Is Christianity based upon Pagan ideas?

[Oberon]

Yup! But far more than the Nicene Creed, I, as a Knight Commander Altar Boy, served hundreds of Catholic Masses, each time re-enacting the shedding of the blood of Jesus Christ for the redemption of sin, and the ritual eating and drinking of his body and blood via of the sacrament of Holy Communion.

When did you "re-enact" the "shedding of the blood of Jesus Christ" ?? Unless you mean communion. But that is a reenactment of the last supper, when Jesus was still living.

"Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world, have mercy on me.
Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world, grant us peace."

I don't see anything above about sacrifice or blood.

And I am still waiting for you to point to a pre-christian pagan text where a willing sacrifice suffered for the forgiveness of sins.

All the Nicene Creed actually does

It is a profession of the catholic faith. What it does is summarize the heart of catholic belief. And the resurrection is paramount.

 

[Oberon]

Moloch

by Micha F. Lindemans

Why on earth are you quoting the guy who does graphics for www.themystica.com?

*"renew the strength of the sunfire". Does this perchance sound something roughly akin to: "and his kingdom will have no end."?

No, it doesn't. More importantly, you have no idea what the ritual was for. All you did was find some article written by a nobody. This is why I am asking for actual texts. Because otherwise you are using someone else's words to describe a ritual, who may or may not have the faintest idea what they are talking about.

Please understand that we are looking at this from the standpoint of ideas or themes, and not specifics.

Then find the actual texts describing the ritual, and show related themes that indicate a pagan basis for christianity.

 

[godnotgod]

When did you "re-enact" the "shedding of the blood of Jesus Christ" ?? Unless you mean communion. But that is a reenactment of the last supper, when Jesus was still living.

Yes, the Last Supper, wherein Jesus took bread and wine, and said:

"Eat, for this is my body", and "Drink, for this is my blood, which shall be shed for many for the remission of sin"

Communion is part of the re-enactment of the shedding of the blood, otherwise known as the Crucifixion. You cannot drink blood until it is first shed.

I don't see anything above about sacrifice or blood.

"Lamb of God" refers to the sacrificial host that is Jesus, whose blood shall be "shed for many for the remission of sin."

And I am still waiting for you to point to a pre-christian pagan text where a willing sacrifice suffered for the forgiveness of sins.

You can wait forever, if you so desire. I never promised to produce any such text, especially with all of the elements you call for exactly as culminated in the Crucifixion. The elements contained therein may have come together from different sources.

You go ahead and continue to provide your so-called "scholarly" and "authoritative" (*cough*) sources; I will continue to provide what I see fit.

It is a profession of the catholic faith. What it does is summarize the heart of catholic belief. And the resurrection is paramount.

The resurrection is the ornament, which means nothing without the base of the Crucifixion upon which it totally depends. It is statement of doctrine to reinforce the idea that a God is in control upstairs, and will be forever and forever. Just a psychological device to keep everyone pacified and secure, so that they will no longer suffer metaphysical anxiety...at least for awhile, anyway.

"Mommy, is there really a Santa Claus?"

"Yes, baby, now go to bed"

 

[godnotgod]

you have no idea what the ritual was for.

It does'nt matter what it was for. What matters is that there was a ritual at all, one in which Jews sacrificed their children to a pagan deity.

This is just one connection from Christianity, via of Judaism, to pagan practices.

I will be producing more as we go along. However, as far as I am concerned, all that is necessary to establish the link to paganism is just one example.

 

[Oberon]

Yes, the Last Supper, wherein Jesus took bread and wine, and said:

"Eat, for this is my body", and "Drink, for this is my blood, which shall be shed for many for the remission of sin"

which is not the crucifixion, but the last supper.

Communion is part of the re-enactment of the shedding of the blood, otherwise known as the Crucifixion.

No, it isn't. It is a reenactment of the last supper. Check the gospels.

You cannot drink blood until it is first shed.

Not according to christian faith. Because according to them, the first last supper took place while Jesus was alive.

You can wait forever, if you so desire. I never promised to produce any such text, especially with all of the elements you call for exactly as culminated in the Crucifixion. The elements contained therein may have come together from different sources.

So basically, you assert that pagan sacrifice was X, based on never viewing any primary source ever about pagan sacrifice. So all of your points can be easily ignored, as you have no sources on which to base them.

You go ahead and continue to provide your so-called "scholarly" and "authoritative" (*cough*) sources; I will continue to provide what I see fit.

Go ahead. I doubt that anyone will take a graphics designer seriously. And more importantly, it isn't so much a matter of whether the source is scholarly, but on what they are basing their statements of pagan ritual. For example, plenty of people talk about pagan rituals (such as those of mithras) and how similar they are to christian ritual, without realizing that our sources for these rituals are AFTER the NT, and probably influenced by Christianity, but certainly not the reverse.

The resurrection is the ornament, which means nothing without the base of the Crucifixion upon which it totally depends

Pleny of messianic and other jewish figures were crucified, and forgotten. If jesus wasn't believed to be resurrected, as Paul said, the christian faith is in vain.

What matters is that there was a ritual at all, one in which Jews sacrificed their children to a pagan deity.

Only you have no idea if there was such a ritual, because you are basing your information not on primary texts but on a graphics designer guy you found through google.

 

[godnotgod]

[/i][/b]

which is not the crucifixion, but the last supper.

No, it isn't. It is a reenactment of the last supper. Check the gospels.

Not according to christian faith. Because according to them, the first last supper took place while Jesus was alive.

When Jesus said:

"This is my blood, which shall be shed for many for the remission of sin",

he was clearly pointing to the Crucifixion, which was shortly to come. So, while you are correct in asserting that Communion is a re-enactment of the Last Supper in the strictest sense, it is the Last Supper, whose highlight was the symbolic eating and drinking of Jesus's flesh and blood, that pointed to the "blood, which shall be shed for many for the remission of sin", via the Crucifixion.

