Some say Christianity came from Mithraism along with every major Christian doctrine, such as the virgin birth of Jesus and his resurrection. Is this true?
Was Christianity formed on the back of Mithraism? Did the cult of Mithras inspire the Christian religion? A sizable number of Christianity's critics, especially those on the Internet, say "Yes." Though they are outside the mainstream scholarly community in making this claim, they are nevertheless a highly vocal and visible minority. And if their position is correct, then Christianity - as they well know - is fatally undermined and discredited.
The Gospel of Jesus Christ
At its core, the central message of Christianity is that God came into the world in human form to atone for the sins of mankind. That Jesus of Nazareth was Immanuel - God with us - and that he:
was born of a virgin
taught the kingdom of God, gathering followers (including twelve primary disciples)
performed miracles
was crucified
rose from the dead
ascended back into heaven, and...
is coming again
The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the "Good News" that Jesus rose from the dead, thus validating his claim to be the Messiah and the Son of God - and that he therefore is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life" (John 14:6).
Christianity and Mithraism
Not so, say critics like Vexen Crabtree, who runs a website on Mithraism and Christianity. A student of pagan religions and a self-described Satanist, Crabtree writes: "Christianity grew out of a mixture of Persian Mithraism, Judaism and the works of individuals such as St. Paul who gave us written records of this synthesis."
Kenneth Humphreys, whose website "Jesus Never Existed," takes aim at virtually all of the major tenets of Christianity, maintains that Mithraism was a "dress rehearsal" for Christianity and that the two religions are virtually identical. Humphreys writes:
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.
Others make the claim that Mithras, like Jesus, was born of a virgin, but Humphreys readily grants this is a weak parallel. In fact, Humphreys argues that "Mithraism's failure to have anthropomorphised its god into a man - something which was to be accomplished so successfully by Christianity - weakened the cult's appeal to the uneducated and opened the door to the competition."
Tracing the Origins of MithraismAs the two religions (MIthraism and Christianity) are currently understood, the parallels are striking and difficult to dispute. However, it takes more than similarity and parallel to prove a connection, particularly a dependent one.
What we know about Mithraism comes primarily from Franz Cumont, a Belgian scholar who pieced together a theoretical understanding of the ancient mystery religion from various strands of evidence. His 1903 monumental work, Mysteries of Mithras, is regarded as a foundational milestone in the scholarly study of Mithraism.
Two facts should be understood about Cumont's work:
His work was the inspiration behind a wave of early-to-mid 20th century scholarship that claimed Christianity arose from Mithraism
Since the 1960s and 70s, much of Cumont's work and many of the subsequent conclusions by those 20th century scholars linking Christianity and Mithraism have been rejected
The biggest problem facing Cumont's thesis is that the earliest Mithraic inscription in the West dates to a statue from the year A.D. 101. And while the god Mithras has been traced to the fourteenth century B.C., the vast majority of texts describing Mithraic beliefs are dated after A.D. 140. So what, you ask?
The current understanding of Mithraic beliefs is based on Mithraic inscriptions and texts that date to the second, third, and fourth centuries in this common era. It is sheer speculation, at best, to argue that Mithraism (as explained by Cumont and 20th century scholarship) is the same form of Mithraism that stretches back to its ancient origins in Persia. There is no documentary evidence to support such speculation. That means it's possible that some of the tenets of Mithraism similar to Christianity may have been copied from Christianity as opposed to the other way around. One can speculate in either direction, and it's just that -- speculation.
The Origins of the Gospel of Christ
Whatever the origins of Mithraism, there is documentary evidence attesting to the origins of Christianity. Agnostic, liberal, and conservative New Testament scholars agree that parts of the New Testament were written as early as the fifth decade of the common era (50s A.D.), and that these writings were heavily informed by oral traditions carried forward by Jesus' closest followers.
Furthermore, the core of Christian theology was fully developed by the end of the first century A.D., with Christianity's leading apostles articulating the basic tenets of Christianity - which can still be heard from pulpits today.
This means that the Christian religion can be traced, via documentary evidence, to the same century - even to within 20 years - of its founder! Very few religions in the world have such strong documentary evidence supporting them. Certainly not Mithraism.
*********
Sources for this article include:
The Case for the Real Jesus by Lee Strobel (Zondervan 2007)
The copyright of the article Mithras and Christ in Protestantism is owned by Brian Tubbs. Permission to republish Mithras and Christ must be granted by the author in writing.
Comments
Apr 5, 2008 5:23 AM
Pink
:
. In his most recent article, Brian claims: . <i>At its core, the central message of Christianity is that God came into the world in human form to atone for the sins of mankind. That Jesus of Nazareth was Immanuel - God with us - and that he:
* was born of a virgin * taught the kingdom of God, gathering followers (including twelve primary disciples) * performed miracles * was crucified * rose from the dead * ascended back into heaven, and... * is coming again
The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the "Good News" that Jesus rose from the dead, thus validating his claim to be the Messiah and the Son of God - and that he therefore is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life" (John 14:6).</i> . I disagree that you even come close to identifying the Gospel. . The "Good News" is that human beings do NOT have to go through some religious rigamarole to please some angry god; but, that a direct relationship with the God Spirit is the norm. The result of that is that the priesthood and every other supposed super person or persons is removed as legitimate authority over us--we are sovereigns with God. Jesus is the example of what sets us free from the bondage of every evil authority. .
