I guess if you count that Jesus was with God in the Beginning then youre right. However, froma secular point of view, Mithraism predates the advent of Christianity by quite a while, (1000 yrs).
Catholic Encyclopedia
I’ve found his rant; it can be located here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=agefd1%24asj%241%40news1.Radix.Net&output=gplain
(I don’t know how to make URL tags work, so please pardon the ugly-huge gooja URL.)
Briefly, to summarise the rant: not only did she (as Freyr noted) only deal with groups with a particular agenda, she did not speak to other people involved in the schism, who were prominent leaders within that community, when revising the work for later editions. She also, in his view, completely missed discussing any of the significant foundations of Asatruar practice. I get the impression that he thinks that she was unduly influenced in beliefs about what paganism “means” by association with its more popular branches, such as Wicca, and thus overemphasised those things that were most similar to Wiccan practice.
Good rant:
Incorrect. The Persian worship of Mithra predates Christianity by several centuries. The Persian Mithra was a sun god born to a virgin in a cave on December 25. The virgin birth was witnessed by shepherds who followed a star to get there. Mithra was also killed and was resurrected on the third day. His resurrection was symboized by an empty tomb. The followes of Mithra praciced a Eucharist in which they ate bread (which was the “body”) and drank wine (which was the “blood”). There are several other similarities and all of them predate Christianity. Roman Mithraism differed significantly from the Persian religion, but still predated Christianity by about 200 years.
The Saturnalia lasted from December 17-24. You’re probably confusing it with the winter solstice which does occur on the 21st.
Christmas wasn’t actually celebrated on December 25 until the middle of the fourth century. Before that it was celebrated on January 6.
Well, yes, but note I said "before Mithranism was popular " and I should have included what we were talking about is Roman Mithranism, which is quite different from the Vedic Mithranism- so much so that the earlier religion has almost nothing in common with the Roman version, which was adapted form the Armenian version, etc, ect (your cite is a fascinating read, however). As even your cite shows, Mithranism did not become a popular faith in the Roman Empire until the Third Century, and I don’t have to tell you the “Third Century” of what.
In fact, the western world- including Judea, had virtually no contact with Mithranism until after the Romans took over Asia Minor. And of course, the roots of Xianity go back into the OT period, which predates even early Mithraism.
Of course, the main problem is we know almost nothing about Mitranism (note, your cite agrees with this), and certainly not enough to say that Christianity borrowed heavily from it. In fact, your own cite says “Some apparent similarities exist, but in a number of details, it is quite probable that Mithranism was the borrower from Christianity”. From what I have read, it appears both borrowed from each other, and from other faiths which existed at the period- which was a time of great religous upheaval & invention. But what mainly seems to have occured was the borrowing of certain outward trappings & phraseology, not the "core ideas’ of either faith.
Attis, Dionysus, Horus, Krishna, Mithra and Zoroaster were all born on December 25.
Most were born to virgins.
Many were born caves, and several were attended by angels and shepherds bearing gifts.
All were said to have performed healings or other miracles. Horus walked on water. Dionysus changed water into wine. Horus raised a guy named El-Azarus from the dead.
All of them were killed. Horus and Krishna were both crucified between two thieves.
Most of them were resurrected on the third day.
These are just a handful of pre-Christian mythic traditions. Coincidence? You decide.
Goodness, I am glad you know more about Mithranism than the Archaeologists do. There is no period cource which says that Mithras was born of a virgin. In fact, he was the god of the rising sun, not a mortal at all. Nor is there any period source that adds in the shepherds, and since (as Lilarien’s cite points out) , Mithra was created before Man was, it would be a bit difficult to have shepherds around. Mitra "lived in a cave", no evidence from any period source he was born there- in fact, the only period source seems to show Mithras was born “under a tree by a river”. Nor do I have any idea of where you get (from pre-Christian period sources mind you) that Mithra was resurrected on the 3rd day, and that such was “symbolized by an empty tomb”. Most of your “similarities” are from post Roman, non period sources- well, at least I would gather, as I have read those same or very similar sources. Our longest textual source is from a hundred years after Mitranism had it’s heyday, and was written as a polemic by a Christian. Not an unbiased source, nor did he pretend to be.
And, like I said- Roman Mithransim didn’t become well known & popular until some 300 years after Jesus.
However, there is one similarity- the Eucharist. Note, that the idea of a “holy feast” goes back into pre-history, in fact the “last supper” is only a version of a Passover feast. But the Mithranists drank real blood- not wine, in fact blood from a bull. In fact, one of the very few things we know about Mithransim for sure is that they were initated by standing in a pit and having the blood of a sacrificied bull drained over them. I beleive that “the body” they ate was “beef”. They were not eating MITHRAS , Mithras did not sacrifice himself to purge the world, Mithras sacrificed a Bull . A bit of a difference.
You’re still talking about Roman Mithraism. I’m talking about the Persian Mithra, not the Roman Mithras.
http://latter-rain.com/ltrain/mith.htm
http://www.vetssweatshop.net/dogma.htm
http://www.skepticfiles.org/religion/mithraso.htm
http://www.geocities.com/inquisitive79/godmen.html#mithra
I heard that Alexander “visited” the area before the Romans.
Sure, he did, but Hellenism did not seem to pick up Mithraism, after all, Alexander went through there pretty darn fast. 
