godnotgod
Thou art That
They weren't Christian in origin: Essenes were Jewish mystics. Yeshua was a Jewish mystic, but not an Essene from the Qumran area.
Are you suggesting that they were not even religious texts?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is Christianity based upon Pagan ideas?
- Thread starter godnotgod
- Start date
They weren't Christian in origin: Essenes were Jewish mystics. Yeshua was a Jewish mystic, but not an Essene from the Qumran area.
Are you suggesting that they were not even religious texts?
slave2six
Substitious
And the very fact that the Christian God required a blood sacrifice and then killed his own offspring to satisfy that bloodlust simply adds to the horror of it all.
Nothing. But you are quoting a book review, which doesn't mean what.
No, but a book on medieval christianity by an expert on medieval french literature published by a non-academic press says very little about the first several hundred years of christianity.
godnotgod
Thou art That
But it did'nt happen just once...it happened many times*, only the Crucifixion of Yeshua was made out to be a Big Deal. The IDEA of ritual blood sacrifice was already in place in Jewish practice for thousands of years. From the Roman point of view, the Crucifixion was a punishment for crimes agains the state; from the Jewish point of view, it was a punishment for blasphemy; from the later Christian point of view, it became a divine mystery for the absolution of sin and guilt. But this theme was already well established as a Jewish practice in the form of the scapegoat:
The scapegoat was a goat that was driven off into the wilderness as part of the ceremonies of the Day of Atonement, in Judaism during the times of the Temple in Jerusalem. The rite is described in Leviticus 16.
Since this goat, carrying the sins of the people placed on it, is sent away to perish [1], 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.
The Christian anthropologist René Girard has provided a reconstruction of the scapegoat theory. In Girard's view, it is humankind, not God, who has the problem with violence. Humans are driven by desire for that which another has or wants (mimetic desire). This causes a triangulation of desire and results in conflict between the desiring parties. This mimetic contagion increases to a point where society is at risk; it is at this point that the scapegoat mechanism[6] is triggered. This is the point where one person is singled out as the cause of the trouble and is expelled or killed by the group. This person is the scapegoat. Social order is restored as people are contented that they have solved the cause of their problems by removing the scapegoated individual, and the cycle begins again. Girard contends that this is what happened in the case of Jesus.
Wikipedia
The theme of a dying and resurrected man-god also was in place prior to the arrival of Yeshua.
The real question is why is it that Jesus Christ is made out to be so unique when there is really nothing new here at all?
*See 'Pagan Christs', by John M. Robertson
What did I say that sounded like "the qumran texts were christian" !!??
No, they weren't.
No, he wasn't. He was an apocalyptic jewish "prophet" of sorts, as well as an exorcist and healer, whose messianic claims got him executed by the state.
I am suggesting that we don't know whether they were written by essenes. Certainly, even if the qumran community was an essene community, they weren't representative of the whole movement.
More importantly, you brought up the gnostics and how they were "suppressed" by christians (and they were). Then you brought up the qumran literature. But it was the pagan romans who wiped out that community, not the christians.
Last edited:
godnotgod
Thou art That
Yes, and that fact alone, even had it been a singular event, is enough to question whether it was an event with true divine origins.
That 'horror' was then perfumed and made palatable by clothing (and cloaking) it in mystery and sanctity.
The truth of the matter is that, it was not God who authored any of this mumbo jumbo, but superstitious, tribal man, who then built up an elaborate ritualistic superstructure on top which wreaked of magic and awe.
I recall a story from Africa about a clan of monkeys under study, one of which was low man on the social heirarchical totem pole. One day, he discovered two, rectangular 5 gallon empty kerosene cans, and began to play with them, rolling them, one in each hand, along the ground, making a horrendous sound. Having mastered his technique, he then proceeded to confront the other monkeys, striking fear into their hearts, after which he then became top man in the clan.
Last edited:
There was only one Jesus of Nazareth, and he was only executed once, and the mission of this single man and his single death formed the basis of the jewish cult which followed him and eventually became christianity.
The idea of animal sacrifice, yes. But not crucifixion, and not human sacrifice.
Did you bother to read Lev. 16 before posting this? Aaron first is required to offer a bull, then one of two goats.
And yes, of course the idea of a "sacrifice" pre-dates christianity. However, the idea of the son of god coming to earth, preaching, and then being executed, does not.
No, not really. Parallels like Mithras and Attis post-date christianity. And other supposed parallels like osiris consist of a god who was chopped into pieces and put together. There were no "dying and resurrecting" godmen like Jesus.
