"Romans is one of the four letters of Paul known as the Hauptbriefe, which
are universally accepted as authentic. It is typically dated c. 57 CE."

[..]

the

thing

This is not true - there are texts dating to about 120 AD - which scholars
regard as genuine - part of Johns Gospel.
The letters of Paul precede the gospels are around 40-50 AD - corroborated
by the roman and Jewish figures.
There was prior to this a well established oral tradition- sufficient to
record Pilate - since identified by archaeological evidence.

"In a paper read at the centenary meeting of the Society of Biblical
Literature in New York at the end of 1964, Professor Aland enumerated the
material now available to New Testament textual critics as comprising 78
papyri, 224 uncials, about 2,650 cursives and about 2,000 lectionaries (all
this representing an increase by some 900 manuscripts over thirty years). Of
these the Munster Institute had then facsimiles (photocopy or microfilm) of
71 papyri, 208 uncials, 1,910 cursives and 1,320 lectionaries,

Of recent discoveries in New Testament manuscripts the most important are
the Bodmer papyri. These are papyri acquired by the Bodmer Library, Geneva;
the name of M. Martin Bodmer now rivals that of Sir Alfred Chester Beatty as
a collector of biblical papyri. About 1956 the Bodmer Library acquired a
papyrus codex of John's Gospel (Papyrus 66) which was written about A.D.
200. The first fourteen chapters are almost complete; the remaining seven
survive in substantial fragments. Of comparable date in the same collection
are Papyrus 75, containing the second half of Luke and the first half of
John, and Papyrus 72, containing the Epistles of Peter and Jude. Much later
is Papyrus 74 (sixth or seventh century),"

Trajan was Roman Emperor in 98-117.
Trajan also added "that if any one [Christian] denies that he is a
Christian" by worship of the Roman gods, that person is to be released.
etc etc.

I am not a fundie - the argument is over an historical figure - all i'm
saying is given the evidence jesus as a real figure is probable - there is
more evidence for that than many other historical figures and events which
are generally accepted from texts far more recent... it is the fundie
athetists who are being hypocritical, and tell downright lies...

Yes and the generally accept the reality of the man jesus - a few do not.

Vanderbilt

My opinion of atheists was that they were reasonable people - i have now
seen how unreasonable some can be. The existence of an historical jesus like
an historical Buddha shouldn't make any difference. - Or Babism - here is a
religion which has a clearly identified historical figure. The question is
why do these atheists concentrate on Jesus - ignoring Buddha, The Gurus and
the Bab - the last two thought divine by their followers.

Mithra*

Mithra was born an adult from a rock... and dates from around 90AD..*.

other

His birth was fixed at the roman winter solstice - as its unknown - his
death was fixed by the festival of the Passover - its in the account.
Certainly Easter is a time of pagan celebration - but with Christianity its
a Jewish festival what gives time of year of his death. *

added

Well you might think so - just like the Mithras story which doesnt fit -
mithras for instance was only for men... Christianity was not.
But the argument here is about the likelihood of an actual figure, not the
originality of the message. This would be impossible to discuss with someone
not interested in the text.

Does it - then they both existed- there is archaeological evidence for
Pilate. (actually that isnt good science at all - the fact just helps give
confidence as to the nature of the text)

Is the Jesus Puzzle *- some crackpot book - skimming the web - books and
sites - again the bias is obvious - such writers could deny any historical
event including the holocaust.... history is always open to doubt - but
taking historical figures the evidence for jesus is sufficient to say its
probable. To argue that it was made up 300 years later is stupid - by that
time the belief was widespread- but if you want to believe it was a myth -
then fine - like all conspiracy theories its impossible to disprove. The CIA
killed Lady Di... etc.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/aurelius.html
Obviously a fake!
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/tertullian.html
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/origen.html

"Romans is one of the four letters of Paul known as the Hauptbriefe, which
are universally accepted as authentic. It is typically dated c. 57 CE."

or

I like the "WE" - at present you appear on your own ...

The fact is that this knowledge was lost to the west....so it was probably
an arab Islamic conspiracy - there was no Euclid...

*
"You don't have to search the web long to find quite a few sites eager to
tell you the great similarities between Mithraism and Christianity. These
sites either imply or outright state that Christianity is a fraudulent
creation based primarily on Pagan religion, and especially on Mithraism.
There you will see lists, some quite long, of the things the two religions
have in common. The only problem is that most of the items on these lists
aren't true. What we have here is a garbage in, garbage out, situation. If
the majority of your facts are wrong, your conclusion will also be wrong.

