Background

A few years ago, one cold London December, a friend of mine and I had a day free from a set of business meetings. We hailed one of the famous red double-decker tourist buses and saw what we could, sitting on the upper deck despite the cold.

At one point, we passed a shopping center where our tour guide gleefully informed us that they'd discovered a Mithraic temple beneath. Well, actually he laid it on quite thick, assuring the tourists that the pagan cult of Mithraism was the basis for Christianity, the life of Jesus, etc.

Being open-minded and curious, I read what I could on the topic and discovered that, yet again, the "popular" account of some ancient religion had little to do with the reality. But I'm getting ahead of myself. Let's go back and hear the story from a group of people who are sure Jesus never existed:

Eclipsed as it was in later centuries by the faith of Christ, Mithraism – or rather, its Romanised form Sol Invictus – was the first ‘universal religion’ of the Greco-Roman world.

Mithraism anticipated Christianity in all major respects bar one, and enjoyed a ‘reign’ of at least five centuries. It peaked around the year 300 AD when it became the official religion of the empire. At that time, in every town and city, in every military garrison and outpost from Syria to the Scottish frontier, was to be found a Mithraeum and officiating priests of the cult.

Mithraism was the ‘religion of choice’ of fishermen, merchants, and in particular, the military who adopted Mithras rather like latter-day soldiers would adopt St. Michael or St. George – Mithras slew bulls, St George slew dragons! ....

(You know, because the idea of sacrificing an animal had never before ocurred in any ancient religion. Not, particularly, in Judiasm, the purported origin of Christianity. Let's try to find it in an obscure pagan sect instead! Also never mind that George didn't actually sacrifice the dragon per se, as with the lamb or bull.)

Mithra was fathered by the creator god Ahura-Mazda.... Mithras had had twelve followers with whom he had shared a last sacramental meal. He had sacrificed himself to redeem mankind. Descending into the underworld, he had conquered death and had risen to life again on the third day. The holy day for this sun god was, of course, Sunday (Christians continued to follow the Jewish Sabbath until the fourth century). His many titles included ‘the Truth,’ ‘the Light,’ and ‘the Good Shepherd.’ For those who worshipped him, invoking the name of Mithras healed the sick and worked miracles. Mithras could dispense mercy and grant immortality; to his devotees he offered hope. By drinking his blood and eating his flesh (by proxy, from a slain bull) they too could conquer death. On a Day of Judgement those already dead would be raised back to life.

Sounds interesting? Problem is, it's generally fictional.

Rebuttal

If you want to skip my summary and comments below, you can go read instead one of these much more comprehensive articles:

1. "Mithraism. Not an influence on Christianity", J.P. Holding
2. What Mithraism Is and Isn't, Ceisiwr Serith
3. Mithraism, Wikipedia

Otherwise, for those still here, to address the narrative I quoted above:

We don't have any written records about Mithraism (only paintings in their meeting places) so most statements about it are deductions or (in extreme cases) wishful guesses. Mithras' "followers" aren't followers at all: they're companions who appear in zodiacal form. Apparently, the only source showing these "companions" is post-Christian carving. Roman Mithraism isn't currently thought to have any link to the Persian creator-God Mazda. Since Mithras is not, in fact, depicted as dying, it also makes no sense to believe he had died for mankind, nor assert he was raised from death after three days. Same goes for a "last meal." (Though Mithras does dine with the Sun god later, in the heavens.) The only Christians I know who observed a Saturday sabbath "until the fourth century" were a small group of Jewish Christians -- others had been meeting on Sunday for centuries; the New Testament records Christians meeting on Sunday ("the Lord's day") within the first century.

As far as "drinking blood" etc. for redemption, Holding comments:

This saying is appealed to also by Freke and Gandy [Frek.JM, 49], and it took me some digging to discover it's actual origin. Godwin says that the reference is from a "Persian Mithraic text," but does not give the dating of this text, nor say where it was found, nor offer any documentation; that I found finally in Vermaseren [Verm.MSG, 103] -- the source of this saying is a medieval text; and the speaker is not Mithras, but Zarathustra!

Whoops.

The narrative I cited certainly contains a lot of 'errors', doesn't it?

Some other details are true, but pointless: Yes, some dining/feasting occurs. But that's common in most religions. Yes, Mithras does miraculous things. But, again, miracles are found in all ancient religions. Yes, an animal is killed. But, once again, animal sacrifice is an utterly common religious element.

Analysis

Finally, I'd like to end this by explaining, to would-be Christian apologists, how to go about responding to this kind of silliness which seems so popular these days.

General rules:

(a) First, be honest. The goal here isn't to prove you or your beliefs are correct. The goal is to find the truth wherever it takes you. The more intellectually honest you are, the more your own convictions will be strenghtened as you learn the truth. (I've been doing this for a couple of decades now, and I can tell you that's been my consistent experience. Otherwise, frankly, I would no longer be a Christian.)

