Pagan Ideas In Christianity

[christandisrael]

There is some paganism in Christianity, but it is because of man. God intended that we folow the scriptures exactly and be a familt without this religion stuff, because all of this religion stuff is pagan.

 

[Steezie]

Some of your claims arn't true at all. I don't know where you are getting your information but its not historically correct. Plus, there are many bible prophecys that have been fulfilled - nothing random chance about them. It is also obvious you are not at all familiar with the bible.

Many of the prophecies are extremely vague. Its along the same lines as Nostradamus prophecies, they are so vague that they could be fulfilled by anything or fulfilled ONLY if you switch around a few things.

http://www.baptistbiblebelievers.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=twa6epmkFfY%3D&tabid=234&mid=768

Math Proof of Bibles reliability.

This article has some serious issues.

It's counting things as "fulfilled" with a VERY lose definition of the term.

The historical ones are atrocious at best, even worse than a lot of the Nostradmus ones. Because there is no time frame on them, ANY event in history that is a paramount truth to all civilizations (rise and fall) can be taken as "fulfillment".

Thebes, Egypt (The "No" of Scripture), Ezekiel 30:14-16.
Ezekiel 30:14- I will lay waste Upper Egypt, set fire to Zoan and inflict punishment on Thebes.

What exactly was the "punishment"? What exactly did God do to Upper Egypt specifically?

Jericho, Joshua 6:26
Joshua 6:26 At that time Joshua pronounced this solemn oath: "Cursed before the LORD is the man who undertakes to rebuild this city, Jericho: "At the cost of his firstborn son will he lay its foundations; at the cost of his youngest will he set up its gates."

Yet again, Jericho is still standing to day and is one of the oldest continually inhabited cities in the world. Today home to 20,000 Palestinians.

Isaiah 13:19-22
And Babylon, the beauty of kingdoms, the glory of the Chaldeans' pride,
Will be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.
It will never be inhabited or lived in from generation to generation;
Nor will the Arab pitch his tent there,
Nor will shepherds make their flocks lie down there.
But desert creatures will lie down there,
And their houses will be full of owls;
Ostriches also will live there, and shaggy goats will frolic there.
Hyenas will howl in their fortified towers
And jackals in their luxurious palaces.
Her fateful time also will soon come

Babylon was abandoned as many cities are as geopolitics plays out, there was nothing remarkable or supernatural about it's fall.

In Deuteronomy 28, even before the Israelites had entered the promised land, Moses predicted their future happiness in the land, their sufferings and punishments for disobedience, and finally their great world-wide dispersion. In chapter 30, he promised their eventual return, a prophecy which seemed impossible 30 years ago, but which is now being marvelously fulfilled.

Except it HASNT bee fulfilled, Israel is still having serious problems with Palestine and the neighboring nations hate Israel with a passion, Antisemitism is still alive and well so I dont understand how that could count as fulfilled.

Again, a great many of these are so vague that practically anything could fulfill them or they attribute non-supernatural events to supernatural forces. I have no doubt that gods can crush cities but I've found nothing in the listings in that article that cant be explained by the entropy of time and other civilizations.


The ones regarding "the end of days" arent much better.

Rapid increase of science, communication, and travel (Daniel 12:4).
Daniel 12:4 But you, Daniel, close up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end. Many will go here and there to increase knowledge

That doesn't sound even remotely close.

Intermittent outbreaks of world-wide wars, famines, and diseases (Luke 21:10,11).

Ok do I even have to touch this one? This has been human existance in a nutshell since before we were recognizably human.

General moral and spiritual deterioration (II Timothy 3:1-7, 12,13.)

Every generation has accused its successor generation of this. Aside from that, its also completely immeasurable. On a subjective basis, our moral fiber has actually got a lot better. Most people tend to paint a rosy picture of times past but even a cursory examination of history will show we treat our fellow man FAR better now than we probably ever have.

The entire article is also flawed because it is based off of a flawed understanding of the law of probability.

Simply because something is extremely unlikely to happen doesn't mean that it wont happen, its simply not likely to happen. So to say X is proven true simply because probability is on your side is false because the law of probability still allows for X to happen.

Even assuming that all of the prophecies listed, its still possible.

To cap it all off, it's neither scientific nor empirical as the author has a clear goal: to confirm their own beliefs which flies in the face of the scientific method.

You remind me of Dark Prophet - who comes here continually making up fables with no references-thus, they are vague attacking or marginalizing christianity.

I'm not attacking anything, I'm simply trying to understand how Christians deal with the fact that Christianity is inherently pagan in structure when they try very hard to distance themselves from anything that could be misconstrued as "pagan"


Saldia, it strikes me that this is not on topic. If you'd like to continue, I'd ask you to PM me to continue or open a new thread and PM me the link to continue.

Then why are you asking how Christians reconcile this? Reconciliation would only be necessary if the ideas were somehow in opposition. Christianity agrees with and fulfils the ideas of much of mankind.

See previous answer.

 

[andreha]

Before I begin, I'd like to establish that many of the ideas in Christianity can be traced back to origins that pre-date Christianity. I'm not necessarily claiming that Christianity copied them, but Christianity does contain ideas that pre-date it's existence.

With that established, how do Christians as a whole reconcile the fact that Christianity contains so many pagan (Pagan in the pre-Christian sense, not the modern Pagan sense) ideas and that even our everyday life is loaded with holdovers from pre-Christian times?

Hey Steezie

We Christians come in all kinds of flavours. As long as we love one another, and worship the Lord our God in unity, the rest doesn't matter much. It's about relationships with God, and with each other. Our differences doesn't take away from the sincere relationship with the Lord. We seek our Lord's will - that's the key. As long as we can back our beliefs with the bible, there's no reason for concern.

 

[ebia]

The idea of death and rebirth after death is not new nor is it unique to Christianity or Judaism. The concept is found well-established in Egyptian beliefs that pre-date both Christianity and Judaism.

You're not recognising what the Judeo/Christian resurrection is about. It is not death and rebirth of a god, it is coming out the other side of death once and for all for all humanity. It's fundamentally different, but unless you get your head around what resurrection is then you won't see that.

That depends which one you look at

I've yet to see one that isn't fundamentally different in some way once one looks beyond the superficial.

Monotheism tends to be the exception rather than the norm, but the big one you have to look at is Zoroastrianism which was as popular back in the day as Christianity is now.

Of course it is the exception, but it's not that "out there" as an idea that one would wonder too much about it arising independently more than once.

Not actually, some of the details differ, but the two stories are remarkably similar.

Um, no they aren't once one discards the distortions, manipulations, and purely superficial.

The idea of ABSOLUTE evil is actually quite novel and is almost exclusive to monotheistic religions.

I really do not think that is true, less one interprets it to make it true. I could equally argue that Judeo/Christianity does not have an idea of absolute evil. No religion talks in those sorts of terms, they talk in narratives.

We know that Zoroastrianism had this idea because we've been able to sort out writings from the Greeks and Persians pre-Christianity.

A lot of very good historians would dispute the reliability of such sortings.

And that is a very valid point however when one looks at many of the aspects of Christianity, the similarities start stacking up and it becomes more and more difficult to attribute them to random chance.

I really don't think they do. Of course it's hard to tell because just about every examination of such thing grossly overstates the case, pulling out "similarities" that don't really exist, or are purely superficial, or that have known explanations, or they haven't understood what the Judeo/Christian (or sometimes the other) position actually is. When I see an analysis that avoids all of those I'll start taking the question seriously.

If one thinks resurrection looks like a pagan myth one either hasn't understood the myth one is looking at, or one hasn't understood resurrection, or both. A dog and a chair both have four legs, but they are quite different things.

Resurrection is something that happens at the end of time, to all god's people, a once for all coming through death and out the other side as a put-right person in a put-right world where suffering and death do not exist. There is nothing like that in paganism. It is nothing like gods being reborn.

[font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica] The adaptions go right down to the foundation of Christianity, even down to the cross itself. The cross was a form of punishment and execution as far back as the Babylonians.[/quote]
And? No-one pretends that Christians invented the cross. It's simply the form of painful execution preferred by Rome for revolutionaries at the time. This is silly. You might as well complain because Judao/Christianity was not the first religious tradition to have texts written in Aramaic and Greek!

 

[Steezie]

Hey Steezie

We Christians come in all kinds of flavours. As long as we love one another, and worship the Lord our God in unity, the rest doesn't matter much. It's about relationships with God, and with each other. Our differences doesn't take away from the sincere relationship with the Lord. We seek our Lord's will - that's the key. As long as we can back our beliefs with the bible, there's no reason for concern.

Ok, thats cool, I like that outlook

You're not recognising what the Judeo/Christian resurrection is about. It is not death and rebirth of a god, it is coming out the other side of death once and for all for all humanity. It's fundamentally different, but unless you get your head around what resurrection is then you won't see that.

And that is a belief that is mirrored in the Egyptian religion.

I've yet to see one that isn't fundamentally different in some way once one looks beyond the superficial.

Let me consult my literature and I'll get back to you, its rather late now and I dont have the time for the full fledged research

Of course it is the exception, but it's not that "out there" as an idea that one would wonder too much about it arising independently more than once.

No, but it arises very rarely throughout history and always in cultures that are connected or have contact with each other.

Um, no they aren't once one discards the distortions, manipulations, and purely superficial.

Distortions such as?

I really do not think that is true, less one interprets it to make it true. I could equally argue that Judeo/Christianity does not have an idea of absolute evil. No religion talks in those sorts of terms, they talk in narratives.

Judaism doesnt have it as much as Christianity does, but Christianity DOES have personified evil; the Devil. Very few religions have an idea of a central and personified source of evil, Zoroastrian being the first. We dont know enough about Atenism to make that determination for sure regarding it.

A lot of very good historians would dispute the reliability of such sortings.

Such as?

I really don't think they do. Of course it's hard to tell because just about every examination of such thing grossly overstates the case, pulling out "similarities" that don't really exist, or are purely superficial, or that have known explanations, or they haven't understood what the Judeo/Christian (or sometimes the other) position actually is. When I see an analysis that avoids all of those I'll start taking the question seriously.

Then perhaps you'd be kind enough to furnish us with a list of approved similarities

If one thinks resurrection looks like a pagan myth one either hasn't understood the myth one is looking at, or one hasn't understood resurrection, or both. A dog and a chair both have four legs, but they are quite different things.

Resurrection, in one form or another, has been around since before Christianity. Granted it may not have been given the same importance or focus that Christianity gives it, but the idea itself is not new.

Resurrection is something that happens at the end of time, to all god's people, a once for all coming through death and out the other side as a put-right person in a put-right world where suffering and death do not exist. There is nothing like that in paganism. It is nothing like gods being reborn.

As I stated before, this is closely mirrored in the Egyptian beliefs.

The dead are judged by the gods and their fate determined by their actions and beliefs towards the gods. Those who measure up are reborn into the afterlife, those who dont are consumed.

And? No-one pretends that Christians invented the cross. It's simply the form of painful execution preferred by Rome for revolutionaries at the time. This is silly. You might as well complain because Judao/Christianity was not the first religious tradition to have texts written in Aramaic and Greek!

I'm simply pointing out that aspects of pagan belief and practice are present in modern Christianity.

 

[ebia]

And that is a belief that is mirrored in the Egyptian religion.

No it's not.

No, but it arises very rarely throughout history and always in cultures that are connected or have contact with each other

.

Distortions such as?

It's hard to talk specifics without seeing the specific 'similarities' you are offering up.

Judaism doesnt have it as much as Christianity does, but Christianity DOES have personified evil; the Devil.

You seem to have switched from 'absolute evil' to 'personified evil'.

Then perhaps you'd be kind enough to furnish us with a list of approved similarities

I'm not trying to find similarities. But everytime someone point to a list there are some that are simply laughable, so the whole list lacks credibility.

