Mithra was born on December 25th
This claim shows just how desperate/ignorant skeptics can be. While Mithra is said (by some traditions) to have been born on December 25th, no one claims that Jesus was actually born on December 25th. In fact, when atheists go around during the holidays shouting, "Christmas is based on a pagan holiday! December 25th is a pagan holiday!" it's a bit like a hippie vegan running around screaming at the top of their lungs that McDonalds' Chicken McNuggets are not, in fact, real chicken. In summary, Nowhere in Scripture is December 25th even mentioned, so this point is completely irrelevant.

Also of note: December 25th used to be the Winter solstice and was commonly seen as sacred or religious by various groups. None "borrowed" or "stole" the idea from any of the others. Anything notable, such as the full moon or black skin, was often the object of curiosity and given significance in a number of belief systems, and the solstice is no different. The fact that Christmas is celebrated on December 25th means absolutely nothing.

Mithra's birth was attended by shepherds
This one is actually true. Mithra's birth was attended by shepherds. More than just attending, they helped him out of the rock and offered the first of their flock to him. In contrast, the shepherds were not even present at Jesus' actual birth. Interestingly, the commentaries on Mithra's birth almost all point out the contradiction between claiming that Mithra's birth was attended by shepherds and claiming that Mithra was born before mankind was even created. But as with most of the skeptics' claims, the source material for this part of Mithra's story comes from over a century after the New Testament was completed. Christianity was well-established long before the story of Mithra's birth showed up.

Mithra was a great traveling teacher and master
Two things. First, we would expect any leader to be called a great teacher, especially in a religious context! Can you imagine a god coming to earth and people saying, "No, he didn't teach us or lead us. He didn't do much of anything"? And what does it mean that Mithra was a "master"? Master of what? What makes Mithra the source upon which the master-teacher myth is based rather than, say, Airstotle? Or Moses?

But the second (and key) thing is, I can't actually find any reference to Mithra being called a great teacher or master ("traveling" or not), except the claims of those who assert that Jesus is a myth based on Mithra. But even these imaginative folk don't cite any sources for their claims. So, I suppose we should just ask the question, "Where was Mithra ever called a great teacher or master? What were his teachings? Who did he teach?"

Mithra had 12 disciples
As far as I can tell, there's no factual basis for the claim that Mithra had 12 disciples.

Roman and Greek versions of the Mithra myth did have companions. One version had a single companion named Varuna, the other version had two helpers who were like him, called Cautes and Cautopatres. Neither of these Mithra myths included 12 companions, however. So where does the idea of 12 Mithraic disciples come from?

Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, in their book The Jesus Mysteries (1999), base their claim off a post-Christian carving of Mithra slaying a bull. On either side of the scene is a vertical row of 6 figures (that makes 12 in all). Two things should be kept in mind here. First, any commentaries I can find on this carving (besides Freke and Gandy's) clearly identifies the 12 figures as representing the zodiac (in fact, the top two faces are the sun and moon). Second, this carving is significantly post-Christian. If there were any "borrowing" from one religion to another, it was from Christianity to Mithraism, not the other way around.

Mithra had his own eucharist with flesh-bread and blood-wine
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.

The above quote is attributed to Mithra and is supposedly found in the Vatican's tomb of Peter.

When I looked this quote up, I found no evidence linking it to Mithra, but rather to Zarathustra (founder of Zoroasstrianism), who lived about 2000 BC. But even that connection is weak, since the only link between this quote and Zarathustra is actually in a medieval document (again, significantly post-Christian). This supposed similarity between Christianity and Mithraism is more questionable than a Catholic priest at a boyscout meeting.

I did find commentary about Mithraists having "fellowship meals" which naturally included bread and meat, water and wine. The same commentary made no significance of this fact, but did mention that such meals were completely commonplace in the Roman world and in no way originated with Mithraism.

Mithra performed miracles
I couldn't find any reference to direct parallels between Mithra's works of wonders and those of Christ. If they're out there, let me know. But as far as I can tell, Mithra didn't miraculously feed multitudes, walk on water, raise the dead,

Of course the fact that Mithra is credited with some sort of supernatural power shouldn't surprise us, as absolutely any deity, true or false, will almost by definition have supernatural power and activities attributed to him. After all, what is a god if not supernatural? But this hardly shows a connection or dependence between Christianity and Mithraism.

Mithra buried in tomb, raised 3 days later
Amazingly, I could find no story of Mithra that involved his death, and obviously not then his resurrection, either. In fact, Richard Gordon wrote in Image and Value in the Greco-Roman World that there was "no death of Mithras". So where did this idea of Mithra's death come from?

