Why People Doubt Jesus Existed

[Agnostic75]

We have to be sceptical.

Of course. Earl Doherty is skeptical. Do you intend to read and critique his latest book? Surely you know that he is not a pushover, and that he has spent decades studying the mythical Jesus theory.

 

[Agnostic75]

If a God inspired the Bible, the main reason why more people do not believe that he exists is because he deliberately withholds evidence that would convince more people to believe that he exists.

 

[logician]

Really? I never said that Jesus would not have resembled what was in the Bible. I stated that the Bible is not a literal account of Jesus's life, and that is (as you're showing) where a large problem occurs.

Lets look at Augustus, or even Julius Caesar. Do we believe everything that was written about them? Not at all. We discern what is factual and historical, and what are later mythical additions as well as exaggerations. Based on what you're saying, I can then assume that Buddha never existed, Augustus never existed, Alexander the Great never existed, and so on. Because honestly, most people who look at their ancient biographies, and the stories that ended up being created about them would see that the historical figures do not match exactly the biographical characters. By what you're saying, that means they did not exist.

There is a difference between a historical Jesus, and a Biblical Jesus. They are the same person, but a distinction seems to be needed. The historical Jesus looks at what Jesus would have been like as a historical person. The Biblical Jesus adds mystical and supernatural qualities to a historical person, which was a common practice. It should be logical that we can discard those mystical and supernatural qualities as we do so with a plethora of other historical characters.

To compare the historicity of Julius Ceasar to the historicity of the supposed Jesus is like comparing apples and oranges. Theres are reams of accounts of the life of Julius Ceasar written by eyewitness historians, as well as his own writings, while, we have nothing of he sort for the supposed Jesus. You start of with the assumption that there was a historical Jesus, when there is absolutely no hard evidence that such a man existed.

 

[IfUDontKnowMeByNow]

Reply to Roger -
You lose all credibility in your argument by calling known Mithraic text as fake which means by the same standards we can say that about any text you claim on your argument because you must keep an even standard. We can conclude by your own standard that the NT is fake, which we all know came from Q which was burned by the followers of John. We also find over 50,000 errors in the Nt proving once more the NT is a charade. I can also test you to prove your knowledge of the texts and cult figure is also phoney. Shall we precede with the simple test, I assure you it has easy questions that a third grader could answer.

 

[IfUDontKnowMeByNow]

to back what Logician said:

1] Jakob Burkhardt considers the wily Eusebius to be "the first thoroughly
dishonest historian of antiquity." He elaborates on his character as follows:
"After many falsifications, suppressions, and fictions which have been proved
in his work, he has no right to be put forward as a decisive authority, and
to these faults we must add a consciously perverse manner of expression,
deliberate bombast, and many equivocations, so that the reader stumbles upon
trapdoors and pitfalls in the most important passages." (Leben Konstantins,
2d edition, 1860, pp. 307, 335,
347.).........................................................................

..............[2] Vossius, in the 16th century, possessed a manuscript of Josephus which contained no mention of Jesus.






3] One of the historical writers who was alive during the supposed period of Jesus was Philo Judaeus.
John E. Remsburg, in The Christ, writes:


"Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era, and lived until
long after the reputed death of Christ. He wrote an account of the Jews covering the entire time that Christ is said to have existed on earth. He was living in or near Jerusalem when Christ's miraculous birth and the Herodian massacre occurred. He was there when Christ made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He was there when the crucifixion with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness, and resurrection of the dead took
place when Christ himself rose from the dead, and in the presence of many witnesses ascended into heaven. These marvelous events which must have filled the world with amazement, had they really occurred, were unknown to him. It was Philo who developed the doctrine of the Logos, or Word, and although this Word incarnate dwelt in that very land and in the presence of multitudes revealed himself and demonstrated his divine powers, Philo saw it not."

4] There was a historian named Justus of Tiberius who was a native of Galilee, the homeland of Jesus. He wrote a history covering the time when Christ supposedly lived. This history is now lost, but a ninth-century Christian
scholar named Photius had read it and wrote: "He [Justus] makes not the least mention of the appearance of Christ, of what things happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he did." (Photius' Bibliotheca, code 33)


This would be like Matt Drudge Living next door to the ex-president Bill Clinton as the ex-president rapes neighbor's dog in full public view then drives his car over another neighbors cat and runs the car through into the living room jumps out naked does a Polka playing the saxophone and he never writes about it happening.



