Why do Christians deny that Christianity has some pagan influences?

[Jayrok]

Baptism suddenly sprang up when John the Baptist came on the scene.. where did that come from originally? Moses didn't baptize people did he?

Observing the Eucharist... religions were breaking bread and having wine long before Jesus had his disciples do it.

Virgin birth... where does a prophecy that Jesus would be born of a virgin come from? Luke has Gabriel tell Mary, who was a virgin, she would birth a son. Matthew also has mary conceive a son by the holy spirit, although in matthew the angel doesn't tell Mary he has chosen her.. he tells Joseph after the fact!

He claims this was fulfillment of a prophecy by Isaiah. But Isaiah never prophecied about the son of God or coming messiah being born of a virgin. The angel in matthew tells joseph to name the boy Jesus and then matthew says this is to fulfill what the Lord through the prophet said: he will be born and you are to call him immanuel ... Immanuel Jesus.. the don't really sound the same but anyway...

Note also that in matthew, Joseph and mary are from Bethlehem and don't go to nazareth until after they return from egypt. While in Luke, they are from nazareth, but go to bethlehem for some census ordered by caesar augustus. But I digress...

What gives? other religions had their virgin births, so I guess Christianity wanted to follow suit.

[Dave G]

Baptism suddenly sprang up when John the Baptist came on the scene.. where did that come from originally? Moses didn't baptize people did he?

Observing the Eucharist... religions were breaking bread and having wine long before Jesus had his disciples do it.

Virgin birth... where does a prophecy that Jesus would be born of a virgin come from? Luke has Gabriel tell Mary, who was a virgin, she would birth a son. Matthew also has mary conceive a son by the holy spirit, although in matthew the angel doesn't tell Mary he has chosen her.. he tells Joseph after the fact!

He claims this was fulfillment of a prophecy by Isaiah. But Isaiah never prophecied about the son of God or coming messiah being born of a virgin. The angel in matthew tells joseph to name the boy Jesus and then matthew says this is to fulfill what the Lord through the prophet said: he will be born and you are to call him immanuel ... Immanuel Jesus.. the don't really sound the same but anyway...

Note also that in matthew, Joseph and mary are from Bethlehem and don't go to nazareth until after they return from egypt. While in Luke, they are from nazareth, but go to bethlehem for some census ordered by caesar augustus. But I digress...

What gives? other religions had their virgin births, so I guess Christianity wanted to follow suit.

Way to go. You only stayed on topic for two points and didn't provide any argumentation, merely asserted. Which pagan religions predated the Eucharist, for example, using bread and wine? (Probably many...after all, that is what there was to eat. Not a lot of variety for using food in religious ceremonies, I expect.)

[BoPeep]

Hey Jay,

I actually started a thread today that includes a couple links that present differing sides of the issue regarding the pagan mystery religions. (I would direct you to the thread, but I don't know how to do that). Here are the links, however.

If you're interested in a more conservative perspective, the equip.org link might shed some light on your question. It appears the author of the article has written at least one book on the mystery religions as well that would probably be more technical than the article itself.

http://www.equip.org/free/DB109.htm

http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/index_FLASH.html

ATB, Bo

[Jayrok]

Way to go. You only stayed on topic for two points and didn't provide any argumentation, merely asserted. Which pagan religions predated the Eucharist, for example, using bread and wine? (Probably many...after all, that is what there was to eat. Not a lot of variety for using food in religious ceremonies, I expect.)

nice..

I am asking questions, not making assertions... yet.

but since you responded, let's talk about the Eucharist..

We aren't just talking about eating bread and wine... we are talking about that bread and wine being flesh and blood. Ceres, the goddess of corn, gave her flesh to eat, and Bacchus, the God of wine, gave blood to drink. In the mysteries of Dionysus the baked image of a child was eaten. This symbolized the body of the God and would unite the God with the worshipper. OT jews never did this with YHWH..

The NT has a good example of this pagan ceremony included right in the Jesus story. Jesus... not the gentle Jesus who was the healer and teacher of Mark and Luke.. but the deity/son of God Jesus in John... He commands his followers to eat his flesh and drink his blood (John 6:53-54). This is just the opposite of what God says in the OT, who clearly states that eating blood in any form is a direct abomination against God (Lev 17:10-12).

You want us to believe that the same God who ordered the murder of a man that touched the ark of the covenant accidently, and the murder of a man that was out getting wood on the sabbath, would go against his own perfect (Psalm 19:7) and eternal laws (psalms 119:152 and 160) and start endorsing the very practice he commanded his people to NEVER do? not likely..

In fact, he said in Lev 17, that if anyone eats blood he will cut him off from his people. Hey, maybe that is why he allowed Jesus and all his apostles to die? hmmm...

