'The Truth' Sounds Too Familiar...

[FallentoReason]

Thanks for your insightful post Undeceived.

Mithraism vaguely has its roots in Persia, but no descriptive writings show up until after Christ:
http://www.religionfacts.com/greco-roman...hraism.htm

The origins of Mithraism as a Roman cult are not fully understood. It clearly derives from ancient Persia in some way, but scholars are divided on whether the Roman cult is a westernized Persian religion or an essentially western religion with Persian trimmings.
The time period in which Mithraism flourished is better known, thanks to the archaeological evidence. The cult of Mithras appears suddenly in the 2nd century AD - hundreds of inscriptions begin appearing after 136 AD. It then died out with the rest of Greco-Roman paganism after the conversion of Constantine in the 4th century.

I think it possibly derived from Zoroastrianism. I think it's stretching the truth to say it 'suddenly appears in the 2nd century' because we have people like Plutarch commenting on the cult as early as 66 A.D.

According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica,

The most plausible hypothesis seems to be that Roman Mithraism was practically a new creation, wrought by a religious genius who may have lived as late as c. AD 100 and who gave the old traditional Persian ceremonies a new Platonic interpretation that enabled Mithraism to become acceptable to the Roman world.

Again, Plutarch debunks that in a matter of seconds. How does a 'religious genius' make up a religion that Plutarch mentioned 40 years before him already?

A commentary:

(2) 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 which filled the whole 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. Much as been made of the presence of adoring shepherds; but their existence on sculptures has not been proven, and considering that man had not yet appeared, it is an anachronism to suppose their presence.

In short, these “similarities” appeared right about when Christianity itself was gaining traction. With no concrete events to back them up, it seems to be an attempt to make Mithraism more appealing to the Roman world, riding on the popularity of Christianity.

I'm not sure where you're getting that idea from. Christianity wasn't popular at all in the beginning, we all know that. Mithraism was definitely around in the 1st century which was at the same time as Christianity when it wasn't popular. Ideas like a sacrifice rewarding humanity with eternity were already in place in Mithraism because that's been the central teaching all along as Mithraeums (the caves they worshipped in, just like early Christians) show us through the statues of Mithra slaying the bull.

As for the commentary, it's not very convincing because it's clearly a biased Christian apology rather than an historical insight. Saying things like:

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.

and attempting to alienate the two ideas is clearly biased. The fact is that both are "saviour god" religions. If this person can dismiss the Eucharist similarity as being trivial because 'the idea of a sacred banquet is as old as the human race and existed at all ages and amongst all peoples' then the same goes for the way in which mankind was redeemed. This era was obsessed with this idea so what's so special about any of these acts?

Horus has his birth in a book written by English poet Gerald Massey. Practically nothing is known of the ancient Horus but, like Dan Brown, this fiction writer has managed to spread his lies to anyone who will believe them:
http://stupidevilbastard.com/2005/01/end..._of_horus/

....

The Books of the Dead from the Saite period tend to organize the Chapters into four sections:
Chapters 1–16 The deceased enters the tomb, descends to the underworld, and the body regains its powers of movement and speech.
Chapters 17–63 Explanation of the mythic origin of the gods and places, the deceased are made to live again so that they may arise, reborn, with the morning sun.
Chapters 64–129 The deceased travels across the sky in the sun ark as one of the blessed dead. In the evening, the deceased travels to the underworld to appear before Osiris.
Chapters 130–189 Having been vindicated, the deceased assumes power in the universe as one of the gods. This section also includes assorted chapters on protective amulets, provision of

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

My university has a 3-volume copy of one of these books. It's all in Egyptian hieroglyphics though so I can't quite read it . Either way, I don't think we can attribute the stories to anyone but the Egyptians though. These traditions have been written all over their monuments and later into the Book of the Dead. It seems like you should know this anyways, as your source says:

He parlayed that interest in Egypt into several books and lectures in which he set forth the proposition that Horus was in essence the first Jesus, and Jesus was a cheap imitation. The primary basis for his writing is the Egyptian Book of the Dead.

Heracles’ “similarities” are incidental and few. Their births are polar opposites—God never came in contact with Mary, while Heracles ermerged out of rape. Both had earthly fathers, but so did a hundred other half-bloods in Greek mythology. Heracles is nothing special. He is a plot device to link the gods to the people. Jesus was man for a purpose—he had to be human to save mankind from their sin. The rest of the similarities aren’t too impressive. Heracles being a hero, toying with death, being betrayed—these are all human themes.
It’s highly doubtful that Jews use a pagan religion for ideas, and even less likely for them to believe it. In the end, they believed because of all the prophecies fulfilled by Christ—prophecies written before Heracles and other challenging legends.

There's similarities nonetheless.

It's funny you portray as Jews not easily believing other religions because the same goes for Jesus. There's still Jews around today, which shows you they're sceptical of the supposed prophecies that were fulfilled.

I have made numerous threads on this topic showing where various details about Jesus' life came from in the OT.

They should complement each other. That does not mean one came from the other. Rather, the fact one fulfills the other shows how diligent the authors would have had to have been in order to fabricate the NT. Other Holy Books don’t bother with fulfilled prophecies—the Quran has zero apart from self-fulfilled predictions like Muhammad promising to return to Mecca. Christ fulfills at least 351.

[/quote]
I'll repeat again: every similarity between OT and NT I've shown has to do with trivial events in Jesus' life, like walking up to a fig tree that's out of season. That scene comes straight from Hosea 9. So of course Jesus will eventually 'fulfil' x amount of prophecies as well, because if you're copy + pasting from the OT to make up his life why not also make him fulfil whatever you want?

On a side note, some of these 'prophecies fulfilled' don't actually even make sense. I can't remember exactly where in Matthew it is, but I think it talks about Jesus being born but if you read the 'prophecy' it's referring to in the OT it actually has nothing to do with a messiah. I remember it says something about Israel being the son..? I can't quite remember it right now.