In the comparison between Mithraism and Christianity, the situation is even
worse. Even if every single item on these lists were true, it can still be
proven that Christianity didn't take any of them from Mithraism. Before
getting to the lists, I want to get one thing out of the way.

We often read that Mithraism was a major rival of Christianity. The classic
expression of this is from Ernest Renan, who wrote in 1923, that "If
Christianity had been arrested in its growth by some fatal malady, the world
would have be-come Mithraist" (quoted in Manfred Clauss' The Roman Cult of
Mithras: The God and his Mysteries, p. 168. I will be relying heavily on
this book for refer-ences, since it is in print and a very good summary of
the evidence. For a fuller bibliography, see the reading list page.)

But was it? Mithraism was a mystery cult, open only to men, popular
primarily among soldiers and middle managers (Clauss, chapter 6), with no
central organization. Right away we see a problem: membership was barred to
half the population. Of the half that could join, only certain classes
showed interest. And why not; did the average citizen of Rome have the
leisure or the education to study for initiation in such a group? Further,
it is hard to conceive of a religion made up of small, independent, secret
groups ever becoming in any sense official.

The relevance of this to whether Christianity took things from Mithraism is
this: what would have been the point? The two religions weren't competing
for the same converts until Christianity was fairly well established. Now to
the lists. I'll give the list entries in italics, followed by my re-sponses
in ordinary print. This list is a composite of a number of those found on
the web, many of which repeat the same points, making it impossible to
deter-mine the originator of any of them.

Mithras was the son of a virgin. We have a large number of representations
of the birth of Mithras. (Clauss, pp. 63 - 71, shows some of these, as does
Ulansey, pp. 36 and 96.) He rises from a rock, with a dagger in one hand and
a torch in the other. He is wearing a cap. There are no women in any of
these im-ages. Mithras was born on December 25th. The answer to this is
somewhat complicated. The Christian Scriptor Syrus, writing in the late
fourth century CE, tells us:

"It was a custom of the Pagans to celebrate on the same 25 December the
birthday of the sun. ... Accordingly, when the doctors of the Church
perceived that the Christians had a leaning to this festival, they took
counsel and resolved that the true Nativity should be solemnized on that
day" (quoted in Hutton, p. 1).

December 25th was the birthday of the sun, then; to be specific, of Sol
Invictus, the "Unconquered Sun." The complication here is over the question
of whether Mithras and Sol Invictus are the same deity. Sometimes it seems
that they are. There is an inscription from the first quarter of the second
century CE, found in Rome, that refers to "Sol(i) M(ithrae)" (Clauss, p.
22). (Roman dedica-tions commonly included abbreviations; that the "M"
referred to Mithras is obvi-ous because the inscription is on an image of
him.) Further, Mithras is often called "Invictus," just like the sun.

There are two problems here. First, "Invictus" was a title which was applied
to gods other than Mithras and Sol. Hercules, for instance, was called that,
as were even emperors (Clauss, p. 24). This particular title is therefore
not significant.

Even more telling, in the images we find in the Mithraic temples Sol is
clearly separate from Mithras. He sends Mithras a message, invites him to
heaven, shakes his hand, puts a crown on his head, and sits down at a meal
with him. The best we can say, then, is that Mithras both was and wasn't the
sun.

Of course, the date of Christmas is not particularly important in the
origins of Christianity, and has no bearing on Christian theology. It is
worth noting, however, that the feast of the birthday of the sun, while
definitely Pagan, wasn't pre-Christian. It was only established in 274 CE by
the emperor Aurelian (Hutton, p. 1). Even more significant, the most
important feast day of Sol Invictus wasn't even on December 25th, but rather
took place in October (Hutton, p. 2). All in all, then the idea that
Christians took the date of Christmas from Mithraism is shaky at best, and
insignificant to boot.

He was attended at his birth by shepherds. In images of Mithras' birth from
the rock he is sometimes accompanied by two small figures. The same figures
appear flanking the images of Mithras killing the bull in the Mithraic
temples, the most important cult image of Mithraism. They're dressed like
Mithras, and usually one carries a torch pointing up and one pointing down.
In no representations are they connected with sheep or with any tools of
shepherding. There are some rare examples when other figures, such as Saturn
or Oceanus are present, and a few show a snake as well. In short, there are
never shepherds present.

