|
|
 | | From: | roger_pearse at yahoo.co.uk | | Subject: | Re: Message for (name replaced) | | Date: | 21 Jan 2005 05:51:34 -0800 |
|
|
 | Qolon wrote:
> Athanasius Scully
>
> As you can see from this URL <
> http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/telos/legal.html >, that the argument
is
> substantiation of my claim to religious belief, and the asperion that
the
> motive for your impugnity is that your claim to religious belief as
> Christianity is in effect incorpreal treason against my Autonomous
> Australian Constitutional Rights.... [etc]
Please stop spamming these newsgroups with this material. It's very
boring and uninteresting to all the rest of us.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
|
|
| | From: | Qolon | | Subject: | Re: Message for (name replaced) | | Date: | Fri, 21 Jan 2005 19:49:21 GMT |
|
|
| Actually your response below as a Roman Catholic is substantially made on
the basis:
1) that such religious community as a matter of routine engages within
incorporeal treason.
2) That you have in the past been unable to refute the claim of the in
distinguished and undifferentiated nature of Mithra's Pontifex Maximus and
the prerogative claimed of the Roman Catholic Pontif is essentially the same
thing.
3) Consequentially you engage in bullying.
- dolf
- http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/telos/legal.html
wrote in message
news:1106315494.457793.250080@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Please stop spamming these newsgroups with this material. It's very boring
and uninteresting to all the rest of us.
All the best,
"The New Prophets" wrote in message
news:QgkGd.100064$dv1.76104@edtnps89...
"Qolon" <> wrote in message
....
> One might take the Constitutional argument to its logical conclusion with
> regards to whether one regards the Roman Pontif as Pontifex Maximus or
> grants some other-heteros king/queen that prerogative as Monarchy.
I see you have made the acquaintance of our famed Pseudo-scholar Roger.
Roger who yells ancient sources only please.
Pontifex Maxinus, brings to mind the recent post by Roger concerning the
Donation of Constantine.
Now, note from this data from Roger, how he twists things to suit his
preconcieved notions.
Just read what he has posted concerning the Donation of Constantine.
My summary of his ideas was:
"Coleman tells us in the preface that the Donation is probably to be
dated to the 8th century, when the last remains of Imperial Byzantine
authority were collapsing, and the Popes needed to act for their own
safety independently and with authority. The story of the Donation had
been circulating orally as a legend since the 6th century. Perhaps we
might speculate that someone - even a Pope - 'knowing' from hearsay
that some such donation had occurred but naturally unable to find the
paper proving it, ordered that the essentials be placed on paper in
order to safeguard the lives of everyone in Rome. With the later
abuse of the document we are not here concerned
What is Roger's source. Coleman?? Hardly an ancient source.
Then he says the Donation was probably dated to the 8th century, and the
dear old pope was concerned for his safety. But did you note the probably
earlier in the sentence.
But of course, no ancient source is noted.
Then how about this statement.
The donation had been circulating orally from the 6th century!!
Again no ancient source supplied.
Then how about this scholarly sounding statement.
Prehaps we might speculate that someone!!
Is this not the rank speculation that Roger screams about??
He really is a most amusing little man.
You really want to get him going?
Ask him about Plutarch's statement that the Pirates in Cilicia were
practicing the rites of Mithras in 67BC.
See Ulansey:
Our earliest evidence for the Mithraic mysteries places their appearance in
the middle of the first century B.C.: the historian Plutarch says that 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 earliest physical remains of the cult date from around the end of the
first century A.D., and Mithraism reached its height of popularity in the
third century. In addition to soldiers, the cult's membership included
significant numbers of bureaucrats and merchants. Women were excluded.
Mithraism declined with the rise to power of Christianity, until the
beginning of the fifth century, when Christianity became strong enough to
exterminate by force rival religions such as Mithraism.
Now ask Roger about there being rites of Mithras being practiced in Cilicia
100 years before Jesus is crucified, and therefore the religion of Mithras
was within the Roman Empire before Jesus.
Roger immediately goes into defense mode, and will tell you Plutarch must
have been wrong.
The pseudo scholar, with his mind made up before hand, tells us the ancient
scholar must have been mistaken.
And his source, some speculation by some current author.
But that is how Roger works.
Then when you point things like this out to him, he will immediately turn to
a personal attack. He actually thinks that he can yell you down in
cyberspace.
....
> Not sure why you think this; why not find out something about
> Mithraism? Don't read the rubbish on the net -- look for actual
> evidence from antiquity about the cult.
See the above statement by Roger about Mithras.
Now ask him about the quote from Plutarch - That is actual evidence from
antiquity. And listen to Roger tell you how Plutarch was mistaken.
I'm telling you he is most amusing.
|
|
|