Resurrection, in one form or another, has been around since before Christianity. Granted it may not have been given the same importance or focus that Christianity gives it, but the idea itself is not new.

It's not new with Christianity because it's Jewish, but no, the idea of resurrection in the Jewish sense has not been around in other religions. What you find in other religions are things like life after death in other places of some form, is the death and rebirth of gods (usually cyclic) having happened or happening and so forth. You do not find anything properly resembling the Jewish expectation of resurrection of God's people (or all humanity depending) at the "end of the age".

The dead are judged by the gods and their fate determined by their actions and beliefs towards the gods. Those who measure up are reborn into the afterlife, those who dont are consumed.

But that's precisely not what Jewish resurrection is. This is what I mean - unless you understand what Jewish resurrection is then you will see similarities that are not there.

I'm simply pointing out that aspects of pagan belief and practice are present in modern Christianity.

There is a point at which pointing out similarities descends into the absurd. Pointing out that the cross is a pre-Christian execution device falls into that category. Of course it is - any religion where a signficant part of the action falls intersects with actual history is bound to have actual historical devices that are not the invention of that religion. It comes of setting the story in real history rather than a made-up fantasy land.


Of course the Judeo/Christian tradition borrows from other myths - not least in the early chapter of Genesis - and subverts them. But lets deal with real occasions, not the made up, the distorted, the trivial or the truism.

 

[PT Calvinist]

parallels don't prove that Christianity adopted doctrine from paganism....as some would suggest hell was...

 

[Sketcher]

That's wierd, I haven't met a lot of 'non-denominational' Protestants.

I would think that living in England would explain it, with the Church of England over there.

Judaism is not the oldest religion, it is certainly quite old but not the oldest.

Most forms of paganism practiced today are not the old Animism either.

The idea of a god that dies and is reborn is not new by any measure, gods from all cultures went through literal or metaphorical death and rebirth.

As a means to explain something (ie planting and harvesting your crops), but not like what Jesus went through. Most pagan faiths required sacrifice by man for displeasing the gods or keeping away their displeasure. In Christianity, it's the reverse. For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son.

The Trinity is pre-dated by ideas from dozens of different cultures about triple gods or three aspects of a single god.

I'm going to pull an Origin here and say that God allowed those theologies to take place so that the true Trinity could be better explained to some people in its due time.

The idea of monotheism itself pre-dated Judaism and Christianity to almost the 14th century BC with Akhenaten and Atenism in which the Aten (sun disc) was the sole god and Pharaoh his intermediary on Earth, similar to the modern papacy.

Monotheism predated that. Judaism didn't formally exist until Moses, but God was worshiped in the Garden of Eden, at the very beginning.

The story of Isis, Osiris, and Horus mirrors closely the life of Jesus.

If you brought them together and took a casual look, I could see that, but there are too many differences to take this seriously.

The idea of absolute evil was brought about by Zoroastrianism, which pre-dates Judaism and Christianity.

Was it, I would argue that the serpent in the Garden was absolutely evil.

Several wise men (called magi) journeyed to herald the birth of the savior of the world in Zoroastrian belief, [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]Saoshyant.

Which may well have played in to the actual Magi coming to visit Jesus. Daniel left his mark in Babylon, which pointed people to the one true God. This combined with the culture of that region to move the Magi to visit Jesus.

The church adopted many pagan practices and changed them to ease conversion of native populations to Christianity.

Patron saints, Imperial cult, and so forth. I as a Protestant reject these.

 

[salida]

Steezie-

I'm going to answer your questions.

1) Claim that zoroastrian is the oldest religion. Its one of the oldest but not the oldest. Zoroastrian came in 1400BC. Genesis is as old as 4000BC to 1700BC-the jews were following Moses around this time. Exodus-occurred around 1700-1500BC-again the jews were departing from Egypt around then. Its been highly possible that Job is the oldest book in the Bible-or it was written around Genesis. Thus, your monotheism predate theory and sun god are not predated. I haven't gotten info on the trinity subject-but its the same answer I'm sure-just trying to get the exact details on it.