I'm sure you are thinking that they didn't actually drink his blood, that is was just wine and was symbolic of his blood.. Well, there is a problem with that one too.. Jesus himself said that symbolic sin was real sin (matthew 5:28).. IOW, if it is blood in their minds or hearts, then it may as well be real blood. YHWH would not disregard his prior commandments to his people and then turn around and endorse the drinking of grape juice or wine, pretending it was actually a human's blood sacrifice. Especially without prior warning his people that his blood eating laws will be abolished with Jesus. If he says an act is an abomination in one era and then advocates it in another, then what are we to think of him? That is moral relativism. How do we know he won't change his mind once again in 2000 years... or next year?

Drinking blood, whether symbolic or literal, is not from Judaism. It was clearly borrowed from some type of pagan mystery religion. I still say that Jesus never said those things. The Eucharist was introduced into the bible by Paul, who was from the pagan town of Tarsus. The writer of John used Paul's words and drafted up a "last supper" just before Jesus' arrest. IOW, the last supper probably never happened.

[BoPeep]

Wow, I feel schooled trying to point you to some resources when I know nothing...

Do you have any reading recommendations regarding the mystery religions you could pass along?

[Jayrok]

Hey Jay,

I actually started a thread today that includes a couple links that present differing sides of the issue regarding the pagan mystery religions. (I would direct you to the thread, but I don't know how to do that). Here are the links, however.

If you're interested in a more conservative perspective, the equip.org link might shed some light on your question. It appears the author of the article has written at least one book on the mystery religions as well that would probably be more technical than the article itself.

http://www.equip.org/free/DB109.htm

http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/index_FLASH.html

ATB, Bo

Thanks... I've seen both those sites. Of all the mystery religions, I believe Christianity took the most from Zoroastrianism. Mithraism took from it also. Judaism didn't have a concept of an afterlife, like heaven or hell until it was exposed to this religion during the jewish exile to babylon. When they were freed by King Cyrus, some of those teachings began to creep into Judaism. Satan, the servant of God pre-exile, became the evil arch enemy of God post-exile and throughout the NT. Jesus separating the sheep from the goats and a final judgement were borrowed from this religion as well.


I still would like to know where Baptism came from originally..

[Jayrok]

Wow, I feel schooled trying to point you to some resources when I know nothing...

Do you have any reading recommendations regarding the mystery religions you could pass along?

not any site in particular, but I would recommend doing a google on zoroastrianism. The fact that Isaiah mentions king cyrus (a zoroastrian follower) as God's chosen one and matthew with the Magi, who were zoro's.. is good evidence of the influence of that religion on the bible. You can see how the pattern of the bible changes during its course from beginning to revelation. The book of revelation is completely filled with mythology and is not to be taken literally.

[The Creep]

I am a Christian - A Roman Catholic in fact - and I am fully aware of the pagan influences on Christianity and I am proud of them. There was great evil in paganism but there was great good, and , Christianity being a syncretisitic religion, adopted what was good. Saint Paul knew many pagan writers (by their works) and his line "God is whom within we live and move and have are being" is a direct quote from a stoic. The concept of the Logos (in the Gospel of John) goes back through many permutations to the pre-socratic philosopher Heraclitus.
I must however contest a few things. The idea of evil spirits pre-dates the exile in the form of beings known as the shaddim. Secondly, I am not convinced that the pre-exilic Satan was quite the servant of God as more conventional scholars are currently asserting. He functions as both an opponent and servant of God and most sophisticated Christians see him as much today.
On the Eucharist. Please be aware that the Eucharist was directly derived from the Passover rituals and Jesus is seen as identifying himself as the Pascal Lamb. Secondly, eating the ritual sacrifices in the Torah is seen as completing the sacrifice. The idea of devouring the flesh of Jesus as a Pascal Lamb is a logical development of that.
sincerely, The Creep

[WebToaster]

Thanks... I've seen both those sites. Of all the mystery religions, I believe Christianity took the most from Zoroastrianism. Mithraism took from it also. Judaism didn't have a concept of an afterlife, like heaven or hell until it was exposed to this religion during the jewish exile to babylon. When they were freed by King Cyrus, some of those teachings began to creep into Judaism. Satan, the servant of God pre-exile, became the evil arch enemy of God post-exile and throughout the NT. Jesus separating the sheep from the goats and a final judgement were borrowed from this religion as well.

I still would like to know where Baptism came from originally..

Its true that some Christians will deny any similarities to other religions, but its also true that non-Christians will use any similarities to claim Christianity is somehow fabricated.

Simply showing similarities between Mithraism and Christianity does not mean Christianity 'took' or 'borrowed' concepts from other religions. There are several explanations for these similarities, some of the explanations are mystical, and some are rational.