Jesus is simply not recorded in any historical reference in his day but the characters used to make his image were historically mentioned and they were all failed liberators.

 

[IfUDontKnowMeByNow]

For Roger:
Why did the church compile the Nazarene cult with the Mithraic mystery religion and sun cult worship cults? Answer: the same reason your preachers and evangelists teach it would happen in our day, a compiling of one world religion under Rome's control and authority as they did with many cultures they swallowed up their religion and claimed to be the new authority and temple for those religions.
Ironically Christianity itself teaches this would happen as it did in their age because it uses John of Patmos accounting it was happening in his era.
In Rev 13:13 they would make an image of a man and give it breath so that it may seem to speak (in other words give it claimed words to make it seem historical the authority spoke through the image they created).
Rome converged all cults and religions into one new world religion so they could be authority of all those sects and cults to collect taxes (now in the form of tithes) and to sumbit the masses to their whims. They could also now enter any kingdom without revolt through the guise of religion. Thus the Harlet slept with many kingdoms and set it’s foot in many kingdoms without revolt under the guise of religion and idol they gave breath and spoke through.

They converged all the mystery religions and sun cults and one of those sun cults was the Hanotzrim cult themselves who in John Apochryphon admit borrowing from Zoroaster.

When you read the Mandeans (descendant from followers of John) description of their G0d and read the NT it reeks of Physical light worship, they actually believed their god was a mystical physical light ray between the sun and earth. This is all over the NT and Mandean text similar in nature and thus easy to converge with Baal worship Mithraism etc all which worshiped the same concept of sun light as their source creator.

Just look at all the visitations of Jesus with Paul and Constantine the vision was always a phosphorus (luciferous) light calling itself Jesus.

Proof of Nazarene sun light worship:
Judas Thomas, spoke, saying, "Lord, why does this visible light that shines
on behalf of men rise and set?"
The savior said, "O blessed Thomas, of course this visible light shines on
your behalf - not in order that you remain here, but rather that you might
come forth - and whenever all the elect abandon bestiality, then this light
will withdraw up to its essence, and its essence will welcome it, since it
is a good servant." ....For if the sun does not shine upon these bodies, they will wither and perish just like weeds or grass."

Similar verses are throughout the New Testament like in John 11:9
Luke 1:78 & 16:8, and Philip 30.
Lucifer (I.e. Light-bearer); ray of Light or illumination of Light between
the sun and earth, sun worship, the sun god, or energy radiating from the
sun; "FIRE" also called Kundalini force thus Matthew 3:11 this spirit is the force of energy between the sun and the earth which they thought controled us;

When *Jesus* stole Johns following by having him set up as the Mandeans record it,
he also borrowed his Zoroaster influences and teachings.
Jesus taught this kind of fantasy mythical light that sounded inspiring and magical rather then rational like the power of spiritual light (truth and
Knoweledge) and he probably got this from John or from both John and influences when fleeing to Egypt.

*note* I am referring to only one of the many characters who made up the image called Jesus. Jesus was not actually a single historical figure but a converged character icon just as the religions were converged so to was the character Paul and Jesus. Rome had no trouble fitting this sun worship Greek hades like teaching cult into their similar sun worshiping underworld religions. They all meshed well but when creating a converged character they had to borrow from all and give it a new name and era and birthdate they all shared DEC 25 winter solstice.
That's why it's easy to find these sun symbolism and pagan imitations in everything.
People are also easy confused thinking Jesus was real because they used real people to make his image. Propaganda uses enough truth to make people never suspect the whole lie.

 

[Quagmire]

To compare the historicity of Julius Ceasar to the historicity of the supposed Jesus is like comparing apples and oranges. Theres are reams of accounts of the life of Julius Ceasar written by eyewitness historians, as well as his own writings, while, we have nothing of he sort for the supposed Jesus. You start of with the assumption that there was a historical Jesus, when there is absolutely no hard evidence that such a man existed.

I'm guessing Oberon purposely used an example like Ceaser because if he had used one with less verification for his existence you would have just said, "Ha! We don't know if so-and-so existed either"!

