Mithra - Don't Christians feel embarrassed at Christmas time..........?

Question

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/origen048.html

"The religion of Mithra preceded Christianity by roughly six hundred years."

Christianity is a sham. A violent and murderous sham at that.

kickindevilbutt

"it is far more probable that if any borrowing was done, it was done by the pagan religions that wanted to emulate the success of Christianity."

lmao

Answer 1

Im Pagan so no I adore it!!

i found this article out to learn more about Mithra

http://www.truthbeknown.com/mithra.htm

Interesting how similar Jesus and Mithra's lives were!!

Today christmas to MOST is not Religious anymore so most would not feel embarrassed. Only hardcore ones would or should be!!

They tried to get rid of it and failed so they adapted it into the religion instead!! funny huh!

Answer 2

First: Mithra was born on 25 December. So what?

Second: It may have preceeded Christianity by 600 years, but nothing much is known about its theology before the end of the first century. It was after all a mystery religion, and as such tried to keep its practices away from the prying eyes of outsiders.

Third: Mithra was born of a virgin. Wrong. In the original version of the myth Mithra was born out of a rock prior to the creation of the world. In all likelihood the later tradition was borrowed from Christianity rather than the other way round.

Fourth: Shepherds were present at the birth. Wrong again. Like I said, in the original version of the legend Mythra was born prior to the creation of the world, si it isn't immediately obvious how the shepherds come into it. That is similarly almost certainly borrowed from Christianity, rather than the other way round.

Don't atheists ever get tired of repearting that one?

Answer 3

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 popular in the Roman 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.

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.

BTW, Jesus was not born on Christmas. That is simply the day the Church selected to celebrate his Mass.

Cheers,
Bruce

Answer 4

i'm an atheist, and being the age of 14, this remark won't recommend lots or so. although, transforming into up, my family individuals and that i Celebrated Christmas. we don't rejoice it in a manner of Jesus's Birthday, that is greater so of a trip the place family individuals social gathering, and presents are all shared around. not lots concept is quite positioned into it, different than the seen the grants offered for one yet another. Being a infant, Christmas replaced into the day Father Christmas, or Santa, got here to offer us presents. As a infant, it replaced into all approximately getting grants from Santa, and now not believing in him, it is going to become greater of a family individuals get-mutually. subsequently, Christmas merely makes me sense heat and satisfied, you get the treats and the affection. i think i've got responded this incorrectly, although, regardless of if it quite is on the right music, i'm hoping it provides some different attitude to how I interpret Christmas as an atheist. Sorry if there are a pair of blunders or sentences that do not make lots sense, i'm extremely drained :)

Answer 5

Most religions with the name of Christianity have been involved in immoral activity, murder, etc, it's true. But true Christianity was never meant to be like that. First century Christianity was peacable and neighbourly, true 21st century Christianity is also like that. It promotes he true God, not some mysterious trinity. It promotes God's kingdom, not the nations or the United Nations, none of which has ever been able to bring about peace.

What you point out about Mithra is absolutely true, of course, but it goes further back, to ancient Babylon, whose religion influence the religions of teh whole world except that which originates with the true God. If you ever come across a book called "The Two Babylons", it's well worth a read, though it can be difficult with it's use of slightly arcaic language. You can get it through a company called Golden Age Books.

Answer 6

Not much is actually known about Mithraic religion. I wouldn't read too much into the excessive speculation of pop-religion books on the subject... what very little (and I do mean very little) is known from Mithraism comes from a stele and the writings of Plutarch and Christians who knew about the religion.

all the fanciful stuff on this website is fake, and has nothing to do with any known historical data. You should be less gullible.

Mithraic hierarchy bears no resemblence to the East Orthodox hierarchy, which actually resembles the Catholic hierarchy (bishops, priests, deacons.) There is no given date for any Mithras "birth" in Mithraism, because Mithraism had no writings or scriptures, and certainly no actual "birth date" that one can fix to Dec. 25 (this claim constitutes nothing more than the wild-eyed imaginings of modern pop religion writers, and is backed by no known historical data.)

If you're actually interested in some real information on the topic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraic_Mysteries

And as to the pop religion dreck, backed with zero historical sources, on the Internet? I give that old advice - don't believe everything you read.

Answer 7

Nobody in this day and age really thinks that. Nobody really knows who Mithra is. (Thanks for the info.) Everyone knows Christ though. There is no comparison. Do you suppose we should all worship Mithra? You are not making sense. Christmas is a time for families to be together and think about the light coming from the darkness (except Australians, South Americans and South Africans.) (This analogy would just not make sense to them.)

So, if I were a follower of Mithras instead of this Christ who imitates him, (as you claim) you would condemn me forever for loving my family and neighbors?

Answer 8

answered this question before. giving you clear explanation with links and historical established fact.
quite obvious that even though you know your inference to be incorrect you continue this childish mud slinging anyway.
heres a link for all reading this question (again) - this link clearly explains how mithraism was in no way influential on christianity. (its about 10 pages in size).

http://tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html

multiple pages of sites refuting the mithrian influence on christianity can be easily found on google yahoo etc. most using solid research and facts from academics.

maybe just aswell you keep asking this question - as it inevitably spreads the truth about the whole mithras thing. carry on.

Answer 9

Well, at the very least, Santa Claus sounds much better than Santa Mithra. Besides, Mithra'mas would definitely suck... It would probably end by setting everything ablaze, in an attempt to destroy the world and restart a new cycle. It's kinda of a downer when all you want to do is finish off your eggnog and play with your new toy-things. ;-)

Answer 10

Because there are similarities between any religion does not logically mean that one came from the other. That is very poor arguing.
Christianity is historical in its origins, based on a historical figure, Jesus of Nazareth, who lived and died in what is now the area of Israel. This is not only from the Bible but from history of the time and from the Talmud.
The claim that Christianity is "violent and murderous" is ridiculous. Christianity is responsible for Western civilization. The most violence ever perpetrated on the earth was in the 20th century by leaders who were atheists: Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Pol Pot.