As for Baptism, it has roots in Jewish tradition prior to John the Baptist concerning both ritual cleansing and the tevilah for converts to Judaism. Is this similar to rituals performed in other religions? Yes! However, this doesn't address the question of why there are similarities.

Similarities can be caused because both pre-Moses Jewish and pagan beliefs have their foundations in beliefs far more ancient than either religions. Or another explanation is that divine being(s) are revealed to all of humanity, and if this is true similarities would be a necessary part of this belief.

[Sheepdog]

Baptism suddenly sprang up when John the Baptist came on the scene.. where did that come from originally? Moses didn't baptize people did he?

actually, ceremonial washings were quite popular in Judaism at the time. the Pharisees "baptized" those who were accepted into their ranks.

Virgin birth... where does a prophecy that Jesus would be born of a virgin come from? Luke has Gabriel tell Mary, who was a virgin, she would birth a son. Matthew also has mary conceive a son by the holy spirit, although in matthew the angel doesn't tell Mary he has chosen her.. he tells Joseph after the fact!

could be that both were told, but each writer left out the detail the other included. i don't see an inconsistency, since the accounts don't explicitely say the respective other wasn't spoken to.

He claims this was fulfillment of a prophecy by Isaiah. But Isaiah never prophecied about the son of God or coming messiah being born of a virgin. The angel in matthew tells joseph to name the boy Jesus and then matthew says this is to fulfill what the Lord through the prophet said: he will be born and you are to call him immanuel ... Immanuel Jesus.. the don't really sound the same but anyway...

a young madien, in that day and age, would have been a virgin, barring unusual circumstances. remember, the 10-20 year gap between puberty and marriage is a relatively new phenomenon in history. a married woman wouldn't have been called a "madien," and sex outside of marriage would have been socially unacceptable in Jewish culture in that day. so, even though the Hebrew doesn't say "virgin" in Is. (though the Septuigent, a Greek version of the Hebrew Bible translated centuries before Christ does translate it "virgin"), it is strongly implied.

Immanuel means "God with us." remember that in ancient Jewish culture, the meaning behind a name was much more important than the name itself.

Note also that in matthew, Joseph and mary are from Bethlehem and don't go to nazareth until after they return from egypt. While in Luke, they are from nazareth, but go to bethlehem for some census ordered by caesar augustus. But I digress...

Joseph was probably born in Bethlehem, and moved to Nazareth (which i admit is indeed odd). They went back for a census, leave to Egypt until Herod is dead, then return to Nazereth. Again, this could easily be accounted as writers picking up on different details of the same story. Note that none of the Gospel writers go into great detail about Jesus prior to his ministry.

What gives? other religions had their virgin births, so I guess Christianity wanted to follow suit.

whawhat? all you present us is smoke and mirrors, and expect us to come to the same conclusion. we can't help but deny the Pagan copycat thesis when such pitiful cases are made for it.

We aren't just talking about eating bread and wine... we are talking about that bread and wine being flesh and blood. Ceres, the goddess of corn, gave her flesh to eat, and Bacchus, the God of wine, gave blood to drink. In the mysteries of Dionysus the baked image of a child was eaten. This symbolized the body of the God and would unite the God with the worshipper. OT jews never did this with YHWH..

now that's more like it. however, what are the details? why did Ceres give her flesh to eat? what was the significance of Bacchus' blood? the Devil for Pagan copycat theorists tend to be in the details. (details like, also, whether the given parallel case originated before or after Christianity started; i.e. are we sure it wasn't the pagans who copycatted?)

Dionysus was the only one i could find info on handy. Note this:

According to a story reported by Diodorus of Sicily -- "a myth of unknown origin, contested antiquity, and uncertain meaning" [Hein.HHG, 26] -- D as an infant was set upon Zeus' throne (a sacred king?) to play at being Master of the Universe. As he sat there, some of the Titans -- bad boys of Greek mythology -- snuck up with some toys and distracted him. While D was thus distracted, the Titans picked him up, tore him to pieces (killed), and boiled and roasted everything but his heart and ate it (eaten -- in a eucharistic ritual?!?). When Zeus got wind of this, he became ticked as he often did, and blew the Titans to smithereens. As the story goes in a later version, from the ashes of the Titans came forth the race of men (fecundity?); D himself was "eventually restored to a new life" from the heart that was left over [ibid.; Eva.GE, 153; Det.DS, 71]

Diodorus was pre-Christ, but the idea that Palestinian Jews would have known about this sort of thing, let alone make up a religion based on it, is not even remotely conceivable.

