Interesting information on the "Christianity is a copy of Pagan Myths" Theory

Many people allege that Christianity, whether its the christianity that is practiced by the public, or strictly the stuff in the Gospels, is largeyl based on pagan traditions. And that there is a conpsiracy within the religion to surpress this. Hereis an intersting page on the topic, that addresses the following claims

How can a [jesus be said to be real when his life is ] almost identical to various other mythos out there including but not limited to:

Mithras (Roman Mithraism)
Horus (Egyptian God of Light)

Both of these religions came *before* Christianity and are clearly labeled as myths yet the 'stories' of their lives are, in many ways, identical to the 'life' of Jesus the Christ.

[brackets are my edit - nygdan]

Its a nicely researched page and quite rational in its approach to the topic. They try to use well established examples of influence, such as the influence of the near eastern mythologies on greek mythology, and analogize it in their study of the relationship between christianity and paganism. In short and in part they note;

1. Similarity of general motifs is not enough to "prove anything"; we must have "complex structures" (e.g., 'system of deities', 'narrative structure').
   
2. Ideally, we would need to establish the historical link first, before looking for borrowings.
   
3. Differences between structures/stories/complexes do not disprove influence, as long as the parallels are 'too numerous' and 'too striking'.
   
4. Parallels must be 'striking' [and need to be] need to be numerous [and] complex [and] detailed
5. 
   
6. The details in alleged parallels must have the same "conceptual usage" reflected in them (e.g., they must be used with the same meaning).
   
7. The similar ideas in alleged parallels must be 'central features' in the material--and not just isolated or peripheral elements.
   
8. Details which are completely unexpected (to the point of being unexplainable apart from borrowing) are strong evidence for borrowing
   
9. Details which are almost irrelevant to the new context, but which have function in the old context are strong evidence for borrowing

Additionally, they restrict the research to just the new testament literature, and not the conventions and practices of christians at the time or since then. I think that this makes sense, but it also has some drawbacks. One could argue that Lent has no real basis in the Gospels, ie its not presented as a 'rite' in the gospels, but that it was practiced by the Church Fathers and possibly the Apostles themselves. I would think that the practices of the mainline christians in the Apostolic Church would be 'fair game' in general then, but restricting it to the canonized gospels themselves is as good as any as a place to resrtict it too.


What does anyone else think of their arguements? I think that they have a pretty good case against the strongest versions of the 'jesus's life is a compilation of pagan mysteries' argument.
They also track a lot of it back to


[edit on 24-6-2005 by Nygdan]

[edit on 27-6-2005 by Nygdan]

Is not doubt that the Old Testament is full of stories taken from other civilizations myth of the times.

Taking in consideration that the Hebrew was a nomad group they interacted with many nations taking a littler bit of the stories from each of the cultures they came across with.

And when they compiled their old testament you can see a littler bit of the lore and myth mix with their old version of their nation’s accounts.

Christianity is a product of many beliefs before it was born all put together into one product, the ending of the old testament into a one God belief and the birth of the patriarch figure, male and divine, taking completely away the role of the women when their main figure favor to incarnate a male, even when in the beginning God seems to have both sexes.

I find it is interesting how people point out the Pagan similarities to Christiananity, and even Judaisum before even attempting to research how such ideas could ahve been communicated or used. Or when the Pagan ritual became history, yet think it applys to the current version of Christianity.

One example is the name of the Hebrew Months. Which are belive to have been used during the Babylonian exile and at the time of thier use the Pagan origans were no longer obvious.

How about easter? In many European languages the name of the festival of the resurection is some form of the word Pesach, the Hebrew name for the Passover. The name Easter apparently originated in the Germanic Languages and was carried to England and into the English Langauge by the Anglo-Saxons. The idea that this word derives from the name of a Pagan goddess of the spring equinox is very old, tracing back to Venerable Bede, an 8th century scholar. Recent scholarship, however, suggests that this notion is wrong.

In the Frankish church the name of the festival of the resurrection included the latin word alba, "white" because of the white garments that were worn during the festival. When this was translated into German, alba was mistaken for a Latin word for "sunrise" which also was alba. For this reason alba was translated with the old German word for "sunrise" which has come to us in the form "Easter" (German: Ostern) In many languages the word for east means "rising" It apprears that the English word "East" also has this meaning. Although the evidance is unclear and there are competing theories, it appears that the festival of the resurrection already has the name "Rising" since this seems to be the original meaning of Easter.

it is Possible that Bede was not entirly wrong and that there was also a goddess named "dawn" since many pagan religions have a god or godess of the sunrise. it seems highly improbable, however, that the church authorities would have allowed the chief festival of the Christian year to be named after a pagan goddess. They might have been tempted to keep something heathen and call it by a Christian name. They would hardly have taken soemthing Christian and given it a pagan name.

Then there is the Holiday seasons, Jews find deep religious messages in Hanukkah, even though it is a relitivly minor holiday in thier tradition. Christians find even greater meaning in Christmas, one of it's most revered celebrations. The possible pagan origins of some of the observances of either holiday are no longer relevant, except in terms of historical and academic interest.

Pagan thread to either holiday comes not from thier histories, but from the ways they are observed in popular culture. Today, the sacred meanings of both holidays risk being lost, as spirituality vies with materialism for our attention during the season. I don't know how many fellow Christians would tell me that Christmas is an entirely secular, cultural, family celebration. (That means families and communities gather, which in some cases can be a scared endevor onto itself) But the activities some engage in are primarily gluttony and greed. Pagan endevors which are alive to this very day.

Jewish and Christian Leaders of today do not worry that thier people will bow down to the pagan gods whose worship might have inspired some of our sacred symbols. Instead we must be concerned with the real "Idolatry" of the 21st century, as it is expressed during the holiday season. We perform acts of kindess for one month, and then ignore the needy for the bulk of the year.

To pass harsh judgements on Christians on the basis of alleged pagan etymology of festival names or alleged pagan origin of festivals is at best "passing judgment on disputable matters" (Romans 14:1) All too often it crosses over into the passign legalistic judgments on Christians (Romans 14L1-23, 1 Co 8:4-8) It is not too much differant than the spirit of politically-correct school board which would not allow Valentine's Day becasue it would introduce a Christian saints's day in to the public school, but did allow "Special Person Day"

I doubt ANY Chrisitan Chruch, or jewish Synod is going to change or adapt the habits of those who make judgements, on the basis of scetchy, uncertain historical evidance, and long-forgotten origins.

marg6043, it is interesting how you make such a uneducated and ideological argument and assume that without a shred of evidance to convince anyone your even remotely right. I don't know what version of Christianty you learned, but women do have a role in the bible. and it is not as what might be thinking is as equal to or worse then a slave. But much as equal to the mans role, yet differant to seperate the two

Good information Jeho....and I agree with Marg as well.

It amazes me that most Christians do not understand the base of they're own religion. I am proud to be a Pagan!

I was raised in a Christian religion, but during my adulthood seeking truth and learning about the way our world works, brought me to a very Pagan place in my heart.
My young son however, is choosing a Christian path. That is good to IMO....for there are ceratinly worse paths to walk. I go with him to his meetings when he asks me, and he helps me with my full moon celebrations. We are a pretty diverse little family for only being the 2 of us
As long as we are working within the White Light, I think it is all good.

.........................just sayin

Christ came 2000 years ago and died for sins, but the beginning of this was back in the book of Genesis. In Gen. 3:15 we are told that the Savior would come. You can even argue that Christianity began before the universe was even made as the Bible tells us that Christ is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

You can certainly believe what you want but these pagan ideas were copied by satan from God's idea that Christ would at the right moment come to redeem mankind.

Nygdan....since this is your thread, would you please do an EDIT on the title? I wondered WHAT a Pagan indea was for a LONG time.....I am assuming you mean IDEA.

Just a thought......might clear it up for a few people.....might get more views....

Jehosephat, uneducated?

I will have to laugh about that one but instead of filling the post with verses and quote from the same book that make the mix I rather use logic.

Anyway go back to creation myth and read the part of god making women and men in his own image.

Then go back to New Testament and see how conveniently "God" became a male with a male human son.

Funny how people go blind to certain issues in the bible that play games with the mind of the faithful, they rather go blind.

Yes the female has roles in the bible, occurs only when they were consistently chosen for the particular roles.

We all know how pagan beliefs gave women a much marked role than the bible itself.

Yes women were the Goddesses of the earth . . . until Christianity gave to the male species with the birth of the divine Jesus all male from a male God.

Josephat I wonder who is really the undeducated here.

Thanks theRiverGoddess, we women in other civilizations around the world and away from chrisitanity had bigger and better roles, we were the godesses of earth.

[edit on 26-6-2005 by marg6043]

We STILL are Marg....even though in this predominetly male DOMINANT society that we now live in refuses that fact.

hmmmmmmm. How did this world become so dominated by males? The rise of Christianity had MUCH to do with that......The Pagan Midwives and Medicine woman were burned. The burnings continued on to the more recent witch hunts in Salem. Woman of knowledge were killed, simple as that. To this day SOME females hide the knowledge they have gained in honor to find favor in the eyes of SOME males with the over riding supiriority complex.

Lillith???? Christians........do you KNOW who that is?
I wonder how well modern Christians know the bible they love and cherish?

SUNDAY is not the last day of the week....it is the FIRST. Named for the day of the Sun, let there be light.
When Christianity was taking hold, the Roman Pope at the time decided they could gather more converts from the Pagan folds if they changed the day of worship to the day that the Pagans celebrate, SUNDAY. Pagans worship on the first day of the week, celebrating the CREATION of all on this first day.

The Bible states CLEARLY that the Lord rested on the 7th day and that it should be kept as a Holy day of rest...........WHY do Christians think Sunday is the day of rest?????? If they really believe theyre own teachings then they are surley not following the practice set forth in the Bible.....Whats up with that?



[edit on 26-6-2005 by theRiverGoddess]

Originally posted by dbrandt
Christ came 2000 years ago and died for sins, but the beginning of this was back in the book of Genesis. In Gen. 3:15 we are told that the Savior would come. You can even argue that Christianity began before the universe was even made as the Bible tells us that Christ is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

You can certainly believe what you want but these pagan ideas were copied by satan from God's idea that Christ would at the right moment come to redeem mankind.

dbrandt, what you are referring to, about the beginning being so far previous all this, is typical story writing. Ever read a book or watched a movie that just jumped right into the main storyline? Nope, there's always a buildup. The more dramatic the author(s) wish it, the longer it will be.

I am quite interested as to any non-Biblical sources about your idea of Paganism being Satan-bred. As I'll say in any thread, can't prove scripture with scripture, as it is just a story book to anyone outside of you and yours of ideology.


====================

Originally posted by theRiverGoddess

My young son however, is choosing a Christian path. That is good to IMO....for there are ceratinly worse paths to walk. I go with him to his meetings when he asks me, and he helps me with my full moon celebrations. We are a pretty diverse little family for only being the 2 of us

As long as we are working within the White Light, I think it is all good.

