Mistakes in Determining the Pagan Origin of Christianity

a reply to: BuzzyWigs
And this...

originally posted by: Entreri06

a reply to: greyer

I'm not a believer, but I think your looking at it wrong.

The Romans used pre existing celebratory dates to celebrate Christian traditions.

The winter and summer solstices have been celebrated for all of human history. The reason for celebrating has changed dozens of times, but not the date.

Even as an atheist I don't see anything crazy about this. It was 400 years before Christianity took hold. By then no one had any clue what calander date Jesus was born or crucified on (assuming he even existed). But the wanted to celebrate them. So they stopped celebrating the pagan holidays on those days and started celebrating Jesus. No one not foolish thinks they were actually the right days. But that doesn't mean your worshipping Jupiter because you have a party on dec. 25th.

I don't see the virgin birth as an adult fairy tale that people that people soon get told it is a creation like the easter bunny. If a person even says the word easter is a disgrace, what Jesus would call unclean. They believe and hope in the virgin birth without looking up to see where even that originated.

You probably don't believe because of what the Romans did in creating a deity, Jesus was a healer, but he did not make pigeons out of clay like David Blaine. It would be better to see the teachings of righteousness, because you start to see how the human ego and pride plays a trick on the world.

originally posted by: BlueMule
So, just to be clear. Your position is that the authors of the NT were NOT inspired/guided/influenced by God. Correct?

👣

Please listen to this closely, the NT was inspired by the influence of God, but it was created by the Roman authority who had Greek wisdom and tradition since of ancient. You can say the Romans were a little jealous of the Jews, because in that day anything of the forefathers was held sacred and the Jews had such an extensive religious history.

The Romans, including Paul was not a middle class Pharisee but an famous and influential philosopher and Roman citizen of the time and era, very learned of sacred philosophy, took the stories and teachings of Jesus, and incorporated a narrative that they created themselves.

In the these days there was three conflicting groups in Judah.

The Sadducees were priests who conspired with Paul and the Romans to kill Jesus, they were in control of politics because they plundered the people for loot and money, in the Dead Sea Scrolls they are called interestingly "The Seekers of Smooth Things." This name meaning they were not priests seeking God, but wealth.

The group called Pharisees who were considered the sellouts because they made friends with the Romans.

And the Essene who had a council of 12, a high priest, and 3 of the twelve priests were in charge, called by Paul "pillars of the church." In the last generation, in the scrolls they name themselves the 'Last Remnant' it was James, Peter and John. But there was a shift in the philosophy, because Jesus being a messiah of righteousness, condemned the Essenes also for being a secret brotherhood, because he saw that as a form of hatred to the lower class. He also condemned the Essenes because they held their festivals only if the moon shining, so there was a shift yet again. And guess what, we have specific evidence of that shift in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: Cuervo

As far as your points about Paul, I'm conflicted. I think Christians would be far better people if they just threw out everything in the bible that didn't have that nice Jesus fella in it.

I won't argue that some good teachings are attributed to Jesus. Most of which pre-date him, but much is also attributed to him that makes him not a nice fella at all.

A Unique Teacher whose education will save your soul? How is that not 'nice?' Sometimes the truth is not pretty, but that does not mean to avoid it. Jesus said "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the very sons of God." Jesus was speaking in an abstract form like a parable when he talks about division. It was all about the truth verse falsehood, the truth will cause a division, even inside of families and households, between falsehood, because the truth will reject falsehood, and falsehood will loathe the truth, and cause this division.

If first the word of truth be preached in the city or house, whereby they who receive the faith of the truth may become sons of Peace and sons of God; and those who will not receive it may be convicted as enemies of peace and of God."

Here is an elaboration of the teaching:

Therefore of necessity we offer peace, that if any one is a Son of Peace, our peace may come upon him; but from him who makes himself an enemy of peace, our peace shall return to ourselves. We do not therefore, as you say, propose peace by agreement with the wicked, for indeed we should straightway have given you the right hand; but only in order that, through our discussing quietly and patiently, it might be more easily ascertained by the hearers which is the true speech. But if you differ and disagree with yourself, how shall you stand? He must of necessity fall who is divided in himself; `for every kingdom divided against itself shall not stand.

If you are agreed that everything which is divided falls, it remains that I show, if only you will hear in peace, that our Jesus has divided and dispelled error by teaching truth."'

Really you are like one of the Jews that took the teachings of Jesus at face value, which is why he spoke in parables, so that they may not understand him.