I'm only an amateur Egyptologist, but I'd hazard a guess that this legend is based on that of Osiris' dismemberment, which was somewhat more likely to be known in Jewish circles. On the other hand, there are also very similar elements of (child) cannibalism in kosher Greek legends, notably the tale of Tantalus.

Again, we are not certain, because of Acharya's vague description, that this story is what she refers to. It may be a reference, rather, to some idea that D was regularly "killed and eaten" in a memorial ceremony akin to the Eucharist, which may have been in memory of the story above. If this is what is meant, Acharya is no better off. The general principle of "you are what you eat" in sacrifice was derived from the theories of Frazer (Our scholar notes: "Frazer was obsessed with dying and rising gods. For a refutation of the whole category, see the very Christian-unfriendly scholar J.Z.Smith's article on 'Dying and rising gods' in Mircea Eliade's Encyclopedia of Religion (New York, 1987)") -- and he developed this idea rather too quickly. On the contrary, a modern scholar of D, Obbink, tells us, "we cannot even be sure that the Greeks equated Dionysus with any of his sacrificial animals." Otto [Ott.DMC, 107] adds: "...in everything which has come down to us about Dionysus and his cults we find nowhere the intimation that his flesh might have been eaten by a society which wanted to appropriate his divine power." There is also no evidence of sacramentalism in the official Dionysian civic cult. [Obb.DPO, 67, 76]

[from Holding, J. P. "Dealing Down Dionysus." Tekton Apologetics Minstries. June 16, 2004. <http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_04_02_04_DDD.html>]

Again as we see, the devil is in the details: Dionysus was eaten as a child; the Eucharist ceremony was performed by Jesus when he was an adult (if you are thinking, however, of the Catholic Tradition that the wafer and wine literally become Jesus' flesh and blood, as far as I'm aware that originates later in Christian history). Dio was the victim of a ruse; Jesus knowingly and willingly let himself be led to his death. There was no sacrificial significance to Dio's "eucharist;" if anything Jesus copycatted the passover ceremony and its sacrificial significance. In short, i don't think the evidence available is sufficient to support your thesis, and indeed once we get into the details, the copycat theory isn't as obvious as you suppose when we get beyond your vague, sweeping commentary on the subject.

The NT has a good example of this pagan ceremony included right in the Jesus story. Jesus... not the gentle Jesus who was the healer and teacher of Mark and Luke.. but the deity/son of God Jesus in John...

ahem... i'd like to see what makes you think Jesus is a Gentile in Mark and Luke... that one makes no sense in light of my readings of the text. second, the "Son of God" language is used in all the Fourfold Gospel, and there are very subtle deity claims in the Synoptics if you look closely enough.

He commands his followers to eat his flesh and drink his blood (John 6:53-54). This is just the opposite of what God says in the OT, who clearly states that eating blood in any form is a direct abomination against God (Lev 17:10-12).

you've answered your own question below, that this is symbolic. more detail below.

You want us to believe that the same God who ordered the murder of a man that touched the ark of the covenant accidently, and the murder of a man that was out getting wood on the sabbath, would go against his own perfect (Psalm 19:7) and eternal laws (psalms 119:152 and 160) and start endorsing the very practice he commanded his people to NEVER do? not likely..

i like the spin you put on this paragraph by using the term "murder." do you know what murder actually means?

I'm sure you are thinking that they didn't actually drink his blood, that is was just wine and was symbolic of his blood.. Well, there is a problem with that one too.. Jesus himself said that symbolic sin was real sin (matthew 5:28)..

wow... that was a boneheaded point if i saw one. how, pray tell, is lust merely "symbolic" of sin? at best, Jesus' point is that it is a sin that is symbolic of another sin, but it is unwarrented to suppose that He didn't mean it's a real sin.

besides, this command is rooted in the Tenth Commandment, which teaches not to covet another person's wife. coveting is indeed considered a sin, even though it can only be committed in someone's "heart."

IOW, if it is blood in their minds or hearts, then it may as well be real blood. ...

i'm not so sure the comparison is warrented. you've just given me two points-- one of which isn't even a good comparison to the other-- and expect me to draw the lines. i wasn't born yesterday, bub.

Drinking blood, whether symbolic or literal, is not from Judaism. It was clearly borrowed from some type of pagan mystery religion.

it is not so clear. i'm still waiting for real evidence that their was indeed borrowing. all you've presented was circumstantial evidence. i have four witness testimonies. you have a lot more work to do if you want to convince me (or anyone other than those who blindly swallow any argument against Christianity no matter how dumb it is).

The Eucharist was introduced into the bible by Paul, who was from the pagan town of Tarsus.

...and was a zealous Pharisee (the Conservatives of the day) who sought to destroy Christians for their deviation from Judaism, until he converted. but continue to handwaive despite what evidence we do have, you might find a sucker or two if you try hard enough.

