The Truth Behind the Christ Myth: Ancient Origins of the Often Used Legend

Al-Khidr or the Green Man is one of the four immortals in Islamic tradition, Enoch, Elijah and Jesus are the others.

Also viewed as an angel Khidr was the guide and instructor of Moses and Alexander the Great.

He plays the role of initiator in mystical tradition.

Interesting how things come together through traditions.

Am I being stalked?

This Coomba is literally obsessed with every comment I make, every time.

I don't read his messages obviously but I can imagine he is being a pretend know it all and trying to say I am wrong about something.

I am too thorough for that little buddy, if that is your plan you are going to be very dissapointed .

And please stop stalking me, it's rather creepy.

a reply to: Padawan SethTsaddik

Padawan SethTsaddik

Its funny you like dishing the dirt and belittling people but cannot take it when someone dishes to right back at you. Mwahahaha.

Love Master Coomba

Yeah so I guess I have a stalker everyone.

Coomba, whoever that is.

Oh well. I can't control the creepy behavior of others and don't want to make every thread on ats about me, which is what is happening in every thread I comment on now.

So I actually have said everything I want to, I will let the stalker do his pitiful thing and just now out so it doesn't ruin people's threads.

Coomba, you actually do need help, but you know that, it's why you are here, a cry for help.

Far be it from me the will to drive a man on the brink of madness to full blown psychosis, the natural course of events in this case.

I will leave you to your madness and come back tomorrow. Maybe with a referral.

a reply to: Padawan SethTsaddik

Your awesome youngling with your whining when someone retaliates against your stupid impertinence.

Love Master Coomba

🙈🙉🙊

originally posted by: SargonThrall
a reply to: chr0naut
The Romans certainly perverted it into some sort of secret society, but it nonetheless predated Christianity. The fact that Artaxerxes II was the first (if I'm not mistaken) king to praise by name a god other than Ahura Mazda proves that Mithra's prominence was rising. If that weren't enough, Mitra is invoked in Hittite treaties from before 1000BC (related, though not necessarily identical, as Mitra could also be a word for "friend").

The sacrificial bull depictions of Mithra make it quite clear that he is a zodiacal allegory, himself being the sun:

Which also explains why he was depicted as a sun cross. Will Durant claimed that Constantine's soldiers were more willing to accept his claimed vision because they already held the cross as a divine symbol, being largely Mithraists.

That goes back to Nimrod, Gilgamesh the Son of the Sun mother impregnated by a sunbeam. This was all an adaptation of the original virgin birth revelation given way back. The Babylonians did to that basically the same as what the Roman pagans did after Christ was born.......just superimposed the Gilgamesh BS on the thing.

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: SargonThrall
a reply to: chr0naut
The Romans certainly perverted it into some sort of secret society, but it nonetheless predated Christianity. The fact that Artaxerxes II was the first (if I'm not mistaken) king to praise by name a god other than Ahura Mazda proves that Mithra's prominence was rising. If that weren't enough, Mitra is invoked in Hittite treaties from before 1000BC (related, though not necessarily identical, as Mitra could also be a word for "friend").

The sacrificial bull depictions of Mithra make it quite clear that he is a zodiacal allegory, himself being the sun:

Which also explains why he was depicted as a sun cross. Will Durant claimed that Constantine's soldiers were more willing to accept his claimed vision because they already held the cross as a divine symbol, being largely Mithraists.

That goes back to Nimrod, Gilgamesh the Son of the Sun mother impregnated by a sunbeam. This was all an adaptation of the original virgin birth revelation given way back. The Babylonians did to that basically the same as what the Roman pagans did after Christ was born.......just superimposed the Gilgamesh BS on the thing.

Indeed. Christ is Tammuz, for the piscean age.

Gilgamesh is the oldest story in existence. Ishtar kills Nimrod/Gilgamesh in that one, which is odd.

a reply to: Logarock

Mithra is also the model of the Metatron tradition in Judaism.

So in a way kept alive.

a reply to: CB328

My wife is Portuguese and told me about a cool pagan festival that got converted to Xtianity. On 24 AUG it is St. Bartholomew's Day and he drives out the demons and the Devil from the village who are all dressed up and scary. The Devil is coal black all over with horns and everything and the demons run around throwing 'urine' and groping chicks. Then St B. Comes and drives the devil out of town on his horse.
But it used to be Pan making mischief instead of the Devil. And I don't believe he got driven off BC everyone liked it back then.
Fun stuff

originally posted by: SargonThrall
a reply to: chr0naut
The Romans certainly perverted it into some sort of secret society, but it nonetheless predated Christianity. The fact that Artaxerxes II was the first (if I'm not mistaken) king to praise by name a god other than Ahura Mazda proves that Mithra's prominence was rising. If that weren't enough, Mitra is invoked in Hittite treaties from before 1000BC (related, though not necessarily identical, as Mitra could also be a word for "friend").

The sacrificial bull depictions of Mithra make it quite clear that he is a zodiacal allegory, himself being the sun:

Which also explains why he was depicted as a sun cross. Will Durant claimed that Constantine's soldiers were more willing to accept his claimed vision because they already held the cross as a divine symbol, being largely Mithraists.

The Zoroastrian Mitra is not the Sun. The Khorda Avesta refers to both the Sun and the Moon as the best of friends of Mitra (in Khwarshed Niyayesh 15).

Artaxerxes II was Persian and was calling upon the name of the Zoroastrian Mitra.

In academic circles, hardly anyone confuses Mitra and Mithras anymore, they were two different conceptions, similar mainly in the sound of the name and little else, despite Roman attribution.

In 63 BC, Pompey the Great conquered Jerusalem, establishing Roman rule. In 40 BC, the Partians (Iranian Persians) conquered Jerusalem and in 37 BC the Romans, allied with Herod the Great, take Jerusalem back. To have been a Mithraist, in the Persian sense, during the first century would have been seen as traitorous to Rome (Imagine the political consternation of Persian dignitaries, and without doubt, their entourages, entering Palestine to see "the King of the Jews"!)

The earliest Roman Mithraea (Mithraist temples) date from 98 - 99 AD.

The flexibility of Roman Mithraism is demonstrated by the fact that the earliest carved images of Mithraism show the banquet where Mithras and Sol are sharing a banquet on the hide of a slain bull. At this point, Mithras and Sol Invictus are clearly separate. Yet later Mithraism combines Mthras and Sol Invictus into one being, 'Mithras Sol Invictus'.

Both Tertullian (late 1st century) and Justin Martyr (second century) called the practices of Mithraism counterfeit copies of Christian ceremonies. They obviously believed that Mithraism copied from Christianity.

Constantine and the Sun Cross were 400 years after Christ, by which time most of the Christian traditional and doctrinal aspects, including the canon, were already well established. It was also close to the end of Mitraist practices, which would likely have continued if Mithraism were actually an acceptable analogue to Christianity.