The Last Supper was in anticipation of what was to come.

"Do this in remembrance of me"

Do you agree that Jesus's reference to the shedding of his blood was directly related to the Crucifixion?

 

[Oberon]

When Jesus said:

"This is my blood, which shall be shed for many for the remission of sin",

he was clearly pointing to the Crucifixion, which was shortly to come.

The last supper was clearly pointing to Jesus' suffering and death, but not necessarily the crucifixion at all. There is nothing in the gospels to indicate that Jesus was believed to know HOW he would suffer and die, just that he knew he would.

And, the reenactment of the last supper in catholic mass is just that: a reenactment of the supper, not the crucifixion.

So, while you are correct in asserting that Communion is a re-enactment of the Last Supper in the strictest sense, it is the Last Supper, whose highlight was the symbolic eating and drinking of Jesus's flesh and blood, that pointed to the "blood, which shall be shed for many for the remission of sin", via the Crucifixion.

So the last supper took place without any actual shedding of blood, and the reenactment of this event looks to that supper. Therefore, no reenactment of the crucifixion.

The Last Supper was in anticipation of what was to come.

Yes, it was, but that didn't mean specifically crucifixion, nor even specifically his death. Look back at the catholic nicene creed: "He suffered, died, and was buried." The death is only part of the sacrifice.

Do you agree that Jesus's reference to the shedding of his blood was directly related to the Crucifixion?

No. That was part of it. The crucifixion was only part of his sacrifice. The trial, the tortore (during which his blood was also shed) was also important, because it was his suffering AND death which was important for the absolution of sin.

And you have yet to show how willing suffering and death for the absolution of sin was a pagan theme.

 

[godnotgod]

The last supper was clearly pointing to Jesus' suffering and death, but not necessarily the crucifixion at all. There is nothing in the gospels to indicate that Jesus was believed to know HOW he would suffer and die, just that he knew he would.

If we eliminate the Crucifixion from the possibilities, we are still left with a suffering and death which will be a sacrificial one. That is the point I am trying to make: that the shedding of blood via of his death was sacrificial, and based upon the same ideas that pagan blood ritual sacrifices also were based upon. Having said that, every Christian I know assumes that their God knows everything in advance, so God, including Jesus, knew exactly how he was to die. His Passion was over the knowledge of his coming execution. He even sweated blood. You don't sweat blood over dying from a non-violent death. Besides, the reference to the shedding of blood suggests a violent, painful act.

Don't forget that all through the Catholic Mass, there is a huge crucifix hanging behind the altar. Altars are what blood sacrifices are executed upon. The congregation symbolically eats and drinks flesh and blood during the Communion. In all of this, one does not see figures of Jesus resurrecting himself. The Mass as a whole is all about the sacrificial shedding of blood for the remission of sin, and the shedding of blood was ultimately via Crucifixion. The idea of sacrificial blood shedding comes to us from the Jews some of whose elements come to us via of paganism. There are other important elements, such as that of a firstborn or only son, and that of an innocent host, being pure and spotless. It is not a coincidence that it was children who were sacrificed to the pagan god Moloch.

And, the reenactment of the last supper in catholic mass is just that: a reenactment of the supper, not the crucifixion.

...a "supper" of symbolic flesh and blood, blood which will be shed unto many for the remission of sin. Let's not forget that it was not a garden party, OK?

So the last supper took place without any actual shedding of blood, and the reenactment of this event looks to that supper. Therefore, no reenactment of the crucifixion.

Try to make the connection. It is not too difficult. I know you can do it. Once more: Jesus, at the Last Supper, took bread and wine and said:

"Eat, for this is my body". "Drink, for this is my blood which shall be shed unto many for the remission of sin"

This single statement connects the Last Supper with the sacrficial death of Jesus, whether by Crucifixion or some other means, and whether he knew in advance or not. It at least tells us that there would be a sacrfice in which blood was to be shed, and why. Do we really need to investigate whether the shedding of blood is to be a violent act or not?

Yes, it was, but that didn't mean specifically crucifixion, nor even specifically his death. Look back at the catholic nicene creed: "He suffered, died, and was buried." The death is only part of the sacrifice.

But sir, the Nicene Creed states that he suffered, died, and was buried after the fact. Therefore, it can only be referring to the way he actually did die, and that was via the Crucifixion. Those who wrote the Nicene Creed did so long after the Crucifixion took place.

Therefore, one can easily transpose the following:

"He suffered, was CRUCIFIED, and was buried."

...which is completely accurate. In fact, it is more accurate, because it tells us how he specifically died.

No. That was part of it. The crucifixion was only part of his sacrifice. The trial, the tortore (during which his blood was also shed) was also important, because it was his suffering AND death which was important for the absolution of sin.

Well, sir, if you are crucified you will automatically suffer anyway. If you know you are going to die via execution (and he did know THAT, did'nt he?) you will also suffer. So suffering, both before and during, was simply part of the fact of death by execution. It was the blood shedding execution itself (via Crucifixion) which was the actual Johnny Paycheck that was the payment for the remission of sin that Jesus originally referred to at the Last Supper. In other words, the spectacle of the Crucifixion was visual proof that the payment for sin had been made. The people needed visual proof that their sins had been washed away. The Resurrection did not serve this purpose. It was added later to clinch the idea that the guy who had just been crucified was who he said he was. Using your argument that others had also been crucified but were forgotten, it was realized that something sensational had to be added to prove the divinity of the host, and that something was the concocted Resurrection theme. We can have a discussion about the Resurrection on a separate thread in which I can demonstrate adequately that it was indeed concocted.

And you have yet to show how willing suffering and death for the absolution of sin was a pagan theme.

All I need to show is that Christianity contains working elements of paganism. That is what the topic is about. I have already demonstrated that.

But wait!.....there's more!....

so stay tuned, folks!