The writer of John used Paul's words and drafted up a "last supper" just before Jesus' arrest. IOW, the last supper probably never happened.

i, for one, would like to see the original draft by Paul. oh what's that? you don't have such a thing? that's what i thought.

[Jayrok]

Well, this was fun to read.

actually, ceremonial washings were quite popular in Judaism at the time. the Pharisees "baptized" those who were accepted into their ranks.

how did the pharisees baptize.. dunking in water, or sprinkling... or?

could be that both were told, but each writer left out the detail the other included. i don't see an inconsistency, since the accounts don't explicitely say the respective other wasn't spoken to.

Thanks for picking the easy part to answer. Of course we don't know what was fully said.

a young madien, in that day and age, would have been a virgin, barring unusual circumstances. remember, the 10-20 year gap between puberty and marriage is a relatively new phenomenon in history. a married woman wouldn't have been called a "madien," and sex outside of marriage would have been socially unacceptable in Jewish culture in that day. so, even though the Hebrew doesn't say "virgin" in Is. (though the Septuigent, a Greek version of the Hebrew Bible translated centuries before Christ does translate it "virgin"), it is strongly implied.

you missed the whole point. It doesn't matter if the word meant a young maiden, a virgin, a fat teenager, or whatever it meant in Isaiah.. Show me how you came up with the idea that Isaiah was talking about Jesus Christ, or Mary for that matter.. Matthew blatantly penned that prophecy in for his readers. The statement of the virgin in Isaiah wasn't even a prophecy. And that virgin/maiden/wife gave birth to a son during Isaiah's living days! But if the wool is over your eyes, so be it.

Immanuel means "God with us." remember that in ancient Jewish culture, the meaning behind a name was much more important than the name itself.

once again... I know what immanuel means, the bible tells us. This still doesn't answer how a stolen quote from an OT book turned into the name Jesus, which means The Lord Saves, BTW. Mary was not the virgin of Isaiah.

Joseph was probably born in Bethlehem, and moved to Nazareth (which i admit is indeed odd). They went back for a census, leave to Egypt until Herod is dead, then return to Nazereth. Again, this could easily be accounted as writers picking up on different details of the same story. Note that none of the Gospel writers go into great detail about Jesus prior to his ministry.

what bible are you reading? They did not "return" to nazareth.. they settled in nazareth after the flight to egypt. Matthew says the angel told Joseph it's ok to marry her. So Joseph took Mary home. Next thing you know they had the baby in bethlehem (their home). The Magi come to their house, not a stable. They flee from bethlehem. Luke has them come 80 miles or so from nazareth to bethlehem. Every year at passover the family goes from their home to jerusalem.. EVERY YEAR.. There is NO WAY... no way, they could be in egypt and also be in jerusalem every year on passover. No mention in Luke about any fleeing to egypt nor any baby killing by king herod. The census of Augustus wasn't even until 6 AD anyway. Jesus would have been a young boy at that time.

Speaking of Herod's baby killing... how did John the Baptist escape herod's evilness? he was just 6 months older than Jesus.. did he flee to egypt too? Those stories are so far apart it's rediculous. It's amazing how some christians try to bend and mold them to try and sound compatible when it is impossible. Other christians just shrug it off as unimportant. The fact is this.. Matthew was notorious for trying to convince the Jews of the day that Jesus was indeed the jewish Messiah. So in doing this, he tied or tried to tie Jesus to as many OT prophecies as possible so they would believe. Herod's killing spree was just so he could use the verse about the mother crying for the children in the OT. He ONLY wrote them fleeing to Egypt because he thought another OT passage said the messiah would come out of egypt. Fact is, God said in the OT after the exodus, that none of them from Israel were to return to egypt. I guess Matthew forgot about that verse.. If you would just read the books with a closer eye.. side by side, you will see. I'm not trying to convince you of anything.. it's all right there on paper.

whawhat? all you present us is smoke and mirrors, and expect us to come to the same conclusion. we can't help but deny the Pagan copycat thesis when such pitiful cases are made for it.

