what do Christians say about mithraism?

It's something that blind and ignorant people force on Christianity.

Something on Mithras:

Mithras, not to be confused with Mitra (the warrior angel of ancient Persia), was the head deity of Mithraism. Trying to piece together the actual legends relating to Mithras is difficult as the earliest evidence relating to him is only found in artistic reliefs- the original texts regarding Mithraism have long since been lost, leaving behind only fragments. For this discussion, we will focus on Roman Mithraism as this is the Mithras the critics claim as being the inspiration for Jesus (although this

allegation could easily be dismissed by showing most texts containing the alleged connections postdate the Christian texts).

DECEMBER BIRTH: Many religious festivals were consolidated into one holiday to

coincide with the winter solstice. Christmas is only celebrated on December 25th due

to this tradition. This argument already proves to be insignificant as there is nothing

in the Scriptures which mentions this date.

ATTENDED BY SHEPHERDS The earliest existing account of Mithras' birth is found

in a relief depicting him emerging from a rock with the assistance of men who

certainly appear to be shepherds (which is interesting considering his birth was

supposed to have preceded the creation of humans!). But this little tidbit was

added later, apparently by those who didn't notice the contradiction. Furthermore,

this relief dates to 4th century A.D.!

VIRGIN BIRTH There is no mention of a virgin birth in Mithraism. The earliest reliefs

depict a fully-mature Mithras emerging from a rock

TWELVE DISCIPLES Mithras did not have twelve disciples, but I can relate a

far-fetched similarity to this allegation. In two of the reliefs to the left, Mithras is

surrounded by the twelve signs of the zodiac. Claiming Mithras had twelve disciples

because there are twelve signs of the zodiac is the connection critics try to make.

The critics simply see twelve beings and claim the figures are disciples. Some go as

far to defend their position by mimicking Franz Cumont's theory, claiming the figures

were actually Mithras' twelve disciples dressed up in zodiac costumes! How they

can make this connection is unknown as no inscriptions accompany the original

reliefs.

GREAT TEACHER I can find no mention in any text or relief showing Mithras to be a traveling teacher. Regardless, it would hardly seem significant as many legends speak of mankind receiving wisdom from their gods.

ATONEMENT OF SIN The claim regarding Mithras atoning for sin leads me to as the question, how? There is no mention of this in any record. Mithras does sacrifice a sacred bull to create life but I see no reference to the atoning of sin, the atoning of sin through blood, or Mithras atoning for sin. Some try to merge the bull and Mithras into one being but this concept is unanimously rejected by Mithras scholars.

LAST SUPPER There are two reliefs which show Mithras celebrating a banquet. The first relief shows Mithras and Helios dining together after the sacrifice of the bull. The other depicts Mithras dining with the sun before ascending into paradise with the other gods. But for some reason the tale becomes distorted with Mithras saying to his (imaginary) disciples, "He who shall not eat of my body nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved." Yet this quote was added centuries later during the middle ages and is not even attributed to Mithras!

CRUCIFIXION Though critics claim Mithras was crucified, there is no mention of this in the reliefs or texts. In fact no death is associated with Mithras, nevertheless crucifixion. We are told he completes his earthly mission then is taken to paradise in a chariot- alive and well.

SUNDAY AS A HOLY DAY This appears to be correct, at least for Roman Mithraism. But considering almost every religion used Saturday or Sunday as a holy day, there was a 50/50 chance of this hitting the target- or at least a 1/7 chance for the number of days in a week. Christians selected Sunday as their holy day only because it was the day of Christ's resurrection.

SIMILAR TITLES I did find some similarities but the claims critics make seem to be manipulated from their original form- there were no exact matches to the names critics list. I also listed other titles that are often cited but prove to be incorrect:

* Savior, Redeemer, Messiah. Mithras is never referred to any of these. Why would he be since he never served such a purpose? Messiah is also a Hebrew word which makes one wonder what the source is for this allegation.

* Lamb of God, Good Shepherd. Skeptics try to use the depiction of Mithras holding the sacrificed bull over his shoulders as evidence but this is absurd as the bull is slaughtered! Furthermore, the Old Testament references lambs and shepherds long before Mithraism ever surfaced.