2)Oriris- doesn't mirror Jesus at all. The story is Oriris brother killed him, chopped him up into pieces and Iris, a goddess, feels compassion for Oriris. She looks for his body parts and gives him a burial. This isn't a resurrection but a zombification. Jesus doesn't even mirror this at all. A book called, The Riddle of the Resurrection- that the consensus among modern scholars which is nearly univeral is that there are no dying and rising gods that preceded christianity. They all post dated the first century. So, christianity couldn't have borrowed the idea of the resurrection if myths about dying and rising gods weren't even circulating when christianity was birthed in the first century AD.

3) Nostradmus? Go to christian research institute-google it; and look under article DN088. This guy is truly vague. Its too many pages to put here.

A time frame on the prophecies? The Old and New Testament have vastly different time periods like hundreds of years later. If you want, I can easily put times on it. I will on about 5 of them as there are 300 of them.

Ezekiel 30:14- laid waste; this means desolation, forsaken, barren.
Joshua 6:26- I never said that Jericho didn't exist and the bible didn't either. It mentions that whoever built it would be divinely cursed.
Isaiah- many cities are abandoned. Oh, the explain away reaction. What does this have to do with a specific prophecy occurring or not? The point is that it occurred and it was mentioned biblically.
Deut 28: Did I say that all biblical prophecies are fulfilled? No, I never did. If they were, I'm wouldn't be sitting here typing.
Daniel 12:4- What do you mean by its not remotely close. Please explain.

Law of Probability- the probability that x could happen. Yes, this is true. I like the odds on my side when I believe something.

 

[zaksmummy]

parallels don't prove that Christianity adopted doctrine from paganism....as some would suggest hell was...

Christian doctrine is not pagan, but many christian traditions, held sacred for over 1700 years are. The problem is that most christians dont want to know the truth about their traditions let alone give any of them up.

Only when God shows you the truth - how he hates paganism mixed in with his gift of faith can you find the strength to turn away from them.

 

[Norbert L]

... how he hates paganism ...

What about the custom marriage rings?

 

[Steezie]

Most forms of paganism practiced today are not the old Animism either.

I thought I made the distinction between Pagan and pagan clear in the OP.

As a means to explain something (ie planting and harvesting your crops), but not like what Jesus went through. Most pagan faiths required sacrifice by man for displeasing the gods or keeping away their displeasure. In Christianity, it's the reverse. For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son.

This is partially true, but not something that I held up as a similarity. Many pagan faiths felt they had to please the gods and that acting in a way that displeased the gods would anger the gods (rather Old Testament, wouldnt you say).

I'm going to pull an Origin here and say that God allowed those theologies to take place so that the true Trinity could be better explained to some people in its due time.

That makes no sense at all.

Monotheism predated that. Judaism didn't formally exist until Moses, but God was worshiped in the Garden of Eden, at the very beginning.

For the purposes of this, I dont consider the bible to be a valid document when it comes to determining history. The concept of monotheism, as we understand it, originated in Egypt.

Was it, I would argue that the serpent in the Garden was absolutely evil.

A belief that was pre-dated by Zoroastrianism that encompassed the idea of personified evil in Avestan.

Patron saints, Imperial cult, and so forth. I as a Protestant reject these.

Admittedly Protestant Christianity is LESS pagan than I would consider Catholicism but it still has some very pagan ideas at its core.

Steezie-

I'm going to answer your questions.

1) Claim that zoroastrian is the oldest religion. Its one of the oldest but not the oldest. Zoroastrian came in 1400BC. Genesis is as old as 4000BC to 1700BC-the jews were following Moses around this time. Exodus-occurred around 1700-1500BC-again the jews were departing from Egypt around then. Its been highly possible that Job is the oldest book in the Bible-or it was written around Genesis. Thus, your monotheism predate theory and sun god are not predated. I haven't gotten info on the trinity subject-but its the same answer I'm sure-just trying to get the exact details on it.

