Mithraism: Cult of the God Mithras, Popular Among Roman Soldiers, the Main Rival to Christianity First Three Centuries

Please Help Us Keep These Thousands of Blog Posts Growing and Free for All

$5.00

Introduction: Context and the Contemporary Challenge

In recent decades, a range of skeptics and critics, including Muslim apologists and liberal theologians, have argued that Christianity did not originate from divine revelation or from the life and teachings of the historical Jesus of Nazareth. Rather, they suggest that core Christian doctrines such as the deity of Christ, the atonement, the virgin birth, and the resurrection were borrowed or adapted from pre-existing pagan religions, particularly the Greco-Roman mystery religions, among which Mithraism is frequently cited as a central influence.

One of the most vocal proponents of this “pagan source theory” is Yousuf Saleem Chishti, who claims that Christianity is essentially a later, Hellenized development of Mithraism. According to Chishti, Mithraism included such elements as a divine savior born of a virgin, crucifixion, resurrection on the third day, ascension to heaven, a sacrificial atonement for sin, and a band of twelve disciples. These alleged parallels, he argues, constitute overwhelming evidence that the Christian faith is derivative and not original.

This theory, however, collapses under rigorous historical, theological, and textual scrutiny. The assertions made about Mithraism are largely unsubstantiated, and the historical development of Christianity is demonstrably rooted in the Jewish worldview, Scriptures, and the life of the historical Jesus. This article aims to provide an exhaustive analysis of Mithraism, its actual content and historical development, and a careful evaluation of the claims that Christianity is dependent upon it.

The Nature of Mithraism: Origins and Content

Mithraism was a mystery religion that flourished in the Roman Empire, particularly during the second to fourth centuries C.E. The central figure, Mithras, appears to have originated in the ancient Persian pantheon but underwent significant transformation as the cult was absorbed into Roman religious life. The earliest forms of Mithra worship in Persia (as Mithra or Mitra) go back to around 1400–1200 B.C.E. in the Vedic traditions of India and ancient Zoroastrianism in Persia. However, the Roman cult of Mithras—commonly referenced in alleged Christian parallels—has little connection to the earlier Eastern form.

The Roman Mithras was typically depicted as a young man wearing a Phrygian cap, slaying a bull (the tauroctony) in a subterranean temple known as a mithraeum. The central myth of the Roman cult involved Mithras being born fully grown from a rock, slaying a primordial bull, and thereby releasing life-giving forces to the world. The act of bull-slaying was mythologically interpreted as a creative and redemptive act, though the details of such symbolism are vague due to the esoteric and secretive nature of the mystery cults.

Mithraism lacked a coherent body of sacred texts, and its doctrines were not communicated through public teaching or written creeds, but through ritual participation and initiation. The cult primarily attracted Roman soldiers and administrators, was strongly male-oriented, and had no widespread appeal among women or the lower classes, contrary to the demographic makeup of early Christianity.

Historical Timeline: Mithraism and Christianity

One of the most decisive arguments against the claim of Christian dependence on Mithraism is the historical chronology of their development. Christianity arose in first-century Palestine, grounded in Jewish Messianic expectation, centered on the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, and documented in the New Testament writings, many of which can be dated within two or three decades of the crucifixion. The key tenets of Christian doctrine, including the deity of Christ, the atonement, the resurrection, and justification by faith, were already in place by the mid-first century C.E., as evidenced in early Christian creeds (e.g., 1 Corinthians 15:3–8).

In contrast, the Roman Mithraic mysteries did not gain prominence until well into the second century C.E. The cult’s first indisputable archaeological evidence appears in the late first or early second century. The vast majority of Mithraic inscriptions, iconography, and mithraea date from the second to fourth centuries. This timeline renders any influence of Mithraism on the origin of Christianity impossible. Christianity was already firmly established by the time Mithraism reached its peak. Any borrowing, if it occurred, would be from Christianity into Mithraism, not the reverse.

Ronald Nash correctly concludes that “Mithraism flowered after Christianity, not before, so Christianity could not have copied from Mithraism.” The historical timeline thus invalidates the basic premise of Chishti and similar critics who argue for Christian dependence on Mithraism.

Evaluating the Alleged Parallels

Critics frequently cite a list of supposed parallels between Mithraism and Christianity: Mithras was born of a virgin, he had twelve disciples, he was crucified and resurrected, he atoned for sins, and he ascended to heaven. However, upon examination, each of these claims is found to be either entirely fabricated, grossly exaggerated, or misunderstood.

The claim that Mithras was born of a virgin is baseless. In the Roman version of the myth, Mithras is said to have emerged fully grown from a rock. There is no reference to a virgin mother, human or divine. The motif of virgin birth is unique in the ancient world and is not a feature of the Mithraic narrative.