* Son of God. I didn't technically find this but I'll give it as a freebie if you consider Mithras as the son of Ahura Mazda.

* Mediator. Mithras was the mediator between good and evil whereas Jesus is the mediator between God and man.

Which variant of Mithraism? The Persian or the Roman? Because I've learn approximately each, and I'm nonetheless a Christian. Persian Mithraism is not anything just like the Roman variant, and stocks not anything in normal with Christianity. Roman Mithraism is somewhat equivalent in the event you run round in circles for a part hour, squint your eyes, and tilt your head, but it surely does not predate Christianity, so it is beside the point.

A similarity between Mithra and Christ struck even early observers, such as Justin, Tertullian, and other Fathers, and in recent times has been urged to prove that Christianity is but an adaptation of Mithraism, or at most the outcome of the same religious ideas and aspirations (e.g. Robertson, "Pagan Christs", 1903). Against this erroneous and unscientific procedure, which is not endorsed by the greatest living authority on Mithraism, the following considerations must be brought forward.

(1) Our knowledge regarding Mithraism is very imperfect; some 600 brief inscriptions, mostly dedicatory, some 300 often fragmentary, exiguous, almost identical monuments, a few casual references in the Fathers or Acts of the Martyrs, and a brief polemic against Mithraism which the Armenian Eznig about 450 probably copied from Theodore of Mopsuestia (d. 428) who lived when Mithraism was almost a thing of the past — these are our only sources, unless we include the Avesta in which Mithra is indeed mentioned, but which cannot be an authority for Roman Mithraism with which Christianity is compared. Our knowledge is mostly ingenious guess-work; of the real inner working of Mithraism and the sense in which it was understood by those who professed it at the advent of Christianity, we know nothing.

(2) Some apparent similarities exist; but in a number of details it is quite probable that Mithraism was the borrower from Christianity. Tertullian about 200 could say: "hesterni sumus et omnia vestra implevimus" ("we are but of yesterday, yet your whole world is full of us"). It is not unnatural to suppose that a religion which filled the whole world, should have been copied at least in some details by another religion which was quite popular during the third century. Moreover the resemblances pointed out are superficial and external. Similarity in words and names is nothing; it is the sense that matters. During these centuries Christianity was coining its own technical terms, and naturally took names, terms, and expressions current in that day; and so did Mithraism. But under identical terms each system thought its own thoughts. Mithra is called a mediator; and so is Christ; but Mithra originally only in a cosmogonic or astronomical sense; Christ, being God and man, is by nature the Mediator between God and man. And so in similar instances. Mithraism had a Eucharist, but the idea of a sacred banquet is as old as the human race and existed at all ages and amongst all peoples. Mithra saved the world by sacrificing a bull; Christ by sacrificing Himself. It is hardly possible to conceive a more radical difference than that between Mithra taurochtonos and Christ crucified. Christ was born of a Virgin; there is nothing to prove that the same was believed of Mithra born from the rock. Christ was born in a cave; and Mithraists worshipped in a cave, but Mithra was born under a tree near a river. Much as been made of the presence of adoring shepherds; but their existence on sculptures has not been proven, and considering that man had not yet appeared, it is an anachronism to suppose their presence.

(3) Christ was an historical personage, recently born in a well-known town of Judea, and crucified under a Roman governor, whose name figured in the ordinary official lists. Mithra was an abstraction, a personification not even of the sun but of the diffused daylight; his incarnation, if such it may be called, was supposed to have happened before the creation of the human race, before all history. The small Mithraic congregations were like masonic lodges for a few and for men only and even those mostly of one class, the military; a religion that excludes the half of the human race bears no comparison to the religion of Christ. Mithraism was all comprehensive and tolerant of every other cult, the Pater Patrum himself was an adept in a number of other religions; Christianity was essential exclusive, condemning every other religion in the world, alone and unique in its majesty.

A simple google search (which I have done) clearly demonstrates that this myth came along AFTER Jesus. In other words, the life of Christ didn't copy the myth, but rather this myth copied the life of Christ. Therefore, using it to contradict Christianity is bogus.

I suppose that if no1home, is only going to search christian sites, he will always find the answer he wants.

They worship a rebranded version of Mithra, so they must be OK with it.

"Ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies."