Christianity as a pagan religion

[angellous_evangellous]

In thinking about ancient and modern forms of Christianity, many Christians characterize other religions as "pagan." This word came into use because Christianity was a city religion and "pagan" refered to the uneducated and irreligious hillbillies. But "pagan" is now used to refer to any religion other than Christianity.

In our thinking and reflection about Christianity, we need to realize that Christianity is the product of pagan religion and philosophy [the fusion of Greco-Roman culture and a sylized interpretation of Jewish texts]; therefore we should consider it just as pagan as other religions.

 

[Duck]

In thinking about ancient and modern forms of Christianity, many Christians characterize other religions as "pagan." This word came into use because Christianity was a city religion and "pagan" refered to the uneducated and irreligious hillbillies. But "pagan" is now used to refer to any religion other than Christianity.

In our thinking and reflection about Christianity, we need to realize that Christianity is the product of pagan religion and philosophy [the fusion of Greco-Roman culture and a sylized interpretation of Jewish texts]; therefore we should consider it just as pagan as other religions.

I don't know that the peasants and hillbillies that were called "pagan" during the early years of Christianity were actually irreligious. Unless of course one defines "irreligious" as lacking christianity. Granted many modern definitions relating to religion (at least in the West) are based upon the assumption that Christianity is the One True (tm) religion.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I don't know that the peasants and hillbillies that were called "pagan" during the early years of Christianity were actually irreligious. Unless of course one defines "irreligious" as lacking christianity. Granted many modern definitions relating to religion (at least in the West) are based upon the assumption that Christianity is the One True (tm) religion.

Oh, of course not.

 

[painted wolf]

I think one could add "idolatrous" to that... as it seems many Christian groups hold the Bible as holier than the actual message of Jesus. And that they conflate the "word" of God with God itself.

Let's not get into all the "holy" items that some religions will pitch a fit over if they are so much as looked at funny.

wa:do

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I did get in trouble with my prof [who is a nun] when I referred to St. Seneca and St. Plutarch in a lecture.

She snapped, "Seneca and Plutarch are not saints!"

I replied that they are just as saintly as the church fathers that incorporate them into their theology.

 

[Duck]

Oh, of course not.

I thought you might not have meant to imply that.

I have always been irked by the definitions of heathen and pagan (in particular) as essentially lacking in religious feeling or morality, with secondary definitions of essentially being non-christian. I haven't checked a dictionary in several years, but the last time I did (2007?) those definitions still were pretty much defined in relationship to Christianity.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I thought you might not have meant to imply that.

Good.

 

[it's_sam]

For the most part I agree, the christian religion has always taken on the side that will benefit its people most in life and religion. Id say even when I was a kid they were still trying to balance this out, and some sub-religions from christianity are still currently doing this. I think that they were doing their best at the time though, and taking more recent ideas to give them a foot up (regardless if it was wrong). They were trying to break away from jewdeism, and muslim lifestyles to improve their life wich means taking a chance. I know of someone more recently who had been tortured because he chose christianity in Iran. They will do this for many life choices you might make, it only takes them to disagree and it happens.

 

[rusra02]

In thinking about ancient and modern forms of Christianity, many Christians characterize other religions as "pagan." This word came into use because Christianity was a city religion and "pagan" refered to the uneducated and irreligious hillbillies. But "pagan" is now used to refer to any religion other than Christianity.

In our thinking and reflection about Christianity, we need to realize that Christianity is the product of pagan religion and philosophy [the fusion of Greco-Roman culture and a sylized interpretation of Jewish texts]; therefore we should consider it just as pagan as other religions.

