Analyzing Another YouTube Video

When talking with skeptics, you will sometimes encounter those who reject that Jesus ever existed.  Though this is one of the most well established facts of history, there are some (primarily the militant “New Atheist” crowd and a few authors who write self-published books) who think Jesus is just a retelling of other ‘dying and rising gods’.  

Though this claim has been completely refuted by both Christian and Secular scholars, some still hold this discredited position.  In fact, if you’d like a good example of a secular scholar who has written a book on the subject, look up Bart Ehrman’s “Did Jesus Exist”.  He does a great job of showing how well attested Jesus is in history.

I have had conversations about whether Jesus existed from time to time, and have been pointed to various “sources” that supposedly back up the claims of these “Christ Myth” advocates.  One video is the following:

Mithras - Pagan Origins of Christianity

After watching this video, I decided to do a point-by-point response to the video.  Below is that response.  I hope it gives you confidence that these claims are not at all threatening to Christianity.  They are easily debunked with just a bit of thought and study.

Bottom line, the “Christ Myth” view is manifestly false and should not challenge the faith of any Christian.  Hopefully my analysis below will help illustrate this.

AN ANALYSIS OF "MITHRAS - PAGAN ORIGINS OF CHRISTIANITY"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SblyuFUM9Q

"Paul describes himself as the apostle to the Gentiles, or as we know them today, pagans" (0:51)

- The video is already starting off wrong in its definition of Gentiles.  Gentiles did not mean "pagans".  It mearly mean "non-Jew".  The dictionary definition of pagan is as follows:

"An adherent of a polytheistic religion in antiquity, especially when viewed in contrast to an adherent of a monotheistic religion." 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pagan

"Paul was supremely practical in terms of converting non-believers.  And he even admits in his letter to the Corinthians 'I have become all things to all people so that I might win them to Christ'.  And what he meant by that was that he was willing to adapt and adjust himself to whatever circumstances he found himself.  And if that means a little bit of borrowing from pagan religion, then so be it." (1:02)

- First, the entire passage from Paul reads as follows:

1 Corinthians 9

19 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

- Here, Paul is NOT saying that he is willing to change the message of Christ.  He is merely saying that he is willing to adapt to practices of the Jews (with their ritual washings, etc.) when he is talking to the Jews, etc.  In other words, on non-essential issues he is willing to be flexible.

- The video claims that Paul engaged in "a little bit of borrowing from pagan religion", but there is nothing anywhere in any scriptural or historical source that would lead anyone to believe that.  In fact, Paul is expressly against it and says so multiple times.  Here are two quick examples:

Galatians 1

6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel  7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

Galatians 5

11 Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. 12 As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!

- In Galatians 1, Paul is arguing against people who tried to convince new Christians to go back to observances of the OT Law.  If Paul were open to bringing in whatever was needed, he certainly wouldn't have stood up against the Judaizers.

- In Galatians 5, while still arguing against the Judaizers, he goes so far as to wish that they would go ahead and emasculate themselves (these other people were insisting that the Gentiles be circumcized, so you can understand the context of Paul's comments).

- In both cases, we see very clearly that Paul was NOT willing to compromise just to "get along" or "adapt his views".

"When Jesus first appeared 2000 years ago, he was born into a world full of pagan gods. And if he was to survive, he would need to compete on their terms.  And this could mean reworking some of the best ideas that had already existed for thousands of years." (1:40)

- This is, again, demonstrably false.  Jesus was born into a strictly Jewish culture that rejected pagan gods.  His actions were Jewish.  His teachings were Jewish.  His followers thought and believed in Judaism.  They understood him in the context of Judaism.  The idea that Jesus had to import "the best ideas" from pagan gods is simply not supportable historically.  And if the authors of the video claim otherwise, it is on them to support their claim with evidence.  None is forthcoming because the claim is false.

"The worshippers of Mithras were trying to reconstruct, in a sense, the original cave of Mithras" (2:45)

- Here we see a historian telling about the cult of Mithras, including the story of Mithras (killing the primeval bull to create the universe, being associated with the sun god, etc.)  This just shores up the idea that any imagined similarities between Mithras and Jesus are not real, but only imagined (listen to the discussion of Mithras here and you'll see how different Mithras' story is from Jesus)

"You've got this power deity, and then this kind of sub-deity who acts as a kind of savior" (3:56)

- This is an example of how much the author of this video is stretching to try and connect Mithras to Jesus.  And even as he does so, he gets it wrong.  Jesus is not a "sub-deity".  He was and is God.  Another difference between the two.

- The host of the show goes on to try and draw more comparisons (a god of light, someone who promises an afterlife, etc.).  Watching this, I was struck by how much work he was having to do to force comparisons where none really exist.  It's almost as if he was saying "Mithras had a nose and Jesus had a nose, so Jesus MUST have been drawn from Mithras".  Unfortunately, the comparison exists only in the mind of those who want to force such a comparison to exist in the first place.