 

[Oberon]

If we eliminate the Crucifixion from the possibilities, we are still left with a suffering and death which will be a sacrificial one.

Which doesn't make it pagan. Sacrifice is almost always about appeasing the gods, especially in Graeco-Roman religion. Your claim is that "christianity is based upon Pagan ideas" which means not only that Christianity shares the same base as pagan, but that the christians took pagan ideas to base their religion on. And so you are harping on the idea of sacrifice. Yet Jesus' sacrifice was, in christian faith, a willing sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins. And you have showed NO pagan texts which indicate that any pre-christian pagan faith HAD this concept concerning sacrifice.

That is the point I am trying to make: that the shedding of blood via of his death was sacrificial, and based upon the same ideas that pagan blood ritual sacrifices also were based upon.

Only this isn't true. You haven't shown any evidence indicating that any pagan ritual was about a willing sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins.

Don't forget that all through the Catholic Mass, there is a huge crucifix hanging behind the altar. Altars are what blood sacrifices are executed upon.

And Jesus is behind the alter, not on it. Alters are used for many things in many different religions. When I was a wiccan, I used an alter all of the time. Never sacrificed anything on it.

In all of this, one does not see figures of Jesus resurrecting himself.

Yet they talk about it in the ceremony every single time. It is a central part of the nicene creed, which is the basis for the catholic faith, and has been for over a thousand years. "Christ has died, Christ is risen, christ will come again." Another part of catholic mass.

The idea of sacrificial blood shedding comes to us from the Jews some of whose elements come to us via of paganism.

This is a statement you have not supported. You have not shown that the Jewish idea of sacrifice comes from paganism. In fact, all you have done to even make a connection is find a graphics guy on the internet who makes claims without referring to any source to back them up. If you want to be convinced by that, go right ahead. But don't expect a whole lot of other people to be.

...a "supper" of symbolic flesh and blood

Not actual flesh and blood. Because during the supper, Jesus was still alive.

Once more: Jesus, at the Last Supper, took bread and wine and said:

I know what he is said to have said. I also know that he was alive when he supposedly said these things. So, even though the last supper looks forward to his death, he was alive. And any reenactment of his last supper is therefore NOT a reenactment of his death.

Do we really need to investigate whether the shedding of blood is to be a violent act or not?

No, what we really NEED to investigate is the basis for going through all of this. Because even is the resurrection was a minor part of christian faith, and the crucifixion was the basis for all of it, this means nothing for your point unless you can point to evidence of a pagan ritual in which a willing sacrifice suffered and died for the absolution of sin. And by evidence I don't mean a website by a graphics guy, unless that website actually cite PRIMARY sources which might be investigated.

But sir, the Nicene Creed states that he suffered, died, and was buried after the fact. Therefore, it can only be referring to the way he actually did die

Not for suffering. Jesus was tortured PRIOR to the crucifixion. The "passion" has whipping, trial, forced march, crown of thorns, and THEN crucifixion. ALL of it was Jesus' willing sacrifice, for the sake of humanity, not just the actual crucifixion.

"He suffered, was CRUCIFIED, and was buried."

Yes, but the importance is still NOT just with the crucifixion, even here. It is about the suffering AND crucifixion. Because all of that was part of the sacrifice. And, again, much more of the creed is about his resurrection.

So suffering, both before and during, was simply part of the fact of death by execution.

Wrong. Because he was whipped, a crown of thorns was placed on his head, and he was forced to carry his cross before being nailed to it. There was plenty of suffering prior to the crucifixion that was due to torture, not his actual death by execution.

It was the blood shedding execution itself (via Crucifixion) which was the actual Johnny Paycheck that was the payment for the remission of sin that Jesus originally referred to at the Last Supper.

According to many christian denominations, including catholics, you are wrong. Jesus' sacrifice was NOT just the execution, but his suffering and trial, all of which he underwent willingly.

The people needed visual proof that their sins had been washed away. The Resurrection did not serve this purpose.

1. They would never have interpreted the resurrection in this fashion if Jesus did not resurrect. He would have just been another failed messiah who died.
2. The torture was also a "visual" sign of Jesus' suffering.
3. The washing away of sins, as Paul, the church fathers, and the catholic church at every mass state, was nothing if Jesus did not rise in power to open the doors of heaven.
4. Even if you were correct, it would not matter at all until you can point to a pre-christian pagan ritual in which a willing sacrifice suffered and died for the absolution of sin.

It was added later to clinch the idea that the guy who had just been crucified was who he said he was.

The earliest layers of the christian tradition we have access to focus far more on the resurrected christ, and almost not at all upon Jesus' life or death.

Using your argument that others had also been crucified but were forgotten, it was realized that something sensational had to be added to prove the divinity of the host, and that something was the concocted Resurrection theme.

You are missing an important part. The followers of John the baptist followed him after his death, without caring that he wasn't the son of god. Plenty of other followers of messiahs turned away once their messiah failed. Why would Jesus' followers concoct this story? It wasn't like the got a whole lot out of it. Paul was killed, both James' died, Stephen died, and so on and so forth. It is far more likely his followers BELIEVED he was risen.

We can have a discussion about the Resurrection on a separate thread in which I can demonstrate adequately that it was indeed concocted.

By your intuition?

All I need to show is that Christianity contains working elements of paganism. That is what the topic is about. I have already demonstrated that.

No, you haven't. So far, you have shown that the Jews sometimes sacrificed animals for the forgiveness of sins. But the animals weren't willing, and the Jews weren't pagans. Until you can point to sources which either CITE the primary sources or actually ARE the primary sources, and which demonstrate a pre-christian ritual in which a willing sacrifice died for the forgiveness of sins, you haven't demonstrated anything.