C. S. Lewis, one of the greatest christian apologists of the 20th century, converted to christianity specifically because he believed that Jesus and Christianity represented perfection of an idea that was universal, not because of anything unique.
slave2six
Substitious
So all those crucifixes are just for decoration? You need a new interior designer. Seriously! Take away the death of Christ and you have no Christianity. Take away the idea of Original Sin and the Fall of Man and you have no Christianity either. Those are the central ideas in the religion. One is a myth. The other is barbaric and amoral.
How do pagan blood rituals that occurred prior to Christianity fit into the mix? I believe the OP was asking whether pagan religions influenced the newly created Christianity. Some salient facts to consider include:
- Christianity arose in Jerusalem which was under Roman occupation and was also a major trading center of the civilized world and therefore much of the world's religious teachings were at least present at that time and in that place
- Its loudest and most prolific advocate, (Paul) was a Roman citizen who fully comprehended and was able to debate with the Roams about their religions
- The Roman religions were adoped from the Greek religions which were brought when the first Greek colonies were established in Italy around 750 BCE
- Egyptian theology was also known throughout the Mediterranean and according to Luke Jesus lived in Egypt for at least part of his childhood in Egypt
- Christianity spread rapidly throughout the Roman empire
- Licinius and Constantine declared that religious persectution was no longer to be tolerated (312 CE)
- Constantine (who did not become a Christian until on his deathbed) called for and persided over the first Council of Nicaea during which Christian theology was formalized into a cohesive form. This was necessary because the Christians were at war with one another and even when the appeared at the council the first thing that each bishop did was to present Constantine with a petition asking him to redress some grievance that they had against another bishop.
Last edited:
They aren't rituals. Depictions of the crucifixion are just that: depictions.
No, take away the resurrection and you have no christianity. Jesus wasn't the only Jew claiming a messianic title, nor the only one to die.
They aren't at all similar.
Not really. It arose in Galilee, among Jews, during Jesus' life, and the first base camp for the sect appears to have been jerusalem.
This goes well beyond the evidence. Paul rarely discusses pagan religions. And Acts add some interaction to the story, but even if everything in Acts is to be believed (and it isn't) we still don't arrive at a man who "fully comprehended" roman religion. We get a former pharisee who happened to be born a roman citizen and who probably was more than a little familiar with a number of hellenistic cults.
There is nothing historical about the birth narratives.
Not true. He wasn't baptized until he was on his death bed. He was a christian long before.
Wrong. Nicaea dealt centrally with arianism. Christian theology began long before, and ended after Nicaea (e.g. Constantinople).
Of course it was influenced by paganism. The church fathers were mostly former pagans well versed in philosophy, and it is here we see the most influence. However, the "dying and resurrecting" god part was not from paganism. Moreover, pagan influence in the NT is fairly small. It isn't until later, when the interaction between paganism and christianity was more pronounced, that much pagan influence is seen, and it is primarily from pagan philosophy.
slave2six
Substitious
Who you trying to kid, kid? Depictions of the crucifixion are part of creating the atmosphere for a service that is centered on the Eucharist which is the eating of the body of Christ and drinking of his blood. It has been this way for nearly two millenia. So, the Christians took the murder of Christ and turned it into a kind of sacrificial offering which, as was stated before, has been found in many pagan religions. But unlike any other pagan religions, that same ritual blood sacrifice is celebrated every time Christians get together for a worship service - thereby reinforcing the importance of the ritual. (Clearly I am not talking about Protestantism here but the Christianity that has been around for 2,000 in a fairly untarnished form.)
Again, willfully misleading. It is not through his resurrection that the Christians proclaim the forgiveness of sins but through his death. You cannot have a resurrection without a death and it is the power of the blood of Christ that overcomes sin in the world. The resurrection is the promise of something to come.
Have you even read the Bible at all? The crucifixion occurred in Jerusalem. Acts 2 and the "Filling of the Holy Spirit" occurred in Jerusalm. The first Christian church was in Jerusalem. The center of the Christian Church was in Jerusalem from the beginning.
That's what I said.
Are you really that out of touch? From the outset one has never ever been considered to be "Christian" unless they were baptized. Read the Church Fathers and anything written in the first 1500 years of the Christian church and you will find that this is so.
Some sources indicate that more than half of Christendom believed as the Arians at that time. Arianism could not coexist with what the Council of Nicaea determined to be the true Christian doctrine. That was the purpose of the council - to unite Christianity under one doctrine and one teaching so that they would be easier to rule and less likely to go to war with one another.
Then you agree with the OP. Why didn't you just say so?