Anyway, you managed to completely miss his point.

 

[Oberon]

To compare the historicity of Julius Ceasar to the historicity of the supposed Jesus is like comparing apples and oranges. Theres are reams of accounts of the life of Julius Ceasar written by eyewitness historians, as well as his own writings, while, we have nothing of he sort for the supposed Jesus. You start of with the assumption that there was a historical Jesus, when there is absolutely no hard evidence that such a man existed.

Your basic lack of understanding of the nature of ancient historical evidence is a major problem for you in this debate. Let's look at a well-known an unchallenged historical figure like Augustus Caesar. Using similar tactics the mythicists use, we could "prove" he never existed either.

1) Historians wrote biographies of him

Mythicist: But those histories contain errors. In fact, they even contain miracles. He was claimed to be the son of god by a virgin birth. Clearly, those "biographies" are merely myths, and can't be trusted. Augustus was probably a mythical emperor composed of other emperors in an attempt to legitimize the empire.

2) But we have statues and other physical evidence (inscriptions, etc) proving he existed.

Mythicist: We have statues, coins, and inscriptions of Zeus and other gods, so this proves nothing.

And so on

 

[dogsgod]

I'm guessing Oberon purposely used an example like Ceaser because if he had used one with less verification for his existence you would have just said, "Ha! We don't know if so-and-so existed either"!

Anyway, you managed to completely miss his point.

Comparing Caesar to a Jesus character is a straw man argument and a very stupid one.

 

[Oberon]

Reply to Roger -
You lose all credibility

You have already lost all credibility by continually writing flawed or outright false statements about history and historical sources. And you have thus far failed to actually link to any primary sources, or provide citations to these texts, or provide citations of primary sources, or respond to my citations of sources contradicting your claims.

in your argument by calling known Mithraic text as fake

Then link to the actual texts you are referring to, or cite them in such a way that they can be verified. So far, you have quoted without citing sources.

which we all know came from Q which was burned by the followers of John.

This keeps getting more and more insane. Q is a hypothetical source used by Matthew and Luke, not the entire NT. And where do you get the idea that the followers of John burned it?

"Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era, and lived until
long after the reputed death of Christ.

Another person unacquainted with history rehashes the "why didn't so and so write about Jesus" argument.

Let's look at Philo. We know that a contemporary of Jesus, John the Baptist, was an important figure in Jesus' day. In addition to the gospels, John the Baptist is also discussed in Josephus. Yet he is mentioned no where in Philo. Why not? Because this happens frequently.

We have Paul's own letters, in addition to Acts discussing him. Yet he isn't mentioned by Philo or Josephus. The Teacher of Righteousness was CLEARLY importnat to the Qumran community, but isn't mentioned anywhere else. Hillel, one of the most important figures in the rabbinic literature, isn't mentioned at all by Josephus.

See a pattern developing? Time and time again historians or authors don't mention people who were important to some group or other, even their own. This doesn't mean anything.

There was a historian named Justus of Tiberius who was a native of Galilee, the homeland of Jesus. He wrote a history covering the time when Christ supposedly lived. This history is now lost, but a ninth-century Christian
scholar named Photius had read it and wrote: "He [Justus] makes not the least mention of the appearance of Christ, of what things happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he did." (Photius' Bibliotheca, code 33)

I'm guessing you never actually read Photius' Bibliotheca, code 33, in which states "Justus's style is very concise, and he omits a great deal that is of the utmost importance."

Jesus is simply not recorded in any historical reference in his day but the characters used to make his image were historically mentioned and they were all failed liberators.

There are several references by people born or living shortly after Jesus' mission. Some are more debated (e.g. the rabbinic sources, Mara bar Sarapion) and some are written by those alive for the beginning of the christian church but wrote at the beginning of the second century (e.g. Tacitus and Seutonius).

However, Josephus references Jesus twice. The longer reference has clearly been altered. Although most scholars believe Josephus actually said something about Jesus here, some believe the whole passage is an interpolation. However, there is a second and shorter reference which is clearly not an alteration by Christians.

Why did the church compile the Nazarene cult with the Mithraic mystery religion and sun cult worship cults?

