Did Christianity Borrow from Pagan Myths?

[Mythbuster]

Find out for yourself in this interesting video:

TgksXcesXrA

I believe that the evidence is conclusive that Jesus is a later version of earlier myths.

[thesadmafioso]

Well, yeah, most all religions are cumulative in there content. This isn't something exclusive to Christianity.

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

Initially I would be to differ, I have heard that Christians use to prostate much in the same manner Muslims prostrate in the early days while praying and that in the early days the movement probably could have been seen as a reformist or progressive form of Judaism. It was perhaps through it's evolution and with the mingling of Roman and Greek culture did it slowly pick up pagan beliefs. Really, I think these kinds of things are comparative religious discussions at it's worst and really bastardizes the true beliefs held by X faith. While, I'm sure there could be some similarities between Christianity and historical Pagan beliefs, imagery, customs or whatever to honestly suggest that Christianity is some kind of theological frankenstein seems absurd; what's even worse is people creating arguments against Christianity or posing such theories as some sort of "aha fuck you," to Christianity.

So, no, prophet Jesus (as) was not some borrowed fairytale from the pagans.

[Le Socialiste]

Well, yeah, most all religions are cumulative in their content. This isn't something exclusive to Christianity.

^ This. There are plenty of historians who say the Jews borrowed certain elements of Zoroastrianism, which was a monotheistic faith/religion. Many of the basic tenets of the three "Great Religions" (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) can be traced back to Zoroastrianism, including their concept of good and evil.

[bcbm]

While, I'm sure there could be some similarities between Christianity and historical Pagan beliefs, imagery, customs or whatever to honestly suggest that Christianity is some kind of theological frankenstein seems absurd

its pretty well accepted that the early church was influenced by pagan ideas, especially some of the sects that fell outside what became the catholic church and later christianity saw even more interaction and borrowing from pagan religions as pagan peoples were converted.

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

its pretty well accepted that the early church was influenced by pagan ideas, especially some of the sects that fell outside what became the catholic church and later christianity saw even more interaction and borrowing from pagan religions as pagan peoples were converted.

Well accepted by whom? I would argue that Christianity, in the early years, theologically would have borrow beliefs and ideas of both Zoroastrianism and Judaism more so than pagan thoughts or beliefs which seemed to occur later. Excluding various gnostic sects and all that of course, the main movement which became the Christian faith.

[Yugo45]

I heard that The Bible pretty much ripped off The Epic of Gilgamesh. The Serpent, the apple, the flood.. And a lot more.. And that IS a lot, considering that many fregments of The Epic of Gilgamesh are incomplete and almost half of it is missing. So God knows (ha) how much more of it is the same.

[bcbm]

Well accepted by whom?

theologians?


I would argue that Christianity, in the early years, theologically would have borrow beliefs and ideas of both Zoroastrianism and Judaism more so than pagan thoughts or beliefs which seemed to occur later.

zoroastrianism would be pagan from a christian perspective and in addition to these there were exchanges with hellenic religions. manichaeism was a later influence. given the makeup of the roman empire i think its more absurd to suggest there were no pagan influences than the opposite. did converts bring nothing? there was no interaction with pagans who made up the majority of the empire? doesn't seem likely.


Excluding various gnostic sects and all that of course, the main movement which became the Christian faith.

i don't think you can exclude the sects that were eventually culled or driven underground given that they were a majority of christians at one point.

[Zostrianos]

So, no, prophet Jesus (as) was not some borrowed fairytale from the pagans.

Actually, according to Stephen Harris' The New Testament: A Student's Introduction (one of the basic textbooks for Christianity university studies here in Canada), Jesus was indeed a real person, but the real Jesus and the one in the gospel are very different figures. After Jesus' death, the Christians who passed along his story and eventually recorded it, added Pagan elements to their version of Jesus. Harris' book lists a handful of commonalities between Jesus and the Greek God Dionysos which are more than mere coincidence.

Like Jesus, Dionysus was born of a god (Zeus, the king of the Greek gods)
and a virgin (Semele, the princess of Thebes). Just as the infant Jesus narrowly escaped death at the hands of King Herod, Dionysus narrowly survived Hera’s attempt to murder him as an infant. Both Jesus and Dionysus performed miracles to illustrate their divinity. Both figures endured rejection by friends and family in their hometowns. Both suffered grotesque deaths – Dionysus died at the hands of the Titans, who cut up his body and ate it. And both Jesus and Dionysus ascended into heaven where they joined their Fathers.

Jesus was a real person, but various mythological traits were hoisted onto him by his followers. The historical Jesus and his biblical counterpart are different.
So yes, Christianity did borrow from Pagan myths.

[Smyg]

Here in Scandinavia, Christianity proved very syncretic.

[Dave B]

I think you have to be a bit wary about going too far down the line of plagiarism of former myths and pagan religions etc.

Myths and pagan religions particularly if you take a Jungian archetype position, or even a Freudian position or for that matter a Marxist materialist position are a reflection of, or derived from, the ‘human condition’ and because of that historical events.

Or more likely the other way around.

Often turned into an admittedly an allegorical or fantastic form and theme, decoding them is another matter.