Well, I think we know even less about the Persian Mithras. Of the links you provided, the first & 4th have no period sources at all, and the 3rd has damn few. (the second doesn’t work). The 3rd cite is an OK one, being a review of a book “The Paganism in our Christianity” which was written to show that Christianity had a lot in common with Mithranism. Unfortunately, he seems to have resorted that the great boon of writers throughout time when faced with few period sources- we call it “making things up”. His sources (from your cite) are primarily a book called “Pagan Christs” (hardly unbaised, just from the title), and Tertullian, that Christian I mentioned that wrote a polemic about Mitranism after it had been gone for a hundred years. Tertullian wasn’t a Mitraist himself, note. I think “Firmicus” is a period source, but here he is used to show that Mithra was born of a rock, not a virgin.
Go to a historical or archaeological site, and see what historians- not writers with an axe to grind- have concluded about Mithransim. The answer is- damn little. It was a secret “mystery” cult after all. Most of what we are told nowadays has no basis in period sources. Of course, maybe there were many amazing similarities, and the Apostles (who were competing against other Jewish sects mind you, not Mithranism, as they likely hadn’t even heard of it), manged to somehow base their faith upon another religion. It is not impossible I admit- but since we know almost nothing of pre-1st century Mithranism, let us not get too carried away.
Even setting Mithraism aside (and some of my source for that comes from a religion professor in college who I obviously can’t link to, but who was sort of obseesed with this stuff) I think we can probably agree that at least some elements of Christian mythology were already prvalent in the ancient world. Virgin births, divine “sons,” and resurrected gods were all as common as dirt. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that Christianity borrowed from these traditions, and natural explanations of history are always preferable to supernatural ones from a purely rationalist point of view.
Since the Christian mythos really took shape in the Greek and Roman world, not Judea, this hardly matters.
As to the above post, I’m referring to the development of the myth and the Christology outside of Judea, not the core historical events within, about which virtually nothing is known.
Let me give a few cites regarding what we know from the historical & archaeologicla evidence. First we have the “Oxford Dictionary of World Religions” quoted at:
http://www.themystica.org/mystica/articles/m/mithraism.html
Here we find that “the cult was first evident toward the end of the first century AD”, and “It is difficult to reconstruct the Mithraic belief & pratice becuase no specically Mithraic texts survived, only inscriptions and accounts by outsiders…” “Side scenes of the temple show Mithras being born from a rock…”.
After some Googling, I find the two modern recognized experts on Historical Mithras- Alison Griffith & David Ulansey.
Going to Dr Griffins work first: (Ecole Initiative)
http:eawc.evansville.edu/essays/mithraism.htm
We find her casting grave doubts upon the Zoroastrian origins of Mithraism, which thesis was originated by Franz Cumont- and expert, true, but an expert from the late 19th century, who did not have modern archaeological discoveries & methods. Even Cumont could find little evidence for a Zoroastian cult of Mithra. In fact, the first evidence of Roman Mithraism comes from Hungary, not the east. A quote: "Mithraism had a wide following form the middle of the second Century to the late 4th century, but the common belief that Mithraism was the prime competitor of Christianity is blatantly false " (italics mine). I also printed out a 27 page thesis (well footnoted) she wrote about: “Mithraism in the private & public lives of 4th-c senators in Rome”, which goes into great detail- however, never mentions any of those details about the religion that other writers seem to have discovered without all that hard work of research & digging.
On to David Ulansey, who wrote “Mithraism- the Cosmic Mysteries of Mithras” published by the Oxford Univ press. see:
http://www.well.com/user/davidu/mithras.html
Here I find such lines as “…Mithraism arose in the Mediterranean wordl at exactly the same time as Christianity…”. “Owing to the cults secrecy, we possess almost no literary evidence about the beliefs of Mithraism. The few texts that do refer to the cult come not from Mitraic devotees, but rather from outsiders such as early Church fathers, who mentioned Mithraism in order to attack it, and Platonic Philosphers…”. “This iconography (the Tauroctony) is our primary source of knowledge about Mithraic beliefs, but becuse we do not have any written accounts of its meaning, the ideas it expresses have proven extraordinarily difficult to decipher”. Ulansey also cast serious doubts upon Cumont’s thesis that Mitraic mysteries derived from ancient Iranian religion. As Ulansey points out, the central image of Roman Mithraism is the Tauroctony (where Mithras kills the bull)- “However, the fact is that no such Iranian myth exists…” Modern scholars seem to feel that “the Roman cult of Mithras was actually a new religion, and had simply borrowed the name of an Iranian god in order to give itself a exotic oriental flavour”. David’s thesis is that the tauroctony is an astronomical star map. Ulansey states firmly that Mithras was born from a rock, not a virgin.
Archaeolgists have made no such conclusions regarding the “ancient mysteries” of Mithraism and how closely the faith mirrors Christianity . Any such “knowledge” is simply either guesswork, or they made it up. We don’t know much about the Iranian version of Mithraism, either. Thus, I can say, with the same authority of those who want to find close parallels between Christianity & Mitraism, that the scorpion stinging the testicles of the Bull is an allegory of the scholarship of such authors. Or perhaps better- what comes out of the bull from slightly further back.
Nor do I think it is a “stretch” either. In fact saying Christianity & Mithraism *influenced * each other is something I’d buy. And, saying that newer religions borrow from older ones is doubtless. If nothing else, Xianity borrowed from Judeaism, at the very least.
I also like how the Xianity influenced the Isis cult, to give it that holy Mother-Child relationship. Those statuettes of Isis with a baby Osiris statuettes are clearly borrowings from Mary with the baby Jesus.
I hope that Sun and Sea comes back.
Fill out that paperwork, kid.
Huh? 
You’re kidding, right?
Well, Duh!!!
Of course it’s the other way around. If beliefs had copyrights, Christianity would be in a lot of trouble.