Wow you're either deliberately obtuse or so severely close minded and misinformed that you're incapable of digging deeper for the facts.We already know your apologetic excuse for the Jesus myth being stolen from Mithras. Let me save you the time... You will point out some slight variations in the two stories all the whole ignoring the vast similarities. Even early Christian apologetics confessed the two were similar and that what happened was... Satan knew Jesus was coming and how he was to come and so he centuries prior created and inspired these false sons of god messiah stories to confuse others later.
Even if you ignore the obvious forgeries of Josephus and Tacitus' work as honest apologetics will admit they were forged... But even if we forgive and forget the forgeries all you have is two guys decades later writing what Christians told them. That is no more proof than someone saying their grandfather saw a ghost and a news reporter printing that story as proof for ghosts.
Again the first person to write about Jesus was people you confessed never met him.... Then the gospels were dishonestly written with facts changed around for different audiences again by your admission, remember?:)
Where do you get the idea that gospels were changed around?
Each author wrote according to his own perspective and to a specific audience. This doesn't mean they lied.
Luke wrote mainly to a gentile audience. Matthew was more concerned with reaching the Jewish audience. There's nothing even remotely dishonest about that. And I challenge you to tell us all how writing to a specific audience is dishonest. That should be an interesting reply. If you think you can.
Would you expect an Ethiopian financial historian to write a financial history of Hannibal, Missouri or tax history of Lexington, Kentucky if his focus was Ethiopian economics? No?
Then why shouldn't the gospel writers focus on a specific demographic?
Now the Mithras comparison can be completely dismantled by knowing both the superficial apparent similarities, and the historical facts regarding the timing of Mithraism and the idiotic conclusions of those who first raised the issue.
1) Mithras was alleged to have born out of a rock fully grown. This isn't even vaguely similar to a virgin birth. Show me a granite rock that's been pregnant with a human child and I'll suggest that your meds need to be changed.
2) The allegation that both Mithras and Jesus were born in caves isn't a dependent parallel. Many religions in the Greco-Roman world used caves because they were abundant and easily accessible. It was entirely normal in ancient Judea long before Christ, to use caves as shrines. Not only that, but as I stated earlier, many mangers were actually incorporated into the house of Jewish farmers. So there's still no parallel. Zip. Zilch. Nada.
3) The December 25th birthday parallel doesn't work because we don't know when exactly Jesus was born. Some Eastern orthodox churches celebrate it on January 6th even to this day. The likely explanation is that Constantine "confiscated" the pagan holiday of Sol Invictus and designated it as "Christmas." It doesn't appear in Christian tradition until 336 AD. About 300 years AFTER Christ.
4) There are NO written recorded historical documents for the death of Mithras from those who practiced this religion. So how can there be any comparison to the resurrection of Jesus? And Mithras didn't die for "sins." He allegedly killed a bull. Not a crucifixion
5) The majority of texts regarding Mithras don't appear until the mid second century. The earliest we know of Mithraism as practiced in ancient Rome comes from an account of a visit to the Emperor Nero
by the Armenian king Tiridates in 66AD in which the king tells Nero "I worship you as I do Mithras." Then we don't have anything more until a poem by Statius in 90AD. Paul's writings have been dated to 50AD or earlier. Shall I continue?:)