 

[godnotgod]

Which doesn't make it pagan. Sacrifice is almost always about appeasing the gods, especially in Graeco-Roman religion. Your claim is that "christianity is based upon Pagan ideas" which means not only that Christianity shares the same base as pagan, but that the christians took pagan ideas to base their religion on. And so you are harping on the idea of sacrifice. Yet Jesus' sacrifice was, in christian faith, a willing sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins. And you have showed NO pagan texts which indicate that any pre-christian pagan faith HAD this concept concerning sacrifice.

What makes Christianity pagan/tribal is the fact that it incorporates a belief that blood carries some magical power to transform, and is acted upon via of human sacrifice in order to achieve that end, which, in this case, is:

"Drink, for this is my blood, which is shed unto many for the remission of sin."

In this single statement, we have the idea that drinking of the blood imparts some power and that its shedding, via sacrifice, somehow magically dissolves sin away. This alone is a pagan/tribal belief.*

What verifies the inclusion of the pagan idea of blood sacrifice into the Christian doctrine are the words from Jesus's own lips at the Last Supper:

"Eat, for this is my body. Drink, for this is my blood which shall be shed unto many for the remission of sin."

Why the Christian host is portrayed as "willing" is simply because he is conscious of his impending execution, while an animal is not. However, what refutes this argument is that Jesus himself spoke the words "Why hast thou forsaken me?" from the cross. These are not the words of a willing host, one who knew what the score was. Here, he reflects a mental state which tells of a man who is completely at a loss to understand his fate. A willing host would not have been in this state of mind. Nor would he have prayed to his Father in the Garden of Gethsemane, sweating blood, pleading that his pending execution might not come to pass.

Only this isn't true. You haven't shown any evidence indicating that any pagan ritual was about a willing sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins.

Because that is not what I am attempting to show. Willingness is not required to demonstrate the connection.

And Jesus is behind the alter, not on it. Alters are used for many things in many different religions. When I was a wiccan, I used an alter all of the time. Never sacrificed anything on it.

That may be so, but in the case of the Catholic Mass, the altar is symbolic of blood sacrifice. It is sacrificial because Jesus is the Lamb of God; he is the true Passover Lamb "that taketh away the sins of the world". Here is the link between the sacrificial Passover Lamb of Judaism and the sacrficial Lamb of God of Christianity. It was the Paschal Lamb of Judaism that was slaughtered upon the altar.

1 Peter 1:18-20
(18) … ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and
gold… (19) But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot (20) Who verily was foreordained** before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,…

Jewish Passover

A lamb is taken on the 10th day of the month and inspected for blemishes for five days until the 14th day of the month. Then sacrificed [slaughtered on an altar] on the 14th day.

Jesus Our Passover Lamb

Abraham
• God tested Abraham by asking him to sacrifice his covenant son. When Isaac asked his father about the lamb for the sacrifice, Abraham replied, "God will provide for Himself a lamb."
Gen. 22:8

The Coming Messiah as a Lamb

• Gradually, the prophets of old prophesied that one day God would send forth a man as a Lamb in place of all their other lambs.
• Isaiah describes the coming of the Messiah as a lamb "led to the slaughter." (Is. 53)

John The Baptist
• Jn. 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith,"Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world."
[another clue that Jesus knew beforehand that his blood was to be sacrificially shed, and that it was pre-ordained]

Jesus The Meal

• Jn 6:52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them,

“Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; 55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink."

The Sixth Day (of Passover)

• John 12:1 “Then Jesus six days before the Passover” which would be on the 9th of
Nisan that He was with Lazarus.
• In Jn 12:12 On the next day which would be the 10th of Nisan – So then Jesus came to Jerusalem (Palm Sunday) right on time along with 256,500 other lambs.
(How convenient!..heh..heh..heh)

Microsoft PowerPoint - Jesus the Passover Lamb

We know for a fact that the Jews slaughtered millions of animals on their altars, and we know that Jesus spoke about the shedding of his blood which was to come, and we know that he is depicted graphically behind the altar, facing the congregation so that all can see that he is THE sacrificial host, (ie: "Lamb of God") and we experience the symbolic eating and drinking of flesh and blood at each and every Mass as a device by which the participant believes his sin is being washed away and he is being reinstated into the state of grace. The fact that the priest utters a few magical words over ordinary bread and wine upon the altar that mysteriously transforms them into the body and blood of Jesus (transubstantiation) is symbolic of the actual sacrifice upon an altar which is believed to have the transformative power of the Lamb of God to wash sin away.

It is an intuitive connection that is made between the highly visible Crucifix behind the altar, which symbolizes Jesus as the Lamb of God, and the altar, which is symbolic of the Jewish altar, where the Paschal Lamb of the Passover was slaughtered.

It is the actual shedding of blood that performs the (psychological) trick, because it is the actual payment for sin that is demanded from the still angry and unpacified Yawheh, who refuses to reopen the Gates of Paradise until such debt is paid for in blood. And that, folks, is the raw unblemished truth of the matter: that the love of the Christian God is not unconditional, as the Christians tell us, but a contract; a covenant, if you will, between the flesh and the spirit. Unfortunately, this is a schizophrenic view of reality, wherein no such distinction between the two exists in actuality. But, then again, such is the mind of the child, who thinks that what he sees and hears via of his perception, is real. Once the ability to see correctly is developed after internal spiritual work, it is realized that the flesh and the spirit have never been separated; that there is no conflict that must be resolved via of blood sacrifice; that it is the breath that holds the key to consciousness, and ultimately to the true state of happiness. This is realized via of the intuitive path, and never via of the thinking, logical, analytical, scientific,rational and self-conscious mind.

Jesus, the Lamb of God, on the altar. Notice the stream of blood pouring into the chalice.

