I totally disagree with you and so does secular history based on actual archeological research.<quoted text>
For an atheist you sure have a persucution complex. Disagreement is not hate, but much like the gay left, anyone who disagree's with you is hatefull..
Your mirtha thesis is prety common and easily debunked. What is far more probable is that as Mithraism developed, it started to adopt Christian concepts.What is more probable is that with the explosive nature of the Christian church in the 1st and 2nd century, other cult groups started to adapt themselves to take advantage of some of the teachings found in Christianity. This is certainly the case with what are called the Gnostic "gospels" and is well noted by serious historians. even though there are similarities between Christianity and Mithraism, it is up to the critics to prove that one borrowed from the other. But, considering that the writers of the New Testament were Jews who shunned pagan philosophies and that the Old Testament has all of the themes found in Christianity, 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..
You have the cart before the horse
The Mithra cult has not left much in written records but several of their temples have been found and to claim that Christianity preceded Mithraism is contradicted by the hard evidence that has been found:
This is not the only site that discusses the findings but it should be helpful in considering the reality of how ancient the Mithra myth is and what the implications of this is for the Roman version of Christianity.
Here is what another site says about the origins of Mithraism:
"The earliest written reference to Mithras comes in the form of a treaty between the
Hittites and the Mitanni about 1375 B.C.E. When the Aryan tribes came down from the
Russian steppes, sometime between 2000 and 1500 B.C.E., they brought their gods with
them. These people were called the Mitanni and entered India and Iran (Persia). Mithras
was a redeemer god and also was the epitome of morality."
Some use this obvious ancient Mithra connection to the Roman form of patriarchal hierarchical Christianity to dismiss the relevance of anything the historical Jesus said altogether.
Your defense of your church is understandable but consider if you accepted the Church and find it does not match the historical Jesus as I have been maintaining here on topix for the last four years, who do you accept, Jesus, or the Church?
Historical evidence shows you do have a real choice, there was a real Jesus, He just isn't the one people today would recognize.
If you strip away all of the baggage of the church, you find a simple experiential truth that can be confirmed on an individual basis and is the good news that the historical Jesus shared, the truth that sets you free!
GOD is LOVE. WE are ALL ONE WITH GOD, even the unloving!