The story of Jesus was ripped off of other religions.

I thank my partner for his opening arguments, though it came a round early. I feel that he made several errors I wish to reveal in this round. First, similarities=/=ripped off. We need to define what it means to be "ripped off of other religions." My parnter has not done that. Mithra, for instance, is the only alleged ripped-off parallel cited by my partner. I'm not quite sure what his argument is attempting to prove -- he hasn't proved how Christianity stole their myths from them. As contradiction states "a mere description does not prove it." I also wish to point out that Mithraism is a mystery cult with VERY FEW known sources for us to learn about this cult. Consequently, it would be very difficult for Christianity to borrow from Mithraism. [1] -->REBUTTALS<--I. Comparisons1. Birth and birthdaysMy partner argues that both were supposedly sons of God, born of virgins, and born on December 25. Now, as we will soon see, this is indeed a VERY far stretch of the truth. First, the alleged "virgin birth" is no virgin birth at all! In fact, the relavent facts show that Mithra was born from a ROCK! In no way is this remotely similar to Jesus' virgin birth of Mary!!! To prove this, I'd like to present the archeological evidence for this. [2] The above is a statue of Mithra's "rock birth" or my partner's "virgin birth." As far as the tending of the shepherds is concerned, rather the story continues to describe Mithra being helped by the shepherds; y et, according to tradition, Mithra was created prior to the creation. Your "shpherds" are a far stretch to Christianity. Lastly, the earliest manuscripts from this narrative is from around 100 years after the manuscripts of the New Testament; meaning that if anything, Mithra ripped off Christianity! [3] 2. 12 disciples First I must call into question his source for this, the source The 16 Crucified Savior's is hardly a reliable source. In his critique, Richard Carrier notes that "Most scholars immediately recognize many of his findings as unsupported and dismiss Graves as useless. After all, a scholar who rarely cites a source isn't useful to have as a reference even if he is right" [4] The fact is that there is absolutely no known evidence for this assertion. [5] 3. Performed miraclesWhat god doesn't perform miracles? I fail to see that this is in anyway proof that Jesus was a rip off of Mithra! It is a LONG stretch. Here is my partner's evidence in syllogism:1. Jesus was ripped off of pagan sources.2. Mithra was a pagan source.3. Both Jesus and Mithra performed miracles.4. Therefore, Jesus was ripped off of mithra. (circular reasoning). 4. Baptism First, we need to define what baptism is. Baptism comes from the Greek word baptismo which means "immersion";[6] hence, the only "Biblical" way to have Baptism is from complete immersion, not sprinkling like Mithra was. Finally, the Baptism does not come from Mithra, but from a Torah commandment called the Mikveh. [7] 5. Names Neither my partner nor his sources give any evidence for this. Sources=/=Proof6. Holy dayThe reason why Christianity worships on Sunday is not because it is based on Mithra, but because it is the day which Jesus rose again. [8] 7. Death and Burial I followed your sources and neither you nor your sources give evidence for this. Likewise, I am at loss to see how Mithra slaying a bull=crucifixion. [9] 8. ResurrectionSee above. II. Ties1. VaticanWhat's the evidence? You, nor your sources, prove it! 2. ContactsYes, they did come in contact; and they were in fact RIVAL religons. --> My case <-- my case is quick and simple: there is no need for Christianity to borrow from pagan practices. All of Christianity has already been predicted in the Old Testament. Here is a chart by Matt Slick [10] Theme Old TestamentReference New Testamentfulfilled in Jesus Ascension of Jesus to the right hand of God Ps. 110:1 Matt 26:64; Acts 7:55-60; Eph. 1:20 Atonement by blood Lev. 17:11 Heb. 9:22 Begotten Son, Jesus is Psalm 2:7 Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5 Crucifixion Psalm 22:11-18; Zech. 12:10 Luke 23:33-38 Eternal Son Micah 5:1-2; Psalm 2:7 Heb. 1:5; 5:5 God among His people Isaiah 9:6; 40:3 John 1:1,14; 20:28; Col. 2:9; Matt. 3:3 Incarnation of God 1)Ex 3:14; 2)Ps. 45:6 Isaiah 9:6; Zech. 12:10 1)John 8:58; 1:1,14; 2)Heb. 1:8; Col. 2:9; Heb. 1:1-3 Only Begotten Son Gen. 22:2. See Typology John 3:16; Heb. 11:7 Resurrection of Christ Psalm 16:9-10; 49:15; Is. 26:19 John 2:19-21 Return of Christ Zech. 14:1-5; Mic. 1:3-4 Matt. 16:27-28; Acts 1:11; 3:20 Sin offering Ex. 30:10; Lev. 4:3 Rom. 8:3; Heb. 10:18; 13:11 Son of God Psalm 2:7 John 5:18 Substitutionary Atonement Isaiah 53:6-12; Lev. 6:4-10,21 Matt. 20:28; 1 Pet. 2:24; 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 3:18; Virgin Birth Isaiah 7:14 Matt. 1:25 As you see, there is no reason for Christianity to borrow. -->Conclusion<-- Virgin Born? No, born from a rock. Certainly a far stretch from Mary. A "Son of God" ? No. A Savior? Yes, a divinity of light and salvation. Performed miracles? No. Communal Meal of Bread/Wine? Yes, but was not considered the "flesh and blood" of God (Mithra). Crucified? No. Resurrected? No. Ascended / Descended ? Yes, ascends to heaven in the Sun's chariot. Divine Judge? No. Does this seriously sound like a religion that was "ripped off" of Mithraism? By no means. -->References<-- [1] http://www.religionfacts.com...;[2] http://www.well.com...[3] http://christopherbutler.wordpress.com...[4] http://www.infidels.org...;[5] http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com...;[6] Strong's concordance [7] http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...;[8] http://www.christiananswers.net...;9. http://thedevineevidence.com...;10. http://carm.org...;