You continue not to get it. The mithras savior dying and resurrecting cult wasn't around until after probably the entire NT (and at least all the letters of Paul and Mark) had been written. As I said before:

"As we know them, the Mithraic mysteries are a Roman phenomenon that flourished in the Roman Empire from the second century C.E. on." p. 199.

Meyer, M.W. ed. (1987). The Ancient Mysteries. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

"The Roman cult of Mithras, documented from the end of the first century CE, spread widely throughout the Roman empire over the next three hundred years." p. 188.

Martin, L. H. (2005). Performativity, Narrativity, and Cognition: “Demythologizing” the Roman Cult of Mithras. In Braun, Willi (Ed). Rhetorics and Realities In Early Christianities. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, pp. 187-217.

"A second impouls behind the growth of pagan monotheism was the influence of Christianity itself. Jan Bremmer has noted how, from the second century onwards, apparently new mystery religions appeared, devoted to gods who die and resurrect, such as Atis, or act as personal saviors, such as Mithras." p. 89

Hutton, R. (2003). Witches, Druids, and King Author. London: Hambledon and London.


"Archaeologically, the cult of Mithras first appears in the Roman world in the Flavian-Trajanic period [well after Jesus], when traces of it (inscriptions, mithraea) are suddenly found at several widely separated sites, in Rome, Germania Superior, Raetia/Noricum, Moesia Inferior, Judea. The contexts are those we might expect: the military, the provincial toll system, harbor towns; the big surprise is Alcimus at Rome, the rich slave-bailiff of Tiberius Claudius Livianus, praetorian prefect from ad 102 (ILS 4199). No less striking is the fact that the first clear literary reference dates from the same period: the poet Statius refers to Mithras, identified with solar Apollo, “twisting the recalcitrant horns in a Persian cave,” Persaei sub rupibus antri/indignata sequi torquentem cornua Mithram (Thebaid 719f.), a passage probably written in the mid-80s. p 395."

Gordon, Richard. (2007) Institutionalized Religious Options. In Rüpke, Jörg. (ed). Companion to Roman Religion. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 392-405.

I could go on and on.

 

[dogsgod]

As it relates to coins and other physical evidence we can quote Richard Carrier, an historian that does not misrepresent mythicists, nor does he commit straw man fallacies to make a point:

Consider what we have for Caesar. In 47 B.C. coins were struck by the government of Antioch (which Caesar had just liberated from Pompey) declaring it to be "year two of the era of Caesar." Cicero's letters confirm that Caesar's conquest of the Roman Empire began in 49 B.C., two years before this coin was struck. This is corroborating physical evidence. Comparably, if we had coins struck in Damascus in 33 A.D. declaring "year two of the era of Jesus Christ," that would be physical evidence corroborating the resurrection of Jesus.


We have other coins struck by Caesar himself during the war to pay his soldiers, then coins struck celebrating Caesar's victory over Rome (and then coins struck by Brutus celebrating his assassination of Caesar). In a similar fashion, inscriptions document Caesar's victory over Rome, his capture of Italy, and his founding of colonies for veterans of the war there. We could certainly have had similar inscriptions by or about Jesus erected during his life, or shortly thereafter, documenting his miracles in life or appearances after death, or the subsequent commitments of the Church, and so on. But we don't.

 

[Oberon]

Comparing Caesar to a Jesus character is a straw man argument and a very stupid one.

Incorrect. Because again one can use the same types of arguments used by mythicists to disprove virtually anyone from ancient history. All the histories and biographies we have are copies of copies of copies, most dating from the middle ages, compared to the NT, where the earliest fragment dates about 30-50 years or so after the original was written, and complete copies turn up a few centuries later (rather than over a thousand years later). All ancient histories, to varying degrees, contain myth, rumor, speculation, bias, hearsay, inaccuracies, etc. There is always a way to twist and turn the evidence to concoct a story which can fool the ignorant. The difference between people like Socrates or Augustus Caesar and Jesus is that Jesus is still a relevant figure. If there were a billion plus people worshipping socrates as a divinity, you could be sure that book after book would be written by amateurs on how he never existed.