So for instance we could take a modern example of Orwell’s Animal Farm.

That was derived from, as a direct allegory, the Russian revolution with the pigs being the Bolshevik intelligentsia lording it over the other animals (working class) and the other allegorical strata of Feudal Russian society.

It still works as a novel because the themes within it reflect or resonate with people’s real experiences.


The point is I think is that you have recurrent real material events, turned into allegory or myths/fables, then there is a potential hazard of seeing a basic story as a plagiarised myth turned back into a more contemporary albeit fictional gritty reality.

Or in other word was ‘The West Side Story’ really ‘just’ a plagiarism of a pure fictional invention of a completely original concept in Shakespeare’s ‘Romeo and Juliet’ or was it just a theme that never went away because it persisted in reality.

The theme of the gospel documents was however somewhat different for its time.

It was of an ordinary member of the, artisan ,working class and of the oppressed poor criticising the organised state religion that was in cahoots with ruling class to maintain and manufacture consent for that state of oppression.

In fact Celsum at the time thought it was hilarious that a god would voluntarily appear as a carpenter, even Origen was sensitive to the matter and sort of denied it.

The lower ranking Gods then were admittedly humbled sometimes for not following the party line, but rarely the ones on the central committee.

The baby killing stuff in the Judiac material probably originates form the Moses stuff, to what extent it may or may not tap into the natural or conditioned psyche is another matter.

When we had the subsequently false story of Iraqi soldiers tossing babies out of incubators in Kuwait was that really about tapping into a semi-conscious awareness of the Herod or Hera story?

[Zostrianos]

There's an interesting Wikipedia article on the topic:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ_in_comparative_mythology

[Zostrianos]

Now, if we look beyond Jesus, and examine Christianity more broadly, the Church borrowed many of its regalia and practices from Pagan religions. The Pope's staff and mitre are said to have been derived from the Mithraic mysteries.

A very interesting conflation of Paganism and Christianity may be found in Celtic religion, where the Goddess Brigid is said to be the origin of Saint Brigid. Apparently when Christian missionaries reached Britain they were unable to suppress Brigid's cult, and so they turned her into a saint.

[Devrim]

Jesus was a real person, but various mythological traits were hoisted onto him by his followers. The historical Jesus and his biblical counterpart are different.
So yes, Christianity did borrow from Pagan myths.

Something that there is no evidence for whatsoever. I am not saying he definitely didn't exist, but there is no proof that he did.

Devrim

[ComradeMan]

Something that there is no evidence for whatsoever. I am not saying he definitely didn't exist, but there is no proof that he did.

Devrim

Well there's not much proof that many figures from the ancient world existed, Socrates being one that comes to mind. However to say there is no evidence whatsoever for an historical Jesus is untrue- the evidence is there to be evaluated in terms of references and texts. Whether one trusts the evidence or agrees on the interpretation is another matter.

[Devrim]

Well there's not much proof that many figures from the ancient world existed, Socrates being one that comes to mind. However to say there is no evidence whatsoever for an historical Jesus is untrue- the evidence is there to be evaluated in terms of references and texts. Whether one trusts the evidence or agrees on the interpretation is another matter.

It is pretty difficult to prove that something is untrue. There are though no contemporary references to Jesus at all, which is not true for somebody like Plato. I am not saying that he didn't exist as a historical character. Merely pointing out that his existence is dubious.

Devrim

[tradeunionsupporter]

In my opinion yes.

[Zostrianos]

The existence of Jesus is no longer doubted by any serious scholar. In fact, to deny that he existed presents serious logical problems: assuming there was no Jesus (or living individual he was based on) then who exactly founded Christianity?

Many who claim that Jesus never existed have stated that it was Paul who invented Christianity; however, the kind of Christianity presented in the Pauline letters and that of the Gospels display stark differences, which rules out a Pauline authorship for the original accounts of Jesus' life and teaching.

[Devrim]

The existence of Jesus is no longer doubted by any serious scholar.

It depends how you define serious doesn't it.


In fact, to deny that he existed presents serious logical problems: assuming there was no Jesus (or living individual he was based on) then who exactly founded Christianity?

I don't think anybody contends that Jesus founded the Christian church. If Jesus had existed he would have been a Jew, not a Christian.

Devrim

[ComradeMan]

It depends how you define serious doesn't it.

Well could you say what the main objections are?


I don't think anybody contends that Jesus founded the Christian church. If Jesus had existed he would have been a Jew, not a Christian.

Well, I think he was pretty fundamental in its founding- Matthew 16:18- kind of starts things off. Isn't it a bit like saying Abraham wasn't Jewish?

[StoneFrog]

Something that there is no evidence for whatsoever. I am not saying he definitely didn't exist, but there is no proof that he did.

Devrim

If i remember correctly there was a roman who mentioned a man called something along the lines of chriti or something like that. He was complaining about jews that had come into the city complaining about their leader being arrested, and they were making a bunch of trouble. I can't remember the whole thing, but i do know the time line was off a bit by a few decades; though this is the only evidence that any sort of Jesus like figure existed.

