers of Sol Invictus the unconquerable sun couldn't kill all the Christians they simpley backed the Bishops of Rome and formed the Catholic church.

Again so strange an assertion requires some primary evidence to be produced. Surely?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Was Constantine Emperor of Rome a high priest of Sol Invictus the Unconquerable sun?

Did the Romans try to kill all the Christians?

Did Constantine get a sign to conquer under the sign of the cross as evidenced by his army?

Did Constantine back the Bishops of Rome?

Was Constantine Pontifex Maximus

Are the Popes now called Pontifex Maximus?

TRY GOOGLE