As it relates to coins and other physical evidence we can quote Richard Carrier, an historian that does not misrepresent mythicists, nor does he commit straw man fallacies to make a point:

Consider what we have for Caesar. In 47 B.C. coins were struck by the government of Antioch (which Caesar had just liberated from Pompey) declaring it to be "year two of the era of Caesar." Cicero's letters confirm that Caesar's conquest of the Roman Empire began in 49 B.C., two years before this coin was struck. This is corroborating physical evidence. Comparably, if we had coins struck in Damascus in 33 A.D. declaring "year two of the era of Jesus Christ," that would be physical evidence corroborating the resurrection of Jesus.

Again, we have coins depicting gods. Clearly, coins depict mythical figures. As for Cicero's letters (which are copies of copies of copies, failing Logician's standards of good evidence), Cicero was clearly a biased individual, and his writings contain rumor and hearsay and so forth. Additionally, it is well known that many authors wrote letters in the name of other earlier people much later. So all these letters could be forgeries. After all, we don't have the originals.

 

[fallingblood]

To compare the historicity of Julius Ceasar to the historicity of the supposed Jesus is like comparing apples and oranges. Theres are reams of accounts of the life of Julius Ceasar written by eyewitness historians, as well as his own writings, while, we have nothing of he sort for the supposed Jesus. You start of with the assumption that there was a historical Jesus, when there is absolutely no hard evidence that such a man existed.

You completely miss the point. First, you are taking a very small aspect of my previous post and making it into something that it isn't. It is not comparing apples and oranges. It is making a clear argument. I will rephrase it.

We do not accept everything written about Julius Caesar to be literal or historical. We know certain aspects of his life were nothing more than myths. Yet we do not throw out those entire documents that also claim those myths. Why is that? Is it not because we are aware of how it was common to add myth to a biography? There becomes a double standard then. One is willing to remove the mythology of figures when it suits them. That was my point.

Instead of looking at that point, simply that we dismiss the mythology in many ancient accounts instead of simply labeling them as fakes or false, you tried to make it into something it was not.

There is a distinction between people such as Julius Caesar and Jesus. In the case of Caesar, he was very important. He was upper class, he was the ruler, and what he did made a difference at that time.

Look at Jesus. He was a peasant from a small town that made very little difference. He was not of much importance in his early life. His ministry was short lived, and never made a massive difference until much later after he had already died. His level of importance was not very high. Does that not make a difference? It certainly does.

 

[fallingblood]

Comparing Caesar to a Jesus character is a straw man argument and a very stupid one.

And what you just did here is nothing more than a logical fallacy.

I can do it as well. Saying that my argument is nothing more than a straw man argument is very stupid. Does that add anything though? Not at all.

The problem is that you, as well as Logician, instead of actually seeing any point, took one idea and ran with it. Instead of proceeding in a manner that may have added something worthwhile to the discussion, both of you proceeded to try to state that what I did was some illogical rant.

Maybe instead of responding again with a logical fallacy, you will actually submit something worthwhile, as in show why what I said was incorrect.

 

[roger_pearse]

We have to be sceptical.

Of course. Earl Doherty is skeptical. Do you intend to read and critique his latest book? Surely you know that he is not a pushover, and that he has spent decades studying the mythical Jesus theory.

Please don't quote mine me like this: I did not discuss any of this drivel. The word "sceptical" does not have the meaning you suppose. It refers to questioning things, particularly those we find attractive, not merely questioning things we find inconvenient, as you suppose.

The punishment for not doing so, by the way, is believing in twaddle like Doherty. I hope you are getting a nice commission for plugging his book. Every conman plays that game.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

[roger_pearse]

Incorrect. Because again one can use the same types of arguments used by mythicists to disprove virtually anyone from ancient history. All the histories and biographies we have are copies of copies of copies, most dating from the middle ages, compared to the NT, where the earliest fragment dates about 30-50 years or so after the original was written, and complete copies turn up a few centuries later (rather than over a thousand years later). All ancient histories, to varying degrees, contain myth, rumor, speculation, bias, hearsay, inaccuracies, etc. There is always a way to twist and turn the evidence to concoct a story which can fool the ignorant. The difference between people like Socrates or Augustus Caesar and Jesus is that Jesus is still a relevant figure. If there were a billion plus people worshipping socrates as a divinity, you could be sure that book after book would be written by amateurs on how he never existed.