[Devrim]

If i remember correctly there was a roman who mentioned a man called something along the lines of chriti or something like that. He was complaining about jews that had come into the city complaining about their leader being arrested, and they were making a bunch of trouble. I can't remember the whole thing, but i do know the time line was off a bit by a few decades; though this is the only evidence that any sort of Jesus like figure existed.

There are references to Jesus in Josephus' 'The Jewish War'. He was actually a Romanised Jew. However, he was born about 37AD, and the book was written in about 75AD. It is therefore not contemporary in any way.

Also the references to Jesus are thought by many to be later Christian interpolations.

Devrim

[ComradeMan]

If i remember correctly there was a roman who mentioned a man called something along the lines of chriti or something like that. He was complaining about jews that had come into the city complaining about their leader being arrested, and they were making a bunch of trouble. I can't remember the whole thing, but i do know the time line was off a bit by a few decades; though this is the only evidence that any sort of Jesus like figure existed.

Suetonius is your man...


Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit- As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them [the Jews] from Rome" http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0061:life=cl.:chapte r=25&highlight=chresto

Also....


Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

Latin Original:

Et haec quidem humanis consiliis providebantur. mox petita dis piacula aditique Sibyllae libri, ex quibus supplicatum Vulcano et Cereri Proserpinaeque ac propitiata Iuno per matronas, primum in Capitolio, deinde apud proximum mare, unde hausta aqua templum et simulacrum deae perspersum est; et sellisternia ac pervigilia celebravere feminae quibus mariti erant. sed non ope humana, non largitionibus principis aut deum placamentis decedebat infamia quin iussum incendium crederetur. ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Christianos appellabat. auctor nominis eius Christus Tiberio imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat; repressaque in praesens exitiabilis superstitio rursum erumpebat, non modo per Iudaeam, originem eius mali, sed per urbem etiam quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque. igitur primum correpti qui fatebantur, deinde indicio eorum multitudo ingens haud proinde in crimine incendii quam odio humani generis convicti sunt. et pereuntibus addita ludibria, ut ferarum tergis contecti laniatu canum interirent, aut crucibus adfixi aut flammandi, atque ubi defecisset dies in usum nocturni luminis urerentur. hortos suos ei spectaculo Nero obtulerat et circense ludicrum edebat, habitu aurigae permixtus plebi vel curriculo insistens. unde quamquam adversus sontis et novissima exempla meritos miseratio oriebatur, tamquam non utilitate publica sed in saevitiam unius absumerentur.
From Annales ab excessu divi Augusti. Cornelius Tacitus. Charles Dennis Fisher. Clarendon Press. Oxford. 1906.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0077:book=15:chapter =44

[Devrim]

Suetonius is your man...

In which case it isn't a reference to Jesus himself, but to the Christians in Rome as CM points out.

Devrim

[ComradeMan]

In which case it isn't a reference to Jesus himself, but to the Christians in Rome as CM points out.

Devrim

...at the instigation of "Chrestus".... that's referring to a person. It's also telling that Suetonius sees these early Christians as Jews and that the same event is noted in Acts 18:2. If it were a later interpolation then it is unlikely thata literate Christian capable of interpolation would have spelt Christ's name wrongly nor identified the early Christians with Jews. Tacitus is also referring to "Christus" as a person. The Tacitus comment does not provide a source or say much we don't already know but it is generally deemed to be authentic and not an interpolation. The Josephus comments are problematic indeed yet a shorter comment about James, brother of Christ, does seem to be authentic; there is also an Arabic reference to Josephus from the 10th century (in the Kitab al-'Unwan) that may suggest the controversial passage was, at least in part, a reference to the historical figure of Jesus. Leaving aside the inevitable problems with ancient texts the sheer logical argument arises of why the hell would a group of Jews suddenly become "Christians" and talk about this figure of Jesus without any historical basis whatsoever?

[Hit The North]

The existence of Jesus is no longer doubted by any serious scholar. In fact, to deny that he existed presents serious logical problems: assuming there was no Jesus (or living individual he was based on) then who exactly founded Christianity?



So do you believe that Krishna must also have existed otherwise we could not logically account for Hinduism?

[ComradeMan]

So do you believe that Krishna must also have existed otherwise we could not logically account for Hinduism?

Hinduism is not dependent on Krishna to start with, rather a school of Hinduism- Vaishnavism derived from Vishnuism, although evident in Rig Vedic literature this did not really fully emerge until around the 4th century BCE- Krishna himself was supposed to have been born in 3228 BCE. There is no reason to suppose that a historic "prince" of the Vedic period called Krishna did not exist however we are dealing with different things here. The primary sources for Krishna are from within the Vedic tradition and date so far back in time it is difficult to tell, when dealing with a historic figure of a Jewish movement leader who is referred to by sources come from both within and without the said tradition.

[StoneFrog]

Thanks ComradeMan, i couldn't remember where it was from.

[Devrim]

...at the instigation of "Chrestus".... that's referring to a person.

I think it is referring to the inspiration in the sort of way that we could say the Russian revolution was inspired by Marx. Not in the way that it was directly inspired by a contemporary person.


It's also telling that Suetonius sees these early Christians as Jews

The Romans saw the Christians as a sect of the Jews for a long time after this. Basically they were correct too.


Tacitus is also referring to "Christus" as a person.