Last edited:
Do you know what ritual means? A depiction is not a ritual. Eating the body of Christ is a ritual. But this act does not celebrate a dying and resurrecting god. Pagan rites often centered on the idea of death and rebirth, as this was connected with agriculture. Christianity had from the beginning a single resurrection of a single entity (christ). This resurrection was not a ritual.
Not according to Paul. "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain." 1 Cor 15:14.
His death was not particularly important to christians. His resurrection was. Yes, you have to have death for resurrection. But as Paul points out, and the church fathers confirm, death without resurrection is meaningless.
First of all, I don't believe the account in Acts when the disciples eplesthesan apantes pneumatos hagiou is historical. Second, Jesus' mission took place in Galilee. He only went to Jerusalem at the very end, and likely only once. His earliest followers were not from Jerusalem, and although the first "congregation" of the Jesus sect seems to have made camp there, this doesn't make it the birthplace of christianity. After all, Acts records that it was Antioch, not Jerusalem, where the name "christains" was first used (proton en Antiocheia tous mathetas Christianous). The sect in Jerusalem were still Jews, as was Jesus.
Do you have any idea where we get the information that Constantine was baptised on his death bed? It is from Eusebius, the church father who also records constantines conversion to christianity as being long before his baptism.
For example?
Of course not. Because the council was called mainly in order to deal with this particular problem, and almost all the bishops voted against Arian philosophy. The point, however, is that this didn't mark the end of theological dissention, as, for example, Constantinople was just as important in shaping church theology.
Because I wasn't addressing the OP. I was addressing later points which were incorrect.
godnotgod
Thou art That
You said:
"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...."
If the idea is that the scrolls were buried by Christians, then it implies that they were Christian in origin. The contention was never that they were ever buried by Christianity, but that they were buried by Jewish Essene mystics.
Isn't it generally accepted amongst scholars that the Qumran scrolls do indeed represent Essene thought?
If you say so...
"The Essenes were a Jewish sect representing an esoteric aspect of Jusaism, or Jewish mysticism. The jewish mystics studied the Kabbalah, which taught belief in reincarnation, astrology, channelling, prophecy, soul travel, psychic development, and angels, and which organized itself around the Tree of Life.
Jesus was a Jewish rabbi who had purposely incarnated into a Jewish family that was involved with the Essenes. Jesus was the Messiah the Jewish people were waiting for, but it was only the Essenes who recognized that."
The Essenes presented in History section
See above.
godnotgod
Thou art That
There were many crucifixions in Roman and other cultures of human beings. Ever hear of the Passion Plays?
The Crucifixion of Yeshua at first was for crimes against the Roman state (sedition and treason), blasphemy against Jewish law, and, from his followers point of view, as a martyr for their religious cause. But it was not until later that the theme of the shedding of divine blood for the express purpose of absolution of Sin came into being. However, the elements for that theme were already in place, from previous pagan myths and religious beliefs.
If it had been true that his Crucifixion was for the express purpose of absolution of Sin, he would not have asked his Father for the unconditional forgiveness of his murderers. In fact, he did not ask forgiveness for their sin at all, but for their ignorance, and that is a Buddhist idea. Modern Christianity always demands first contrition and then repentance before forgiveness can be granted. Yeshua demanded neither, and for the most heinous of crimes. The fact remains that, the Crucifixion was a bloody punishment which, at the time, had zero spiritual significance. It became, however, the crucial core of all Christianity, as it was by the shedding of divine blood that Sin was washed away. The idea of the Resurrection was only important insofar as it "proved" that Jesus was divine.
Without SIN, Christianity would cease to exist. There would be no need for Jesus to have come to Earth to die on a cross as payment for the Original Sin of Adam and Eve. It was the Crucifixion that paid that debt for all mankind and re-opened the Gates of Paradise, as well as freed souls from Limbo, where Jesus is reported to have spent some time after his death before ascending into Paradise. Without SIN, there would be no need for Repentance, Forgiveness, Heaven or Hell.
It does not matter. Both animal and human sacrifice served the same purpose: the absolution, via of a scapegoat, of sin and guilt. Yes human sacrifice as a god-man because all previous sacrificial hosts were imperfect in the eyes of God, and therefore unacceptable. Only God himself was the perfect host, unblemished and pure. What is important is that there had to be a sacrifice at all, and that is a pagan idea. A mature spiritual approach would be unconditional forgiveness of sin without a price tag. Try to understand, that, one can forgive even the most heinous of crimes because their basis is ignorance. One forgives ignorance, not the sin itself. And that is exactly what Jesus (Yeshua) did, and the understanding of this fact is most crucial.
CS Lewis was'nt much of a thinker, not really.
