Is Christianity based upon Pagan ideas?

[godnotgod]

Except in no version did Mithra(s), Persian or Roman, die to be ressurected...

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.

Paul and the Mystery Religions

 

[Breathe]

I completely agree with you. I think that the messages in the Bible are great in their original form. However so many things have been changed, that now the *truth* that it presents is so skewed that it's hard to tell what's right and what's wrong.

Oh yeah, totally. Even if (gasp) some of the Bible is not literal, it's still good to take note of.

I suppose this is why it's an advantage to know Hebrew/Biblical Hebrew. I can understand why there could be many misunderstandings with the Hebrew language, as there are many subtleties in the language that are lost in translation.

Take the flood for instance. When the bible was first translated into mass form (KJV) the translators took the hebrew word "kol" ( whole or all) and "eret"(Earth, ground, soil, land) and automatically took the flood to global proportions, when if you look through out the rest of the Bible, the words kol eret are used several times and they don't refer to the entire world.

Yeah. I think the flood is a story about the end of the ice age personally, which became more and more amazing as time went on. That's why it's a common motif in so many beliefs, because all this ice began melting and certain places (like the connecting land between Britain and France) vanished.

So because of a bad translation, millions of people who take the book literally are believing things about their religion that are either wrong, or blown WAY out of proportion. This is why I can't put alot of stock in the Bible in it's current form.

Hmmm, with that bit of the translation, I think it's because they translated it word-for-word, "And water covered the whole land" - does that refer to the whole world or the whole area? I suppose it's an easy mistake to make for many.

Also, take the word 'almah (I feigned ignorance in another thread for this ), which means "young woman of marriage-able age", the Greeks translated it as 'virgin', probably because of the thought that if a woman was not married, she would still be a virgin. Thus, virgin birth could easily be "young woman birth".

If you're up to it, I'd suggest you try and find an interlinear version where you can read the Biblical version, too. Or go with the Jewish publication society or a well known Jewish version (of the Tanakh) to find their understanding on it.

 

[godnotgod]

Incorporated ideas to make those of the other faith understand, yeah. However, you seem to have an idea of the Pope of days of old sitting upon his throne in the Vatican and saying, "Hey, we can't get those pagans in Mexico to worship our God, what should we do? Any suggestions guys?" "I think we should turn one of their important deities into a saint. What about that woman deity?" Of course not.

Oh, yes! They had a plan, and that was to exploit the Aztec goddess as a vehicle for conversion, thinking it would be shooting fish in a barrel, but the plan backfired when the Indios reverted to their old Aztec practices.

".....at every stage of the conquest and colonization [of Mexico] Catholic priests and missionaries were present. Perhaps more importantly, though, the fusion of the Catholic Church with the Spanish monarchy made the Conquest of Mexico not only a political and economic conquest but a spiritual one as well.

For the Catholic Church, the "discovery" of new lands inhabited by peoples previously unknown to it represented an opportunity of historic proportions for evangelization and conversion. The opportunity to win literally hundreds of thousands of new converts to the faith presented a challenge to the Catholic Church in the context of the discovery, conquest, and colonization of the region."

Mexico: a global studies handbook - Google Books

Sounds very deliberate to me. What do you think is meant by "the conquest of Mexico" anyway? The ultimate aim was to destroy the existing culture and replace it with Christianity. That has been the pattern of Christian missionary work throughout the world. Currently, Christian missionaries are aggressively attempting to do just that in India.

 

[godnotgod]

It isn't trickery to show some of the comparable parts of two religions...

...but it is trickery to use the Aztec goddess, disguised as the Christian Virgin de Guadalupe as a Trojan Horse....

And?

...and so that means that the promise of eternal life was not exclusive to Jesus Christ.

Good, Jesus was not created... and Mithras killed a bull, so there is nothing there...