However, it is not contemporary.


The Josephus comments are problematic however the comment

And also not contemporary.


Leaving aside the inevitable problems with ancient texts the sheer logical argument of why the hell would a group of Jews suddenly become "Christians" and talk about this figure of Jesus without any historical basis whatsoever?

It could have been based on a single historical personage. It could have been based on a number of historical personages, or merely a story.

I don't claim any of these is the reason. What I say is that there is no contemporary evidence for the existence of the historical personage of Jesus, and considering that, his existence should be considered to be dubious.

Devrim

[ComradeMan]

I think it is referring to the inspiration in the sort of way that we could say the Russian revolution was inspired by Marx. Not in the way that it was directly inspired by a contemporary person.

With all due respect, your opinion is not definitive per se. It's obvious that the the Christian movement gained momentum after the death of Jesus and therefore we are not dealing with contemporary sources. There probably are no contemporary sources, or at least they have not been discovered- keep in mind too that we only have probably about 2% of the corpus of ancient literature that was ever written. But as Marx was not contemporary to the Russian Revolution so was the historical Jesus not contemporary to the later events of Christianity- this does not inherently negate the historicity of the historical person.


The Romans saw the Christians as a sect of the Jews for a long time after this. Basically they were correct too.

Which points to it not being an interpolation..... ;)

You keep saying contemporary all over the place. But unfortunately you're applying a standard that would actually be very difficult to apply to a hell of a lot of ancient figures. Where is the contemporary evidence for Socrates? In fact even much of what we know of the Roman Emperors is not really based on contemporary evidence if we are to be so critical- remember we are dealing with an age of high illiteracy and no printing presses. We do have to rely a lot on references in texts and that's about it.

Nevertheless, could Islam have emerged without Mohammed? I think not, and I don't think early Christianity would have emerged without any such figure of Jesus either- a figure who in historical terms is certainly not unbelievable when considering Judaea of the 1st century CE.

Only relatively few scholars absolutely rule out the existence of a historical Jesus.

[Devrim]

this does not inherently negate the historicity of the historical person.

No, but that isn't what I have claimed. I have just claimed that there were no contemporary references to him, and that his existence as a historical figure is dubious.


You keep saying contemporary all over the place. But unfortunately you're applying a standard that would actually be very difficult to apply to a hell of a lot of ancient figures. Where is the contemporary evidence for Socrates?

Er...Plato,...Xenophon...Aristotle...


Nevertheless, could Islam have emerged without Mohammed?

Mohammed was, though, a historical figure referred to in many contemporary sources.


I think not, and I don't think early Christianity would have emerged without any such figure of Jesus either- a figure who in historical terms is certainly not unbelievable when considering Judaea of the 1st century CE.

Certainly not unbelievable, but then I have never suggested that it wasn't. Robin Hood is certainly not unbelievable as a character either.


Only relatively few scholars absolutely rule out the existence of a historical Jesus.

Which is hardly surprising given the weight of the Christian, and Muslim religions in society.

Devrim

[ComradeMan]

No, but that isn't what I have claimed. I have just claimed that there were no contemporary references to him, and that his existence as a historical figure is dubious.

Okay- but why his existence as a historical figure dubious because we have not inherited any surviving contemporary references? We are also not talking about thousands of years here- all references within less than a century, i.e. possible living memory of the historical Jesus.


Er...Plato,...Xenophon...Aristotle...

.... who claimed to have been students of Socrates. But there are still severe problems in proving Socrates existed, if we are to apply your standards. Now I believe that Socrates did exist and I believe this argument has come up elsewhere but nevertheless there remains the "Socratic Problem". How much of Socrates may have been invented by his "students" and other contemporaries since Socrates left no writings of his own? Fundamentally we only "know" Socrates "existed" based upon the writings of those who claim to have known him just as the Acts of the Apostles are based on the writings of those who claim to have known Jesus.


Mohammed was, though, a historical figure referred to in many contemporary sources.

And Mohammed certainly believed in the historicity of Jesus. But I think you'll find that the earliest sources (non-Muslim) date back to after his death- so they are not contemporary. The main source of information on Mohammed is not the Qu'ran but the Hadith and the Hadith was written a couple of centuries after his death. None of the sira literature was compiled within 100 years of Mohammed. What are these contemporary sources then?


Which is hardly surprising given the weight of the Christian, and Muslim religions in society.

Come off it- again that is just an opinion and not an historical argument against authenticity.

[Devrim]

Okay- but why his existence as a historical figure dubious because we have not inherited any surviving contemporary references? We are also not talking about thousands of years here- all references within less than a century, i.e. possible living memory of the historical Jesus.

Within a century yes, but people such as Josephus were born after Jesus' supposed death, and therefore were not contemporary with him. The earliest Gospels are widely presumed to have been written in the same period as the jewish war by people who hadn't known Jesus personally.


.... who claimed to have been students of Socrates. But there are still severe problems in proving Socrates existed, if we are to apply your standards. Now I believe that Socrates did exist and I believe this argument has come up elsewhere but nevertheless there remains the "Socratic Problem". How much of Socrates may have been invented by his "students" and other contemporaries since Socrates left no writings of his own? Fundamentally we only "know" Socrates "existed" based upon the writings of those who claim to have known him just as the Acts of the Apostles are based on the writings of those who claim to have known Jesus.

