Let me quote myself ones again on this issue.
The whole postulate on Christianity and the myths of Mithra, Adonis and Attis, etc...is a modern view presented mainly by a group of atheists.
The entire theory comes as a full packet, in which the same similar elements are included within the life and accomplishments of more or less every particular mythological indivividual.
In other words, since the theory is presented as a packet, no individual is able to pick choose elements as one wishes. This is where Muslims reveal their desperation and fallacy, not realising that accepting this kind of arguments they simply commit religious suicide.
My first point in reply is:
Is the theory infallible? no! reasons are that scholars have jumped into conclusion, then to write a waste amount of theories into it, thirdly to present it as a fact.
These scholars have presented a great list of detailed claims, the problem is presenting the sources; this is typical as with all Bible-critique.
My challenge to anyone claiming that Jesus is a copy of Mithra, is simply to present me the evidence (not a scholars quote) but actual inscriptions and scriptures of Mithra which points directly to the Christian faith.
A statue or picture of something resembling a crucifixion proves nothing, as there of course will exist thousands of similarities between religions anyway.
Secondly, the cross is not biblically and necessarily a Christian symbol as we often present it. What I mean is, Christians are never told to wear crosses or hang up crosses in their homes or churches. We dont even know how the cross looked like. Christians are only required to follow the example of Jesus to the cross, by living a sacrificial life.
Secondly, can the person prove the linking persons, scriptures or events which caused this progress?
Thirdly, the motive? Why and would the whole Christian world, from British Wales to India get into this kind religious development, especially since Christians were divided into groups.
Any individual with any sense of church history or history would consider such assertions as ridicolous.
An atheist may of course state that Christianity from the very beginning was influenced by Mithraism. There are two problems here: how would Mithraism possibly become such an influence among the Jewish Christians, especially within Palestine, secondly, why should the apostles or church fathers allow themselves to corrupt the very message they belived in and even died for.
Thirdly, in terms of Islam, say the atheists are correct in their claims, where would that leave Islam? Just think about it.
My final point is this, since any individual who values the Jesus-Mithra theory is virtually welcoming a packet of claims, he is not able to pick and choose; he has to welcome every claim this scholar claims.
Lets think about it here is one issue which the Muslim finds hard to swollow:
Mithra was supposedly born by a virgin so was Jesus, do we have a copy Jesus, perhaps, but why does the Koran, say it is God's word, confirm the Bible on Jesus virgin birth.
Every time I ask a Muslim about this issue, he or either refuses to answer or he comes up with some silly speculative idea which contradicts his point.