Freke and Gandy, who I mentioned earlier, claim that new Mithraists acted out a resurrection scene. The footnoted source is chapter 40 of Tertullian's Prescription Against Heretics, which says, "If my memory still serves me, Mithra there, (in the kingdom of Satan), sets his marks ont he foreheads of his soldiers; celebrates also the oblation of bread, and introduces an image of a resurrection, " My response is twofold:

1.The argument is based on Tertullian's memory (post-Christian), not on any actual Mithraic source.
2.Freke and Gandy claim that initiates acted out a resurrection scene, but the source says nothing of the sort! It says that Mithra is the one who does the celebration and introduces an image of resurrection!
Acharya S actually claims that Mithra was crucified. Not only can I again find no actual source for this, but my search results indicate that it was another figure--Attis--who was crucified. Perhaps Acharya is just confused?

Mithra's sacrifice of eternal blood gave immortality
Apparently there is no real source for the claim that Mithra offered his followers immortality. Of course, it's not a far stretch to make, since religious figures generally offer some ultimate prize for following them. Immortality tends to be the ticket. Otherwise, why follow them?

But the sacrifice of eternal blood is yet another pathetic claim by skeptics. It comes from some graffiti, dating well over a century after the completion of the New Testament, on the Santa Prisca Mithraeum, which reads, "And us, too, you saved by spilling the eternal blood." All scholars I've read are positive that this refers to Mithra's spilling of the bulll's blood (remember, Mithra never even died!), and that it does not in any way refer to salvation in a sense familiar to Christianity.

Mithra's resurrection celebrated annually
The only original source I could find making the claim that Mithra's resurrection was celebrated every year is Esme Wynn-Tyson's claims in Mithras: The Fellow in the Cap. But Wynn-Tyson references Firmicus, who 1) wrote over 200 years after the completion of the New Testament, 2) wrote about celebrating the image of a dead Mithra, and 3) actually didn't write anything about it at all (that I could find)!

Mithra's yearly passover sacrifice a symbolic atonement for physical and moral regeneration
This is a little confusing, since Mithra never made a sacrifice (as mentioned earlier on this page). What's more, there's no record of a yearly rememberance of it (of course, since there was no Mithraic sacrifice). The worst part of this claim is that it deliberately uses Christian terminology to create the false notion of a connection between the two. Why are words like "atonement" and "passover" used when no such words are used in Mithraic texts, and certainly don't accurately describe any events in Mithra mythology? It's dishonest and deceitful to manipulate words this way.

Mithra called the "good shepherd", identified as lion and lamb
I can't find anything to support these claims. Mithra's totem was a lion, but that's about it. Aside from this being a stretch and purposefully distorted by skeptics, it ignores all the other sources for the Christian symbolism of Christ as a lion. There is a later story about Mithra which involves him as a child killing a lion, but again, I don't see the connection here.

Mithra called the "Messiah", "Savior", "Redeemer", "Mediator"
The only reference to Mithra as any of these is that found in modern skeptics' writings. Skeptics will use phrases like "sun of righteousness", but this is only a dishonest attempt to make Christianity appear more like a counterfeit. While Mithra is a type of "sun god" myth, that title is never used of him, and certainly "sun" is not the same as "son". There appears to be no connection between these titles and Mithra, at least not outside of the skeptics' imaginations. The only role that Mithra played was a "mediator" (though, again, he was never called that) between the good and evil gods.

Mithra's sacred day was Sunday, had a festival which became Easter
It's true that Iranian Mithraism had several festivals, but none of them were Easter. Iranian Mithraism had a festival each season, and while there was a festival held during the Spring equinox, that hardly counts as being Easter.

As for Sunday being a sacred day, this appears to be true. But only for Roman Mithraism, which means that the sacred day would have been borrowed (if any borrowing occurred at all) by the Mithraists from the Christians, not the other way around. In other words, the skeptics are still grasping at straws.

Mithra sacrificed himself for world peace
As has already been mentioned, Mithra never even died. Mithra killed the divine "bull of the sun" (purposefully phrased by intellectually dishonest folk to make it sound more similar to Christianity), but Mithra was not the bull, Mithra did not die, and Mithra didn't do this to bring about world peace. Not that Jesus died for "world peace" either, but that's just more of the skeptics' ignorance showing.