He was considered a great travelling teacher and master. The main event in
the life of Mithras is the killing of a bull. After this he ascends to
heaven, so any travelling and teaching would have to have been done prior to
the sacrifice. We have some representations of his life between his birth
and the death of the bull. (Clauss dedicates chapter 8, "The Sacred
Narrative," to these.) We know from these that he went hunting, he procured
water by shooting an arrow at a rock, and he carried the bull to a cave.
That's it. There was neither travelling nor teaching.

Mithras had twelve followers. I've already mentioned the two torchbearers.
They are present in almost every image of Mithras killing the bull. Other
figures can occur, some more frequently than others. The sun and the moon
are very common, although they are clearly meant to be up in the heavens
looking down at the death of the bull rather than accompanying Mithras.
Oceanus and Saturn, whom I mentioned earlier as sometimes present at
Mithras' birth, are also sometimes found in the tauroctony, although outside
of the main scene. There are, however, no twelve companions. Perhaps this
idea came from the fairly common representation of the circle of the zodiac
surrounding Mithras and the bull. Whatever the source, the point is made
moot, since as we have seen Mithras didn't travel or teach, so he would have
had neither companions nor followers.

He performed miracles. This one is actually partly right; we know of the one
miracle of producing water from a rock. I can't seen any significance in
this, though; how many major religious figures haven't performed miracles?

He was killed and buried in a tomb. Sometimes we are even told that he was
crucified. I am perplexed at how to respond to this. I suppose one way is
say that no Mithraic scholar seems to be aware of any image, inscription, or
text to this effect. If the makers of these lists know of one, I ask them to
send the references to me and I will pass them on to the scholars.

After three days he rose again. This is easily answered. Since he didn't die
he couldn't have risen from the dead.

He ascended into heaven. This is actually true. After killing the bull, he
was raised into heaven by the Sun, usually on the Sun's chariot. Note the
difference in theology between this and the ascension of Jesus, who ascends
through his own power. The ascension of Mithras is a typical Pagan ascension
to divinity. There is another important difference in this that cuts to the
heart of the question of whether Mithraism is similar to Christianity. In
Christianity Jesus ascends to heaven as a result of dying, but Mithras
ascends as a result of killing.

Once Mithras is in heaven, he and the Sun shake hands. They then sit down to
feast on the meat of the bull. This means that the killing of the bull, the
ascension, the handshake, and the feast follow one right after the other.
This speaks to the question of Mithras' reputed death and resurrection.
Since he killed the bull immediately before ascending, when was there time
for him to die and be resurrected?

This completes both the actual and the claimed story of the life of Mithras.
Our lists also tell us about Mithras himself.

He was called "the Way, the Truth, and the Light," "Redeemer," "Savior,"
"Messiah." As to the first three titles, I can only say that I have never
encountered them. But then, since none of the lists give any references, it
can't be said that any of their makers have encountered them either. If any
of my readers are aware of any inscriptions or texts with these titles,
please send them to me. "Redeemer" is a title which could not have been
applied to Mithras for theological reasons. A redeemer must redeem from
something. In Christian theology, this is seen as having been redeemed from
sin. The word "redemption" implies a payment, and we see this in the words
of St. Paul: "For ye are bought with a price" (1 Cor 6:20). This concept did
not exist within Roman Paganism, so the term "Redeemer" would have been
meaningless to Mithraists. Mithras was, however, called "Savior" ("Soter").
To compare Mithraism and Christianity on this point is simply to note that
they are both religions of salvation. This is an extremely underwhelming
observation. I am perplexed as to why Mithras would have been called
"Messiah," since that was a Jewish term that long predated contact between
Rome and the Jews. Are people suggesting that Roman Mithraists introduced
the word "Messiah" into Hebrew so that hundreds of years later it could be
applied to Jesus? If indeed Mithras had been called "Messiah" (and I am
unaware of any example of this), it could only mean that Mithraism had taken
the term from Judaism or Christianity, rather than the other way round.

Mithras was called the "Good Shepherd." Again I must first answer that if
anyone has an inscription to this effect, please contact Mithraic scholars;
they don't seem to know of it. It is worth noting as well that there is no
pastoral imagery among Mithraic artifacts.

He was identified with both the lion and the lamb. One more time, there are
no sheep of any age in Mithraism. We do sometimes find lions, but as
com-panions of Mithras, not forms of him. There is as well a deity found in
Mithraic temples who has a lion's head. This is not Mithras, however.

