Is Christianity based upon Pagan ideas?

[godnotgod]

What evidence exists that points to Pagan roots as the basis for many of the ideas found in the Christian religion?

Originally, superstitious tribal practices included the sacrifice of animals and grains as a means of appeasing an angry, punishing god.

Before Christianity came about, Jews practiced ritual animal sacrifice as a mechanism for absolving sin.

Apparently, when the "punishments" continued in the form of locusts devouring crops and other natural disasters, it was believed that the host was not worthy or pure enough. Therefore, the only acceptable host in the eyes of Yawheh was God himself in the form of Jesus Christ.

"In Judaism....the scapegoat was a goat that was driven off into the wilderness as part of the ceremonies of the Day of Atonement...Since this goat, carrying the sins of the people placed on it, is sent away to perish, the word "scapegoat" has come to mean a person, often innocent, who is blamed and punished for the sins, crimes, or sufferings of others, generally as a way of distracting attention from the real causes.....In Christian theology, the story of the scapegoat in Leviticus is interpreted as a symbolic prefiguration of the self-sacrifice of Jesus, who takes the sins of humanity on his own head, having been driven into the 'wilderness' outside the city by order of the high priests."
Wikipedia

"Psychoanalytic theory holds that unwanted thoughts and feelings [ie: 'sin';] can be unconsciously projected onto another [ie; 'shadow']* who becomes a scapegoat for one's own problems. This concept can be extended to projection by groups. In this case the chosen individual, or group, becomes the scapegoat for the group's problems. In psychopathology, projection is an especially commonly used defense mechanism in people with certain personality disorders."
Wikipedia

The key elements here as a basis for such ritual sacrifice of a scapegoat for the catharsis of guilt are superstition and ignorance. The superstition is that there exists an angry, punishing deity that must somehow be appeased to prevent further punishment, and the ignorance is that one does not understand how to absolve the issue of sin on one's own, so that is relegated to some other power which takes care of the issue via of a suitable scapegoat.

Of course, the higher aspect known as Forgiveness absolves sin and guilt without the need for ritual blood sacrifice. When we look deeper into the roots of Christian origins, we find not Jesus, but Yeshua, a member of a mystical Jewish cult heavily influenced by Buddhism, a practice which would nurture compassion and forgiveness as a means of alleviating suffering. However, Yeshua became a target of the Romans and of the Jews both and was crucified for sedition and treason on the one hand, and blasphemy on the other. His followers then glorified the bloody Crucifixion into a sacred, magically transformative event which would then "wash away the sins of the world" by the ritual shedding of 'sacred' blood.




*Shadow: Adolp Hitler cleverly employed the use of Shadow to dehumanize and exterminate the Jews by labeling them as "untermenschen" (sub-human).

 

[Vasilisa Jade]

In my personal opinion:

Is christianity based upon pagan ideas?

No.

Are there some similarities?

I guess.

The first pagan religious group that is known is the people of Sumer. Then there were the Akkadians and Babylonians and the Egyptians and all that. Judaism took a few things, twisted them and demonized them and kept them as the evil in the world. Then ya know... it just went on from there changing little by little.

So when I think of the first group of pagans I think of Sumer.

Pagan is a very very broad and vague term. You could talk to over a hundred different people and get a hundred different definitions. So maybe it is and maybe it isn't, depending on your definition. There's no use in trying to define it, there's a thread that already tried around here somewhere.

 

[Smoke]

The forms of Christianity that are most attractive to me have some definite pagan influences. I remember many years ago hearing an Orthodox monk speak unabashedly of St. Elias as the "Russian god of thunder," having taken on the role of Perun in the Russian imagination. Many other examples could be given, but not at this time of the morning. Personally, I think there's something to be said for pagan influence; it's not something that should be denounced or swept under the rug.

 

[Breathe]

Hmmm, I believe that some of Christianity and Judaism are based upon Pagan influences, like the Creation and flood, and Jesus' miraculous side probably has several pagan influences all merged into one ULTRASAVIOR™, but I don't think that they are based upon in a major sense, nor in a deliberate sense.

What Saint Tigeress said.