Mithra reference plagiarized in 1 Corinthians
It has been said that a verse in 1 Corinthians is a word-for-word quote from Mithraic scriptures. Here's the verse in question:

and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they were all drinking from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.1 Corinthians 10:4

Skeptics claim that this is the exact text used in Mithraic scriptures, only the word "Christ" is used in place of "Mithra". The problem is that we have barely any ancient texts that tell us about Mithraism, and we have absolutely no Mithraic scriptures. In other words, this claim is absolutely baseless. On a side note, when Paul wrote those words, he was referring to the Old Testament. Are the Old Testament and Judaism rebranded Mithraism?

The sources of the Jesus-is-Mithra conspiracy myths

Acharya S
Acharya S is the pen name of D. M. Murdock, who holds the general belief that religions are built upon earlier myths. Her only notable work is her writing, which consists largely of attempts to show that Christianity is just modern day Roman mythology. To answer the question, "Who is Acharya S?", her own website speaks more about the college she attended than it does about her. Most of the alleged "borrowings" addressed on this page come from her book The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold. She claims that many religions have a common source; the myth of a sun god. From her book:

The sun 'dies' for three days at the winter solstice, to be born again or resurrected on December 25th, The sun enters into each sign of the zodiac at 30 [degrees]; hence, the 'Sun of God' begins his ministry at 'age' 30.

She seems to perhaps practice some dishonesty. While readily replying to one e-mail, she gave absolutely no response to a subsequent e-mail asking her for the source of her claim that Mithra had 12 disciples. It is also worth noting that her schooling focused on subjects such as Greek civilization and classics, mythology, and history. There seems to be little credibility to much of what she says and no reason to take her seriously (much like the Jesus Seminar), yet because self-proclaimed free-thinkers love to cite her arguments as if they proved Christianity to be false, it seemed good to me to research and respond to the claims.

About the Mithras
There are several Mithras, including Iranian, Indian, Roman, Greek, and Persian versions. The basic story of Mithra (though any given version will differ) involves the god-figure Mithra's birth from a rock, after which he struggled against evil in a sun-and-stars oriented, mythological story. He eventually slew a divine bull, whose blood brought plants and animals into existence.

Nezan, why are exposing xtianity. I have been able to make two conclusions from your post
1. You admited that story of jesus is similar to mithra but not as similar as shakerz has made us to believe
2. In a desperate attempt to boost your argument you also confirmed that xtianity has pagan element. Which am sure you would never have accepted in a direct confrontaion on the same issue

Nezan ain't you tired of copy and pasting ,i just pray spam bot to arrest u inshaAllah

@Alhaji 0labowale,amen o,thanks sir

@shakerz;

Nezan, why are exposing xtianity. I have been able to make two conclusions from your post
1. You admited that story of jesus is similar to mithra but not as similar as shakerz has made us to believe
2. In a desperate attempt to boost your argument you also confirmed that xtianity has pagan element. Which am sure you would never have accepted in a direct confrontaion on the same issue

Christianity is not a cult that fear certain false elements of it will be exposed. Infact, it is an open religion so there is no point saying I expose Christianity.

1. Unless you were reading without your brains, Jesus's story is never similar to that of mithra which is why the posts were even made. If there is any similarity between Jesus and mithra, it can only be because mithraism copied Christianity and not the other way round!

2. Christianity has no pagan elements. You can refer to my thread on this issue for more insight.

If Christianity copied mithraism, how then is mithraism dead and buried in the archives of history while Christianity remains as vibrant as ever?

Nezan, now it is mithra that copied christianity. I have given up on you

Go and sit down dumb mohammadin,how abt d pedophile mohammad copying d bible

What business does mithra has to do wit christianity.

@timmy7 pls say something else. We have heard that before. The dumb ones like you have been programmed to repeat such allegations without pausing to think; what is there to copy from a confused book? A compliation of forty anonymous writers aided by a confused spirit. This is no match for the eloquence and beauty of the quran
Am sure you are one of those fools that have never read the quran but have been programmed to fear and hate it.

@the_seeker;
I told you some days earlier on the muslim board to change your id, reason been that there is somebody on the forum with the id: 'theseeker', which one can easily confuse with your 'the_seeker'.

You can never compare the koran with the Bible because reading through the koran, you will discover three sources:
1. From stories plagiarised from the Biblical old testament, Torah
2. From the Biblical new testament

These stories are then retold with the flavour of arabian fairy tales to corrupt the original source.

I thought I saw your comments on the thread I was showing you people the numerous contradictions in the koran.