There is a difference of one remove here.


And Mohammed certainly believed in the historicity of Jesus. But I think you'll find that the earliest sources (non-Muslim) date back to after his death- so they are not contemporary. The main source of information on Mohammed is not the Qu'ran but the Hadith and the Hadith was written a couple of centuries after his death. None of the sira literature was compiled within 100 years of Mohammed. What are these contemporary sources then?

There are contemporary Arabic references. The earliest non-Arabic reference to Mohammed as a person is from 634 AD, i.e. two years after Mohammed's death by someone who was obviously his contemporary.


Come off it- again that is just an opinion and not an historical argument against authenticity.

Yes, it is just an opinion, but don't you think that the fact that over half of the world's population believes in this figure as a matter of faith has some connection to the way people view him.

Besides as you know, I am not arguing that he was definitely not a historical figure, merely that his existence as such is dubious.

Devrim

[ComradeMan]

There is a difference of one remove here.

:confused: The Apostles were not the contemporaries of Jesus? We also have the Epistles (non-Pauline) too.


There are contemporary Arabic references. The earliest non-Arabic reference to Mohammed as a person is from 634 AD, i.e. two years after Mohammed's death by someone who was obviously his contemporary.

How do we know? How can that be a reliable source? What exactly is that source/reference and what does it say? I believe that reference is from a note inserted in a Byzantine Gospel codex that does not actually refer to Mohammed as a person in much the same way, it could be argued, as the Suetonius extract. Now, let's get this straight- I believe that Mohammed did exist and I am not trying to argue anything else, however if we were to apply a rigorous standard of historicity to Mohammed we would also run into problems if we are to go down that line.

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/earlysaw.html

[Devrim]

:confused: The Apostles were not the contemporaries of Jesus? We also have the Epistles (non-Pauline) too.


But I think it is widely believed that various books of the bible were not written by the 12 apostles of Jesus.. Which do you think were?

Devrim

[ComradeMan]

But I think it is widely believed that various books of the bible were not written by the 12 apostles of Jesus.. Which do you think were?

Devrim

Well my own theory is that the original documents probably didn't survive and some may have been passed on by word of mouth, re-dictated and so on- as is much the same with many ancient texts, some of which have also been re-assembled from differing fragments and so on. It sucks from a modern point-of-view but with ancient texts it's usually the best we can do unless more texts come to light.

Fundamentally I think a Jewish religious leader, perhaps a Pharisee, who later came to be called "Jesus" must have existed in order for what followed to have followed- especially in the light of the many "failed" messiahs that Jewish history records that did not create such a following. I just don't think it's credible that a movement would arise spontaneously, given the historical context, around a fictitious person. Now, what has been done with the post-history of that person is another matter and is where ultimately empiricism ceases and faith must begin- and that is best left to the individual. Let's also face it- the early Jewish-Christians did not have much of a material or political reason to adopt this new cult did they? Estranged not only from their own historical origins and culture but also at odds with the superpower of Rome.

[Devrim]

Well my own theory is that the original documents probably didn't survive and some may have been passed on by word of mouth, re-dictated and so on- as is much the same with many ancient texts, some of which have also been re-assembled from differing fragments and so on. It sucks from a modern point-of-view but with ancient texts it's usually the best we can do unless more texts come to light.

It is, as you put it, your own theory, but what is widely accepted as fact is that those texts weren't written by people who lived at the time they were writing about. This is unlike the various sources referring to Socrates that were. Therefore, they are at least one step, and quite possibly a few more, removed.


I just don't think it's credible that a movement would arise spontaneously, given the historical context, around a fictitious person.

Do you mean like the movements around figures such as captain Swing or Ned Ludd?

Devrim

[ComradeMan]

It is, as you put it, your own theory, but what is widely accepted as fact is that those texts weren't written by people who lived at the time they were writing about. This is unlike the various sources referring to Socrates that were. Therefore, they are at least one step, and quite possibly a few more, removed.

Well you yourself use the term "nearly" contemporary when dealing with Mohammed. Given the times and given also the fact we are talking within a potential living memory of the historical Jesus I don't think it's unreasonable. Again, the texts about Socrates do leave us with the "Socratic Problem" and inasmuch you cannot prove that Socrates actually existed.


Do you mean like the movements around figures such as captain Swing or Ned Ludd?

It's hardly the same thing is it? As well as the fact that ancient peoples would most likely not have given much credence to something that was not originalm (in the ancient sense of the word, i.e. having origins).

[Devrim]

Well you yourself use the term "nearly" contemporary when dealing with Mohammed.

If somebody wrote something two years after somebody else died then yes they were a contemporary of that person.


Given the times and given also the fact we are talking within a potential living memory of the historical Jesus I don't think it's unreasonable.

Not with Josephus, for example, who was not born when Jesus supposedly died.


It's hardly the same thing is it?

Why?


As well as the fact that ancient peoples would most likely not have given much credence to something that was not originalm (in the ancient sense of the word, i.e. having origins).