When the Israelites were redeemed from Egypt, they experienced the Passover miracle by spreading the blood of a Lamb over the doors of their homes. However, they also ate the Lamb in their homes. The eating of the Lamb relates to the Sacrifice of the Mass where we eat the Lamb of God: Jesus Christ.
********************************************

*Contrast this to the wisdom religions, such as Buddhism, where it is not the blood, but the breath, which carries with it the life force. Nothing needs to be sacrificed or to die in order for the necessary spiritual transformation to take place. Nurturing the breath imparts life in and of itself; it does not take life away based upon superstition and fear. It does exactly the opposite: it dispels all fear via of the dissolution of delusion. Also, in Taoist thought, the sage takes on the sins of the world, but his blood is not shed in any sort of sacrifice as payment for sin. It simply means that he takes on the burden of others, but for him, is really no burden at all, since he has full understanding of the root of the problem, which is a misunderstanding in the first place. The point of departure is one where there exists at the same root both desire and essence. Where one chooses desire, he sees only the outcomes (ie; 'sin'); where essence is chosen, he sees the mysteries.

**foreordained: Jesus, the sacrificial Lamb of God, was pre-ordained as such even before the "foundation of the world", ie; before the creation. It was a done deal from the get go. God knew. Jesus knew.

 

[godnotgod]

Following is the panel which the painting in the previous post is taken from. The entire painting is called "The Adoration of the Mystic Lamb", by Jan Van Eyck.

The Lamb of God

The most well-known work of the painter brothers Hubrecht (Hubert) and Jan van Eyck is undoubtedly the altar piece in the Vyd Chapel in St. Bavo's Cathedral in Ghent. The official name is The Adoration of the Mystic Lamb, after the lower middle panel, where a lamb is worshiped by groups of angels, martyrs, prophets and apostles.*** The work in 1432 was one of the first painted altar pieces in North and West Europe - until then these works would be wood-cuts.

And here is the entire 12-panel painting of which it is a part:

What is represented on the oak panels? A few ideas and terms may clarify:

Lamb of God

The lamb, bleeding from its neck is symbolic for Jesus sacrificing his life in order to redeem humankind from its sins. People gather around from everywhere to watch the show, just as they did when Jesus was crucified. The blood of the lamb (i.e. innocence) flows into a chalice: this explains the symbolic drinking of wine at church services.
The term 'Lamb of God' is found in John 1:29: The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!"
Further on, in the Revelation of John, the lamb plays a key role.
The Latin term for Lamb of God is Agnus Dei.

More info about the painting here:

Google Image Result for http://www.artbible.info/images/vaneyck_lamgods.jpg


***Another example of a pagan idea incorporated into Christianity.

 

[godnotgod]

re: the Nicene Creed, and Oberon's reference, which is:

"He suffered, died, and was buried."

Here is the same line from the original First Council in Nicea in 325 AD:

He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven;"

It was revised in First Council of Constantinople (381), to read as follows:

he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father;

Obviously, the importance of the Crucifixion was realized, and added in.

In the English translation of the Armenian version we have:

He suffered, was crucified, was buried, rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven with the same body, [and] sat at the right hand of the Father.

Again, the Crucifixion is included.

The Ruthenian Catholic Church utilizes the following:

He was also crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried.And He rose again on the third day, according to the scriptures.And He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father.

The Orthodox Church in America uses the following:

...and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven and sitteth at the right hand of the Father.

Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America uses:

He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried;And He rose on the third day, according to the Scriptures.He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father;

Coptic Orthodox Church uses:

And He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate,suffered and was buried;and on the third day He rose from the dead according to the scriptures.Ascended into heaven, He sits at the right hand of His Father;

Anglican Communion version is:

And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate.He suffered and was buried,And the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures,And ascended into heaven,And sitteth on the right hand of the Father.

Episcopal Church:

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried.On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

Church of England:

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried.On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

Lutheran Church:

...and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate.He suffered and was buried.And the third day He rose again according to the Scripturesand ascended into heavenand sits at the right hand of the Father.

Liberal Catholic Church:

And was crucified also for us; under Pontius Pilate He suffered, and was buried.And the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father.

The 1975 Ecumenical Version:

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

The 1988 Ecumenical Version:

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;he suffered death and was buried.On the third day he rose againin accordance with the Scriptures;he ascended into heavenand is seated at the right hand of the Father.

The Catholic Encyclopedia uses the following format:

....was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures, And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father,...

Sources: Wikipedia

All other versions of the Nicene Creed as used by Catholics which I Googled utilize the revised First Council of Constantinople's 381 AD version, in which the Crucifixion is included.

It appears that only the First Council of Nicea of AD 325 did not include it; after that, it was consistently included. :yes:

Seems Mr. Oberon left it out. Tsk....tsk...tsk. Not very scholarly, now, is it?:no:

 

[Oberon]

What makes Christianity pagan/tribal is the fact that it incorporates a belief that blood carries some magical power to transform, and is acted upon via of human sacrifice in order to achieve that end, which, in this case, is:

Wrong. Because it was the VOLUNTARY suffering and death of the son of God which allowed for the absolution of sin. Not "magical power of blood to transform."

"Drink, for this is my blood, which is shed unto many for the remission of sin."

Only it wasn't actually his blood. He was still alive, and the text clearly states he took the wine when he said this, making it a symbolic gesture, and no blood was actually shed. Moreover, there is nothing pagan about shedding of voluntary blood for the "remission of sin."

In this single statement, we have the idea that drinking of the blood imparts some power and that its shedding, via sacrifice, somehow magically dissolves sin away. This alone is a pagan/tribal belief.*

Jesus never said anything about the drinking of blood imparting any power. You are simply making this up, as you do most of your point. And shedding of Jesus' divine or semi-divine blood was only part of the the sacrifice. His SUFFERING and death, all voluntary, was important in absolution of sin, which IS NOT a pagan/tribal belief, and I seriously doubt you have any understanding at all about either pagan ritual or tribal ritual. You know next to nothing about any topic I have yet to see you write about. I doubt you know anything more about anthropological research into what you deem "tribal" religion, or knowledge about paganism.

