Uninformed skeptics often suggest that Jesus never actually existed, but is rather a mythical figure evolved from the earlier story of Mithra. Most of the claims are simply factually inaccurate. In reality, Jesus and Mithra have almost nothing in common.

Supposed items Christianity stole from Mithraism:

  1. Mithra born of a virgin
  2. Mithra born December 25th
  3. Mithra's birth attended by shepherds
  4. Mithra considered great traveling teacher and master
  5. Mithra had 12 disciples
  6. Mithra's eucharist
  7. Mithra performed miracles
  8. Mithra buried in tomb, rose 3 days later
  9. Mithra's sacrifice of eternal blood gave followers immortality
  10. Mithra's resurrection celebrated annually
  11. Mithra's yearly passover sacrifice a symbolic atonement for physical and moral regeneration
  12. Mithra called "Good Shepherd", identified as lion and lamb
  13. Mithra called "the Way", "the Savior", "the Messiah"
  14. Mithra's sacred day Sunday, "the Lord's day", had an Easter festival
  15. Mithra sacrificed himself for world peace
  16. Mithra reference in 1 Corinthians
  17. Mithraic services by Roman Catholic priests

The sources of the Jesus-is-Mithra poppycock:

Mithra was born of a virgin in a cave

This is one of many factually inaccurate claims. The story of Mithra says that he was born, as a fully-grown man, out of solid rock. It's a bit muddy, but from what I can tell, this is where the "cave" part of the story comes from--Mithra left behind a large cavity on the rock when he was "born". I also found that Perseus was said to have been born, according to some versions, in an underground cavern, and his birth shares some similarities with that of Mithra. Perhaps this is where the idea of a cave comes from. Of course, Jesus wasn't born in a cave, so I'm not sure why skeptics mention this in the first place.

I suppose technically the rock could be considered a virgin, but it's a bit of a stretch. Nevermind the Old Testament prophecies dealing with the virgin birth, or the fact that the earliest reference to even the rock birth of Mithra is over a century after Christ. The other story of Mithra's birth I came across is from a Persian tradition which says that Mithra was born through an incestuous relationship between a god and his mother. Again, no virgin is involved here. What's more, part of the virgin birth of Christ is a focus on Christ's true humanity. This is quite a contrast from a rock-birth or a birth to incestuous deities.

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

While Acharya S responded to one e-mail, she gave absolutely no reply to subsequent e-mail asking for the basis of her claim that 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?

Mithraic customs in Roman Catholic services

Aside from members of the groups calling each other "brothers", which is classic Greco-Roman "kinship terminology", there's really nothing to this claim.

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.