I don't understand this. Could you explain, please?

Devrim

[ComradeMan]

If somebody wrote something two years after somebody else died then yes they were a contemporary of that person.

Loosely.... and the reference that I found was obviously not written by someone who knew Mohammed in person- at least as far as we can possibly know. But would you say what exactly the reference is so we know we are talking about the same thing as it is interesting all the same.


Not with Josephus, for example, who was not born when Jesus supposedly died.

But Josephus is not the only one we we have...


Why?

Because the context, era and motivations are entirely different.


I don't understand this. Could you explain, please?

Well we use the word "original" today to mean something new and imply it has not been "copied" or based on something older etc. The "original" meaning of the word "original" was something quite the opposite in many senses, i.e. something that had origins and was based on something else- probably known to the audience/author/public etc. Given that the first Christians were Jews and the first "audience" were mostly Jewish or at least familiar with the Jewish world of the time I find it hard to believe that such a radical departure from the more-or-less established religious norms of the time would have gained much success had it all been made up and not based on a real person who existed.

Remember too that we can't just work with the texts alone but with information contained in those texts, linguistic and descriptive as well as other archaeological information- unfortunately beset with dishonesty, potential fraud and doubt due to the nature of the investigations. The Christian texts that have come down to us are surprisingly close to the dating of the historical Jesus (between 50-250 years) when we consider that the earliest extant text we have for Plato was written around 895 CE- that's a gap of 1300 years.

[Zostrianos]

There's a Wikipedia article on this topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_theory

"Nearly all Bible scholars involved with historical Jesus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus) research maintain the existence of the New Testament Jesus can be established using documentary and other evidence, although they differ on the degree to which material about him in the New Testament should be taken at face value."

[progressive_lefty]

I think what a lot of what religious people miss - is that religion has evolved as well. It is interesting to see how Candomblé became another religion which borrowed (mostly in order to hide the religion) elements from Christianity. This contends well with what was originally mentioned in the youtube video, about how there are definitely major similarities between Hinduism, Budhism and Christianity - which could be linked back to the original pagan religions.

Imagine if 1000 thousand years from now Candomblé was the main religion of South America.

[ComradeMan]

I think what a lot of what religious people miss - is that religion has evolved as well. It is interesting to see how Candomblé became another religion which borrowed (mostly in order to hide the religion) elements from Christianity. This contends well with what was originally mentioned in the youtube video, about how there are definitely major similarities between Hinduism, Budhism and Christianity - which could be linked back to the original pagan religions.

Imagine if 1000 thousand years from now Candomblé was the main religion of South America.

I don't think religious people miss that at all. In the Old Testament/Tanakh you see the relationship evolve, the relationship between Noah was not the same as that with Abraham and so on. Most religions (excluding fundies) would acknowledge that as humans evolve so does their relationship with the divine and their understanding thereof.

[Revolution starts with U]

Ya. Abrahamic semites were polytheist. And I don't think the Bible hides that fact. It doesn't say it outright, but it alludes to it when its greatest Hero (before Jesus, if you're christian) is a member of the nobility of Ur...

[Iron Felix]

To some extent OP is correct of course. What thesadmafioso said is very true. But it shouldn't be forgotten that Christianity in it's infancy was nothing more than a sect within the Jewish religion when considering this matter. The laws of Moses were abandoned only when the sect has been filled with Gentiles. So of course there are influences from the different pagans within Christianity, and they are indeed many, but Christianity borrowed a lot more from the Jews.

[Hit The North]

I don't think religious people miss that at all. In the Old Testament/Tanakh you see the relationship evolve, the relationship between Noah was not the same as that with Abraham and so on. Most religions (excluding fundies) would acknowledge that as humans evolve so does their relationship with the divine and their understanding thereof.

But typically, as we can see above, religious people mystify this development as the development of the relationship between humans and their imaginary deity, when the real roots of religious development are to be found in the relationship of living men and women with other living (and dead) men and women.

[ComradeMan]

But typically, as we can see above, religious people mystify this development as the development of the relationship between humans and their imaginary deity, when the real roots of religious development are to be found in the relationship of living men and women with other living (and dead) men and women.

We can't know that and it's unfair to criticise the religious/spiritual person for their outlook that comes from within their own tradition.

[revolutionary_socialist]

"I believe that the evidence is conclusive that Jesus is a later version of earlier myths."

Of coarse. That is why I laugh when people tell me I will burn n hell for celebrating pagan holidays.:lol: Christians are fucking retarded. ;)

[ComradeMan]

"I believe that the evidence is conclusive that Jesus is a later version of earlier myths."

Of coarse. That is why I laugh when people tell me I will burn n hell for celebrating pagan holidays.:lol: Christians are fucking retarded. ;)

Cool use of language bro'.... not. :thumbdown:

[GallowsBird]

To be fair all religions descend from other old faiths (and far enough back the same original idea). We must not forget that Christianity descends from Judaism; that it is an Abrahamic faith and thus descends from the Proto-Semitic faith in the same way Hinduism, Roman polytheism and Jainism et cetera share their origins in the Proto-Indo-European religious practices and mythology.
No religion has developed in a vacuum and while they descend from an older belief system, they also borrow from elsewhere.