Im sorry but there is no documentation for Genesis at that date outside the bible, and even in the bible I dont see a date.

2)Oriris- doesn't mirror Jesus at all. The story is Oriris brother killed him, chopped him up into pieces and Iris, a goddess, feels compassion for Oriris. She looks for his body parts and gives him a burial. This isn't a resurrection but a zombification. Jesus doesn't even mirror this at all. A book called, The Riddle of the Resurrection- that the consensus among modern scholars which is nearly univeral is that there are no dying and rising gods that preceded christianity. They all post dated the first century. So, christianity couldn't have borrowed the idea of the resurrection if myths about dying and rising gods weren't even circulating when christianity was birthed in the first century AD.

Osiris was not "zombified", he was ressurected by Isis to reign over the kingdom of the dead (the afterlife).

A time frame on the prophecies? The Old and New Testament have vastly different time periods like hundreds of years later. If you want, I can easily put times on it. I will on about 5 of them as there are 300 of them.

You can easily put times on them because the descriptions are so vague as to be applicable to anything.

Ezekiel 30:14- laid waste; this means desolation, forsaken, barren.

Laid waste means destroyed, which Thebes was not.

Joshua 6:26- I never said that Jericho didn't exist and the bible didn't either. It mentions that whoever built it would be divinely cursed.

So God hates the Palestinians?

Isaiah- many cities are abandoned. Oh, the explain away reaction. What does this have to do with a specific prophecy occurring or not? The point is that it occurred and it was mentioned biblically.

The point is that this is not a valid prophecy as it describes something inevitable. I cant call myself a prophet if I predict the sun will rise tomorrow.

Daniel 12:4- What do you mean by its not remotely close. Please explain.

I mean exactly what I said. The passage does not describe a rapid increase in world information and travel. All it says is that people will go "there" to seek information.

Law of Probability- the probability that x could happen. Yes, this is true. I like the odds on my side when I believe something.

Ok, belief is one thing. But citing the law of probability as proof that what you believe is real is not valid.

 

[AvgJoe]

Before I begin, I'd like to establish that many of the ideas in Christianity can be traced back to origins that pre-date Christianity. I'm not necessarily claiming that Christianity copied them, but Christianity does contain ideas that pre-date it's existence.

With that established, how do Christians as a whole reconcile the fact that Christianity contains so many pagan (Pagan in the pre-Christian sense, not the modern Pagan sense) ideas and that even our everyday life is loaded with holdovers from pre-Christian times?

Many critics of Christianity teach that the Christian religion was not based upon divine revelation but that it borrowed from pagan sources. For instance, lets look at Mithra. They assert that the figure of Mithra has many commonalities with Jesus, too common to be coincidence.

Mithraism was one of the major religions of the Roman Empire which was derived from the ancient Persian god of light and wisdom. The cult of Mithraism was quite prominent in ancient Rome, especially among the military. Mithra was the god of war, battle, justice, faith, and contract. According to Mithraism, Mithra was called the son of God, was born of a virgin, had disciples, was crucified, rose from the dead on the third day, atoned for the sins of mankind, and returned to heaven. Therefore, the critics maintain that Christianity borrowed its concepts from the Mithra cult. But is this the case? Can it be demonstrated that Christianity borrowed from the cult of Mithra as it developed its theology?

First of all, Christianity does not need any outside influence to derive any of its doctrines. All the doctrines of Christianity exists in the Old Testament where we can see the prophetic teachings of Jesus as the son of God (Zech. 12:10), born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14), was crucified (Psalm 22), the blood atonement (Lev. 17:11), rose from the dead (Psalm 16:10), and salvation by faith (HHab. 2:4). Also, the writers of the gospels were eyewitnesses (or directed by eyewitnesses as were Mark and Luke) who accurately represented the life of Christ. So, what they did was write what Jesus taught as well as record the events of His life, death, and resurrection. In other words, they recorded history, actual events and had no need of fabrication or borrowing.