Finally, your post is about how christianity is "based" on paganism. Which also implies a not just similarities but an actual borrowing from paganism in order to build christianity. Which means you have to show how the basic themes of christian dogma could have been borrowed.

You have done nothing of the sort. From the start of this thread, and all your mistakes about mithraism and the crucifixion and everything else, you have completely failed to show ANY pre-christian pagan or tribal ritual which forms the basis of christianity.


Christianity emerged from the matrix of Judaism. Yet you know nothing of judaism because of your incredibly ignorant statements about buddhist influence on judaism, and your even more ludicrous following of a modern cult-like reconstruction of the ancient essenes which was started a few decades ago (and, by the way, plenty of modern groups claim "descendence" from ancient groups when really they just made the whole thing up). So your understanding of the "historical Yeshua" comes from a reconstruction of the essenes started in the late 20th century based on no actual tradition of the essenes.

What verifies the inclusion of the pagan idea of blood sacrifice into the Christian doctrine are the words from Jesus's own lips at the Last Supper:

Voluntary suffering and death for the absolution of sin is NOT a pagan idea. You are trying to conflate to VERY seperate themes. Pagan blood sacrifice was about appeasing the gods. The idea that "blood had power" is not just a pagan or a tribal idea (you are buddhist, right? Is the tibetan skull cup a "tribal" concept?), and it does not form a basis for christianity. Your quote comes from prior to Jesus' sacrifice. And according to Paul, the church fathers, and virtually ALL of christian literature, including the nicene creed, not only was the resurrection FAR more important, but it wasn't "jesus' blood" which was vital, but his willing suffering and death, which included far more than just blood.

In blood sacrifices, the blood is spilt over an alter or something similar. The sacrifice is NOT willing, and the purpose is quite different. Jesus voluntarily suffered and died according to christian belief, and THAT was what was important in terms of absolution of sin, and neither part is pagan.

"Eat, for this is my body. Drink, for this is my blood which shall be shed unto many for the remission of sin."

Only Jesus was still alive. Ergo, no blood sacrifice. Because when he did die, according to christian dogma, it was his willing suffering and death, not his blood, which accounts for the absolution of sin (and this concept is not pagan).

Why the Christian host is portrayed as "willing" is simply because he is conscious of his impending execution, while an animal is not.

Making the sacrifice COMPLETELY different. Moreover, in certain religions (e.g. Aztec and Mayan) human sacrifice was regularly practiced. It was not willing, however. Nor was it about the absolution of sin.

However, what refutes this argument is that Jesus himself spoke the words "Why hast thou forsaken me?" from the cross. These are not the words of a willing host, one who knew what the score was.

1. Your whole point here is not what the "historical Jesus" said and did but what the "christ of christian faith" said and did. And according to the gospels and to christian belief, Jesus knew he was going to die and did it willingly "for us and for our salvation."
2. The statement made during Jesus' suffering is balanced against his words at trial and his statements concerning his death prior to this.
3. If we accept the idea that Jesus was human, words made during suffering (especially given the words at the garden of Gethesemane) do not reveal an unwilling participant.

Nor would he have prayed to his Father in the Garden of Gethsemane, sweating blood, pleading that his pending execution might not come to pass.

Where are you getting the sweating of his blood? Luke 22:44 has:
εγένετο δε ο ιδρως αυτου ωσει θρόμβοι αἵματος καταβαίνοντες επι την γην/and it came to be [that] his sweat was like drops of blood falling upon the ground.
Not actual blood.

Moreover, in every depiction of this scene, a scared Jesus is nonetheless willing to suffer for the sake of humanity.

Because that is not what I am attempting to show. Willingness is not required to demonstrate the connection.

It is. Because Jesus wasn't a blood sacrifice. From Paul to the modern catholic mass, it is the fact that Jesus WILLINGLY suffered and died that makes it important. If someone had tied him up and cut his heart out on an alter, we wouldn't have christianity.

That may be so, but in the case of the Catholic Mass, the altar is symbolic of blood sacrifice.

No, it isn't.

It is sacrificial because Jesus is the Lamb of God; he is the true Passover Lamb "that taketh away the sins of the world". Here is the link between the sacrificial Passover Lamb of Judaism and the sacrficial Lamb of God of Christianity. It was the Paschal Lamb of Judaism that was slaughtered upon the altar.

It is a metaphorical link between christianity and judaism, not christianity and paganism. Moreover, Jesus was not "sacrificed." He sacrificed himself for humanity.

1 Peter 1:18-20
(18) … ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and
gold… (19) But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot (20) Who verily was foreordained** before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,…

Jewish Passover

1. Judaism is not pagan.
2. Jesus willlingly died, sacrificing himself, and his blood was not shed on an alter. Hence he was not a blood sacrifice, but a willing participant in sacrificing himself.

*Contrast this to the wisdom religions, such as Buddhism, where it is not the blood, but the breath

You mean like the thumos of Greek religion, particularly in Homer, where the MOST "tribal" part of greek civilization is represented? Very, very pagan concept.

 

[Oberon]

It appears that only the First Council of Nicea of AD 325 did not include it; after that, it was consistently included. :yes:

Seems Mr. Oberon left it out. Tsk....tsk...tsk. Not very scholarly, now, is it?:no:

1. The modern nicene creed is actually a revised version from the council of constantinople.
2. We don't know what the original said exactly.
3. Throughout all of your various translations, my point still stands. Jesus' crucifixion is only part of the deal. His suffering and death, not just his death (i.e. not just the crucifixion) are important. And, finally, the resurrection is given MORE importance than the crucifixion is the basic creed of christian belief.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I think part of what makes this a difficult subject is in deciding what is Pagan/not-Pagan.