I don't think it would be amiss to say that Christianity in some part descends from what most Christians would consider a "pagan" religion and of course the Greco-Roman faith has had a profound impact on modern Christianity hence the Greek roots of many words associated with Christianity and of course the general Latinate heirachy of the Catholic Church (with the Pontifex Maximus at its head as was always the case of the religio of the Roman state) amongst other things. None of this takes away from it beinga "divinely inspired" faith to the minds of its adherence however it does go against the view that it is the only faith of value or vice versa as the case may be.

[Hit The North]

We can't know that

Of course we can know that. Even if the deity exists, it only ever communicates through other people; therefore the relationship is only ever between people.

Looked at another way, because the deity is supposedly omniscient, it already knows the end state of its relationship with its creation. It, therefore, has no development to make; all the development is on the side of the human understanding of that relationship and since the deity does not speak to us all, that understanding is always mediated through human relationships.


and it's unfair to criticise the religious/spiritual person for their outlook that comes from within their own tradition.


That's like saying it is unfair to criticise someone's racism because their outlook comes from within their own tradition.

[bcbm]

"I believe that the evidence is conclusive that Jesus is a later version of earlier myths."

Of coarse. That is why I laugh when people tell me I will burn n hell for celebrating pagan holidays.:lol: Christians are fucking retarded. ;)

'retarded' is considered prejudiced language and should not be used on this board. this is a verbal warning, please don't do it again

[L.A.P.]

Well accepted by whom? I would argue that Christianity, in the early years, theologically would have borrow beliefs and ideas of both Zoroastrianism and Judaism more so than pagan thoughts or beliefs which seemed to occur later. Excluding various gnostic sects and all that of course, the main movement which became the Christian faith.

Do you even know where Christmas comes from? Holidays in general were strongly opposed by Christianity because they were considered pagan decadences until they realized no one wants to join a religion that stops you from having a party during the most depressing time of the years (winter). So then came Christmas, because it just so happen that Jesus was born on a pagan holiday.:D

[Revolution starts with U]

I watched a video one time... and I never rely upon the validity of youtube videos :lol: ... but it basically described a siberian (I think) culture where the "shaman" goes around during the winter picking wild psychedellic mushrooms. These are the muschrooms like you see in Mario, red polka dotted and shiny. He places them in the trees to dry while he searches for more, creating the christmas bulb effect.
He then rides his sleigh around to various houses around the winter solstice and distributes the mushrooms. The snow gets really deep in this area, and the houses are basically under it, only accessible thru the chimney.
IDK, if this culture really exists (again, who knows w youtube vids) I think it explains well where the myth of Santa came from :D

[L.A.P.]

I watched a video one time... and I never rely upon the validity of youtube videos :lol: ... but it basically described a siberian (I think) culture where the "shaman" goes around during the winter picking wild psychedellic mushrooms. These are the muschrooms like you see in Mario, red polka dotted and shiny. He places them in the trees to dry while he searches for more, creating the christmas bulb effect.
He then rides his sleigh around to various houses around the winter solstice and distributes the mushrooms. The snow gets really deep in this area, and the houses are basically under it, only accessible thru the chimney.
IDK, if this culture really exists (again, who knows w youtube vids) I think it explains well where the myth of Santa came from :D

You have a link?

[Dave B]

Puritan era

The first documented Christmas controversy was Christian-led, and began during the English Interregnum (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/English_Interregnum), when England was ruled by a Puritan (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Puritan) Parliament (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Parliament_of_England).[60] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-59) Puritans (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Puritans) (including those who fled to America[61] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-60)) sought to remove elements they viewed as "pagan" (because they were not biblical in origin) from Christianity (see Pre-Christianity below). During this period, the English Parliament banned the celebration of Christmas entirely, replacing it with a day of fasting and considering it "a popish (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Popish) festival with no biblical justification", and a time of wasteful and immoral behavior.[62] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-61) The Army were sent to raid homes and confiscate any cooked meat. This led to such resentment that it provoked riots in Kent, leading to the Second Civil War (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Second_Civil_War) and the Siege of Colchester (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Siege_of_Colchester). Indeed Christmas only became a legal holiday in Scotland in 1967, after the Church of Scotland (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Church_of_Scotland) finally relaxed its objections.


During the colonial period, celebrating Christmas was punishable by a fine and in 1776 it was still not widely celebrated
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_controversy

[ComradeMan]

Of course we can know that. Even if the deity exists, it only ever communicates through other people; therefore the relationship is only ever between people.

How do you know that? How can you 100% say that if a person has some kind of divine revelation, enlightenment experience or whatever then it's false? Also I don't see where you get this idea "through" other people from. In Jewish tradition the deity has manifested in many forms and spoken directly and I believe this is the same in many other religions too.


Looked at another way, because the deity is supposedly omniscient, it already knows the end state of its relationship with its creation. It, therefore, has no development to make; all the development is on the side of the human understanding of that relationship and since the deity does not speak to us all, that understanding is always mediated through human relationships.

I don't understand your argument here? Are you expecting God to come around for a cup of coffee and a chat?