Apr 5, 2008 7:35 AM
Brian Tubbs
:
Other than your comment about it being the "norm," you have a slice of the pie with your answer - but not the whole thing. Yes, Jesus makes a way for us to have a relationship with God apart from complex, hierarchical religious orders. You are correct about that, but only partly so.
The Good News of Jesus Christ IS centered on Jesus' resurrection, because it validated who Jesus said he was - namely the Son of Man (a divine self-description). Jesus was God in the flesh. He is Immanuel.
Pink, you reject this - as is your right. But you are postulating a theory that is limited and NOT based on any historical evidence.
Do you really believe you have a better idea of the Gospel than the Apostle Paul? Do you actually believe your theory has more credibility than the Apostle Peter?
Apr 5, 2008 8:01 AM
Pink
:
. What it means to be the son of man and the son of God is relative to the issue involved in the life and death of Jesus. . What makes a person a "son of man" is that they carry the weight of the world on their shoulders. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Weber . Jesus is presented as being a person identified with all humanity in a way that he felt everyone's pain. That is difficult for us to do; but, if we try, we can experience some small part of it. The more trod upon we are, the more we feel the pain. . Jesus had gone beyond the place where he could appeal to the temple leaders for any satisfaction. He plead with God for understanding--he sought to know. And, he learned the truth about God--he became the Son of God. . I think this is the hidden message of the Gospel that comes through all the biblical rhetoric and religiosity. . The truth about God is available to each and every one of us outside the realms of organized religion which puts an unnecessary burden on our backs and entangles us in bondage to its authority. .
Apr 5, 2008 8:40 AM
Brian Tubbs
:
Do you believe the meaning of words should be based on the intent of those who spoke or wrote them? Or...
Do you believe the meaning of words should be determined by those who READ them?
Apr 5, 2008 8:46 AM
Pink
:
. It's not that simple. . Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. . And, it is constantly changing. . Meanings of words are constantly affected by the context in which the words appear. . Migisi has reminded us time and again that the only thing constant is change. .
Apr 5, 2008 8:58 AM
Brian Tubbs
:
This is probably one of the major points of disagreement I have with you and Migisi. I understand that things change, but some things should NOT change.
When Jesus called himself the "Son of Man," he meant something. Let's call that meaning "X."
Now, it's true that different people have interpreted Jesus' "Son of Man" description in different ways over the centuries. In that sense, you could say that there's been change. But...
There's still one CONSTANT - and that's "X" (Jesus' original meaning).
The only meaning that REALLY matters at the end of the day is Jesus' original meaning.
Apr 5, 2008 9:26 AM
Pink
:
. <i>The only meaning that REALLY matters at the end of the day is Jesus' original meaning.</i> . Matters? Matters to whom? . And, who is to say what Jesus' original meaning was? You? Me? . That's why I say that meanings change. . <i>"...some things should NOT change."</i> . What should be is one thing. What is--is most often--something else. . I'm sure you've noticed that so far. . :)
Apr 5, 2008 12:36 PM
Brian Tubbs
:
Pink, if Jesus meant he was divine when he said "Son of Man," then that's what he meant.
If he meant what YOU said, then that's what he meant.
But to say that HIS meaning changes over time is bogus. I'll grant that people's INTERPRETATIONS of his meaning change. But Jesus said what he said and meant what he said - and that doesn't change.
Apr 5, 2008 12:49 PM
Pink
:
. I think a strong case can be made that the message given by Jesus is transcendent, i.e., it is able to flex with the times in which the respondent receives it. . We live in times that are so totally different than those of just a few generations ago that what they understood is not able to be appreciated today and vice versa. . When we expand that time back two thousand years and move it forward by the same amount of time, meanings change. . I see what you're saying and I don't have any problem with it. But, I know what I'm saying is just as valid. They are not different realities. But, each person is different from every other person. Our interpretation is what is important. THAT, in and of itself, is part of what it means for to be at one. When I am at one with you, that condition is different than when I am at one with someone else. When I am at one with God, that condition is different than when someone else is at one with God. . We are all individual in our own sense--no two of us is the same as each other. . It doesn't seem to be such a difficult thing for me to understand. It's like falling off a log. Very easy. .
Apr 7, 2008 12:41 PM
Brian Tubbs
:
I believe the writer of Hebrews would respond to your latest post here with the same words that he wrote in his original letter to the Hebrew Christians -- words we find in Hebrews 13:8...
<i><b>"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever."</b></i>
