• 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!

Pagan influence on Christianity

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
When you put forward a viable, 'round pegged' site, I'll bring further evidence from the Torah that narrows things down even further.
I have no desire to go round and round... since someone has already done that with you, quite successfully, no need to go through it again.

[/QUOTE]
For sure psalms 84 doesn't say Baca later to be known as Mecca at the following map co-ordinates.

How many places in the World fit the following description: Contains Balsam trees in a valley called Baca, housing a Temple dedicated to the worship of the GOD of Abraham pbuh, a Temple open day and night for Pilgrimage bringing people from near and far?

We know it was not in Jerusalem, as David pbuh longed to make Pilgrimage to it. [/QUOTE]

This is where your error begins.

  1. The timing of the Psalm. (When was it written).... It was written after Absalom had taken Jerusalem. He could no longer go to the House of the Lord -- He longed to go back to Jerusalem.
  2. The extraction of one scripture at the expense of where it is placed in. (what is before and after)
    1. "4 Blessed are they that dwell in thy house: they will be still praising thee. Selah."
    2. 10 For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand. I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness.
    3. There are innumerable scriptures that the House of the Lord was in Jerusalem --
  3. People forget that the word Baca is a word that can have different applications as Matthew Henry noted."Their way lay through many a weeping valley, so Baca signifies, that is (as others understand it), many watery valleys, which in wet weather, when the rain filled the pools, either through the rising of the waters or through the dirtiness of the way were impassable; but, by draining and trenching them, they made a road through them for the benefit of those who went up to Jerusalem"
  4. Let everything be confirmed by the witness of 2. You have hardly even convince me, or anyone else, that you even have 1
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
More on the origin of 'Original Sin' and the 'Fall' from Greek influence and Saint Augustine's reference to Paul's view in the New Testament:

From: The Original View of Original Sin
"Augustine was challenged by the question that philosophers inevitably posed to Christians: “How could sin have entered the world, if God is good?” Augustine sought to answer this challenge and in so doing adopted many of the philosophers’ ideas.

The result, as evidenced by his writings, was that Augustine reinterpreted the Bible in light of philosophy. With respect to original sin, he understood the account of Adam and Eve as a description of humanity’s fall from grace. They sinned and were punished by God, and thus all subsequent humanity, being at that time biologically present within Adam, was party to the sin. The idea of innate sin and guilt became a widespread doctrine, as is shown by the following words from a popular American schoolbook used in the 17th and 18th centuries: “In Adam’s fall, we sinned all.”

But Augustine did not devise the concept of original sin. It was his use of specific New Testament scriptures to justify the doctrine that was new. The concept itself had been shaped from the late second century onward by certain church fathers, including Irenaeus, Origen and Tertullian. Irenaeus did not use the Scriptures at all for his definition; Origen reinterpreted the Genesis account of Adam and Eve in terms of a Platonic allegory and saw sin deriving solely from free will; and Tertullian’s version was borrowed from Stoic philosophy.

Though Augustine was convinced by the arguments of his earlier patristic peers, he made use of the apostle Paul’s letters, especially the one to the Romans, to develop his own ideas on original sin and guilt. Today, however, it is accepted that Augustine, who had never mastered the Greek language, misread Paul in at least one instance by using an inadequate Latin translation of the Greek original."
Original... defined:

archaic : the source or cause from which something arises; specifically : originator Merriam-Webster.

The source: Genesis 3

Not Augustine but Adam. Not a philosophy but a matter of record (if you believe Gen 3).

Not NT but in the "Genesis" though the NT makes reference to it.

Not Hellenistic (although they may have had the same idea) but rather very Jewish
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Ken, perhaps I'm not understanding the language of the Torah correctly. Maybe you can show me a Prophecy attributed to Jesus pbuh, and demonstrate how clear and concise your understanding of Torah is?

Jeremiah 23:5-6 "Behold, the days are coming," says the LORD, "That I will raise to David a Branch of righteousness; a King shall reign and prosper, and execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. In His days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell safely; now this is His name by which He will be called: THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

He must be from the Line of David not that of Ishmael (mghmohs)
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Original... defined:

archaic : the source or cause from which something arises; specifically : originator Merriam-Webster.

The source: Genesis 3

Not Augustine but Adam. Not a philosophy but a matter of record (if you believe Gen 3).

Not NT but in the "Genesis" though the NT makes reference to it.