"Do you not know that peace is the perfection of law? For wars and disputes spring from sins; and where there is no sin, there is peace of soul; but where there is peace, truth is found in disputations, righteousness in works."

a reply to: Klassified

Why would you argue that unrighteousness should not be accounted for? Would you really like a world where people can go around murdering and they are rewarded for it? It seems like some people just loathe anything in the name of good, as if being good is such hard work for them, they sit there and pout about it.

For me righteousness is everything, and it surely is depressing that I face a whole world, over 6 billion people who disagree with me and hate me for it.

a reply to: Klassified

No please continue, I like reading things out on context

a reply to: Klassified

I don't understand how does your post have anything to do with pagan origins or are you ranting to throw off the thread?

The pagan origin can be attributed to the Romans owning much of the world during that time and being pagan themselves. I don't think its crazy to think that these holidays were merged to make a Christian holidays.

a reply to: greyer

A Unique Teacher whose education will save your soul? How is that not 'nice?'

First. I do not need saving. However, if I did. Jesus does not have the capacity to save anyone's soul, and even if he could, the only salvation he's offering is from the "wrath of god"(See Buzzy Wigs mem earlier in the thread.). If god is angry. That's his problem. Not ours.

Sometimes the truth is not pretty, but that does not mean to avoid it. Jesus said "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the very sons of God." Jesus was speaking in an abstract form like a parable when he talks about division. It was all about the truth verse falsehood, the truth will cause a division, even inside of families and households, between falsehood, because the truth will reject falsehood, and falsehood will loathe the truth, and cause this division

Your truth, from your perspective sir. The truth vs falsehood. From the Christian perspective, anything that does not agree with the bible, and/or Christian doctrine is falsehood. Christianity's perspective of truth vs lie is a falshood in and of itself. Especially since it denies it's own origins.

Here is an elaboration of the teaching:

I understand biblical and Christian doctrine quite well. I was a preacher, teacher, elder, and street evangelist at different times, for almost 30 years of my life. I have read and studied the bible throughout mores times than most.
There is no such thing as sin. Except "Sin", the moon god the ancients believed in.

Why would you argue that unrighteousness should not be accounted for?

Unrighteousness? By whose definitions and standards sir? Biblical and/or Christian standards? No thank you.

Would you really like a world where people can go around murdering and they are rewarded for it? It seems like some people just loathe anything in the name of good, as if being good is such hard work for them, they sit there and pout about it.

Humans are well able to determine morals and ethics without gods/goddesses/saviors. The advent of religion has only exacerbated societal problems with morals and ethics. It certainly hasn't helped them any.

For me righteousness is everything, and it surely is depressing that I face a whole world, over 6 billion people who disagree with me and hate me for it.

I'm glad you are a good person, and have standards set for yourself.
6 billion? Hasn't anyone told you? Christianity is by far the dominant religion of the Western world.

a reply to: JDmOKI

No please continue, I like reading things out on context.

Then read them in context of the bible. That's why I gave book, chapter, and verse. The rest of the bible only solidifies the extant meaning.

I don't understand how does your post have anything to do with pagan origins or are you ranting to throw off the thread?

Granted. I should have answered Buzzy Wigs in a u2u instead of drifting from the topic.

The pagan origin can be attributed to the Romans owning much of the world during that time and being pagan themselves. I don't think its crazy to think that these holidays were merged to make a Christian holidays.

The pagan origins of Judaism and Christianity can be traced all the way back to Sumeria, long before Rome ever existed as an empire.

The pagan origins of Christianity are one thing, but there is more to it if I really think about it that makes more sense to me in this day and age regarding the purpose of most established , organized and government sanctioned religions.

People are conditioned to be stupid and conditioned to think they think their own thoughts and think they are smart when they actually think what they are taught to think by others in order to harvest the fruits of their labor.

It has only been the case where people were nearly free for a short time and only recently in the last 70 years. It was better in the recent past but is now skidding sideways and about to be going backwards to the ways of the past where humans were exploited like livestock.

There will be another war soon to seal our fate and distract us from being attentive enough to see the truth when those distractions provided now fail to distract us. Y'all better wake the # up as these things all run in cycles and when everyone dies and forgets the lessons of the past the mistakes of the past repeat themselves!.

It's always been this way and this really does need to change so we can mature as a species and stop acting like a race of adolescents.

I feel that religion was contrived by the wealthy for the poor to give the poor something like hope of something better to look forward to.

Of course nothing gets better until we die and while we live our lives looking forward to being happy and dead we change nothing for the better while we live. This is how those in power maintain their power over the masses.