The omniscience paradoxes don't really work either and mix up ideas- it's complicated but a Judaeo-Christian counter-argument would simply state that God knows all possible futures but allows free-will thus humans are free to choose their future so to speak. Other ideas include the concept that God not predict the future but rather postdicts the future.


That's like saying it is unfair to criticise someone's racism because their outlook comes from within their own tradition.

It's not really the same thing though is it? You are condemning the religious person for discussing their own religious outlook from their...err... own religious outlook.

[Zostrianos]

Do you even know where Christmas comes from? Holidays in general were strongly opposed by Christianity because they were considered pagan decadences until they realized no one wants to join a religion that stops you from having a party during the most depressing time of the years (winter).

Dancing, hand-clapping, and other celebratory practices at weddings and religious festivals were officially condemned by the Church in the 4th and 5th centuries, notably at the Council of Laodicea (q.v. "Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth centuries" pg. 104). The bishops and church elders did indeed regard such practices as licentious, sinful, and reminiscent of Pagan celebrations. However, while they may have forcibly converted entire populations, they were unable to extirpate those practices among their flocks no matter how much they tried, and so they ultimately assimilated them. This was also the custom with religious festivals: initially Pagan holidays were turned into work days (by Theodosius 1 if I'm not mistaken), but eventually they turned them into Christian celebrations, like Christmas near the winter solstice, and Easter replacing the spring equinox.

[Dave B]

I think ‘Easter’ as an anniversary of the crucifixion and resurrection etc had to be dated in accordance with the Judaic Passover; which happens according to rules about new moons etc around March/April.

So its coincidence with the spring equinox is that; given any attention to the Gospel story.

There had been some massive rows in the past however about the exact dating of Easter that threatened to split the church a thousand years ago or whatever.

The fusion or incorporation of pagan belief systems into modern Christianity was I thought so standard that it is not really worthy of debate.

There some even more ‘modern’ examples with the christianised indigenous ‘Indians’ in central and south America.

In the UK there are Saxon and Viking stone carving and crosses that incorporate the Nordic and Germanic deities etc in a way that is almost ‘heretical’.

The celebration of Christmas in December is a more clear cut case of fusing an old pagan tradition, including christmas trees etc which is German I think.

Material dating from early christian documents circa 200- 400 AD for what it matters seems to suggest that they thought then that JC’s birthday was also around early spring.

The omniscience argument and contradiction is also of some interest and was something that that the intellectual critic of christianity Celsum ( given the context of thought at the time etc it was a well thought out and methodical) homed in on and that they had to pass onto Origen; the christian theoretician par excellence of 220AD.

The killer argument being how come JC fell for the old crucifixation joke, you know when they say they are thirsty and give me a drink etc. And they pass them up something, on the end of a sponge to suck on, that dries their mouth out and tastes horrible.

Apart from the argument about why he didn’t just clear off on a cloud of smoke or something when the heat was on.

[Hit The North]

How do you know that? How can you 100% say that if a person has some kind of divine revelation, enlightenment experience or whatever then it's false? Also I don't see where you get this idea "through" other people from. In Jewish tradition the deity has manifested in many forms and spoken directly and I believe this is the same in many other religions too.


The whole point of revelation is that it is personal. I don't recall the deity appearing in front of the throng and announcing itself in the Bible. We only have Moses claims about the burning bush. Moses went alone to the mount to receive the ten commandments. Only Joseph experienced his dreams. We only have Paul's word that God spoke to him on the road to Damascus. And so on. In the Judaic, Christian and Islamic traditions the word of God is transmitted to the people through the agency of selected individuals. This is what I mean by "through" other people.

Now whilst the religious and mystical might argue that Moses, Jesus and Mohammed are the cyphers for Gods heavenly power on Earth, as a materialist, a Marxist, and a realist, I simply object that it is more likely that the reverse is true: that God is a cypher through which Moses et al exercise their Earthly power.


I don't understand your argument here? Are you expecting God to come around for a cup of coffee and a chat? Of course not. No more than I'm expecting Thor to come around and lay some floorboards.


The omniscience paradoxes don't really work either and mix up ideas- it's complicated but a Judaeo-Christian counter-argument would simply state that God knows all possible futures but allows free-will thus humans are free to choose their future so to speak. Other ideas include the concept that God not predict the future but rather postdicts the future.
If the deity is omniscient then it will know what the eventual outcome of human free will will be. And of course God does not predict the future as he supposedly exists independently of his creation - that is to say, outside time and space. He already knows the future.


It's not really the same thing though is it? You are condemning the religious person for discussing their own religious outlook from their...err... own religious outlook.
I'm not condemning them, simply pointing out that they have no proof that the voices in their heads or the visions in their ecstasies are the result of the intervention of God rather than merely a psychotic episode or an elaborate fraud.

[Rocky Rococo]

Read The Golden Bough by Sir James Fraser. While Fraser went to great lengths to be politically correct for his period, pretending to uphold Christianity as "true and unique religion", anyone reading between the lines would eventually understand that the point is to present a deep and detailed analysis of how almost every element of Christian teaching not only has previous roots in various pagan traditions, but those same traditions existed almost worldwide before some possibly apocryphal minor Jewish troublemaker got strung up to make an example.