Because one sometimes does not see of themselves, I'll say this ........... do you have any what your thought process of blending two religions is doing? Imo, it may be the seeds of his generation to have the concept that two religions can, in fact, live harmoneously!! I think it is so cool what you are doing with your son. You going to meetings with him may show him that another religion can willingly go out of their way to join with his; at the same time, his joinging with you for Celebration may show that because he is of one religion, that it's far okay to simply be serene with one of another religion.

I do realize that was kinda long winded for the context, but I really wanted to send you my admiration for what you are doing - just never was much for the writing thing.

Bright Blessings to you and yours !

Misfit

Not much new there, except that the author is defining new rules for the game, even though he states:

Fortunately, there are a number of established criteria for this (so we don't have to 'make up' or 'create' our own), drawing largely from the work of scholars working in the area of Semitic influence on the Greek/Western world...

...That is still precisely what the author is doing. Using his rules, which basically amount to "the stories must be exactly the same to be of any significant relation."

This is absurd.

Originally posted by Rook Hawkins
Christians contend all of the following pre-Christian sun-gods are mythological: Hercules, Osiris, Bacchus, Mithra, Hermes, Prometheus, Perseus, and Horus. Yet, all: (1) allegedly had gods for fathers and virgins for mothers; (2) had their births announced by stars and celestial music; (3) were born on the 25th of December (Solstice); (4) had tyrants trying to kill them when they were infants; (5) met with violent deaths; and (6) rose from the dead.

From a glance, at the very least, some of the most fundamental elements of the story of Christ have been effectively "played out" by earlier players. Whether this lends an air of illegitimacy to the story of Christ is not a question to be answered within a comparison between Christ and the previous players. Rather, to answer this question, we will have to look at ALL of the EVIDENCE in history to come to any kind of satisfactory conclusion.

Wait, what? Evidence?

Here is an in depth examination for the evidence supporting Christ as a historical figure..

The evidence for Christ does not even amount to ONE SINGLE eyewitness testimony set to paper.

While considering the question, "was the account of Christ as set down in the bible genuine?" You must take into consideration NOT ONLY the fact that several preceeding religious stories consist of striking similarities to the Jesus of the bible, but ALSO the fact that there is zero evidence that the Christ of the bible ever existed. Consider also that Jesus allegedly walked the earth at a time when over 30 people had the last name meaning "Annointed One" (specifically employed by its users to claim that they were the Jewish messiahs) and many had the first name Jesus.

Actually, even though many people had the last name of "The Annointed" or "Annointed One" at the time of Jesus' alleged existence, Jesus's last name never was Christ. His full name was Yehoshua bar Yosef, or "Yahweh is Salvation, Son of Joseph." Wait! He wasn't Joseph's son, though, right? I'm side tracking myself, but the point is that Jesus, if he existed, was one "annointed one" among several would-be messiahs during his lifetime. Pick a hill, and there was a messiah leading a small band of Jews atop it.

Some Christians will say that the similarities between their beliefs and paganistic beliefs are a result of having to hide their Christianity in ancient times. I could go on about this for quite awhile, but in short, I will say, "really? So you're accepting the fact that a large portion of Jesus' fundamental existence AS IT IS CELEBRATED IN TODAY'S CHURCH is falsified?"

Zip

Originally posted by marg6043
Jehosephat, uneducated?

Yes, at least where this subject stands, and i will prove it. Since you have made it easy for me by seprating your post by carrige returns to make it seem you typed more then you did

I will have to laugh about that one but instead of filling the post with verses and quote from the same book that make the mix I rather use logic.

I didn't fill the post with verses and quote from any book. Tho I did metion 2 specific verse in the end in my conculsion of a christian veiwpoint. I fail to see how you think I didn't use logic when I was using etemology in explaining the false linking of easter to pagan goddess. Maybe you mean only your logic means anything not anyone elses

Anyway go back to creation myth and read the part of god making women and men in his own image.

In the Bible, only human arrogance thinks that the physical body is in Gods image. If you read the anceint heberew it is "like God" and since the only True form God has is a Spirtual one we have to assume Adam and Eve are spiritual in nature, which is another way to explain why humans are constantly searching for a higher power.

Then go back to New Testament and see how conveniently "God" became a male with a male human son.

Well back in the time "Men" were the leaders and was a Patriarch society, in fact it stayed that way until the 1950s or 1960s. It is really unfair to blame society for being so sexist, and it wasn't until the invetion of modern conviniaces like refrigeration and food processers that women were able to easily leave the homemaker lifestyle. I suggest you educated yourself more on anceint economies, societies, and structure before passing judgemnet on how sexist they were.

God was refered to in the masculine because of the sybmolisum of the time when refering to males.. they were kings, leaders, bread winners, educators, warriors. While the women needed to spend most of the day preparing and gathering food for the family while raising any children. The step up from a slave was a widow with no son. And in the early christian church there was a well documented welfare system for them so that they wouldn't have to live in poverty.

Jesus was male, because thousands of years of prophacy fortolled of him, in the day people cried out "Son of David" becasue of the prohaciy. If Jesus was a women, no one would belive she was the savior, and years of propahcy would be untrue

Funny how people go blind to certain issues in the bible that play games with the mind of the faithful, they rather go blind.

I can say the same for you, since you obvisouly didn't read my post. how can you say I am blind when it is you who are stumbling around in the darkness of unbelief according to my veiwpoint?