I don't expect you to do anything.. In fact, I knew there would be some that denied any involvement in pagan rituals. Here's the thing... I don't care about a copycat saviour or copycat rituals.. the point is, if they did, indeed, "borrow" some ideas or ceremonies from other non-YHWH religions, then how must YHWH (the one true God) feel about that? would he allow any type of borrowing from any other God's religion? No.. Christianity, in order to be the one true world religion, must be unique and genuine. If it borrowed anything from an ancient Iranian God religion, then we must believe that YHWH isn't the only God out there, for he wouldn't allow his people to do that. Would he?

now that's more like it. however, what are the details? why did Ceres give her flesh to eat? what was the significance of Bacchus' blood? the Devil for Pagan copycat theorists tend to be in the details. (details like, also, whether the given parallel case originated before or after Christianity started; i.e. are we sure it wasn't the pagans who copycatted?)

again.. I don't care why Ceres gave her flesh to eat.. it doesn't matter to me because I don't believe in them either. The point is, the things that Jesus had his disciples do and teach were also being done by other religions many years prior to him being alive. If Judaism practiced drinking blood or symbolic blood during their ceremonies, that's one thing, since Jesus was a jew. But they didn't. Drinking blood was a big time no no.. even Peter told the new christian gentiles they couldn't drink blood or eat the blood of an animal!! But they did it themselves at the last supper?? it didn't happen. It couldn't have happened.

Dionysus was the only one i could find info on handy. Note this:

According to a story reported by Diodorus of Sicily -- "a myth of unknown origin, contested antiquity, and uncertain meaning" [Hein.HHG, 26] -- D as an infant was set upon Zeus' throne (a sacred king?) to play at being Master of the Universe. As he sat there, some of the Titans -- bad boys of Greek mythology -- snuck up with some toys and distracted him. While D was thus distracted, the Titans picked him up, tore him to pieces (killed), and boiled and roasted everything but his heart and ate it (eaten -- in a eucharistic ritual?!?). When Zeus got wind of this, he became ticked as he often did, and blew the Titans to smithereens. As the story goes in a later version, from the ashes of the Titans came forth the race of men (fecundity?); D himself was "eventually restored to a new life" from the heart that was left over [ibid.; Eva.GE, 153; Det.DS, 71]

Diodorus was pre-Christ, but the idea that Palestinian Jews would have known about this sort of thing, let alone make up a religion based on it, is not even remotely conceivable.

I'm only an amateur Egyptologist, but I'd hazard a guess that this legend is based on that of Osiris' dismemberment, which was somewhat more likely to be known in Jewish circles. On the other hand, there are also very similar elements of (child) cannibalism in kosher Greek legends, notably the tale of Tantalus.

Again, we are not certain, because of Acharya's vague description, that this story is what she refers to. It may be a reference, rather, to some idea that D was regularly "killed and eaten" in a memorial ceremony akin to the Eucharist, which may have been in memory of the story above. If this is what is meant, Acharya is no better off. The general principle of "you are what you eat" in sacrifice was derived from the theories of Frazer (Our scholar notes: "Frazer was obsessed with dying and rising gods. For a refutation of the whole category, see the very Christian-unfriendly scholar J.Z.Smith's article on 'Dying and rising gods' in Mircea Eliade's Encyclopedia of Religion (New York, 1987)") -- and he developed this idea rather too quickly. On the contrary, a modern scholar of D, Obbink, tells us, "we cannot even be sure that the Greeks equated Dionysus with any of his sacrificial animals." Otto [Ott.DMC, 107] adds: "...in everything which has come down to us about Dionysus and his cults we find nowhere the intimation that his flesh might have been eaten by a society which wanted to appropriate his divine power." There is also no evidence of sacramentalism in the official Dionysian civic cult. [Obb.DPO, 67, 76]

[from Holding, J. P. "Dealing Down Dionysus." Tekton Apologetics Minstries. June 16, 2004. <http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_04_02_04_DDD.html>]

Again as we see, the devil is in the details: Dionysus was eaten as a child; the Eucharist ceremony was performed by Jesus when he was an adult (if you are thinking, however, of the Catholic Tradition that the wafer and wine literally become Jesus' flesh and blood, as far as I'm aware that originates later in Christian history). Dio was the victim of a ruse; Jesus knowingly and willingly let himself be led to his death. There was no sacrificial significance to Dio's "eucharist;" if anything Jesus copycatted the passover ceremony and its sacrificial significance. In short, i don't think the evidence available is sufficient to support your thesis, and indeed once we get into the details, the copycat theory isn't as obvious as you suppose when we get beyond your vague, sweeping commentary on the subject.

no how did I know that the only source you could find on this guy would be the site of our good friend Mr. Holding?

again.. all of these guys like Dionysus are fictional. The idea of the deity/god-man persona is legendary. I believe a jew named Jesus may have lived and taught. But I don't believe he actually said many of the things the gospel writers claim he said and taught. The gospels were written many years later and created him as a legend.

ahem... i'd like to see what makes you think Jesus is a Gentile in Mark and Luke... that one makes no sense in light of my readings of the text. second, the "Son of God" language is used in all the Fourfold Gospel, and there are very subtle deity claims in the Synoptics if you look closely enough.

umm.. I said a gentle Jesus, not Gentile ... Dyslexia is a horrible disease.

i like the spin you put on this paragraph by using the term "murder." do you know what murder actually means?

so what would you call it.. a mercy killing? the man accidently touched the ark to keep it from falling off the cart and God killed him on the spot. That's pretty tough justice right there. But yet, in the NT God is all about love and forgiveness. Please... In fact, he comes to earth himself and suffers for the sins of every person on the planet.. not just the jews..