Not Hellenistic (although they may have had the same idea) but rather very Jewish

First problem, 'IF' very Jewish explain why Judaism rejects the 'Fall' and Original Sin' believed by traditional Christianity.

If you believe in Genesis 3 is not the problem, because it depends how one interprets Genesis 3.
 

Muslim-UK

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
This is where your error begins.

  1. The timing of the Psalm. (When was it written).... It was written after Absalom had taken Jerusalem. He could no longer go to the House of the Lord -- He longed to go back to Jerusalem.
  2. The extraction of one scripture at the expense of where it is placed in. (what is before and after)
    1. "4 Blessed are they that dwell in thy house: they will be still praising thee. Selah."
    2. 10 For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand. I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness.
    3. There are innumerable scriptures that the House of the Lord was in Jerusalem --
  3. People forget that the word Baca is a word that can have different applications as Matthew Henry noted."Their way lay through many a weeping valley, so Baca signifies, that is (as others understand it), many watery valleys, which in wet weather, when the rain filled the pools, either through the rising of the waters or through the dirtiness of the way were impassable; but, by draining and trenching them, they made a road through them for the benefit of those who went up to Jerusalem"
  4. Let everything be confirmed by the witness of 2. You have hardly even convince me, or anyone else, that you even have 1

Again it can not be Jerusalem because of 2 reasons,

1 - David's plan of building a temple for the Ark was stopped at the advice of God (2 Sam. 7:1-17; 1 Chron. 17:1-15; 28:2, 3).
2 - The Ark of the Covenant came to rest at God's House before Solomon took it to Jerusalem.

David left the Sons of Korah to look after God's House:

In Psalm 42:1 For the director of music. A maskil of the Sons of Korah. As the deer pants for streams of water, so my soul pants for you, my God.

The name ko'-ra-its. Qorchi, , beno Qorach Korahites; Sons of Korah in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. ; in the King James Version appears also as Korhite, Kohathite, Kore. Is the tribe that are being left in charge of this House of God by King David

We know this by reading Exodus 6: 24 The sons of Korah were Assir, Elkanah and Abiasaph. These were the Korahite clans.

And when we read, 1 Chronicles 6:31

31 These are the men David put in charge of the music in the house of the LORD after the ark came to rest there.

32 They ministered with music before the tabernacle, the tent of meeting, until Solomon built the temple of the LORD in Jerusalem. They performed their duties according to the regulations laid down for them

To recap, it is clear the Ark came to rest in the House of the Lord prior to it being moved to Jerusalem by Solomon. Meaning the House of God was not in Jerusalem. GOD said, this house would be open day and night for pilgrims. Again, where is it?

Isaiah 60:

4 Lift up your eyes all around, and see;
they all gather together, they come to you;
your sons shall come from afar,
and your daughters shall be carried on the hip.

5 Then you shall see and be radiant;
your heart shall thrill and exult,[a]
because the abundance of the sea shall be turned to you,
the wealth of the nations shall come to you.

6 A multitude of camels shall cover you,
the young camels of Midian and Ephah;
all those from Sheba shall come.
They shall bring gold and frankincense,
and shall bring good news, the praises of the Lord.

7 All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered to you;
the rams of Nebaioth shall minister to you;
they shall come up with acceptance on my altar,
and I will beautify my beautiful house.

8 Who are these that fly like a cloud,
and like doves to their windows?

Psalms 84:
1 How lovely is your dwelling place, Lord Almighty!

2 My soul yearns, even faints, for the courts of the Lord; my heart and my flesh cry out for the living God.

Balsam trees, Valley, Bekkah, Kedar, Pilgrimage, Camels, GOD promised to keep it open Day and Night.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
First problem, 'IF' very Jewish explain why Judaism rejects the 'Fall' and Original Sin' believed by traditional Christianity.

If you believe in Genesis 3 is not the problem, because it depends how one interprets Genesis 3.

It is normal for Jews to have a variety of positions including no resurrection vs a resurrection.

Yet Gen 3 is very obviously a fall and the first man to have sinned. Can't argue with what is obvious.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
Nothing pagan about Christianity? Pagans had a trinity. Pagans had a holiday in the Spring called Ishtar where they decorated eggs. Pagans decorated trees in the middle of winter. Pagans worshipped a mother and child. The Bible speciffically says not to do things that pagans do.

Sure and I believe you have a brain just like Hitler. You do see the flaw in your reasoning don't you?
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Original... defined:

archaic : the source or cause from which something arises; specifically : originator Merriam-Webster.

