Reply #14: Interesting post.

[dimbear]

It has to be admitted you assert some things that may or may not be true. So little is known of Mithraic doctrine that not much can be stated with any degree of certainty.

The very latest scholarly opinion (that I know of) is that rather than borrowing back and forth from each other, both Christianity and Mithraism take from a common source, the great body of pagan legendry. Roger Beck has a remarkable book on the subject, which unfortunately is both crushingly expensive and hard sledding, but comprehensive.

Example: Mithras and JC both born on the same day, but just because that day was the winter equinox. The astrological symbols were hardly Mithraic in origin, they were the common lore of the day. They show up in synagogues, churches, the Vatican, and so on.

Mithras the Roman invention is probably just as distant from his Persian antecedent Mitra as Jesus the Roman invention is from the itinerant exorcist of Galilee. In so many words, the early investigators of Mithraism led by Cumont made a leap of faith that wasn't justified. In fact that idea that Mithras and Mitra are closely connected persists today on Iranian propaganda sites.:)

I am glad you brought up the fact that so many Christian churches are built on Mithraea. They are in fact specifically so built to make the statement that Christianity had conquered its main opponent. It is the architectural equivalent of spitting on an enemy's grave. That's a rough point for apologists. :)