While many so-called "christian" religions are the product of pagan religion and philosophy, true christianity is not and never has been. Rather, true christianity is based on the teachings and life pattern of Jesus Christ. The fact that pagans persecuted the first christians without mercy shows the incompatibilities of these faiths. "Do not become unevenly yoked with unbelievers. For what fellowship do righteousness and lawlessness have? Or what sharing does light have with darkness? Further, what harmony is there between Christ and Be′li·al? Or what portion does a faithful person have with an unbeliever? And what agreement does God’s temple have with idols? For we are a temple of a living God; just as God said: “I shall reside among them and walk among [them], and I shall be their God, and they will be my people.” “‘Therefore get out from among them, and separate yourselves,’ says Jehovah, ‘and quit touching the unclean thing’”; “‘and I will take you in.’” “‘And I shall be a father to you, and you will be sons and daughters to me,’ says Jehovah the Almighty.” (2 Corinthians 6:14-18)

 

[Dunemeister]

Yes, I think the church, over time, redefined the term "pagan" to mean anything that stands over against Christian theology. That's what comes of eventually displacing and replacing the animistic and polytheistic religions that predated Christianity. It's useful now, in retrospect, to have that issue clarified.

What doesn't help is the assertion that Christianity is the "product" of (what we have called) pagan religion. We should expect certain points of contact between Christianity and paganism (I'll continue to use the old distinction) given that the new converts to Christianity were Jewish, and then, of course, largely pagan. The intellectual world, and therefore the means for expressing their experience, was dominated by Greek philosophy and Roman politics/law. Nevertheless, the converts themselves (that we know about) uniformly perceived themselves as entering into a religion and worldview much different from the one that they were leaving. That's surprising -- to say the very least -- on the claim that Christianity is the product of pagan thinking/practice. If it were, we'd expect the early Christians to say why their mystery cult is better than the others, much as the other mystery cults would do. We wouldn't expect them to denounce the mystery cults, which they did.

Over the centuries, the interaction between the church and culture meant that there was push and pull in both directions. The Christianities we have today are, in part reflection of, in part challenge to, contemporary cultures. That's the way it always has been. It's far too simplistic to say that Christianity is the "product" of pagan religion/culture.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

While many so-called "christian" religions are the product of pagan religion and philosophy, true christianity is not and never has been. Rather, true christianity is based on the teachings and life pattern of Jesus Christ. The fact that pagans persecuted the first christians without mercy shows the incompatibilities of these faiths.

... and Christians turned around and did the same thing to other faiths when Christianity became the official religion of Rome. Being on the receiving end of political and cultural prejudice does not mean that one is superior or that the persecutor and victim don't have more in common than not.

 

[logician]

In thinking about ancient and modern forms of Christianity, many Christians characterize other religions as "pagan." This word came into use because Christianity was a city religion and "pagan" refered to the uneducated and irreligious hillbillies. But "pagan" is now used to refer to any religion other than Christianity.

In our thinking and reflection about Christianity, we need to realize that Christianity is the product of pagan religion and philosophy [the fusion of Greco-Roman culture and a sylized interpretation of Jewish texts]; therefore we should consider it just as pagan as other religions.

Well, since all the main celebrations of Christianity are pagan(Xmas, Easter), I would say you could call it a pagan religion.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Well, since all the main celebrations of Christianity are pagan(Xmas, Easter), I would say you could call it a pagan religion.

Well, those celebrations came pretty late in Christian tradition.

 

[logician]

Well, those celebrations came pretty late in Christian tradition.

Pagan may have many interpertations. If you read Freke and Gandy's "The Jesus Mysteries" and "The Laughing Jesus", The authors propose that Jesus did not really exist, but was instead a syncretic re-interpretation of the fundamental pagan "godman" Osiris-Dionysus by the Gnostics, who were the original sect of Christianity. I see no reason to think this isn't true.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

While many so-called "christian" religions are the product of pagan religion and philosophy, true christianity is not and never has been.

It is clear that the word logos in the first chapter of John is a creation of both greek philosophy and jewish thought. Read about Philo.

The pivotal and the most developed doctrine in Philo’s writings on which hinges his entire philosophical system, is his doctrine of the Logos. By developing this doctrine he fused Greek philosophical concepts with Hebrew religious thought and provided the foundation for Christianity, first in the development of the Christian Pauline myth and speculations of John, later in the Hellenistic Christian Logos and Gnostic doctrines of the second century

Philo of Alexandria [The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

 

[Zadok]

One thing I find most ironic is that Jesus never suggested that his disciples be identified by the doctrine they espouse. He suggested that they be identified by their fruits which were a reference to their behavior. In the days of Jesus the most corrupt individuals associated with “religion” were the Samaritans; likewise the most enlightened individuals associated with “religion” were the priests and Levites.