Yes, there is, and it is in the idea of the shedding of sacred blood. One of the rituals for new initiates into the Mithraic cult was to stand naked in a pit below a grate where a bull was slaughtered, and his blood washed over the initiate's body. He was "washed in the blood" of the bull as a means of spiritual cleansing. Sound familiar?

Unless it is true...

You've missed the point: I said "enlightenment" and "realization"; not "belief". When one realizes, via of enlightenment, that a ritual is based upon fear and superstition, it is then understood as false. Enlightenment is not belief; it is seeing reality as it is. Belief is a model of reality; it is not reality. Therefore, belief can allow that something might be true, simply because one does not yet know for certain. Enlightenment allows one to see with certainty.

Demonstrate, via of argument, exactly how the ritual blood sacrifice of a human being absolves guilt.

Where does the connection lay between the two?

 

[Mister Emu]

This Holy Order was re-established by the heavens

If its on the internet is has to be true!

Paul and the Mystery Religions

See the line directly above this quote...

...but it is trickery to use the Aztec goddess, disguised as the Christian Virgin de Guadalupe as a Trojan Horse....

I don't know the particulars to argue they weren't using trickery, but in general, saying "Look we have something similar, let us talk about it, and you can see the truth" is not wrong...

...and so that means that the promise of eternal life was not exclusive to Jesus Christ.

and?

Yes, there is, and it is in the idea of the shedding of sacred blood.

There is a big difference between sacrificing something else, and sacrificing yourself...

You've missed the point: I said "enlightenment" and "realization"

No, I didn't... there is nothing enlightening about something untrue... the truth, by it's nature is enlightening, even if the only enlightenment is that it is the truth...

 

[Andal]

The Catholic Church is still taking pagan elements and incorporating them in. If anyone is not familiar you should check out the policy of "inculturation" .

For example, in India they are building churches according to vastu (Vedic architecture) They will show Jesus as a yogi and many churches hold aarti (worship of God through images) This is most definitely idolatry according to Christian thought but the Church takes the stand point that they want to make their message more paletable to the Indian populations.

We see it happening today so it's not a big leap to see it happening in the past. The Catholic/Orthodox worship of Mary is very pagan and yet very important to these two branches.

 

[Breathe]

For example, in India they are building churches according to vastu (Vedic architecture) They will show Jesus as a yogi

<<snip>>

Jesus as a yogi? Sounds good to me! (I actually believe he was a yogi, hehe)
Vedic architecture sounds good too Can you explain more, do you mean you have churches that look like Hindu temples (mondiras? Is that the right word?)? Can you show a picture of what they look like? Please please please?

 

[godnotgod]

Jesus as a yogi? (I actually believe he was a yogi, hehe)

heh...heh...actually, he was, and a yogi is a mystic, yoga being the mystical branch of orthodox Hinduism. And yogi is exactly what the Order of Nazorean Essenes, a Jewish mystical cult to which Yeshua belonged and which was influenced by Buddhism and Hinduism, says that Yeshua was.

"The Essene Way" (Essene Yoga) was the spiritual practice taught by Jesus Christ [Yeshua], as revealed in ancient Essene manuscripts. Bhakti, in the center or "heart" of the chart, is the heart of Essene Yoga: all of our other yogic practices are motivated by our Bhakti, our love and devotion for God."

from: Yoga Systems of the Essene Nazarean Church of Mount Carmel

Yoga

 

[Oberon]

One of the rituals for new initiates into the Mithraic cult was to stand naked in a pit below a grate where a bull was slaughtered, and his blood washed over the initiate's body. He was "washed in the blood" of the bull as a means of spiritual cleansing. Sound familiar?

No.

And seeing as how the hellenistic mithras cult appears around the end of the first century/beginning of the 2nd (after at least the synoptics and probably all four gospels, as well as all of Paul, were written), any imitation lies with the followers of mithras, not the earliest christians.

 

[slave2six]

It flummoxes me what passes for intellect here. How many people come on here with mere opinions and state them as the answer?

In my personal opinion: Is christianity based upon pagan ideas? No.