There will undoubtedly be similarities in religious themes given the agrarian culture. Remember, an agriculturally based society, as was the people of the ancient Mediterranean area, will undoubtedly develop theological themes based upon observable events, i.e., the life, death, and seeming resurrection of life found in crops, in cattle, and in human life. It would only be natural for similar themes to unfold since they are observed in nature and since people created gods related to nature. But, any reading of the Old Testament results in observing the intrusion of God into Jewish history as is recorded in miracles and prophetic utterances. Add to that the incredible archaeological evidence verifying Old Testament cities and events and you have a document based on historical fact instead of mythical fabrication. Furthermore, it is from these Old Testament writings that the New Testament themes were developed.

The following website displays a chart demonstrating some of the New Testament themes found in the Old Testament.

http://www.carm.org/christianity/bib...-old-testament

As you can see, there is no need for any of the Christian writers to borrow from anything other than the Old Testament source in order to establish any Christian doctrine concerning Jesus. If the argument that pagan mythologies predated Christian teachings and therefore Christianity borrowed from them is true, then it must also be truth that the pagan religions borrowed from the Jewish religion because it is older than they are! Given that all of the Christian themes are found in the Old Testament and the Old Testament was begun around 2000 B.C. and completed around 400 B.C., we can then conclude that these pagan religions actually borrowed from Jewish ideas found in the Old Testament. Think about it, the idea of a blood sacrifice and a covering for sin is found in the first three chapters of Genesis when God covered Adam and Eve with animals skins and prophesied the coming of the Messiah.

Furthermore, those who wrote about Jesus in the New Testament were Jews (or under the instruction of Jews) who were devoted to the legitimacy and inspiration of the Old Testament scriptures and possessed a strong disdain for pagan religions. It would have been blasphemous for them to incorporate pagan sources into what they saw as the fulfillment of the sacred Old Testament scriptures concerning the Messiah. Also, since they were writing about Jesus, they were writing based upon what He taught: truth, love, honesty, integrity, etc. Why then would they lie and make up stories and suffer great persecution, hardships, ridicule, arrest, beatings, and death all for known lies and fabrications from paganism? It doesn't make sense.

At best, Mithraism only had some common themes with Christianity (and Judaism) which were recorded in both the Old and New Testaments. What is far more probable is that as Mithraism developed, it started to adopt Christian concepts.

"Allegations of an early Christian dependence on Mithraism have been rejected on many grounds. Mithraism had no concept of the death and resurrection of its god and no place for any concept of rebirth -- at least during its early stages...During the early stages of the cult, the notion of rebirth would have been foreign to its basic outlook...Moreover, Mithraism was basically a military cult. Therefore, one must be skeptical about suggestions that it appealed to nonmilitary people like the early Christians."1

What is more probable is that with the explosive nature of the Christian church in the 1st and 2nd century, other cult groups started to adapt themselves to take advantage of some of the teachings found in Christianity.

"While there are several sources that suggest that Mithraism included a notion of rebirth, they are all post-Christian. The earliest...dates from the end of the second century A.D."2

Therefore, even though there are similarities between Christianity and Mithraism, it is up to the critics to prove that one borrowed from the other. But, considering that the writers of the New Testament was written by Jews who shunned pagan philosophies and that the Old Testament has all of the themes found in Christianity, it is far more probable that if any borrowing was done, it was done by the pagan religions that wanted to emulate the success of Christianity.

____________
1. R. Nash, Christianity and the Hellenistic World" as quoted in Baker's Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Norman Geisler; Baker Books, Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1999, p. 492.
2. Wilson, Bill, compiled by; The Best of Josh McDowell: A Ready Defense; Nashville, Tenn., Thomas Nelson Publishers; 1993, p. 167.

 

[PT Calvinist]

Christian doctrine is not pagan, but many christian traditions, held sacred for over 1700 years are. The problem is that most christians dont want to know the truth about their traditions let alone give any of them up.

Only when God shows you the truth - how he hates paganism mixed in with his gift of faith can you find the strength to turn away from them.

Ok...so..Black is white and White is black?