 

[phuti]

Is Christianity based upon Pagan ideas?

I don't think so; in fact I think that many Pagan ideas are based upon Christian ideas. Why?

A lot of the laws or writtings we find in the Book are either describing to us the nature of things, or shadowing things that are to come and were set so from the very beginning. I saw a movie called zeitgeist, and they were saying similar ideas as yours.

They said that the concept of christianity is completely astrological. yes, it could be. But they forgot to mention that in Genesis when God first created stars and all, he said that those lights would be to tell times, and signs. If the story/signs written in the stars told of Christ, any people in the world who had the skill of interpreting their meanings would reach a similar conclusion as that of christianity. People looked at the stars and understood that there would one day come a messiah.

Now touching laws and rituals given to Jews, I believe that none of them is less important; some give us insight into the nature of God, some hint to us what is to come. Therefore, since God is of all, some pagans could have understood some concepts and completely missed others. That is why they say that the Jews are the chosen people, for it was to them that God chose to commit His oracles in full. All these concepts that seem to be common among different religions or views, God chose to consolidate them all in a Book of the Law that He committed to the Jews to preserve. For although some pagans started with the right idea, they reached wrong conlusions by reason of being carnal.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

When we look deeper into the roots of Christian origins, we find not Jesus, but Yeshua, a member of a mystical Jewish cult heavily influenced by Buddhism, ...

Nonsense.

 

[Apion]

In my personal opinion:

Is christianity based upon pagan ideas?

No.

...The first pagan religious group that is known is the people of Sumer. Then there were the Akkadians and Babylonians and the Egyptians and all that. Judaism took a few things, twisted them and demonized them and kept them as the evil in the world. Then ya know... it just went on from there changing little by little.

You have to think a little outside these usual associations when thinking of "pagan."
Paganism in an academic sense refers to the polytheistic and essentially non-Abrahamic traditions, so it is quite vague yet with a good enough boundary.

Ever heard of the Hellenistic mystery cults? Middle Platonism? Mithraism? Stoicism? The very idea of defending Christianity with reason and rhetoric is a pagan legacy.

Pagan ideas had a major hand in aiding Christianity to walk on two feet as a fully-grown tradition, yet Christianity was also its own unique episteme distinct from its pagan neighbors.

 

[Apion]

I don't think so; in fact I think that many Pagan ideas are based upon Christian ideas.

Uh-uh. The idea of a personalized religion with the themes of a savior and resurrection were a little before Christianity's time. If anything Christianity developed outside these influences independently, yet still after.

 

[Vasilisa Jade]

Apion always seems to have something sexy and intelligent to add doesn't he? :flirt:

No I haven't heard of any of that. I haven't even scratched the surface in my studying, and trust me, my opinions and ideas are ever remanifesting and evolving.

I will be sure to check those mystery cults out. Sounds like an interesting read.

And yes, LaVey did say that the devil is the best friend the church never had. The devil of course being those demonized pagan elements.

I am not a satanist but I thoroughly enjoyed his book.

 

[godnotgod]

".... although some pagans started with the right idea, they reached wrong conclusions by reason of being carnal." [/B]

...and yet, the Crucifixion, the central core theme of all Christian thought, as it is the shedding of sacred blood which provides the transformative power to wash away sin, is, in fact, the most carnal of all rituals! What does human ignorance as the active agent in executing the Crucifixion have to do with anything spiritual at all?

Add to the Crucifixion the theme of the Resurrection of the fleshy body of Jesus, and is there any mistake that Christianity is indeed most carnal?

..and, oh yes, let's not forget sexuality, shall we? Oh, and I almost forgot: there is the Rapture, and, of course, the Day of Judgement, on which all those rotted old bodies of the dead of all ages shall somehow magically come flying out of their crypts, tombs, and graves to rise en masse, bones a-janglin', into heaven or be cast down into hell, to either enjoy super fleshy ecstasy or suffer super fleshy agony.

"Excuse me, sir! But isn't that my metatarsal?!"

Or, when we come back down to Earth, is it the Roman mentality that crucified Yeshua that is carnal, and the rest of Christian ideaology was built upon that, transforming the bloody act into something mystical and magical and wonderful? After all, the killing of an entity as important as the Messiah must somehow be given meaning, should'nt it?