"The early Christian Fathers who wrote a lot were very upset about Mithraism.  They thought that Mithraism was parodying Christianity." (5:24)

- Thank goodness for this historian who is being interviewed.  She admits what was going on in the 1st and 2nd centuries...it was clear to early Christians that Mithras was parodying Christianity and not the other way around.

"This so infuriated many early Christians that they felt they had to publicly denounce Mithras and his worshippers." (5:30)

- Of course they were infuriated.  Jesus had risen from the dead and suddenly a competing religion came along and began copying Christianity.  Further evidence that it was Mithraism that copied from Christianity and not the other way around.

"The problem for Christians was that the similarities did not stop there." (6:50)

- Here, the author starts to claim certain similarities between Mithras and Jesus.  But he does so without bothering to give us any evidence that Mithraism preceded Christianity.  Of course if Mithraism was copying Christianity, it could choose to copy elements of the life of Christ (though those similarities are much overblown).  The author of this video seems to want us to make a leap with him that Mithras DID precede Jesus...but he has done nothing to prove this and in fact, he hasn't offered one shred of evidence to this claim.

"One tradition even claims that Mithras had a virgin birth" (7:00)

- This is false.  Mithras was not said to be born of a virgin.  He was said to have emerged from a rock in proximity to a wild bull.  Another story claims Mithras was hatched from an edge.  Regardless of which story we’re talking about, there is no comparison to the birth of Christ.

"And the other that he was born from the Cosmic Egg" (7:05)

- Even the historian admits that there were only two stories, one that he came from the rock and the other that he hatched out of a cosmic egg...again, no comparison.

"There is even a story that Mithras's birth was witnessed by shepherds watching their sheep, but that again is a much later story." (7:15)

- The author of the video is virtually begging the historian he's interviewing to agree with him that Christianity may have gotten its start from Mithras.  She says that there is a story of Mithras' birth being witnessed by shepherds, but immediately qualifies it to say "that again is a MUCH LATER STORY."  In other words, it did NOT precede Christianity and Christianity could not have borrowed it.  Once again, any claim that Christianity borrowed from Mithras fails.

"Mithras was a pagan god with a story, a purpose, and elements of which were very similar to that of Jesus.  But one whose origins could predate him by thousands of years." (7:35)

- This just sums up the entire video.  It is a statement of complete speculation without a single shred of evidence presented in its support.  In fact, every bit of evidence presented in the video REFUTES it.  Let's sum those up, shall we?

1. The early Church Fathers and other Christians were infuriated at this mystery religion that had come along and begun to copy Christianity.

2. The virgin birth story, by the admission of the historian in the film, came along quite a bit later after Christianity got its start

- Literally everything presented in this video builds the case that Mithraism is, at best, a copy of Christianity and not the other way around.

"But we do know that early Christian Fathers were very worried about the similarities between Christianity and Mithraism.  Especially the charge that Christianity borrowed many of its ideas from this pagan cult." (8:00)

- No evidence was presented that the early Church Fathers were responding to charges that Christianity copied from Mithraism.  This claim by the author springs out of nowhere, without any evidence provided.  It is literally being made up out of whole cloth.

"When later Church Fathers were deciding what anniversary to celebrate the birthday of Jesus, they chose December 25th" (8:25)

- The author has just finished making yet another claim that Christianity tried to stamp out Mithraism by destroying its temples and building churches on top of them (something that did happen, but certainly does nothing to show that Mithraism was the origin of Christianity).  Suddenly, he announces that the decision to celebrate December 25th as Jesus' birthday was owing to Mithraism.  But this information is irrelevant.  Every scholar knows that Jesus wasn't born on December 25th and whatever choice later Christians might have made about when to celebrate Jesus' birth, it certainly does nothing to show that Christianity itself depends on Mithraism.

- At best, all this shows is that later Christians decided to adopt a holy day from another religion (likely as a way to accomodate holiday practices already underway by many groups in the ancient world).  It does not even hint at showing that Christianity depends on Mithraism.  We know December 25th is not when Jesus was born, so the entire point is completely without merit.

SUMMARY

Having studied this topic already, I knew that any supposed comparisons between Mithras and Jesus were largely imaginary (or the borrowing went from Christianity to Mithraism, rather than the other way around).  Now that I've watched this video, I have to say I'm surprised at the lack of evidence that they even attempted to show.  They literally showed no evidence at all, and then drew the conclusion that Christianity and Mithraism were tied together.  Anyone who wants to see just how poor the evidence is for the claims that Christianity derives from Mithraism should definitely watch this video as it gives EXCELLENT proof that no such evidence exists!