From: archaic meaning - Google Search

ar·cha·ic ärˈkāik/ adjective
  1. very old or old-fashioned.
    "prisons are run on archaic methods"
    synonyms: obsolete, out of date, old-fashioned, outmoded, behind the times, bygone, anachronistic, antiquated, superannuated, antediluvian, old world, old-fangled; More
    • (of a word or a style of language) no longer in everyday use but sometimes used to impart an old-fashioned flavor.
    • of an early period of art or culture, especially the 7th–6th centuries BC in Greece.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
It is normal for Jews to have a variety of positions including no resurrection vs a resurrection.
False. it is by far a minority and it is an ambiguous interpretation to assert this is normal for Jewish belief. The belief in the resurrected incarnate God is completely against Jewish beliefs.

Yet Gen 3 is very obviously a fall and the first man to have sinned. Can't argue with what is obvious.

It is not an obvious position as far as Jewish beliefs. They do not believe in the Fall nor Original Sin.

From: https://outreachjudaism.org/original-sin/
"Dear Rabbi Singer,

Does the Jewish faith have a teaching comparable to that of “original sin” in the Christian tradition? By this I mean the teaching that all human beings are born with an innate tendency to disobey God. In my particular Christian tradition, water baptism is required for the removal of this sin. Would you please comment.

Thanks for your assistance.

Answer:
The term “original sin” is unknown to the Jewish Scriptures, and the Church’s teachings on this doctrine are antithetical to the core principles of the Torah and its prophets. Moreover, your comment that your Christian denomination teaches that water baptism is essential for the removal of sin may rattle the sensitivities of more Christians than anything I am going to say. Nevertheless, you have raised a number of important issues that must be addressed.

Before answering your question, however, I will explain the Christian doctrine on original sin for those unfamiliar with this creed of the Church. According to Church teachings, as a result of the first sin committed by our first parents in the Garden of Eden, there were catastrophic spiritual consequences for the human race. Most importantly, Christendom holds that these devastating effects extend far beyond the curses of painful childbirth and laborious farming conditions outlined in the third chapter of Genesis.

This well-known Church doctrine posits that when Adam and Eve rebelled against God and ate from the forbidden Tree of Knowledge, all of their descendants became infected with the stain of their transgression.

Moreover, as a consequence of this first iniquity, man is hopelessly lost in a state of sin in which he has been held captive since this fall. As a result, he is powerless to follow the path of obedience and righteousness by his own free will.
. . .
Despite the zealous position missionaries take as they defend this creed, the Christian doctrine of original sin is profoundly hostile to the central teachings of the Jewish Scriptures. The Torah loudly condemns the alien teaching that man is unable to freely choose good over evil, life over death. This is not a hidden or ambiguous message in the Jewish Scriptures. On the contrary, it is proclaimed in Moses’ famed teachings to the children of Israel.

In fact, in an extraordinary sermon delivered by Moses in the last days of his life, the prophet stands before the entire nation and condemns the notion that man’s condition is utterly hopeless. Throughout this uplifting exhortation, Moses declared that it is man alone who can and must merit his own salvation. Moreover, as he unhesitatingly speaks in the name of God, the lawgiver excoriates the notion that obedience to the Almighty is “too difficult or far off.” According, he declared to the children of Israel that righteousness has been placed within their reach. The thirtieth chapter of Deuteronomy discusses this matter extensively, and its verses read as though the Torah is bracing the Jewish people for the Christian doctrines that would confront them in the centuries to come. As the last Book of the Pentateuch draws to a close, Moses admonishes his young nation not to question their capacity to remain faithful to the mitzvoth of the Torah:

…if you will hearken to the voice of the Lord your God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this Book of the Law; if you turn unto the Lord thy God with all your heart and with all your soul; for this commandment which I command you this day is not too hard for you neither is it too far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, “Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it to us, and make us hear it, that we may do it?” Neither is it beyond the sea that you should say: “Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it that we may do it?” The word is very near to you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it.

(Deuteronomy 30:10-14)
The Jewish people have drawn great comfort and encouragement from this uplifting promise. For the Church, however, Moses’ unwavering message creates a theological disaster. How could the authors of the New Testament reasonably insist that man’s dire condition was hopeless if the Torah unambiguously declared that man possessed an extraordinary ability to remain faithful to God? How could the Church fathers possibly contend that the mitzvoth in the Torah couldn’t save the Jewish people when the Creator proclaimed otherwise? How could missionaries conceivably maintain that the commandments of the Torah are too difficult when the Torah declares that they are “not far off,” “not too hard,” and “you may do it”?