This is correct. There is no real doubt that Jesus of Nazareth existed. Christianity may not be true; but it isn't false because of crap like "he never existed".

The whole argument is a piece of fraud, designed to undermine Christian claims by diverting the argument onto something where endless objections may be raised by the ignorant, with the intention of sowing confusion. It's polemically useful, if you're not very honest, and has no downside.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

[footprints]

To compare the historicity of Julius Ceasar to the historicity of the supposed Jesus is like comparing apples and oranges. Theres are reams of accounts of the life of Julius Ceasar written by eyewitness historians, as well as his own writings, while, we have nothing of he sort for the supposed Jesus. You start of with the assumption that there was a historical Jesus, when there is absolutely no hard evidence that such a man existed.

Perception based reasoning. What you are saying is you are heralding one eye witness account over another. One historical document, over another. Or in the case of Caesar and Jesus, one God per se, over another. Octavian promoted Caesar as a living God, and himself as the son of a living God.

You couldn't prove Julius Ceasar existed if I asked you to. All you could give me is circumstantial evidence which suggests he existed, and your power of suggestion that it was real and genuine, simply because your faith of belief, tells you so.

 

[roger_pearse]

Reply to Roger -
You lose all credibility in your argument by calling known Mithraic text as fake

I'm sorry that you start talking about me, on what must be a matter of fact. Do these texts exist?

You call these "known Mithraic text". They are not. You need to produce your evidence for these "known Mithraic text". Which books discuss them? What language are they in? Where can I find the full text, original and translation?

If you look into this, you will quickly find that I am right, and you will learn something.

You are being had. These texts do not exist. That is, there is no such ancient text as those you quoted. You will find them in no library, used by no scholar -- because the source you used just made them up. People do lie, you know; and if you live very long you will encounter this sort of thing.

Disagree? Then don't bother with rhetoric. You need to produce the texts; find some authoritative source that references these texts. If the texts exist, if the authors exist, if these are known to classical and Mithras scholars, then you should be able to find references to them in some reliable source. Try Google Books as a starter.

You see, I really DO know what data has come down to us about Mithras. I really HAVE read the accounts by people such as Manfred Clauss, Franz Cumont, etc. That's why I can recognise a fake. These are fakes.

(If they DID exist they would be very exciting indeed. My own habit, when anyone references an ancient text, is to go and look at it.)

which means by the same standards we can say that about any text you claim on your argument because you must keep an even standard. We can conclude by your own standard that the NT is fake,

Are you denying that the NT is an ancient text? That there are thousands of manuscripts of it? If so, I refer you to any scholar of biblical studies.

Or are you engaged in denying that what it says is true? We're discussing the former question, for your reference.

which we all know came from Q which was burned by the followers of John.

Your ancient source for this claim needs to be produced now. <hint>

We also find over 50,000 errors in the Nt proving once more the NT is a charade.

And this claim is relevant how?

It's as if you are just posting the first thing that comes into your head, without considering whether it is relevant or not; so long as it rubbishes the NT, it's good, in your eyes. That is rather pathetic. Perhaps instead of all this rubbish you could say why you are afraid the NT might be true (as you evidently are)?

I can also test you to prove your knowledge of the texts and cult figure is also phoney. Shall we precede with the simple test, I assure you it has easy questions that a third grader could answer.

Oh dear. By all means ask any "question" you like, so long as you do so in Latin.

You must be very young. Stop behaving like this, and start producing evidence that the two texts that I labelled fakes actually exist; or else acknowledge, what we both know is true, that you have no idea and just repeated some hearsay you found convenient.

Some of your coreligionists, when cornered, become dishonest. Feel free to demonstrate the low moral standards of those who believe as you do, if you think that would help you.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

[IfUDontKnowMeByNow]

continually writing flawed or outright false statements about history and historical sources. And you have thus far failed to actually link to any primary sources,

Show us the money!
I notice you can never show any proof of flawed or inaccurate historical information and yet we are discussing this very same problem in Christian arguments over history that we've proven time and time again are contradicting, I can include Christian founders and hierarchy which even admit these issues with the texts.
Which brings us to 2 points: 1 there has been resources shown, if you disagree then you yourself argue against the NT which was used as reference in showing the contradictions. It also shows our necessity to lie as anyone can see I have posted resources and verses but your reply only complains and never backs it with resources or verses. In fact one such resource about Mithra was removed from the forum without explanation. So do you go around asking moderators to remove posts then complain about the missing evidence that you yourself censored? Must be nice to need to protect a truth with a lie, oh that's right only lies need to be protected as truths need not such tactics.
Christianity based on a lie thus the protectors of the lie must always lie as seen in your post making false claims about my posts.