[b] Quran 5


9. Allâh has promised those who believe (in the Oneness of Allâh - Islâmic Monotheism) and do deeds of righteousness, that for them there is forgiveness and a great reward (i.e. Paradise).

10. They who disbelieve and deny our Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) are those who will be the dwellers of the Hell­fire.

11. O you who believe! Remember the Favour of Allâh unto you when some people desired (made a plan) to stretch out their hands against you, but (Allâh) withheld their hands from you. So fear Allâh. And in Allâh let believers put their trust.

12. Indeed Allâh took the covenant from the Children of Israel (Jews), and We appointed twelve leaders among them. And Allâh said: "I am with you if you perform As-Salât (Iqâmat-as-Salât) and give Zakât and believe in My Messengers; honour and assist them, and lend to Allâh a good loan. Verily, I will remit your sins and admit you to Gardens under which rivers flow (in Paradise). But if any of you after this, disbelieved, he has indeed gone astray from the Straight Path."

13. So because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hear[/b]

Monotheism doesnt make any sense if the god you are worshipping is an idol . . . even early Egyptians claimed monotheism from the worship of pharoah!

@nezan,u think ALLAH GOD of creation is an idol,ure really dumb if u think so

^^ Who told you allah is the God of creation? allah is just one of the idols worshipped by mohammed's quraish tribe who was housed in the kaaba with the other 360 gods.

@Nezan,Keep that to yourself okay cos his creations all know him,so your comment about him does not count at all,what signs av u seen by the jesus u worship lately,or av you still not believ our ALLAH after he has sent down his so many signs like the one recently about a 9month old baby in russia,am sure you'ill still call that "mere magic" as usual

^^ It is not magic, it is called delusion!

Nezan:

^^ It is not magic, it is called delusion!

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Pastor,doctor,prophet,prof. NEZAN i think courtesy demands that u make research on every discovery before u make your conclusion. How far have u gone with ur research before calling that a delusion.As a prof. u cant just jump into conclusion without proper investigations

^ Alhaja cool down . . . . 'For even the devil has changed himself into an angel of light, so that if it were possible, he will deceive the very elect'. No cause for alarm.

I can feel ur plight.

The seeker of 72virgins,d fact that u av heard it b4 doesnt make it a lie,d spirit behind mohamMAD has been tested no two ways abt it he is false,last messenger my foot,if u dont know what's there to copy in d bible ask mohammd, idiot what beauty or eloquence r u talking abt The beauty of smiting d unbelievers by d neck or d eloquence of not making friend with d jews and christian Reading dat satanic book was a precious waste of my time and listen u mohammadic fool,i av nothing to fear abt d koran,it's simply a devlish book that works for it's deluded followers lyk u.

timmy7, you will so burn is hell for your blasphemy.
You will burn for all eternity!

@seeker,leave her let her bring it on herself,even nairaland will be witness to many people on that day

That's what mohammad programmed into u all to always say, u will burn in hell blah blah blah,whc hell is that Is it d 1 mohammad created But then u will go to his paradise where u will av 72 houris to urself-i wonda what the women would av- where u will av access to river of non intoxicating allahic win, chei! d guy has played a fast one on ur intelligence the same way he entered d gullible arabs

That's what mohammad programmed into u all to always say, u will burn in hell blah blah blah,whc hell is that Is it d 1 mohammad created But then u will go to his paradise where u will av 72 houris to urself-i wonda what the women would av- where u will av access to river of non intoxicating allahic win, chei! d guy has played a fast one on ur intelligence the same way he entered d gullible arabs

This is just madness. The poster of this thread must be a sick ignoramus. Why condemn someone else religion. Thats something with muslims, if they are not trouble maker, then they are terrorist. Do you want to start religion crisis on nairalang like u are doing everywhere? you dont even know wat u are saying as it is obvious from ur post. you are just interpreting everything literarily.

I dont av to say much to u, but ponder this. have you ever seen a christian convert to a muslim b4? all we see is alhaji and alhaja removing their sabaka and going to church because they are aware they are in bondage.

Give ur life to jesus christ.

Only him can give you the peace you are longing for. so gbo?

o ma se o. Why wont everybody do their religion and leave others to their own. what is the purpose of this thread now. Islam is supposed to be a religion of peace yet it is the one causing trouble all over the world.

@felibaby
I agree with you totally. i was a muslim before. i had to change my faith when it was not working for me. i prefer to be a child of God than a slave of God as muslims call themselves. Nothing beats a personal relatonship with ones maker. Absolutely nothing!.