Mithraism, for example, had very little presence within the Roman Empire in the first century, and so for that reason alone simply could not have been a major influence on early Christianity's development. Scholar M.J. Vermaseren has stated: "No Mithraic monument can be dated earlier than the end of the first century A.D." No images of this god were found in Pompeii--buried by Vesuvius in 79 A.D. A standard technique of skeptics is to read back from something done by a pagan religion in a later century to the first century and say it influenced the first century church, such as saying communion (the Passover ceremony) was similar to Mithraism's ceremonial meals. They will take an inscription dated from 376 A.D. that said, in Latin, "reborn for eternity in the taurobolium and criobolium," and say these two pagan ceremonies that sacrificed bulls and sheep influenced first century Christianity's idea of spiritual begettal. Easily, by then, the pagans could have gotten this idea from Christianity instead!"QUOTE]
Except for the fact that Caananite religions were replete with stories of "saviour gods" who died and rose from the dead. This is a classical nature worhsip theology. Death coincides with the solstice, and life emerges again in the Spring.
Mithraism was only one of numerous Sun-Worship / Nature Worshipping sects. Sol Invictus, which originated in Syria, was around long before Mithraism. The Jews were surrounded by peoples who worshipped in this manner. Why do you think Paul's preaching was so effective? It was because he taught Christ in a manner the Gentiles could understand. Does that mean he lied? No, of course not. It just means that he knew that the message was more important than the manner in which it was transmitted.
That's why he was always in trouble. He saw that the message of truth was more important than the rituals and dogma. Paul was able to communicate his message by relating it to the person or persons he was addressing.
~cleopa