What do you base this opinion on?

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

This is intellectual freebasing. Again, upon what do you base this?

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.

Really? Pagan religions have been around for thousands of years before Christianity and throughout the world after Christianity in remote places that would never hear the Christian message until the shooting was over. How do you support your claims?

If you don't know, why not just say so or go find out before you answer?

Finally, someone with a sense of how to academically answer an academic question:

Christianity: Origins of a Pagan Religion

A thousand points for Danarch.

 

[Oberon]

Finally, someone with a sense of how to academically answer an academic question:

You mean, cite a non-academic book written for the public, rather than serious scholarship written for experts?

I can do that too: The Gospel and The Greeks: Did the New Testament Borrow From Pagan Thought? by Professor Ronald H. Nash. His book "demonstrates" that there is no influence of paganism in first century christian texts. Of course, there are numerous things wrong with his study, but that's probably why it wasn't published by an academic press.

"It is very important to remember here that Christianity had a powerful influence on the paganism that prospered in the late antique world, to a degree, I suggest, no less important than the influence- much more frequently remarked- of paganism on Christianity." p. 26

Bowerstock, G. W. Hellenism in Late Antiquity. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996.

Jan Bremmer, in The Rise and Fall of the Afterlife: The 1995 Read-Tuckwell Lectures at the University of Bristol, notes that the dying and resurrecting gods of hellenism (e.g. Attis, Mithras) were inspired by christianity, not the reverse (pp. 54-55).

 

[godnotgod]

If its on the internet is has to be true!

The point being neither. The fact that there is now a renewed interest (whether it is heaven-inspired or not) in all things Gnostic, Zen, Yoga, etc, is a sign that the rigid and punitive Patriarchal system of orthodox Christianity no longer satisfies the spiritual needs of the people, so they seek spiritual nourishment in the Feminine aspect. The Church has suppressed all things Gnostic for centuries, almost destroying it completely. Intelligent people are going back into history and unearthing old Essene manuscripts making them known once again. The Church will allow some deviation within its membership to occur as long as it still serves the mainstream doctrine. Pagan worship of the Mother in the form of Mary or the Virgin de Guadalupe is OK as long as it does not get out of hand, as it did during Medieval times, when the Church had to clamp down on such practices. Mary worship, though highly revered, must always take a back seat to that of Jesus worship.

See the line directly above this quote...

....but if it's in the Bible, it must be true, eh?

I don't know the particulars to argue they weren't using trickery, but in general, saying "Look we have something similar, let us talk about it, and you can see the truth" is not wrong...

Ha! ha! ha!:biglaugh: Surely you jest!

"Say, let's have a discussion about how we are going to conquer you, OK?"

It was about the CONQUEST of Mexico, you see.

"Uh, excuse me, but is it OK with you if we take your land, enslave your people, destroy your culture & religion, and replace them with ours?"

Come now! Let's get real.

and?

....and so, Christianity is not what it claims: a new and unique teaching, that being the "One True Religion".

There is a big difference between sacrificing something else, and sacrificing yourself...

...It is still ritual blood sacrifice, no matter how you slice it, and ritual blood sacrifice is a Pagan practice. Besides, Yeshua never sacrificed himself. He was a vegetarian who rejected animal sacrifice, let alone human sacrifice. It was St. Paul who had been steeped in the mystery religions as a child who created the myth of the sacrificial host of Jesus Christ. In one fell swoop, Paul brilliantly synthesized and launched modern Christianity by marrying three factors: Jewish history, to lend a credible background to the story; the theme of the descending Gnosis, taken from the Gnostics; and the theme of the dying and resurrected man-god, taken from the mystery religions of his childhood.

No, I didn't... there is nothing enlightening about something untrue... the truth, by it's nature is enlightening, even if the only enlightenment is that it is the truth...

Sir, please: if you realize, via of becoming enlightened, that ritual blood sacrifice cannot absolve guilt, except within the mind of the believer, then what was believed to be true is not. Realization about the untruth of something is also enlightenment.