The assertion that Mithras had twelve disciples likely stems from depictions in mithraea where Mithras is surrounded by twelve signs of the zodiac. There is no textual or iconographic evidence that he had twelve followers in any personal or ministerial sense. The zodiac imagery represents cosmic order, not a historical or theological parallel to Jesus’ twelve apostles.

The notion of Mithras being crucified and rising from the dead is entirely absent from the Roman Mithraic corpus. Mithras was not a dying and rising deity. There is no account of his death, let alone a resurrection. The primary myth involves the slaying of a bull, not the death of Mithras himself. Resurrection, central to Christian theology, was alien to Greco-Roman religious consciousness. Aeschylus captures the classical mindset when he writes, “Once a man has died and his blood spilled upon the ground, there is no resurrection.” Pagan religion in the Roman world, including Mithraism, had no category for bodily resurrection.

Likewise, there is no evidence that Mithras offered atonement for sins. The ritual slaying of the bull was symbolic but not understood as a penal substitutionary atonement. Mithraism lacked any coherent doctrine of sin, forgiveness, or reconciliation with a holy God. Christianity’s doctrine of substitutionary atonement, firmly rooted in the Old Testament sacrificial system and fulfilled in Christ’s death, is alien to Mithraic theology.

The claim that Mithras ascended to heaven also has no historical or mythological basis. Assertions to the contrary are speculative and unsupported by Mithraic texts or artifacts. Furthermore, there is no reference in Mithraism to a future return or second coming of Mithras as judge or ruler.

Distinctive Nature of Christianity: Historical Grounding and Doctrinal Content

Christianity is unique among ancient religions in being rooted in historical events and eyewitness testimony. The New Testament claims about Jesus Christ are not presented as mystical revelations or symbolic myths but as real events witnessed by specific individuals at particular times and places. Luke grounds his Gospel in careful historical investigation (Luke 1:1–4). Paul appeals to over five hundred eyewitnesses of the resurrection, most of whom were still alive at the time of his writing (1 Corinthians 15:6). Christianity asserts verifiable historical claims, subject to scrutiny and falsification.

Moreover, Christianity’s core doctrines—monotheism, the incarnation, the atonement, and resurrection—arose within a thoroughly Jewish context. The Old Testament provides the theological foundation for these beliefs, including the prophecies of the Messiah, the necessity of a sacrificial death, and the promise of resurrection (Isaiah 53; Psalm 22; Daniel 12:2). Jesus and Paul both taught that Christianity fulfilled rather than replaced Judaism. Paul emphasizes in Romans and Galatians that justification by faith was taught in the Hebrew Scriptures (Romans 4; Galatians 3).

The accusation that Paul invented a Hellenistic Christianity disconnected from Jesus is contradicted by both the content of his letters and the unity between his message and that of the apostles in Jerusalem (Galatians 1–2). Paul cites Old Testament prophecies and echoes the teachings of Jesus, particularly in his doctrine of grace, atonement, and resurrection.

Refutation of Trinity-Mithraism Claims

Critics also allege that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity was derived from pagan trinities. However, trinitarian monotheism differs fundamentally from pagan polytheism. Pagan trinities are often composed of three separate gods, usually representing different aspects of the cosmos or functions. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity teaches that there is one God in three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—who are coequal and coeternal, sharing one essence.

This doctrine arises not from pagan mythology but from the synthesis of scriptural teaching. The Old Testament declares that God is one (Deuteronomy 6:4). The New Testament affirms that the Father is God (John 6:27), the Son is God (John 1:1; 20:28; Hebrews 1:8), and the Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3–4). The distinction of persons and unity of essence is a theological formulation faithful to biblical data. It was precisely to guard against pagan misunderstandings that the early church councils, such as Nicea and Constantinople, articulated the doctrine of the Trinity.

Conclusion: Christianity and Mithraism—Distinct in Origin, Content, and Purpose

The suggestion that Christianity borrowed its essential doctrines from Mithraism is unsustainable when measured against the facts of history, theology, and textual analysis. The alleged parallels are either entirely fictional or so vague as to be meaningless. Mithraism was a mystery cult that developed after the emergence of Christianity and bore no resemblance to the gospel of Jesus Christ in its content or message.

Christianity is grounded in historical events and rooted in the monotheism and redemptive framework of the Old Testament. Its central figure is not a mythological construct but a real person who lived, died, and rose again under the scrutiny of public testimony. The New Testament was written within decades of these events, with many eyewitnesses still alive, and its theological claims are anchored in divine revelation, not pagan invention.

Christianity proclaims a holy God, a fallen humanity, and a substitutionary Savior who secures redemption by His blood. It is not the outgrowth of Mithraic myth but the fulfillment of biblical prophecy. It stands alone among ancient religions in its claim to historical verifiability, theological coherence, and spiritual power.

You May Also Enjoy

Miracles and the Cessation of Sign Gifts

About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).