Yes the female has roles in the bible, occurs only when they were consistently chosen for the particular roles.

YOu can say the same for the men to. So I don't see the point of this comment. Mary was choosen to give birth to Jesus because she pleased God. it wasn't random. Ester was choosen to be queen because of her beauty, not because she was Jewish. Sarah was choosen to be the mother of a nation at an elderaly age becasue of a promise God made to her. Paul was choosen by Jesus to bring Christianity to the gentiles beacsue he was one of the strongest accusers. Stephan was choosen to by the first Christian Mayter becasue of his great faith. My Namesake Jehosaphat was choosen to be king becasue he was the eldest son of the prviosus king.

You need to bring forth some examples to prove your point since as I have show you it is very unclear.

We all know how pagan beliefs gave women a much marked role than the bible itself.

I don't, too bad I just proved your whole statement false. might want to try and give some examples

Yes women were the Goddesses of the earth . . . until Christianity gave to the male species with the birth of the divine Jesus all male from a male God.

Since your first sentance was allready disproven and forgets Jewish history too, i will continue with the other parts. Male species? is that some Feminist ideal to make enemies out of the males? The Judeo-Christian God is neither Man or Woman, but has aspects of both in symbolisum. Jesus never said he was born just for the Males. he was born to saved EVERYONE.

Josephat I wonder who is really the undeducated here.

you are

*I have given examples, and evidance, all you have given AGAIN is rhetoric
*You don't even bother to spell my screen name correctly (tho my spelling is horrid, so I wont protest too much)
*You insult me by calling me a seperate species from Homo Saipians
*You accuse me of quoting from the bible in a previous post, which I did not.

maybe your more then just uneducated, but that would be insulting to say such a thing. maybe I wil settle for miss-informed, and too idealogical to have a serious dicussion about subjects when it includes bashing Christianity in the name of Pagan worshiping


Thanks theRiverGoddess, we women in other civilizations around the world and away from chrisitanity had bigger and better roles, we were the godesses of earth.

[edit on 26-6-2005 by marg6043]

Any word on my post, Jehosephat?

Zip

Originally posted by dbrandt
You can certainly believe what you want but these pagan ideas were copied by satan from God's idea that Christ would at the right moment come to redeem mankind.

The thrust of the arguemnt in the orignal link is that these pagan ideas are in fact not present in christianity in the first place. That the orignal propositions, from what apparently is called the 'history of religion' school, were infact far too strongly empahsised and are far too poorly supported to be accepted then, and especially not to be accepted today when we have things like the DSS which, to a large degree, bridge judaism and gospel christianity, and that that is a far better supported 'origin theory' for the major facets of christianity than paganism. So there is only a superficial appearance of similarity between Pagan ideas (like the fatherless birth, death and restoration of the god, 'cleanising' by bathing, consuming the god, rituals with shafts of wheat and blood, etc etc) and christianity (actual virginal birth, death and ressurection for atonement of adamic sins, baptism into the church community, eating the eucharist and drinking the wine, the eucharist in ritual mass, etc etc). IOW, that there is, infact, no resemblance, its a mistaken academic theory, really.
Correspondingly, there is then no need to think that Satan somehow knew about the passion play and cunningly made up fake religions that 'mock' it, because there are no religions that are actually like it.

If such things are "superficial" and you see "no resemblence," then you are not looking with unclouded eyes, Nygdan.

There is controversy about the meaning of the passages in the bible that purport that Mary was a "virgin."

Some have argued that the Virgin Birth is a Christian borrowing from paganism. The impregnation of mortal women by gods is common in pagan mythology, but Christian apologists have replied that the obvious sex of the pagan myths is missing in the Gospels:

Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Luke 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
However, because the Jewish God does not take human form in Judaism, he could not impregnate Mary in a physical way, and the absence of sex from the conception of Jesus does not disprove borrowing from paganism. However, the onus is on the proponents to prove borrowing, and the fact remains that the parallels are not virginal conceptions.

Furthermore, a pagan myth of virgin birth may also underlie the disputed verses from Isaiah:

It all boils down to this: the distinctive Hebrew word for 'virgin' is betulah, whereas `almah means a 'young woman' who may be a virgin, but is not necessarily so. The aim of this note is rather to call attention to a source that has not yet been brought into the discussion. From Ugarit of around 1400 B.C. comes a text celebrating the marriage of the male and female lunar deities. It is there predicted that the goddess will bear a son ... The terminology is remarkably close to that in Isaiah 7:14. However, the Ugaritic statement that the bride will bear a son is fortunately given in parallelistic form; in 77:7 she is called by the exact etymological counterpart of Hebrew `almah 'young woman'; in 77:5 she is called by the exact etymological counterpart of Hebrew betulah 'virgin'. Therefore, the New Testament rendering of `almah as 'virgin' for Isaiah 7:14 rests on the older Jewish interpretation, which in turn is now borne out for precisely this annunciation formula by a text that is not only pre-Isaianic but is pre-Mosaic in the form that we now have it on a clay tablet. (Feinberg, BibSac, July 62; the citation to Gordon is: C. H. Gordon, "`Almah in Isaiah 7:14", Journal of Bible and Religion, XXI, 2 (April, 1953), p. 106.)

I mean to speak strictly about biblical events, and not such things as extra-biblical traditions, primarily because I believe that Jesus Christ as a historical figure did not exist as Christianity depicts the alleged person.