Christianity was not, however, universal, as you state. If anything, it was exclusivist, for it accepted only a few worthies.
'Many are called but few are chosen", and
"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and those who enter through it are many. How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life. And those who find it are few" (Matthew 7:13-14).
In order to be saved, the Christian God's Love is Conditional:
"No man comes to the Father [ie; heaven] except through me" even though the price of entry into heaven supposedly was already completely paid for via of the Crucifixion. Apparently it was not.
Now, Buddhism is truly Universal. It embraces all of life, right now, just as it exists, warts and all. It does not discriminate. According to the Dharma, there are literally tens of thousands of paths to Enlightenment, not just one narrow gate. In fact, in Zen, for example, the gate is gateless.
Last edited:
slave2six
Substitious
And Gandhi, who did more of practical value than CS Lewis ever did, utterly rejected Christianity and its tenets. Your point is...?
slave2six
Substitious
Very well stated and entirely true. Frubals!
"There would be no need for Jesus to have come to Earth to die on a cross as payment for the Original Sin of Adam and Eve." - Which is an entire myth in the first place!!!
You misunderstood me. By "buried" I meant metaphorically, as the orthodox christians did with the gnostics. In other words, repressed. You went from the gnostics to the essenes, implying that both had been on the receiving end of orthodox christian persecution. Only the essenes were wiped out while christians were still a persecuted minority.
No. There is probably a consensus that the Qumran sect was an essene group, but there are notable scholars who doubt even this.
You should really use some better sources. Our information on the essenes comes mainly from Philo and Josephus, and neither say anything about mysticism of the kabbalah, and neither do the qumran scrolls. Not only that, there is no mention of Jesus anywhere in any qumran scroll, nor is he ever linked to the essenes, nor was he a rabbi, as they weren't around then (the term meant something else entirely).
[QOUTE]See above.[/quote]
See some good sources. Really.
They were plays depicting the passion of the christ. What is your point?
Paul was converted a few years after Jesus' death, and prior to the seperation of the Jesus sect from Judaism. Yet already, in the earliest christian texts we possess, prior to the gospels, and from a former pharisee, the idea of the absolution of sin and sacrifice is present. Which "previous pagan myth" did this come from? Mithras and Attis, perhaps the two closes parallels, date to AFTER all the gospels.
1. I don't think we know what he said on the cross, if anything.
2. I think it is likely Jesus knew he would probably die for his actions, but I doubt he thought of himself as absolution. We'll never know.
3. Jesus is seen damning plenty of people and places in the gospel texts.
4. Buddhist ideas are widely diverse.
The crucifixion was never the core of christianity. "Christianity" comes from Jesus' title "christ." He was the resurrected messiah, and the earliest texts we have (from Paul) attest to the importance of the resurrection, not the crucifixion (which Paul barely mentions). In fact, Paul (the first person we know of to attest to the idea that Jesus died for our sins) says nothing about "divine blood" washing away anything.
No, they don't serve the same purpose. Both types of sacrifices have historically been used for a wide variety of purposes. Quite rarely has "absolution" been one of them.
A few posts ago, you mention the idea of a scapegoat coming from Leviticus. That's Jewish, by the way, not pagan. So where is the pagan sacrifice of atonement which predates Jesus?
Yeah, I know. A graduate of Oxford, and a professor at cambridge, two of the greatest universities in the world, and a specialist in medieval studies, still a cited academic, and one of the greatest minds of the 20th century. Not a thinker at all.
Godnotgod brought up the idea of christianity not being unique. It actually is, in a number of ways, but certainly it is far from being completely unique in any sense. Personally, I think Lewis over reaches in his comparisons.
However, the point is that one of the greatest christian apologists ever and one of the finest minds of the 20th century converted to christianity precisely because he DIDN'T think it was unique. The ideas in christianity, according to Lewis, were in all cultures. They were just perfected in Christianity.
I don't agree with Lewis on this, but it really doesn't matter. The point is that showing christianity isn't "unique" in every way is a pointless endevour. I haven't heard anybody say "I think all become christian, because it's so unique!" Those people all become wiccan.
godnotgod
Thou art That
I meant that the elements that make it up were already pre-existing, and in that sense, were not new or unique. However, Christianity is unique in the way those elements were put together, and that is largely the result of one very clever St. Paul.