OT - He kills on the spot for minor offenses.. he allows the israelites to invade and kill innocent people in the land of canaan and take their land after they were enslaved in egypt for generations. God does nothing to egypt, yet he destroys those other nations simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. What did they do?

NT - God is love.. he loves us all, not just the jews, but the mean ole romans and egyptians and australians as well. He loves us so much that he came down himself as the ultimate sacrifice for sins commited against himself to pay the debt that we owed to him.

let's see.. he kills men for minor infractions, no trial, just poof.. he destroys the entire planet... He gives his people laws that he knows they won't be able to keep so he has to change his plan and come himself. He specifically said in genesis that he would never again destroy all living things on earth, then turns around in John and said the earth and all things therein will be destroyed in a fervent fire. All the poor animals will be burned up. He said he wouldn't do it. John says he will.. who do we believe?

wow... that was a boneheaded point if i saw one. how, pray tell, is lust merely "symbolic" of sin? at best, Jesus' point is that it is a sin that is symbolic of another sin, but it is unwarrented to suppose that He didn't mean it's a real sin.

Jesus said if a man lusts after a woman in his heart, he has committed adultery. If you think of a woman and want her, you are committing adultery in your heart, even though you haven't physically touched her. If you symbolically drink the wine and pretend it's blood of Christ, then it may as well be the blood of christ. The catholics say that the wine really is the blood of Christ. Protestants say it's symbolic. Either way, using the logic of the adultery passage by Jesus himself, the sin of drinking blood stands. Trust me, I think it's stupid too.. but they aren't my rules. YHWH specifically said no to drinking blood, symbolic or not (according to Jesus, who is really YHWH right?). Fact is YHWH never told his people that all this was going to take place. It just happened. Against his will? maybe.

besides, this command is rooted in the Tenth Commandment, which teaches not to covet another person's wife. coveting is indeed considered a sin, even though it can only be committed in someone's "heart."

yeah, so? when the catholics have communion and the drink that wine.. and think in their 'hearts' that it is literally the body and blood of Jesus... they are sinning against the laws of YHWH, in their heart.

i wasn't born yesterday, bub.

They way you cling to the hope of the NT and the way the gospel writers have you duped into their agenda... you could have fooled me.

i have four witness testimonies. you have a lot more work to do if you want to convince me (or anyone other than those who blindly swallow any argument against Christianity no matter how dumb it is).

You have four witnesses do you? Mark was there for Jesus' life? are you certain that Matthew actually wrote Matthew's gospel? Luke was a gentile, a companion of his buddy Paul. Luke never met Jesus.. Paul never met Jesus.. Everything said in Luke was hearsay from supposed witnesses of Jesus' life. They must've been around 70 or 80 years old when they told these stories to luke, if they were old enough to understand what was happening during Jesus' life. Maybe older. Think they could really remember ver batim what happened? There is absolutely no chance that during that lapse of time, certain legends couldn't have formed in the stories? you are so naive. Why weren't their written accounts during his ministry? why didn't peter or John, if they were there, write anything down for prosperity sake during their time with Jesus.. James, Jesus' own brother wrote a letter to churches 50 or so years after jesus' death. He could write, why in the world didn't he keep a journal of his brother's fame? why no writing from Mary the virgin? they kept no family diary?

all those people in jerusalem, according to matthew, saw the dead corpses rise and walk the streets.. why didn't anyone write about that? no poems, no paintings, no letter to family in damascus, no nothing.. and you say your gospels were 4 eyewitness accounts.. nonsense.

...and was a zealous Pharisee (the Conservatives of the day) who sought to destroy Christians for their deviation from Judaism, until he converted. but continue to handwaive despite what evidence we do have, you might find a sucker or two if you try hard enough.

Jesus hated the pharisees. Why do you suppose he would choose one to be an apostle? Paul didn't want to follow the laws anymore. He took items from his pagan town and turned Jesus into a deity. The gospels came later and filled in the "stories" to match paul's writings. Jesus never taught that the laws would be nullified. The only proclamation of Paul being an apostle came from Paul, and Luke his buddy. No one else called an apostle. In fact, there is evidence in the bible that Paul could have been a false apostle. Perhaps another thread would be the place to talk about that..

i, for one, would like to see the original draft by Paul. oh what's that? you don't have such a thing? that's what i thought.

hey, I'd love to see some original stuff from Paul also. The books of the bible have been tinkered with by the church for centuries. There is no way of revealing the true words of the original writers of the NT.. the early catholics destroyed anything they didn't think fit to be included.