If you believe in the boogeyman, for you, he is real, but only because, for you, belief equates with truth. Enlightenment allows one to see, beyond doubt and beyond belief, that the boogeyman is a fear-based concoction of the deluded mind.

 

[Oberon]

Intelligent people are going back into history and unearthing old Essene manuscripts making them known once again.

The essenes... weren't they pretty much wiped out by the roman pagans? Hmm...

 

[godnotgod]

"It is very important to remember here that Christianity had a powerful influence on the paganism that prospered in the late antique world..."

Jan Bremmer... [/I]notes that the dying and resurrecting gods of Hellenism (e.g. Attis, Mithras) were inspired by Christianity, not the reverse

Even if the reverse, as you suggest, were true, the question remains:

Where did the doctrine of ritual blood sacrifice as a means of absolving guilt and sin originate, and why are they still the central core teaching of Christian thought?

 

[Oberon]

Even if the reverse, as you suggest, were true, the question remains:

Where did the doctrine of ritual blood sacrifice as a means of absolving guilt and sin originate, and why are they still the central core teaching of Christian thought?

They aren't. There is no "ritual blood sacrifice" in christianity. And, if Bremmer and Bowerstock (among others) are correct, the taurobolium and similar pagan rites come from imitation of christian ritual, not the reverse.

 

[godnotgod]

The essenes... weren't they pretty much wiped out by the roman pagans? Hmm...

Actually, it was via Godzilla...but some of the traces of their existence survived in the form of original manuscripts, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example. Remember those?

 

[Oberon]

Actually, it was via Godzilla...but some of the traces of their existence survived in the form of original manuscripts, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example. Remember those?

Whether or not the qumran texts represent essene thought is still debated. However, the important point is that these were not religious texts "buried" by christianity, they were texts from a community destroyed by the romans during the jewish war against rome.

 

[godnotgod]

They aren't. There is no "ritual blood sacrifice" in christianity.

The Crucifixion is not a ritual blood sacrifice?

And, if Bremmer and Bowerstock (among others) are correct, the taurobolium and similar pagan rites come from imitation of christian ritual, not the reverse.

If that were the case, why did the Church get all hot under the collar and create the wild claim that Satan himself staged the birth of Mithra and the propagation of his religion prior to the arrival of Jesus, as a deception to mis-lead Christians?

As I understand it, Mithra preceded Jesus by some 1400 years, historically speaking.

 

[Oberon]

The Crucifixion is not a ritual blood sacrifice?

No. It happened once. One time doesn't equal a ritual.

If that were the case, why did the Church get all hot under the collar and create the wild claim that Satan himself staged the birth of Mithra prior to the arrival of Jesus, and the propagation of his religion as a deception to mis-lead Christians?

First, where are you getting this from? And second, what does the claims of various early christian authors trying to prevent the conversion of followers to popular mystery religions have to do with who borrowed from whom?

As I understand it, Mithra preceded Jesus by some 1400 years, historically.

You do realize that the persian mithras and the hellenistic mithras are not the same thing, right?

 

[slave2six]

You mean, cite a non-academic book written for the public, rather than serious scholarship written for experts?

What part of "This extensive study of the Christian mythology" implies that it is merely a pop-culture piece? And that it is written so that people can understand it carries no weight against it. This is also a work that is written in a manner that regular people can understand but the facts contained therein are no less meaningful for that and neither you nor I could laugh off the physics and mathematics that support the realities of time travel.

My point was that this was the first attempt in this thread to base one's views on an actual body of study rather than one's personal feelings. Let the war of books commence. At least we will be able to look at data and draw conclusions rather than positing feelings all over the place.

Of course that will mean that people will actually have to get off their butts and read for themselves rather than pontificating about something that someone somewhere told them. You and I both know how likely that is...

BTW - Thanks for the recommendations. I have added them to my wish list.