At the time of Christ's advent, there were temples without number that were dedicated to gods like Apollo or Dionysius among the Greeks, Hercules among the Romans, Mithra among the Persians, Adonis and Attis in Syria and Phrygia, Osiris, Isis and Horus in Egypt, Baal and Astarte among the Babylonians and Carthaginians, and so on.

These deities were all sun-gods.

Edward Carpenter says that of all, or nearly all, of them it was believed that:

1. They were born on or very near Christmas Day.

2. They were born of a Virgin Mother.

3. Their birth took place in a cave or underground chamber.

4. They struggled and toiled for the good of mankind.
5. They were known by such names as Mediator, Healer, Light-Bringer, Saviour and Deliverer.

6. The Powers of Darkness, however, conquered them.

7. They descended into Hell or the Underworld.

8. They rose again from the dead and became the pioneers of mankind to the Heavenly World.

9. They founded Communions of Saints and Churches to which disciples were received by baptism.

10. They were commemorated by Eucharistic meals.

It is very easy to show that all that the Christian church teaches today and that forms an essential part of Christianity, did NOT come from Jesus. The doctrines that are declared as "necessary to salvation" were brought into the religion of Jesus by monks and priests some three hundred years after the time of Christ. These dogmas were not invented by the clergy, but were ready-made essentials of Paganism, the various ramifications of which cult spread from Persia to Britain.

One of the most popular cults at that time was MITHRAISM. This creed originated in Persia and flourished there for about six hundred years. It reached Rome at about 70 B.C., and spread throughout the Roman Empire, extending even to Great Britain where remains of Mithraic monuments were found at York, Chester, and other places.

We read in Robertson's "PAGAN CHRISTS" (p. 338) that Mithra was believed to be a great Mediator between God and Man. His birth took place in a cave on December 25th. He was born of a virgin. He travelled far and wide. He had twelve disciples. He died in the service of humanity. He was buried, but rose again from the tomb. His resurrection was celebrated with great rejoicing. His great festivals were the Winter Solstice and the Vernal Equinox - Christmas and Easter. He was called SAVIOUR, and sometimes figured as a LAMB. People were initiated into his cult through BAPTISM. Sacramental feasts were held in his remembrance.

A short account of the pagan "sons of God" will not be out of place here.

BACCHUS, sometimes referred to as Dionysius, was born on the 25th December. His mother was a virgin called Demeter. The world was enveloped in evil, so the God of gods was beseeched to redeem mankind. The prayer was accepted by Jupiter who declared that his son would redeem the world from its misery. He promised a LIBERATOR to the earth, and Bacchus came as a Saviour. He was called the ONLY Begotten Son.

Dr. Frazer in his book "The Golden Bough" (Chapter 4, p. 229) records Bacchus as saying: "It is I who guide you; it is I who protect you, and who save you; I who am the Alpha and Omega." Bacchus was also a great traveller and brought the gift of wine to mankind. This brings to mind the miracle of Christ when he converted water into wine at the marriage feast.

Attis, the Phrygian god, was born of a virgin named Nana. He was bled to death at the foot of a pine-tree. His blood renewed the fertility of the earth and thus brought a new life to humanity. He also rose from the dead. In celebrating his death and resurrection, his image was fastened to a pine-tree on March 24th, and the day was called the "Day of Blood", since on that day the deity was bled to death. The image was then laid in a tomb with wailing and mourning, but the coming night changed sorrow to joy. The tomb was found to be empty on the next day, when the festival of the resurrection was celebrated. These mysteries seem to have included a sacramental meal and a baptism of blood.

Adonis, the Syrian god, was also born of a virgin. He was killed, and rose again in the spring. Every year the maidens wept for Adonis (Ezekiel, 8: 14) and then rejoiced over his resurrection.

Quetzalcoatle, the Mexican Saviour, was born of a virgin, Chimalman, who had received the message informing her that she was to become the mother of a son without any association with man, but through a heavenly messenger. Soon after the departure of the messenger, she conceived and bore a son - QUETZALCOATLE - a word that means "our beloved Son." This offspring of the Heavenly Spirit fasted for forty days and was tempted by Satan. He was also crucified, at which time the sun was darkened and withheld its light. Prescott says in his book1 that his second coming was looked forward to so eagerly that when Cortez appeared, the Mexicans hailed him as the returning God.

There are also many similar stories of Horus, Osiris, Apollo, Attis and Bel. Thus the passion story of the Lord of Christianity was almost identical with many previous stories of similar nature. The passion play of Bel, the Babylonian Sun-God, was in existence centuries before the birth of Jesus. It was a mystery play acted every year in the beginning of spring. The main features of the play have been deciphered from some tablets discovered from Babylonian ruins. The tablets disclose very remarkable facts which must be disturbing to thousands of honest minds in Christendom.


The story of Bel and the story of Jesus are one and the same, and this not only deprives the evangelical records of the claims to be genuine, but it convicts them of complete plagiarism!

In the list below, sixteen saviour-gods are given - from amongst many - who were all believed by their followers to have died for the sins of the world, together with their countries of origin and approximate dates:


(1)
Osiris
(Egypt)
1700 B.C.

(2)
Bēl
(Babylon)
1200 B.C.

(3)
Attis
(Phrygia)
1170 B.C.

(4)
Thammuz
(Syria)
1160 B.C.

(5)
Dionysius
(Greece)
1100 B.C.

(6)
Krishna
(India)
1000 B.C.

(7)
Hesus
(Europe)
834 B.C.

(8)
Indra
(Tibet)
725 B.C.