You said above that none of the gospel accounts mention the childhood or teen years of Jesus.. gee.. I wonder why? Because anything he may have done as a teen didn't fit into their agenda for their new religion..

[Jayrok]

I am a Christian - A Roman Catholic in fact - and I am fully aware of the pagan influences on Christianity and I am proud of them. There was great evil in paganism but there was great good, and , Christianity being a syncretisitic religion, adopted what was good. Saint Paul knew many pagan writers (by their works) and his line "God is whom within we live and move and have are being" is a direct quote from a stoic. The concept of the Logos (in the Gospel of John) goes back through many permutations to the pre-socratic philosopher Heraclitus.
I must however contest a few things. The idea of evil spirits pre-dates the exile in the form of beings known as the shaddim. Secondly, I am not convinced that the pre-exilic Satan was quite the servant of God as more conventional scholars are currently asserting. He functions as both an opponent and servant of God and most sophisticated Christians see him as much today.
On the Eucharist. Please be aware that the Eucharist was directly derived from the Passover rituals and Jesus is seen as identifying himself as the Pascal Lamb. Secondly, eating the ritual sacrifices in the Torah is seen as completing the sacrifice. The idea of devouring the flesh of Jesus as a Pascal Lamb is a logical development of that.
sincerely, The Creep

well thank you for your comments. Finally, someone who acknowledges some things were borrowed.

Satan could have been a servant and opponent of God pre-exile. My contention is that he became the arch enemy of goodness post-exile. The gospel writers have Jesus say that Satan was a murderer and liar from the beginning.. (1) I don't think Jesus would say that and (2) I don't think God would have allowed Satan to enter and exit heaven at his leizure if that were true.

[Jayrok]

Its true that some Christians will deny any similarities to other religions, but its also true that non-Christians will use any similarities to claim Christianity is somehow fabricated.

correct.

Simply showing similarities between Mithraism and Christianity does not mean Christianity 'took' or 'borrowed' concepts from other religions. There are several explanations for these similarities, some of the explanations are mystical, and some are rational.

I don't think christianity took much from Mithraism.. they may have taken things from each other. But I think both of these religions did take some things from zoroastrianism. I'm not talking about diety copies either. JPH on his site has an article disputing copycat deities. IOW, I don't necessarily believe Jesus is patterened after zoro's saviour. I do, however, believe judaism and christianity got the idea of heaven/hell and good vs evil among some other things from zoroastrianism. The concept of a lake of fire for example is not from judaism. Final judgement, even a trinity.

How can christian who believes in the trinity, call himself a monotheist?

As for Baptism, it has roots in Jewish tradition prior to John the Baptist concerning both ritual cleansing and the tevilah for converts to Judaism. Is this similar to rituals performed in other religions? Yes! However, this doesn't address the question of why there are similarities.

I'm curious as to the roots it has and how it was accomplished prior to JTB.

Similarities can be caused because both pre-Moses Jewish and pagan beliefs have their foundations in beliefs far more ancient than either religions. Or another explanation is that divine being(s) are revealed to all of humanity, and if this is true similarities would be a necessary part of this belief.

divine beings? if this is true, then which one is the right one?

[bhukkadakota]

Joseph was probably born in Bethlehem, and moved to Nazareth (which i admit is indeed odd). They went back for a census, leave to Egypt until Herod is dead, then return to Nazereth. Again, this could easily be accounted as writers picking up on different details of the same story. Note that none of the Gospel writers go into great detail about Jesus prior to his ministry.


its just you might want to know, when romans held a census, the people stayed where they were. The romans went to them, half the country didnt just suddenly drop everything to rush to their home town and leave their farms and cattle etc unattended for several weeks so they could be counted in a census. Just thought you guys might like to know.

[Jayrok]

its just you might want to know, when romans held a census, the people stayed where they were. The romans went to them, half the country didnt just suddenly drop everything to rush to their home town and leave their farms and cattle etc unattended for several weeks so they could be counted in a census. Just thought you guys might like to know.

I also read that the man of the house could register for his whole family. A very pregnant Mary wouldn't have had to go. She could have stayed with her cousin Liz to help her with the baby.. but see, that wouldn't have fulfilled the so-called prophecy about bethlehem..

If they are from nazareth, then John the Baptist must be from nazareth also, because he leaped in his mom's womb when they were told that Mary was prego. But in Matthew the Jesus family was in Bethlehem.. didn't settle into the town called nazareth until after Herod died.