"Paul, not Jesus, was the founder of Christianity as a new religion which developed away from both normal Judaism and the Nazarene variety of Judaism. In this new religion, the Torah was abrogated as having had only temporary validity. The central myth of the new religion was that of an atoning death of a divine being. Belief in this sacrifice, and a mystical sharing of the death of the deity, formed the only path to salvation. Paul derived this religion from Hellenistic sources, chiefly by a fusion of concepts taken from Gnosticism and concepts taken from the mystery religions, particularly from that of Attis. The combination of these elements with features derived from Judaism, particularly the incorporation of the Jewish scriptures, reinterpreted to provide a background of sacred history for the new myth, was unique; and Paul alone was the creator of this amalgam. Jesus himself had no idea of it, and would have been amazed and shocked at the role assigned to him by Paul as a suffering deity. Nor did Paul have any predecessors among the Nazarenes though later mythography tried to assign this role to Stephen, and modern scholars have discovered equally mythical predecessors for Paul in a group called the 'Hellenists'. Paul, as the personal begetter of the Christian myth, has never been given sufficient credit for his originality. The reverence paid through the centuries to the great Saint Paul has quite obscured the more colourful features of his personality. Like many evangelical leaders, he was a compound of sincerity and charlatanry. Evangelical leaders of his kind were common at this time in the Greco-Roman world (e.g. Simon Magus, Apollonius of Tyana)."
The Problem of Paul
Well, he must have considered it to be unique because he found reason enough to convert to it. Apparently, he found that it had something unique to offer that any other religion did not.
Really! I would consider Buddhism far more mature and closer to perfection than a religion which still has as one of its central themes the bloody sacrifice of its deity, coupled with the ritual eating of the deity in the sacrament of holy communion. In fact, I consider Christianity to still be on a tribal level while Buddhism is beyond the tribal influence.
No. They become Christians because it soothes their Metaphysical Anxiety over their uncertain fates after death. However, once Christian, they always play up the idea that "no other religion does such and such...."
The basic problem with Christianity is that it must offer a God before whom people bow down in return for freedom from anxiety.
Jesus is always considered to be Something Special. The claims are numerous. He is the only one who raised the dead; performed stupendous miracles; rose from the dead himself; was born of a virgin; etc, etc., on top of which we must add the demand that, unless one accepts Jesus as one's personal savior, one will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
Buddhism and Taoism are the only practices which do not play up any special quality. In fact, what is most important to the Buddhist is the fact that the Ultimate Reality is Nothing Special. It is the Ordinary of everyday existence that is of prime importance to the Buddhist, and the Ordinary is the Universal. Buddha always tells us that Buddha Mind is nothing other than one's own Ordinary Mind; that everyone and everything has the potential for the realization of Perfection. Nothing is unique here. And that is the secret of Buddhism that is no secret at all, but few can see it's simple truth.
"Before Enlightenment, sweeping the floor;
after Enlightenment, sweeping the floor"
Last edited:
godnotgod
Thou art That
Yeah, I know. A graduate of Oxford, and a professor at cambridge, two of the greatest universities in the world, and a specialist in medieval studies, still a cited academic, and one of the greatest minds of the 20th century. Not a thinker at all.
Heh! heh! heh! Oberon, you continue to be impressed with titles and credentials and other academic trappings rather than substance.
You know, when those Phd's come down from their ivory towers and sit zazen with the Buddhists, they break down in tears because they just don't get the fact that there is nothing to get. They want to intellectualize Zen, and Zen simply won't allow that.
Now, Lewis may be a great rationalist and perhaps exhibit a touch of intellectualism, but has he undergone an authentic, first hand spiritual experience?
Do you agree that the realm of spiritual experience lies outside of reason and the intellect?
Wrong on both points.
You really need to use better sources.
1. The resurrecting Attis postdates Paul.
2. So does gnosticism
3. The mystery religions, at least as far as resurrecting savior gods are concerned, were influenced by christianity, not the reverse.
4. Apollunius of Tyana and Simon Magus were not "evangelical leaders." They are figures who were probably historical but we know next to nothing about. Apollonius' biography was written a century after he died, and the only somewhat reliable information on Simon Magus is in Acts, and is sketchy at best.
5. The idea that Jesus was the resurrected Messiah did not begin or end with Paul, and existed quite apart from him. The only reason he is seen as having the significance he does is because he wrote letters, whereas many of those followers of Jesus' who were more influential than he were illiterate.
He converted not because he found it unique, but because he found it to possess something all religions did in part, but christianity more than the rest.
I wonder how many primary texts you have actually read.
This from one who quotes websites filled with blatant errors? Perhaps you should spend more time reading works from people with "titles and credentials and other academic trappings" and less time surfing the web finding whatever any idiot sees fit to put on a website. Then at least you would have more accurate information to quote here.
I have always wondered about whether meditation, the process of completely emptying one's mind, is easier for complete morons. Attaining a state of "no mind" is probably easier if you never had one to begin with.