BTW, what was the "right idea" you mention that the pagans started with anyway?

 

[Danarch]

Christianity: Origins of a Pagan Religion

 

[godnotgod]

Nonsense.

"Nonsense" that Yeshua was a member of the mystical Jewish cult known as the Order of Nazorean Essenes, or that it was heavily influenced by Buddhism?



"Yeshua ben Yosef (or Yeshua bar Yosef) is the original Aramaic name for Jesus the Nazarene. His parents, siblings, disciples, and followers called him by that name. The name "Jesus" is a misspelling and mispronunciation that resulted from the translation of Yeshua's name after his death, first into the Greek Iesous (pronounced "ee-ay-SUS"), and then from the Greek Iesous into the Latin Iesus. No one during Yeshua's life (prior to 30 CE) ever uttered the name, "Jesus." The letter "j" wasn't in the English language until the seventeenth century, so even in English, no one spoke the name "Jesus" until after that time."
http://30ce.com/

 

[godnotgod]

Pagan ideas had a major hand in aiding Christianity to walk on two feet as a fully-grown tradition, yet Christianity was also its own unique episteme distinct from its pagan neighbors.

So why did it retain, as its central core idea, the theme of the Crucifixion (ie: ritual blood sacrifice) and the mysteries of its transformative power to somehow wash sin away? What we have here is the same old superstitious tribal beliefs with a White Magic ritualistic mumbo jumbo superstructure built on top.

Hey! I was an altar boy for the Catholic Church for many years. I remember all that ritualistic mumbo jumbo!

"...ad deum qui laetificat juventutem mayam..." and on and on ad nauseum, but it was oh, such fun when we were there. There was that unmistakable stench of holiness to it all.

If Christianity had truly evolved and matured, it would have shed those ritualistic beliefs & practices, and transcended into the Light, as Buddhism did. Instead, it simply elaborated on the old themes and masked them in more elaborate ritual and mystery. In other words, they became sanctified. That is some of the difference between a Wisdom religion and a Prophetic one.

"Never mind that you cannot understand the Resurrection: just believe and you will be saved!"


"Prophecy is the contamination of the future with the past."
Alan Watts

 

[godnotgod]

Hmmm, I believe that some of Christianity and Judaism are based upon Pagan influences, like the Creation and flood, and Jesus' miraculous side probably has several pagan influences all merged into one ULTRASAVIOR™, but I don't think that they are based upon in a major sense, nor in a deliberate sense.

Oh no? Ever hear about Mithraism? Take a look at the characteristics of this earlier pagan religion and then tell me they were not major and intentional contributing factors in the development of Christianity:

Mithras was born of a virgin who was given the title of "Mother of God"

Mithras was born on December 25. Before Constantine (a follower of Mithras) changed the date, the birth date Yeshua's followers observed was January 6. However, Yeshua's birth, based on the descriptions, would actually have been in the spring.

Mithras was born in a cave (stable), and his birth was attended by shepherds bearing gifts.

Mithras was considered a great traveling teacher and master.

Mithras had 12 companions or disciples.

Mithras performed miracles.

Mithras' followers were baptized.

Mithras suffered to bring salvation to a sin-cursed humankind.

Mithras was buried in a tomb and rose after three days. (Yeshua rose after a day and a half, but the gospel accounts used the three days to fit with Mithras' story, in spite of the obvious disparity in the timeline.)

Mithras' resurrection was celebrated every year.

Mithras ascended into heaven after finishing his deeds.

Mithras' followers were promised immortality.

Mithras was called “the good shepherd” and identified with both the lamb and the lion.

Mithras was called the “way, the truth and the light,” " logos,” "word," “redeemer,” “savior” and “messiah.”

On the Judgment Day, Mithras would use the keys of heaven to unlock the gates of Paradise to receive the faithful. All the unbaptized living and dead would perish.

Mithra's sacred day was Sunday, called the “Lord’s day” because Mithraism was a sun religion. Yeshua's sacred day was changed from the Jewish Sabbath, Saturday, to match Mithras' day.

