fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
There is no relationship. The mystery religion of Mithraism was created after Paul died. There was an earlier belief in Mithra, which was Persian, and was very different from the later mystery religion. But the two often get confused. In that confusion, a lot of things are made up (which isn't helped by much later works conflating the two, and then adding in a lot of BS to the entire thing, that really isn't based on any evidence).
As for the whole eucharist thing, that has nothing to do with Mithraism, but Paul adopts it from the Jesus movement.
No. Mithra changed drastically from the Hindu idea, to the Persian idea and to the Roman idea. You can't conflate all of them. There really is no connection between the Persian worship of Mithra and Roman Mithraism, besides in name, and a bit of astrological lore. The idea that Jesus and Mithra had a holiday around Christmas really is nothing, as Jesus is never said to be born at that time, and the move to celebrate his birth at the time was no secret; it was to help assimilate others into the religion as most major religions had a festival around that time. Its a none point.
Just terrible source. Even the major names in the Jesus myth camp dismiss this author. First, Mithras is never described in those ways. He had none of those titles. They appear no where in the work associated with Mithras. He simply isn't described in that way.
The Christian litany idea really is nonsensical. If one tried, they could adapt a litany in regards to Trump to the sun-god. One could do that same with Augustus. It really shows nothing besides one is willing to squint at it hard enough.
As for the lamb on his shoulders, not really. Mithra wasn't associated with being a shepherd, or a lamb at all. He is associated with the lion, but that was because he was associated with the constellation Leo.
I see nothing about midnight services being with Mithra, and would that matter? Businesses open at 8 am., does that mean they are all the same? Not really. Later services would have been a way to hide.
The virgin part, no. Mithra did not have a virgin mother. He wasn't born of a virgin at all. Mithra was born a full grown man, from a rock. It was likely a carry over from Perseus, who had a similar birth.
Peter also wasn't a sacred rock. He was nicknamed the rock, because he name meant that. It was a common name. Peter also wasn't the foundation of the religion. James, the brother of Jesus, played a more major role, having taken over the religion once Jesus died.
First, the Hindu idea of Mithra and the Roman idea was different. So we can ignore that other parts. Even the idea of being a mediator is from the Zoroastrianism belief, and not the Roman idea. More so, he wasn't even a mediator between God and man in the Persian version. He was a mediator between Zoroaster's good and evil gods.
I addressed the non-issue of December 25th (Jesus wasn't said to be born then, it was just when his birth was later celebrated). There was no virgin. There was no mother. He was born out of solid rock, and left a cave behind (he wasn't born in a cave, and neither was Jesus, so that is silly anyway). And again, Mithra was born fully grown. So huge different.
I'm not sure about the traveling far and wide. Its pretty vague, and many people traveled far and wide. But for the 12 satellites, nope. Mithra in the Persian idea have 1 follower, in the Roman, he had two companions. They may represent the sunrise and sunset, but weren't taken as disciples.
Mithra is not depicted by the lamb. He's depicted by the lion. Or at least once was. The Christmas thing was explained. For Easter, no. There is a festival associated with the spring equinox, but it is just one of 4 similar festivals, one of each season. And while Easter may occur in the spring, it is not associated with the spring equinox.
I'm only going to address the ones I haven't. Mithra was not placed in a manger. He was born a fully grown adult. He was also born before men were created. So there's that. He is never called a teacher or master. It never appears in the literature.
I will give you the miracles one. But then again, Augustus is said to have performed miracles. It was something nearly every religious leader was said to have done.
Mithra didn't sacrifice himself. He also wasn't the great bull of the Sun. Mithra killed the bull. And it wasn't for world peace. He doesn't even die.
Mithra doesn't ascend to heaven. The gods with him, who are looking over humanity, ascend.
I can't find anything about him hearing all. No where in the literature is he said to be omniscient. More so, neither is Jesus. So the point makes no sense.
He is not associated with the lamb, but with the lion. But many were.
He did have Sunday. But not hundreds of years earlier. In the Persian version, there is nothing about Sunday being sat aside. It isn't until the Roman version that Sunday is set aside, and the Roman version did occur until after Jesus.
To the Lord's supper, this is difficult. There is one reference to the literature that is often used. However, it is Zarathustra who is speaking, not Mithra. This comes from a medieval text, so its far too late. Now, there is some sort of meal shared by initiates, but it consisted of bread, wine, meat, and water. Its a common fellowship meal, that was used by many religious groups. It doesn't have the same observance as the Lord's Supper.
For the marks on the soldiers head. The only reference we have to that is by Tertullian, and he isn't fully certain about that. And there was no emphasis on baptism. There is nothing in the literature.
So, to sum up, the three sources you have are full of bunk. Much of it is simply made up, is not found in the scholarship or literature on the subject, and is completely wrong.