Mithras' resurrection was celebrated every year. Since, as we have seen,
Mithras didn't die, and could therefore not have been resurrected, it would
have been impossible for his resurrection to have been celebrated.

This celebration was at Easter. This one is almost laughable. An impossible
event was celebrated by Romans on a date determined by the Jewish calendar?
Christians taking from the Romans a date they had already inherited from
Judaism?

The holy day of Mithraism was Sunday. We know nothing about when Mithraic
rituals took place.

Mithraism had a ritual meal. This is true. Mithraic temples were set up for
this very purpose, and we are told by both Tertullian and Justin Martyr that
Mithraists had ritual meals of bread and wine (or bread and water) (Clauss,
pp. 108 - 109). As Clauss writes, however, "In the case of these analogies,
there can be no question of imitation in either direction. The offering of
bread and wine is known in virtually all ancient cultures, and the meal as a
means of binding the faithful together and uniting them to the deity was a
feature common to many religions" (p. 109).

In some lists, such as that given by Acharya S., this meal is referred to as
a "Eucharist," or "Lord's Supper." This choice of words is clearly meant to
assert a connection with Christianity simply by applying similar words.
Those words are, however, highly inappropriate, since they possess meanings
that we don't find in Mithraism. "Eucharist" comes from a Greek word
meaning, "grateful, thankful." There is no evidence of such an attitude in
the Mithraic ritual meal. Its modern meaning implies some sort of presence
of a deity in the food and drink consumed; again there is no evidence of
this in Mithraism. In fact, since the meal of Mithras and Sol, which is
surely the prototype of the Mithraic cult meal, has as its main element the
meat of the bull, the cult meal could not have had the meaning of eating the
god. "Lord's Supper" is equally loaded, since it implies a similarity with
the Last Supper of Christianity. But the first supper eaten after an
ascension which did not involve death is a very different thing from a last
supper eaten before death.

Of all the elements on this list, then, the significant ones aren't true,
and the true ones aren't significant. Where these ideas originated is beyond
me, but their repetition does no service to those who repeat them.

I've perhaps been a little dishonest up to now. I've shown point by point
how the supposed links between Mithraism and Christianity don't hold up. But
even if they were all true, it wouldn't show that Christianity had taken
anything from Mithraism, because that theory relies on an important
assumption, that Mithraism pre-dates Christianity. That seems obvious;
Mithraism is Pagan, and Paganism is pre-Christian. This assumption is wrong.

The Roman god Mithras has an ancestor in the Persian god Mithra. The worship
of this Persian deity can be traced to at least 2000 BCE, and continues
today. Mithra is a god of justice, truth, and light, and a helper in the
battle against evil.

Mithra and Mithras are not, however, the same deity, except in name. The
exact nature of the connection between the two is still debated, but Clauss
states the general attitude of Mithraic scholars quite succinctly: "We
cannot account for Roman Mithras in terms borrowed from Persian Mitra" (p.
7). This is a position based on the fact that the defining characteristics
of Roman Mithraism - small groups, initiations, masculine exclusivity,
underground worship, the god killing a bull, astrological symbolism - aren't
found in the Persian worship of Mithra. Roman Mithraism can therefore not be
said to date back to 2000 BCE; it was a new religion that appears rather
suddenly in the Roman empire.

When did it appear? Here is a hard truth: the earliest Mithraic artifact is
dated to about 90 CE (Clauss, p. 21). Let me repeat that date: 90 CE.

This date doesn't require much comment. It shows something that may seem
radical: any influence between Mithraism and Christianity would have had to
have flowed from Christianity to Mithraism, rather than the other way round.
Mithraism is not, in fact, a pre-Christian religion.

In summary, the argument that Mithraism was a source for Christian beliefs
or practices falls on three ground. First, there would have been no reason
for Christianity to have taken anything from Mithraism. Second, the elements
of Mithraism generally put forward as similar to Christianity are either
untrue or in-significant. Third, and most deadly, Mithraism actually appears
after Christianity.

Did Christianity steal from Mithraism? Most definitely not.

References:
Clauss, Manfred. The Roman Cult of Mithras: The God and his Mysteries. tr.
Richard Gordon. New York: Routledge, 2001.

Hutton, Ronald. The Stations of the Sun: A History of the Ritual Year in
Britain. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.

Ulansey, David. The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries: Cosmology and
Salvation in the Ancient World. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989."