With many religious concepts like sacrifice, rebirth, salvation/cleansing, heroes/saviors, there seems to be a cross-cultural connection that makes them not Pagan concepts or Christian concepts, but human concepts.

I imagine this is due to a shared existential human experience.

Is there a connection between the Jesus and Isis mythology? It can be interpreted as such, and there may have been some borrowing, but I think the importance of the connection is in what it suggests about the human condition.

 

[Oberon]

*Contrast this to the wisdom religions, such as Buddhism, where it is not the blood, but the breath, which carries with it the life force.

This is a very telling statement, which shows how little you know about paganism. The greek ψυχή/psyche meant life, soul, spirit, but also breath, the original meaning. The latin anima is the same, meaning at the same time "breath" and "life force" or soul/spirit. In graeco-roman PAGAN thought the "breath" was the "life force." And before you make some ridiculous claim that these pagans copied from buddhism, this concept is especially prevelant in Homer, which PREDATES buddhism, and represents THE MOST TRIBAL (not to mention violent) stage in greek civilization.

See, for example, the Iliad, book 22, 467 ff. Androchme, Hector's wife, collapses at the sight of her husband's corpse:

ἤριπε δ᾽ ἐξοπίσω, ἀπὸ δὲ ψυχὴν ἐκάπυσσε/ and she fell backwards, and the she breathed forth out her soul.

Then, when she regains life, we find:

ἣ δ᾽ ἐπεὶ οὖν ἔμπνυτο καὶ ἐς φρένα θυμὸς ἀγέρθη/and then she breathed once more (i.e. revived) and her life force was gathered into her chest.

The thumos in Homer, like the psyche, is the life-force, and is also the breath, as in the passage above where it is pulled back into the lungs when Androchme regains life.

 

[godnotgod]

Only it wasn't actually his blood.

No? Are you calling Jesus a liar, because that is exactly what he said:

"Eat, for this is my body.....Drink, for this is my blood..."

Via of the magic of transubtantiation, what still appeared to be ordinary bread and wine was, in actuality, the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ.

In Roman Catholic theology, transubstantiation (in Latin, transsubstantiatio, in Greek μετουσίωσις (metousiosis)) means the change of the substance of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ occurring in the Eucharist while all that is accessible to the senses remains as before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation

 

[Oberon]

...except for the fact that Jesus was sent/mandated by the Father to suffer and die as payment for Original Sin. There was no "voluntary": the deal was set in amber from the get-go:

Not according to christian faith. According to christian faith, Jesus went voluntary. He could have refused, but did the will of his father.

You cannot take away the idea of the magical power of the blood to transform, since it was Jesus himself who said so:

"Drink, for this is my blood, which shall be shed unto many for the remission of sin"

Jesus says nothing about the power of blood. He says his blood will be shed for the remission of sins. He doesn't say the power of his blood will cause anything. He simply says his death will allow the remission of sins.

This is magic.

What is and isn't magic his a highly debated topic within anthropology, classics, religious studies, and other fields. I seriously doubt you are familiar enough with the debate to render a worthwhile judgment.

So what? A placebo can have the same effect as the medicine. Once again, we are talking here about ideas. The idea of drinking wine symbolic of blood to wash away sin achieves the same end as drinking real blood attached to the same idea.

Hardly. The idea of a placebo was not around. They didn't drink Jesus' blood. And the drinking didn't do anything. It didn't cause the remission of sins. So, no magic or power.

OK. So then explain how it occurs, step by step, using science and logic.

Explain how what works? I said: "He was still alive, and the text clearly states he took the wine when he said this, making it a symbolic gesture, and no blood was actually shed. Moreover, there is nothing pagan about shedding of voluntary blood for the "remission of sin."

How does this need explaining? According to christian faith, Jesus was very much alive and no blood was shed when he said "take this cup." The absolution of sin occured AFTERWARDS! And, again, this isn't a pagan idea or theme.

Then by what power is the shedding of his blood to wash away sin operating by? He did say that his blood shall be shed unto many for the remission of sin, did he not? So the blood is the agent that is responsible for this transformation, correct?

No, not correct. Not correct at all. The suffering and sacrifice cause the absolution according to christian faith. Hence we see nothing about blood in the nicene creed. Only "suffered and died."

On the contrary, it is Christianity itself that is made up.

So is buddhism. No religion has a more valid claim to being "real."

Suffering is implied by the shedding of the blood. The suffering before the execution is due to the coming execution; the suffering during the execution is due to the execution itself. The shedding of blood is the execution itself, and sets into motion the mysterious power that blots out sin. That power is contained within the blood.

Completely incorrect. In blood rituals, only the blood is important. In fact, there are magic rituals in which blood is collected without anyone dying. Yet Jesus' ACTUAL blood is of no consequence. Only his VOLUNTARY suffering and death for the sake of humanity are.

The belief that it does is a pagan/tribal idea. It is not the view of Higher Man.

I have already shown how your buddhist idea of the breath is straight out of tribal/pagan homer. Nice try.

No? Once again, demonstrate, via of logical argument, that it is not.

This is a matter of christian belief, not logic. When trying to show what is important in belief, a great method is looking at THE CREED if one is available, and here it is. The nicene creed focuses not on blood at all, but on voluntary suffering and death, and the resurrection. So does all of christian literature.

Have you undergone any authentic spiritually transforming experiences, or does all your "knowledge" come from research, books, articles, and other second hand material? Do you prefer the taste of the menu instead of the actual meal?

Where does you knowledge of tribal or pagan religion come from? Intuition? I know you have already said you don't allow reason to get in your way.

All I am saying is that pagan/tribal ideas are based upon superstition and/or fear based beliefs.

All I am saying is that you have no idea about either pagan or "tribal" religions.