(9)
Bali
(Asia)
725 B.C.

(10)
Iao
(Nepal)
622 B.C.

(11)
Alcestis
(Pherae)
600 B.C.

(12)
Quetzalcoatle
(Mexico)
587 B.C.

(13)
Wittoba
(Travancore)
552 B.C.

(14)
Prometheus
(Greece)
547 B.C.

(15)
Quirinus
(Rome)
506 B.C.

(16)
Mithra
(Persia)
400 B.C.

Zip

I would like to add that the original link does two things,

1. Defines its own rules as to how we should semantically examine the considerable likenesses between pagan beliefs and Christian beliefs (for example, "a virgin birth is a superficial similarity." Hmmm...)

2. It attempts to battle arguments that have not been made (for example, the article shows that, "well, all of these old religions have similarities! Of course they're going to have similarities!", rather than focusing on the real issues, which go much deeper than "hey, are these things similar?" into "hey, WHY are these things so similar?")

In this manner, the article exposes itself as having employed a common logical fallacy - fighting "the weakest of the many" arguments for a position.

Zip

[edit on 6/27/2005 by Zipdot]

Here, maybe I can provide some more examples of similarities that aren't as "superficial."

CONSENSUS OF BUDDHIST BELIEF REGARDING BUDDHA
CONSENSUS OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF REGARDING JESUS

1. Buddha was born of the virgin Maya, who conceived him without carnal intercourse.
1. Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary who conceived him without carnal intercourse.

2. The incarnation of Buddha is recorded to have been brought about by the descent of the divine power called the “Holy Ghost” upon Virgin Maya.
2. The incarnation of Jesus is recorded to have been brought about by the descent of the divine power called the “Holy Ghost” upon the Virgin Mary.

3. When Buddha descended from the regions of the souls, and entered the body of the Virgin Maya, her womb assumed the appearance of clear, transparent crystal, in which Buddha appeared beautiful as a flower.
3. When Jesus descended from his heavenly seat, and entered the body of the Virgin Mary, her womb assumed the appearance of clear, transparent crystal, in which Jesus appeared beautiful as a flower.

4. The birth of Buddha was announced in the heavens by an asterim which was seen rising on the horizon. It is called the “Messianic Star”.
4. The birth of Jesus was announced in the heavens by “his star”, which was seen rising on the horizon. It might properly be called the “Messianic Star”.


5. “The son of the Virgin Maya, on whom, according to the tradition, the ‘Holy Ghost’ had descended, was said to have been born on Christmas day.”
5. The Son of the Virgin Mary, on whom, according to the tradition, the “Holy Ghost” had descended, was said to have been born on Christmas day.

6. Demonstrations of celestial delight were manifest at the birth of Buddha. The Devas in heaven and earth sang praises to the “Blessed One”, and said: “To-day, Bodhisatwa is born on earth, to give joy and peace to men and Devas, to shed light in the dark places, and to give sight to the blind.”
6. Demonstrations of celestial delight were manifest at the birth of Jesus. The angels in heaven and earth sang praises to the “Blessed One”, saying: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men.”

7. “Buddha was visited by wise men who recognized in this marvellous infant all the characters of the divinity, and he has scarcely seen the day before he was hailed God of God.”
7. Jesus was visited by wise men who recognized in this marvellous infant all the characters of the divinity, and he had scarcely seen the day before he was hailed God of Gods.


8. The infant Buddha was presented with “costly jewels and precious substances.”
8. The infant Jesus was presented with gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh.

9. When Buddha was an infant, just born, he spoke to his mother, and said: “I am the greatest among men.”
9. When Jesus was an infant in his cradle, he spoke to his mother, and said: “I am Jesus, the Son of God.”

10. Buddha was a “dangerous child.” His life was threatened by King Bimbasara, who was advised to destroy the child, as he was liable to overthrow him.
10. Jesus was a “dangerous child.” His life was threatened by King Herod, who attempted to destroy the child, as he was liable to overthrow him.

11. When sent to school, the young Buddha surprised his masters. Without having ever studied, he completely worsted all his competitors, not only in writing, but in arithmetic, mathematics, metaphysics, astrology, geometry, etc.
11. When sent to school, Jesus surprised his master, Zaccheus, who, turning to Joseph, said: “Thou hast brought a boy to me to be taught, who is more learned than any master.”


12. “When twelve years old, the child Buddha is presented in the temple. He explains and asks learned questions; he excels all those who enter into competition with him.”
12. “And when he was twelve years old, they brought him to (the temple at) Jerusalem … While in the temple among the doctors and elders, and learned men of Israel, he proposed several questions of learning, and also gave them answers.”

13. Buddha entered a temple, on which occasion forthwith all the statues rose and threw themselves at his feet, in act of worship.
13. “And as Jesus was going in by the ensigns, who carried the standards, the tops of them bowed down and worshipped Jesus.”

14. When Buddha was about to go forth “to adopt a religious life”, Mara appeared before him, to tempt him.
14. When Jesus was about “beginning to preach”, the devil appeared before him, to tempt him.

15. Mara said unto Buddha: “Go not forth to adopt a religious life, and in seven days thou shalt become an emperor of the world.”
15. The devil said to Jesus: “if thou wilt fall down and worship me, I will give thee all the kingdoms of the world.”


16. Buddha would not heed the words of the Evil One, and said to him: “Get thee away from me.”
16. Jesus would not heed the words of the Evil One, and said to him: “Get thee behind me, Satan.”