Mithras had his principal festival on the day that was later to become Easter for Christians.

Mithras' religion had a Eucharist or “Lord’s Supper,” at which Mithras said, “He who shall not eat of my body nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved.”

On a final day of judgment, the dead would resurrect and in a final conflict, the existing order would be destroyed and light would triumph over darkness.

Since all of these characteristics of Mithras predated Yeshua by fourteen hundred years, Mithraism could not have copied the Yeshua story; it had to be the reverse. These details about Yeshua were not in the earliest sources. They appeared later.

So how did these elements become part of Christian doctrine? Here is the answer:

http:/http://30ce.com/mithras.htm

There is a story that Satan created the story of Mithra in order to deceive: Various early church writers, such as Irenaeus (Bishop of Lyons; circa 120 CE to ?) Justin Martyr (Christian apologist; 100 to 165), Tertullian (Christian theologian; circa 160 to 220 +) concluded that the Pagan/Christian similarities [between Mithraism and Christianity] were a Satanic attempt at "diabolical mimicry." Satan was said to have use "plagiarism by anticipation." That is, the Devil made a pre-emptive strike against the gospel stories centuries before Jesus was born. The reason was to confuse the public into thinking that Jesus was merely a copy of previous god-men [such as Mithra]. The goal was to demolish the credibility of Christianity in the people's eyes.

Poppycock, I say....sheer poppycock!:biglaugh:

 

[Breathe]

Oh no? Ever hear about Mithraism? Take a look at the characteristics of this earlier pagan religion and then tell me they were not major and intentional contributing factors in the development of Christianity:

Erm, what?
Perhaps you should read my post again. Tell me, where did I say they were not based off one another?

Mithras was born of a virgin who was given the title of "Mother of God"

Good for her. But how is this relevant to what I said?

Mithras was born on December 25. Before Constantine (a follower of Mithras) changed the date, the birth date Yeshua's followers observed was January 6. However, Yeshua's birth, based on the descriptions, would actually have been in the spring.

Very well observed. However, chances are Jesus was conceived around May or somewhere near this, since he was born "in the sixth month" around Sivan or Tammuz.

proselytising

Very nice. But how is any of this relevant to me?
I already pointed out that I believe that the Gospels take from Pagan sources, but I don't think it's deliberate, a case of "we'll take this and that from Mithras" - but a case of merging them all into one over years. After all, no self respecting believer would copy from another mystery cult, especially one that's older - because, guess what? People wouldn't believe it. The similarities would have begun slowly.

Mithras was buried in a tomb and rose after three days. (Yeshua rose after a day and a half, but the gospel accounts used the three days to fit with Mithras' story, in spite of the obvious disparity in the timeline.)

Actually, this could easily be your misunderstanding of the use of day - not all calendar days begin at midnight, you know. Some go from sunrise -> sunset, even in the modern world.

more proselytising

Good for him.

These details about Yeshua were not in the earliest sources. They appeared later.

Indeed.

Poppycock, I say....sheer poppycock!:biglaugh:

Indeed, none of this was relevant to my post.

Now, let's try again.

 

[godnotgod]

Very nice. But how is any of this relevant to me?
I already pointed out that I believe that the Gospels take from Pagan sources, but I don't think it's deliberate, a case of "we'll take this and that from Mithras" - but a case of merging them all into one over years. After all, no self respecting believer would copy from another mystery cult, especially one that's older - because, guess what? People wouldn't believe it. The similarities would have begun slowly.

...you mean kind of like when you place a live frog in a pot of cold water and raise the temperature slowly, so that the froggie gets cooked without noticing that anything is amiss? Another case of the left hand not knowing what the right doeth, eh? Come now! You don't really think the Christians would pass up a Golden Opportunity to conveniently adopt such an already popular belief system, now, do you, especially when there were millions of unsaved pagan souls hanging in the balance?

Now, you stated that "Jesus' miraculous side probably has several pagan influences all merged into one ULTRASAVIOR™, but I don't think that they are based upon in a major sense, nor in a deliberate sense."