In the parable of the “Good Samaritan” Jesus taught that the behavior of the Samaritan made him more the disciple than the devout priest and Levite of his parable.

For myself – I do not care so much for what a person says they believe and accept as religion. To me a disciple of Jesus is someone that is disciplined in such things of loving their fellow man and doing good to those that hate them. Anyone that can accomplish such personal discipline - to me – is a Christian.

Zadok

 

[rusra02]

... and Christians turned around and did the same thing to other faiths when Christianity became the official religion of Rome. Being on the receiving end of political and cultural prejudice does not mean that one is superior or that the persecutor and victim don't have more in common than not.

You assume the perpetrators of the murders and evil done in the name of Christ are Christians. These heinous crimes were and are committed by apostates from true Christianity who falsely bear the name Christian. Bible writers warned of this apostasy that would flourish after the death of the apostles (Acts 20:29,30: 2 Peter 2:1-3) Jesus also warned about these. (Matthew 13:26-43) True Christians would never and have never persecuted anyone. True Christianity has nothing in common with pagan beliefs, but falsely called Christians do.

 

[rusra02]

It is clear that the word logos in the first chapter of John is a creation of both greek philosophy and jewish thought. Read about Philo.

The pivotal and the most developed doctrine in Philo’s writings on which hinges his entire philosophical system, is his doctrine of the Logos. By developing this doctrine he fused Greek philosophical concepts with Hebrew religious thought and provided the foundation for Christianity, first in the development of the Christian Pauline myth and speculations of John, later in the Hellenistic Christian Logos and Gnostic doctrines of the second century

Philo of Alexandria*[The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

Sorry, that just isn't true. A close examination of Philo's philosophy shows it bears almost no resemblance to the teachings of Jesus Christ.
“For the original and distinctive features of the doctrine of the Logos, as held by the learned Fathers of the second and third centuries, we must look, not to the Jewish Scriptures, nor to the teachings of Jesus and his apostles, but to Philo [the Jewish philosopher of the first century C.E.] and the Alexandrine Platonists. In consistency with this view, we maintain that the doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late formation; that it had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures; that it grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing Fathers; that in the time of Justin [c. 100-165 C.E.], and long after, the distinct nature and inferiority of the Son were universally taught; and that only the first shadowy outline of the Trinity had then become visible.”—The Church of the First Three Centuries, p. 34.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Sorry, that just isn't true. A close examination of Philo's philosophy shows it bears almost no resemblance to the teachings of Jesus Christ.
“For the original and distinctive features of the doctrine of the Logos, as held by the learned Fathers of the second and third centuries, we must look, not to the Jewish Scriptures, nor to the teachings of Jesus and his apostles, but to Philo [the Jewish philosopher of the first century C.E.] and the Alexandrine Platonists. In consistency with this view, we maintain that the doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late formation; that it had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures; that it grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing Fathers; that in the time of Justin [c. 100-165 C.E.], and long after, the distinct nature and inferiority of the Son were universally taught; and that only the first shadowy outline of the Trinity had then become visible.”—The Church of the First Three Centuries, p. 34.

This is a straw man. Who was talking about the trinity ? The concept of the Logos came from Philo Hellenistic Jewish Biblical philosopher. We have writings from the earliest times that show that the early christians used Philo's concept of the logos, this is a fact. It might not fit in to your theology, but it's a fact.

Justin himself translated the word logos according to the understanding of the word used by Philo. I never brought up the argument of the nature of God in the Trinity. The Trinity was not a teaching of Philo. Jesus and Philo lives overlapped and I have show that the New Testament was influenced by greek philosophy.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

You assume the perpetrators of the murders and evil done in the name of Christ are Christians. These heinous crimes were and are committed by apostates from true Christianity who falsely bear the name Christian.

The problem I have with this type of thinking is that you take no responsibility for the crimes of christianity. In 2002 when the Hindu's rioted and killed at least a thousand innocent muslims. I could say they were not true Hindu's, a real Hindu would never do this, and then sweep it under the rug. This would just create the conditions of violence all over again.

The idea that there is just one true religion has caused violence all over the world for 2000 years. Maybe it is time to look at the affects of this belief.