17. After Mara had left Buddha, “the skies rained flowers, and delicious odours pervaded the air.”
17. After the devil had left Jesus, “angels came and ministered unto him.”

18. Buddha fasted for a long period.
18. Jesus fasted for forty days and nights.

19. On one occasion towards the end of his life on earth, Gautama Buddha is reported to have been transfigured.
19. On one occasion during his career on earth, Jesus is reported to have been transfigured.

20. “Buddha performed great miracles for the good of mankind, and the legends concerning him are full of the greatest prodigies and wonders.”
20. Jesus performed great miracles for the good of mankind and the legends concerning him are full of the greatest prodigies and wonders.

21. When Buddha died and was buried, “the coverings of the body unrolled themselves, and the lid of his coffin was opened by supernatural power.”
21. When Jesus died and was buried, the coverings of his body were unrolled from off him, and his tomb was opened by supernatural powers.


22. Buddha ascended bodily to the celestial regions, when his mission on earth was fulfilled.
22. Jesus ascended bodily to the celestial regions, when his mission on earth was fulfilled.

23. Buddha is to come upon the earth again in the latter days, his mission being to restore the world to order and happiness.
23. Jesus is to come upon the earth again in the latter days, his mission being to restore the world to order and happiness.

24. Buddha is Alpha and Omega, without beginning or end, “the Supreme Being, the Eternal One.”
24. Jesus is Alpha and Omega, without beginning or end, the Supreme Being, the Eternal One.

25. Buddha is represented as saying: “Let all the sins that were committed in this world fall on me, that the world may be delivered.”
25. Jesus is represented as the Saviour of mankind, and all sins that are committed in this world may fall on him, that the world may be delivered.


26. Buddha came, not to destroy, but to fulfil, the law. He delighted in “representing himself as a mere link in a long chain of enlightened teachers.”
26. Jesus said: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy but to fulfil.”

27. Those who became disciples of Buddha were told that they must “renounce the world”, give up all their riches, and avow poverty.
27. Those who became disciples of Jesus were told that they must renounce the world, give up all their riches, and avow poverty.

28. It is recorded in the “Sacred Canon” of the Buddhists that the multitudes “required a sign” from Buddha “that they might believe.”
28. It is recorded in the “Sacred Canon” of the Christians that the multitudes required a sign from Jesus that they might believe.

29. Buddha’s aim was to establish a “Religious Kingdom”, a “Kingdom of Heaven.”
29. “From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.”

30. Buddha said: “Though the heavens were to fall to earth, and the great world be swallowed up and pass away: Though Mount Sumera were to crack to pieces, and the great ocean be dried up, yet, Ananda, be assured, the words of Buddha are true.”
30. Jesus said: “Verily I say unto you … heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”


31. Buddha knew the thoughts of others: “By directing his mind to the thoughts of others, he can know the thoughts of all beings.”
31. Jesus knew the thoughts of others. By directing his mind to the thoughts of others, he knew the thoughts of all beings.

32. In the SOMADEVA a story is related of a Buddhist ascetic whose eye offended him; he therefore plucked it out, and cast it away.
32. It is related in the New Testament that Jesus said: “If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee.”

33. When Buddha was about to become an ascetic, and when riding on the horse “Kantako” his path was strewn with flowers, thrown there by Devas.
33. When Jesus was entering Jerusalem, riding on an ass, his path was strewn with palm branches, thrown there by the multitude.

Admittedly, some of these similarities are deeper than others, but taken as a whole, this is a freakin' exact parallel.

...And that's just ONE guy. Check out Bel:

The following is taken from the January 1922 issue of the QUEST, which describes the tablets belonging to the cuneiform documents which were discovered by certain German excavators in the years 1903 and 1904 at Kalah-Shargat, the site of the ancient city of Assour. They belonged to the library of Ashurbanipal, formed somewhere about the ninth century.

THE BABYLONIAN PASSION PLAY
THE CHRISTIAN PASSION STORY

Bel is taken prisoner.
Jesus is taken prisoner.

Bel is tried in the House on the Mount (the Hall of Justice).
Jesus is tried in the House of the High Priest and the Hall of Pilate.

Bel is smitten (wounded).
Jesus is scourged.

Bel is led away to the Mount.
Jesus is led away to crucifixion on Golgotha.

Together with Bel a malefactor is led away and put to death. Another, who is also charged as a malefactor, is let go, thus not taken away with Bel.
Together with Jesus, two malefactors are led away and put to death. Another (Barabbas) is released to the people, and thus not taken away with Jesus.

After Bel had gone to the Mount, the city breaks out into tumult, and fighting takes place in it.
After the death of Jesus, the veil in the temple is rent (Synopt.), the earth quakes, the rocks are rent asunder, the graves are opened, and the dead come forth into the holy city. (Matthew).

Bel’s clothes are carried away.
Jesus’s robe is divided among the soldiers (Synopt., John, cf. Ps. 22 : 18).

A woman wipes away the heart’s blood of Bel flowing from a drawn-out weapon (spear?).
The lance-thrust in Jesus’s side and outflow of water and blood (John). Mary Magdalene and two other women busy themselves with the (washing, and) embalming of the body (Mark, Luke).

Bel goes down into the Mount away from sun and light, disappears from life, and is held fast in the Mount as in a prison.


Jesus, in the grave, in the rock tomb (Synopt.) goes down into the realm of the dead (1 Pet. 3 : 19; Matt. 12 : 40; Acts 2 : 24; Rom. 10 : 7, “descent into hell” dogma).