This staggering problem did not escape the attention of Paul. Bear in mind, the author of Romans and Galatians constructed his most consequential doctrines on the premise that man is utterly depraved, and therefore incapable of saving himself through his own obedience to God. In chapter after chapter, he directs his largely gentile audiences toward the cross and away from Sinai, as he repeatedly insists that man is utterly lost without Jesus."

Read the reference with Biblical citations.
 
Last edited:

Muffled

Jesus in me
[QUOTE="Carlita, post: 5239630, member: 55631"]Christianity picked up from a lot of practices in, well, Jeruselum etc. They have roman teachings such as christ being god in, well, roman catholicism. You have a lot of things they probably picked up in acts as they went to different lands spreading gods word.

History takes off history takes off history.

Instead of pagan, we can call it native traditions. The thought is the same. Pre-abrahamic religions native to X land (unhabitants from that land) they are from.

Like Lukumi in Africa would be considered pagan "in comparison to" Santeria which catholicism, because of the mix, took dominance over. However, if there was a religion that pre existed lukumi, that would be pagan.

Christianity isnt old. All protestant teachings are taking from what the church already put together. Its kind of like making a apple and peach pie. Someone else takes the apples out and then says the "new" pie is the original. I mean, in one perspective, I guess its new. But if its like JW, LDS, Bahai, whatever that adds to or combines ingredients, its just a pie extracted from the original. The original would be pagan. The new pie modern.

If you get the analogy.

Its a historical thing nothing spiritual.[/QUOTE]

I believe that is all unsubstantiated fantasy. It would be like trying to prove evolution. It can't be done.

I believe in many cases those are corruption even though they may seem like extractions.

I believe whether original or not Abrahamic religions are not pagan because they come from God and not from people's imaginations.

I don't believe it works.

I believe that might work for your concepts but not for ours.
 

Muslim-UK

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Jeremiah 23:5-6 "Behold, the days are coming," says the LORD, "That I will raise to David a Branch of righteousness; a King shall reign and prosper, and execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. In His days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell safely; now this is His name by which He will be called: THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

He must be from the Line of David not that of Ishmael (mghmohs)

I don't recall Jesus pbuh ever claiming to descend from David pbuh, nor was Jesus pbuh accepted as a King who ruled and prospered. Judah was under occupation, and was later destroyed. This is likely referring to a non Jewish King that was to rule over the Israelites; Cyrus the Persian King comes to mind.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
I don't see how building a house for worship, or placing a special cornerstone to mark a particular corner is considered paganism?

The stone was sent down from Heaven to show where to build the house.

If God spoke to you directly today and told you to build a house of worship, would it be acceptable in your mind for people to accuse you of following Pagan practices?


Nomadic Arabs gave the Jews Yahweh.

"In fact, it seems that the ancient Israelites weren't even the first to worship Yhwh – they seem to have adopted Him from a mysterious, unknown tribe that lived somewhere in the deserts of the southern Levant and Arabia."

I don't believe there is any evidence to support that. Abram came from Chaldea in Mesopotamia. Most likely He knew of God through information passed down from Noah who also lived in Mesopotamia.

I believe the fulfillment of that is Jesus who states it. Our house is not made with human hands or stones but is a living temple, the body of Christ, the Church.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Instead of pagan, we can call it native traditions. The thought is the same. Pre-abrahamic religions native to X land (unhabitants from that land) they are from.

I differentiate pagan as different from native primitive beliefs. The pagan? influence I refer to is more recent literate cultures that developed sophisticated polytheistic belief systems later as in Greek, Roman, Canaanite, Ugarite, and Babylonian cultures that influenced Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
[QUOTE="Carlita, post: 5239630, member: 55631"]Christianity picked up from a lot of practices in, well, Jeruselum etc. They have roman teachings such as christ being god in, well, roman catholicism. You have a lot of things they probably picked up in acts as they went to different lands spreading gods word.

History takes off history takes off history.

Instead of pagan, we can call it native traditions. The thought is the same. Pre-abrahamic religions native to X land (unhabitants from that land) they are from.

Like Lukumi in Africa would be considered pagan "in comparison to" Santeria which catholicism, because of the mix, took dominance over. However, if there was a religion that pre existed lukumi, that would be pagan.