If they had not been major, the Church would not have been up in arms over the issue, claiming that Satan himself staged the emergence of Mithra for the express purpose of fooling the masses.

Taken as a whole, all of the similarities between Mithra and Jesus are, indeed major.

As for 'deliberate', well, let's just say 'opportunistic' and 'convenient', shall we? heh..heh...heh

The Church is very crafty. In Mexico, for example, it 'adopted' the Aztec Goddess of Fertility, Tonantzin, and transformed her into Our Lady of Guadalupe Hidalgo for the express purpose of converting millions of indigenous Indios into the Catholic faith. They knew that the Indio would follow wherever their deity dwelt. Deliberate? Absolutely!

So guess what, folks? That tactic was also cleverly [and yes, 'deliberately'] used to bring the scores of pagans who followed Mithra into the Christian fold of Yeshua by one vewwy, vewwy cwevver St. Paul, and here is how it happened:

Paul and the Mystery Religions

 

[Breathe]

Come now! You don't really think the Christians would pass up a Golden Opportunity to conveniently adopt such an already popular belief system, now, do you, especially when there were millions of unsaved pagan souls hanging in the balance?

Does it even make sense to think that the Christians would have been able to take over such a popular belief rapidly?

One day some people come and takes almost everything from Christianity, and calls it Mokdiism, why would you expect people not to still go en masse to the older belief, because it's going to be considered the original one due to its age?

If they had not been major, the Church would not have been up in arms over the issue, claiming that Satan himself staged the emergence of Mithra for the express purpose of fooling the masses.

Sure they would, as the similarities begin to get similar they would begin to view it with more suspicion. As they begin borrowing more and more and the newly-emerging Christianity begins to take lot of Mithraic thought, and the Church finds uncomfortable that so many strands of Mithraism have begun to merge with the Church's teachings.

Taken as a whole, all of the similarities between Mithra and Jesus are, indeed major.

As a whole, yes. Indeed, there are lots of instances which appear to be the Biblical authors attempting to mix Hellenic thought with Semitic thought (like chapter 1 of John) to appeal to both sides.

As for 'deliberate', well, let's just say 'opportunistic' and 'convenient', shall we? heh..heh...heh

Sure thing, I just don't think you could have six or seven guys or even sixty or seventy sitting around making stuff up copying an already popular religion and then winning over it.

The Church is very crafty. In Mexico, for example, it 'adopted' the Aztec Goddess of Fertility, Tonantzin, and transformed her into Our Lady of Guadalupe Hidalgo for the express purpose of converting millions of indigenous Indios into the Catholic faith. They knew that the Indio would follow wherever their deity dwelt. Deliberate? Absolutely!

Well, I wouldn't consider that deliberate - it's syncretism - trying to find a similarity between them which will, eventually coax them into Christianity.

I think the misunderstanding is that when you say "deliberate", you make it sound like you believe that a few people copied huge chunks at once, whereas I think it was small pieces over time.

So guess what, folks? That tactic was also cleverly [and yes, 'deliberately'] used to bring the scores of pagans who followed Mithra into the Christian fold of Yeshua by one vewwy, vewwy cwevver St. Paul,

What about other mystery cults that were around? The Christians also made similarities between, for example, saint Brigid.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

"Nonsense" that Yeshua was a member of the mystical Jewish cult known as the Order of Nazorean Essenes, or that it was heavily influenced by Buddhism?

Yes.

Yeshua and Jesus

... yet one more vapid fringe site :sleep:

 

[Mister Emu]

Ever hear about Mithraism?

Alot of your Mithra facts are flat out false...

Mithra was born from a rock. He is, as far as I know, never called a teacher. He never died to be ressurected. He did not have 12 companions, there are some pictures where he is represented with the zodiac signs.

Since all of these characteristics of Mithras predated Yeshua by fourteen hundred years

Roman Mithraism is not the same as Persian Mithraism...

The website you quote is not reliable...

 

[Breathe]

Agreed Mr Emu, nice one

Wasn't one of Mithra's most famous acts killing a calf/bull, too? (I have a friend who is fascinated by this, but I could never really get into it with him, I'm not usually a fan of mystery cults and stuff like that )