Guards watch Bel imprisoned in the stronghold of the Mount.
Guards are set over the tomb of Jesus. (Matthew).

A goddess sits with Bel; she comes to tend him.
Mary Magdalene and the other Mary sit before the tomb. (Matthew, Mark).

They seek for Bel where he is held fast. In particular a weeping woman seeks for him at the “Gate of Burial.” When he is being carried away, the same lamented: “O, my brother! O, my brother!”
Women, in particular Mary Magdalene, came to the tomb to seek Jesus where he is behind the door of the tomb. Mary stands weeping before the empty tomb because they have taken her Lord away (John).

I think the similarities between Bel and Christ are not as strong as Mithra, Krishna, or Buddha, but hey, they're there too.

Siddhartha Gautama walked the Earth in 563 B.C.E.

Zip

[edit on 6/27/2005 by Zipdot]

Jehosephat

At the end it came out with nothing in your post but assumptions, yes sexiest indeed the bible is full of it.

Pagan believes held women in higher standards than the bible, but occurs you "being so knowledgeable" has omitted the fact.

Did I hurt your male ego? with my post, we excused me I am a female after all and my gender will always make me bias to my self importance as a woman and the role of woman in history including ancient history the one that the bible omitted.

Just like your male ego will come first.

Uneducated indeed.

From the begining of the old testament the similarities of ancient myth and tales of different civilizations has blend nicely with the bible accounts.

That is a fact and an educated one at most.

Zipdot, could you please add source links for that. That's an amazing piece, I'd like to read.

Sure, and sorry, here they are in chronological order:

WikiPedia Entry on "Virgin Birth"

The rest of the post is all sourced from "CHAPTER I: THE AFFINITY BETWEEN CHRISTIANITY AND PAGANISM" from
"The Bible: Word of God or Word of Man"

I would also point you to Rook Hawkin's Examination of the Evidence for Christ, which I find is an incredibly well-done compilation of investigation.

Zip

Originally posted by Zipdot
If such things are "superficial" and you see "no resemblence," then you are not looking with unclouded eyes, Nygdan.

Sir, for my own part, I am merely presenting some interesting information on the "Christianity is a copy of Pagan Myths" theory. I've rarely seen the apologeticists handling of this theory, and I think that that page actually does a pretty decent, tho not conclusive, job of it.

It all boils down to this: the distinctive Hebrew word for 'virgin' is betulah, whereas `almah means a 'young woman' who may be a virgin, but is not necessarily so.

I agree, this handling of the virgin idea is one of the weak points of their arguement. Also, perseus was born from Danae, who became pregnant after comming into contact with the great god as a shower of gold. There's obviously no penetration here, and, really, arguing that mary had an intact hymen before giving birth to jesus is pretty irrelevant anyways. The whole thing smacks of the Fatherless Hero motif. Often in 'pagan' myths, the hero is a "Widow's Son", this is another way in which the hero has no father. Mary's obviously not a widow, but the parrallelism certainly appears to be there.

People were initiated into his [mithras's] cult through BAPTISM

I think that this was one of the instances addressed in the paper. The mitraic baptism was apparently for preists, it involved the sprinkling of blood, the initiate would stand in a hole, under a wooden floor, on which a bull was sacrificed (mithras, of course, is the bull slayer with the cosmic cloak and phyrgian cap) and the blood trickled onto the initiate, and this initiation was, according to the paper anyway, only effective for 20 years, and didn't perform quite the same function as baptism in the christian cult.
Now, I think that its not entirely fair to say that these things aren't exact parallels, but, agian, the authors make a good case in analogizing to known or established cases of cultural diffusion, (b/t the near east and hellenistic world). The mithraic baptism and christer baptism are generally quite different, in general form and in the complex specifics, and the christian baptism is perhaps better explained by the old testament 'baptism', which shared a similar context with the christian cult.

Defines its own rules as to how we should semantically examine the considerable likenesses between pagan beliefs and Christian beliefs

I don't think it does that, it approaches it in a rational way, by looking at how cultural diffusion has previously been established and applying those methods to this example. But I do agree, a good deal of it is quite subjective, such as the widow's son and virginal impregnation bit.

It attempts to battle arguments that have not been made

It seems to be addressing statements that have been made and that are often taken for granted, and even addressed the development of this 'historical religion' school.

In this manner, the article exposes itself as having employed a common logical fallacy - fighting "the weakest of the many" arguments for a position.

How has it made a strawman out of the arguement?

1. Buddha was born of the virgin Maya, who conceived him without carnal intercourse.
1. Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary who conceived him without carnal intercourse.

But, as the author's note, the mother of the buddha is a married woman, who is not a virgin.

The incarnation of Buddha is recorded to have been brought about by the descent of the divine power called the “Holy Ghost” upon Virgin Maya.

Where is it called the holy ghost?

When Jesus descended from his heavenly seat, and entered the body of the Virgin Mary, her womb assumed the appearance of clear, transparent crystal, in which Jesus appeared beautiful as a flower.

? I am not familiar with this at all.

It is called the “Messianic Star”.

How can anything in the buddhist system be called messianic? the messiah is a purely jewish terminology.

to the tradition, the ‘Holy Ghost’ had descended, was said to have been

I think that we have to be careful here to distinguish between whats in the gospels and whats associated with christianity. I think, as I noted originally, that we can't just out of hand reject the non-gospel stuff, but it is fair to consider the gospel on its own terms for a while.

Also, how do we distinguish between stuff that was already present in Little Boat Buddhism long before christ and stuff that appeared in buddhism later?