Christianity isnt old. All protestant teachings are taking from what the church already put together. Its kind of like making a apple and peach pie. Someone else takes the apples out and then says the "new" pie is the original. I mean, in one perspective, I guess its new. But if its like JW, LDS, Bahai, whatever that adds to or combines ingredients, its just a pie extracted from the original. The original would be pagan. The new pie modern.

If you get the analogy.

Its a historical thing nothing spiritual.

I believe that is all unsubstantiated fantasy. It would be like trying to prove evolution. It can't be done.

I believe in many cases those are corruption even though they may seem like extractions.

I believe whether original or not Abrahamic religions are not pagan because they come from God and not from people's imaginations.

I don't believe it works.

I believe that might work for your concepts but not for ours.[/QUOTE]

I honestly just feel abrahamics don't like the word pagan, really. It's a historical thing not spiritual and definitely not specific to abrahamic religions. All religions have extractions from religions and cultures before them. The closer you get to taking out the "extractions", the further you get from the original and it's all new age. I also think some christians don't want to see what christianity is really about. If they were part of the time when christianity flourished, many of us would have been killed-by christians.

It's not a spiritual thing. Anyone can find spiritual values in christianity. It's a historical and political thing. I mean, there is a lot of history about paganism and christianity without the bias. Just, Christians don't like the word. I can't think of another word to replace it.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
I don't recall Jesus pbuh ever claiming to descend from David pbuh, nor was Jesus pbuh accepted as a King who ruled and prospered. Judah was under occupation, and was later destroyed. This is likely referring to a non Jewish King that was to rule over the Israelites; Cyrus the Persian King comes to mind.

I believe He did not deny it when someone called him that and in fact affirmed it albeit indirectly. You have to realize you are making the null hypothesis, so you have to show reason why He would have to proclaim it.

I believe every born again Christian accepts Him as King.

The prophecy of Israel being rescued will be fulfilled in the future when Israel faces the battle of Armageddon.

I believe that is mere speculation not supported by evidence.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
From: archaic meaning - Google Search

ar·cha·ic ärˈkāik/ adjective
  1. very old or old-fashioned.
    "prisons are run on archaic methods"
    synonyms: obsolete, out of date, old-fashioned, outmoded, behind the times, bygone, anachronistic, antiquated, superannuated, antediluvian, old world, old-fangled; More
    • (of a word or a style of language) no longer in everyday use but sometimes used to impart an old-fashioned flavor.
    • of an early period of art or culture, especially the 7th–6th centuries BC in Greece.
LOL

We are reading a book that is quite old in age.

If we look up "grass" in today's lingo it could mean weed. However, we do want a more archaic understanding for the time it was written in
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I differentiate pagan as different from native primitive beliefs. The pagan? influence I refer to is more recent literate cultures that developed sophisticated polytheistic belief systems later as in Greek, Roman, Canaanite, Ugarite, and Babylonian cultures that influenced Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

I think Muffle missed a character from my quote. That's what Paganism is, though. They are religions pre-existed of Abrahamic religions. I'm thinking of one Pagan religion that believes in one creator and that is not polytheistic. Actually, a lot of traditions, especially African ones before the colonizations, still believed in one creator. Even if they believed in many deities, it always goes back to one creator. It's sad that Christianity made these religions so mono-focused. It's like taking the beautiful and differences of nature and painting it one color. Also, it's a power/political thing not a spiritual one.

None of these religions are primitive. Actually, we have a lot to learn from them. I'm surprised people think in those terms. I read it in my history books, but nowadays... I mean one lady wanted to give me money because, her being white seeing an African American, she thought I was poor like those you see overseas. And she was not even mid age!

We highly need to change our perspectives.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
I differentiate pagan as different from native primitive beliefs. The pagan? influence I refer to is more recent literate cultures that developed sophisticated polytheistic belief systems later as in Greek, Roman, Canaanite, Ugarite, and Babylonian cultures that influenced Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

I believe I can understand the wish to differentiate but in essence they are the same. I think saying some indian tribes' beliefs are not sophisticated comes from bias.

I believe cultures might be influenced but that which comes from God does not bear the influence of culture although it might deal with it.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
I don't recall Jesus pbuh ever claiming to descend from David pbuh,
That wasn't the point, was it?

You asked for a prophetic scripture speaking of the one who was to come. It is OBVIOUS that it is a descendent of King David, ergo, Ishamael's (mghmohs) is out of consideration.
 
Top