Just my undereducated opinion I came to while having too much time to think about "stuff"....

IMHO>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>((*))

What's that? You have a brand new religion? Sorry, we only like old religions of ancient wisdom. The more ancient, the better.

"No, we aren't really new. See? Look. Pagan through and through. Christianity is actually rooted in... and the fulfillment of... ancient wisdom traditions."

...fast forward to the Enlightenment...

"What's that? Paganism in my Christianity? No! PURGE IT....with science!"

👣

a reply to: greyer

The 'first followers of Jesus' were Jewish. Through and through. Period.

Paul 'invented' (not an accurate term, but descriptive) Christianity because the Jewish elders required that any newly converted Gentiles adopt absolutely the entire covenant. This included not only keeping dietary laws and the sabbath, but also circumcision.

Paul didn't think he could make many converts that way, so he began his own ministry making up his own rules as he went along. Soon the Pauline sect didn't resemble the Jewish faith very much. Paul didn't want to make the new religion so different from the old ones, he wanted to keep it 'familiar'. He took an idea from the Romans: define the foreign religions in terms of their own.

Christianity was founded on the words and deeds of Christ (as Paul had read about and understood them). Christianity didn't 'adopt' a pagan god who was born of a virgin on December 25th; Christianity chose December 25th to celebrate Christ's birth so that the pagans who already celebrated on December 25th could easily adopt the new religion without upsetting their own cultural processes too much. And the virgin birth story certainly added to the Christian mystique.

It is said that the name 'Easter' derives from a Germanic goddess named Eostre whose honor feast was probably related to spring festivals. Spring festivals are about the rebirth of life after the death of winter. Spring festivals are ubiquitous all over Europe and, indeed, the world. The identification of the crucification and resurrection of Christ is an obvious one. Germanic Paganism didn't supply Christianity with the idea of the resurrected Christ; Christianity 'borrowed' already existing practices to make it easy for the new converts to understand.

Now having said all that, it is also simple truth that every mythological 'meme' (to use modern word) that is found in Christianity today, from the virgin birth, to faith healing, to death and resurrection - EVERYTHING - was found in religions, thousands of years before Christ. The difference - THE SOLE DIFFERENCE - is that the ancestor pagan religions, understood their mythology as just that: stories told to understand the world, to instruct people on their responsibilities to their society, and to give comfort in times of turmoil. Christians believe that the virgin birth actually occurred in the lifetime of the historically known individuals and that Jesus not only physically arose from the dead but was again witnessed by historically known individuals.

The overall point is that Christianity did not grow out of paganism. Christianity absorbed pagan practices and ideas as it grew in order to make new converts comfortable in the new religion, and because good ideas are good ideas whether they originated in the mind of a bronze age Hebrew or a pagan philosophical school.

a reply to: Cuervo

Your post is gold, Cuervo

originally posted by: Klassified
First. I do not need saving.

That is a shame that we are so far off from understanding each other that we cannot chat about one thing.

Physical:

You have so much pride and ego that I would argue, you do need saving.

Spiritual:

Every soul needs salvation - it is not a question if some souls need it or some souls don't.

The bad thing is that I can pick apart every sentence of yours and tell you the correct teaching of Jesus. I know my posts are long but that would be too long and we can talk about more productive things.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: greyer

The 'first followers of Jesus' were Jewish. Through and through. Period.

Paul 'invented' (not an accurate term, but descriptive) Christianity because the Jewish elders required that any newly converted Gentiles adopt absolutely the entire covenant. This included not only keeping dietary laws and the sabbath, but also circumcision.

One of the biggest forgotten ritual in the truth that the Gentiles took away from us is baptism. I am one to think that John the Baptizer was a daily baptized himself daily. Peter related it to what the native Americans call a vision quest. One would fast for a period of days, at least one day, and then perform the baptism. This would be periodically, not limited to once or twice. Any time a Gentile would eat with a Christian he would be baptized to be purified and cleaned, because the early Christians did not eat with them.

Now this is what Peter said about not John but Jesus -

He instituted baptism by water amongst them, in which they might be absolved from all their sins on the invocation of His name, and for the future, following a perfect life, might abide in immortality, being purified not by the blood of beasts, but by the purification of the Wisdom of God.

Paul didn't think he could make many converts that way, so he began his own ministry making up his own rules as he went along.

Paul was the one who started the idea of passing the basket around, because there were no synagogues in Jerusalem during this time, whenever there is a reference to the word "church" in the bible it is a Gentile included heresy.

It's getting a little late, but there are some good evidences for later.