 

[IfUDontKnowMeByNow]

Then link to the actual texts you are referring to, or cite them in such a way that they can be verified.

I did they were censored/removed from the forum.
It did survive however one reply by someone who tried to make false claims against the texts existence. Must be nice to claim a text doesn't exist when it does just to avoid it proves the persons other claims wrong.

Here's what they removed previously:
1. Strabo (ca.63bce-24ce) Greek geographer
"They [The Persians] honor also the Sun, whom they call Mithras"
- From "Geography", XV, 3, written around 20bce. His book was an early "travel guide" to the then-known world, and was one of the first western references to the Mithrasic Faith.
2. Plutarch (ca.46ce-120ce) Greco-Roman historian and biographer
"They themselves offered strange sacrifices upon Mount Olympus, and performed certain secret rites or religious mysteries, among which those of Mithras have been preserved to our own time, having received their previous insitution from them."
- from "The Life Of Pompey", chapter 24. Pompey was a Roman general who defeated the nation of Cilicia, where Mithras had been worshipped. The "Mount Olympus" doesn't refer to the mythical dwelling of the Greek gods, but can refer to any holy mountain, probably in Cilicia itself.
3. Lucius Agrius (ca.107bce-41bce) Roman soldier and Mithrasic High Priest (ca.67bce- 41bce)

"Among these soldiers was a strong and mighty warrior, whose personality drew many of the Cilicians to him. By enquiry, I discovered that he was a holy man, and was therefore sought after as a man of wisdom. He led the Cilicians in Prayer at dawn, and again at mid-day and at dusk, never failing to praise his God, Whom he called Mithras."
- from "The Conversion of Lucius Agrius", paragraph 2, written ca.67bce. Lucius Agrius was a soldier in Pompey's army and became the first Roman to serve Mithras, converted by Cilician immigrants to Italy after their defeat by Pompey's army. Lucius Agrius served as the first Roman High Priest, and his book is included in the Mithrasic Canon of Scripture.
4. Marcellinus (ca.95bce-33bce) Roman soldier and Mithrasic High Priest (41bce-33bce)
"...and the soldiers of the Faith vow to be chaste for months at a time, in dedication to the Lord. And when we marry, we marry women of pure heart, quiet disposition, and clean spirit, for women of ill repute are despised by the men of the Mysteries."
-from "The Fragment of the Letter of Marcellinus", paragraph 1, written between 41bce and 33bce. This, too, is included in the Mithrasic Canon of Scripture. Only this and three other paragraphs of this letter survive.
5. Statius (ca.45-96ce) Historian and writer
"These rites were first observed by the Persians from whom the Phrygians received them, and from the Phrygians, the Romans."
- from "The Thebans", 717. The "Phrygians" lived in Asia minor, in the southern portion of the present-day nation of Turkey. Most Mithrasists of the the early first century, bce lived in the nearby region of Cilicia, but some also lived in Phrygia, and Mithras is always shown wearing a hat from this region.
in 67 B.C. a large band of pirates based in Cilicia (a province on the southeastern coast of Asia Minor) were practicing "secret rites" of Mithras.





The story of Mithra precedes the Christian fable by at least 600 years. Mithra has the following in common with the Christ character:
Mithras was born of a virgin on December 25th.
He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.
He was called "The Good Shepherd."
He was considered "The Way, the Truth and the Light."
He was considered "The Redeemer," "The Savior, "the Messiah."
He was identified with both the Lion and the Lamb.
His sacred day was Sunday, "the Lord's Day," hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ.
He had his principal festival on what was later to become Easter.
He had 12 companions or disciples.
He performed miracles.
He was buried in a tomb.
After three days he rose again.
His resurrection was celebrated every year.