Higher Man's view is based upon the spiritually enlightened mind

Like your buddhist idea of breath being the life force? Only that is straight out of pagan Homer, from the most tribal stage of Greek civilization. As I said earlier:

This is a very telling statement, which shows how little you know about paganism. The greek ψυχή/psyche meant life, soul, spirit, but also breath, the original meaning. The latin anima is the same, meaning at the same time "breath" and "life force" or soul/spirit. In graeco-roman PAGAN thought the "breath" was the "life force." And before you make some ridiculous claim that these pagans copied from buddhism, this concept is especially prevelant in Homer, which PREDATES buddhism, and represents THE MOST TRIBAL (not to mention violent) stage in greek civilization.

See, for example, the Iliad, book 22, 467 ff. Androchme, Hector's wife, collapses at the sight of her husband's corpse:

ἤριπε δ᾽ ἐξοπίσω, ἀπὸ δὲ ψυχὴν ἐκάπυσσε/ and she fell backwards, and the she breathed forth out her soul.

Then, when she regains life, we find:

ἣ δ᾽ ἐπεὶ οὖν ἔμπνυτο καὶ ἐς φρένα θυμὸς ἀγέρθη/and then she breathed once more (i.e. revived) and her life force was gathered into her chest.

The thumos in Homer, like the psyche, is the life-force, and is also the breath, as in the passage above where it is pulled back into the lungs when Androchme regains life.

In addition, most, if not all, of the ideas and stories found in Christianity were already pre-existent in earlier cultures and religions.

You have already shown you know nothing about the culture from which christianity began, or any other ancient culture.

One could say that the infants sacrificed to Moloch were voluntary

You could say anything about it, but it wouldn't matter since your only evidence of ANY such sacrifices comes not from a primary source, but from an internet site by a graphics guy. So there is no need to pay any attention to what "one could say" about such sacrifices.

 

[godnotgod]

Not according to christian faith. According to christian faith, Jesus went voluntary. He could have refused, but did the will of his father.

According to 1 Pet 1:18-20

"Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,..."

Firstly, this passage establishes Jesus as the sacrificial host, The Lamb of God, whose "blood shall be shed unto many for the remission of sin." Secondly, it tells us that he was slated (foreordained) as the sacrificial host from "before the foundation of the world."

As I said, the deal was set in amber from the get-go. Jesus theoretically could have said no, but then again, he could not have. The entire fate of humanity was at stake. In addition, from an earthly point of view, he also had no choice, since he ad been tried and convicted by both the Romans and the Jews and sentenced to die. So his mandate was threefold, made by heaven, the state, and the people. Willingness was not an option. Silent resignation to his fate was.

Jesus says nothing about the power of blood. He says his blood will be shed for the remission of sins. He doesn't say the power of his blood will cause anything. He simply says his death will allow the remission of sins.

> "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, 1 say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink bis blood, ye have no life in you. Whosoever eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life..."-John vi. 5 35 6.

> Leviticus xvii. 11. "The life of the flesh is in the blood" and "I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul."

> "Ye were redeemed from your vain conversation with the precious blood of Christ" (I Pet. 1. 18, 19).

> "Ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things . . . but with the precious blood of Christ as of a lamb without blemish and without spot"-I Pet. i. 18, 79.

> " Thou wast slain and hast redeemed us unto God by thy blood." Rev 5:9

"....the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin"-I John i. 7

> "How much more shall the blood of Christ . . . PURGE your conscience from dead works to serve the living God" (Heb. ix. 14)

> "Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate"-Heb. xiii. 12.

> "Therefore Jesus also suffered that he might sanctify his people with his own blood."(Heb. xiii. 12)

> " Now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by THE BLOOD OF CHRIST "-Eph.ii. 13.

> "How much more shall THE BLOOD OF CHRIST . . . purge your conscience . . . to serve the living God? Heb.ix. 14.

> "These are they . . . who have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb..." (Rev. vii. 14).

> "Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the Holiest by the blood of Jesus.... "-Heb. x. 19-22

> Ephesians 2:13
13But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

> "the life is in the blood" (Lev. xvii. 11)

> Hebrews 13:20
20Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,..."

> They overcame him [Satan] by the blood of the Lamb (Rev. x11. I o, I I)
*****


In the ritual of the Passover, Jews are instructed to sprinkle the blood of a sacrificial lamb on their doors to prevent the Angel of Death from killing their firstborn sons.

The holy day of the Christian feast of Easter is actually called "Passover" (or a derivative) in most languages other than English and German, and its central theme is that Christ was the Paschal Lamb in human form - a human sacrifice by god.


*******************



Pretty good list for something that has no magical power to do anything.



[/quote]

 

[godnotgod]

Like your buddhist idea of breath being the life force? Only that is straight out of pagan Homer, from the most tribal stage of Greek civilization. As I said earlier:

This is a very telling statement, which shows how little you know about paganism. The greek ψυχή/psyche meant life, soul, spirit, but also breath, the original meaning. The latin anima is the same, meaning at the same time "breath" and "life force" or soul/spirit. In graeco-roman PAGAN thought the "breath" was the "life force." And before you make some ridiculous claim that these pagans copied from buddhism, this concept is especially prevelant in Homer, which PREDATES buddhism, and represents THE MOST TRIBAL (not to mention violent) stage in greek civilization.

See, for example, the Iliad, book 22, 467 ff. Androchme, Hector's wife, collapses at the sight of her husband's corpse:

ἤριπε δ᾽ ἐξοπίσω, ἀπὸ δὲ ψυχὴν ἐκάπυσσε/ and she fell backwards, and the she breathed forth out her soul.

Then, when she regains life, we find:

ἣ δ᾽ ἐπεὶ οὖν ἔμπνυτο καὶ ἐς φρένα θυμὸς ἀγέρθη/and then she breathed once more (i.e. revived) and her life force was gathered into her chest.

The thumos in Homer, like the psyche, is the life-force, and is also the breath, as in the passage above where it is pulled back into the lungs when Androchme regains life.

Excuse me? Is that all you have?