(b) Reserve judgement. The old maxim is definitely true that a "lie goes around the world before the truth gets it's laces tied." Often, just waiting a bit will bring the lie to light: keep debates open for a while. Example: Once, biblical critics claimed the bible was wrong because there was no such race as the Hitties. Then, years later, we discovered the Hittites. Likewise with the now-discredited claims about Mithraism. Moral: Don't jump to half-baked conclusions based on an apparent lack of evidence or incomplete data. Remember, arguments from silence are usually fallacious, and sometimes it takes years or even decades resolve a matter of archaeology or history. Have opinions, but keep an open mind, and don't resolve things prematurely.

(c) Be serious. If someone is yelling at you, throwing up all kinds of things you're not familliar with (Mithras, Hume, the "Dark Ages") be willing to engage their criticism. Ask where they can find documentation for what they're saying. Give them an e-mail address and tell them you want to know more about it, as long as they're willing to listen to your responses. Take their objections seriously.

After all, seriously: If your faith is false, shouldn't you want to know that? Is there any virtue in believing a lie?

And challenge them back: If you can prove what they're saying is wrong, would they be willing to change their mind?

It has been my experience that an open, honest approach freaks critics out. Generally, they start reconsidering, apparently thinking something along the lines of: "Oh, wait. I wonder what I've told could be wrong." They'll usually retreat pretty fast. In some cases, you'll find that they're really not that interested in the truth, when you start showing some of what they've been quoting are the exact kind of lies they've been accusing you of -- and they suddenly don't want to know anything more about their alleged area of concern. In other cases, you'll both learn something and possibly become better friends.

As C.S. Lewis once said: "Make it clear you actually believe this stuff."

Tricks to watch for:

(d) Many accounts like the above are built on obscuring details, hiding important data from the reader to mislead them. For example, there were twelve signs of the zodiac associated with Mithraism in one image. These become "companions", and ultimately "followers" -- and thus the casual reader is deceived into thinking they are just like Jesus's disciples. (Never mind that one was the sun god.) Doing detailed research into the specific belief exposes the crucial differences. This is also true on a macroscopic level, where huge theological differences are hidden.

(e) Another trick is to look for is improbable, exotic linkages where mundane ones will suffice. Example: Judiasm has a yearly passover feast. Christianity arose in the heart of Israel. But instead of looking for the origins of the "last supper" in the obvious place -- the surrounding Jewish culture -- Mithraic-origin promoters try to draw a tenuous link to an obscure pagan military cult. Likewise, "twelves" in pagan belief are usually associated with the signs of the zodiac, so there's no need to try to draw some linkage with, say, a Jewish rabbi and his associates. (And never mind that Jewish belief also had lots of twelves.)

(f) A third trick involves linking universally common experiences. For example, feasts are part of most religions. They were part of Judiasm and part of many pagan religions. So showing two religions or sects had members who sometimes ate together is hardly proof A stole the idea from B. Likewise with miracles, sacrifices, motifs involving death, an afterlife (and thus a resurrection), the heavens and "salvation" from some undesirable state, event, or outcome. Similarity is not causality!

Example: The Mayans believed in 13 stellar (zodiacal) gods -- twelve plus a central, controlling element. Therefore, we have proved that the idea for Jesus and his disciples came out of Mayan beliefs, right? Wrong: Mayan civilization died out centures before Christianity started, and existed on a different continent. You have to show an actual borrowing, not just snarkily imply "suspicious" similarities (which inevitably aren't -- suspicious, that is).

Likewise, the Mayan god Kukulcan was associated with fishing (just like Jesus!), healing people (just like Jesus!) teaching us divine law (just like Jesus!), and ressurrection from the dead (just like Jesus!). But that again doesn't prove the first Jewish followers stole the idea for Jesus from the Mayan god Kukulcan. (And follow the link to see how my true description of Kukulcan was also deceptive.)

(g) Many critics rely on old materials. Spong, for example, relies on arguments which were answered by apologists centuries ago, while pretending it is his opponents who are not widely-read, nor up on the latest scholarship. It's all bluster and tone, but if you boil it down looking only for hard facts, there's nothing there. Likewise, low-quality New Age and atheism pages will quote long-discredited research and theories, falsely asserting, as the "God Who Wasn't There" movie does, that "These criticisms have never been answered!" In truth, they have been answered, and it is those answers which the critics steadfastly refuse to respond to, or even the admit they exist.

(h) Last but least, remember people sometimes lie and make stuff up. If you're the kind of person who doesn't, you may be surprised by the frequency with which this occurs in this area. Especially effective are the kind of two-layered lies I hint at above, where a person is engaged in some dishonesty AND simultaneously accusing their opponents of the exact vice they are presently perpetrating. Most people aren't prepared for that kind of world-class flim-flam and get whacked by it fairly easily. (We are, after all, sheep.)

So If you see a claim on one page which appears to have no support at all, and nobody can give you the source, remember: there's a good chance it may simply be fiction. Reserve judgement and keep an open mind, but don't bother worrying about it until you see some hard evidence.

As Jesus said: "You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."