"The Religion thread" Part II

[Vaelahr]

If they [the first Christians] had pulled off a hoax, why would they go to their graves proclaiming that it actually happened.

Because they believed their own lie, just like all other cultists.

People do not die for what they know to be a lie.

You obviously know absolutely nothing about human nature.

One word, Koresh.

He died for what he knew to be a lie? How is Koresh even remotely comparable? There's a difference between dying (or getting killed) for a lie and dying knowing it's a lie. Which brings us back yet again to Pascal:

"The apostles were either deceived or deceivers. Either supposition is difficult, for it is not possible to imagine that a man has risen from the dead [particularly the imaginations of first century Jews]. While Jesus was with them, he could sustain them; but afterwards, if he did not appear to them, who did make them act? The hypothesis that the Apostles were knaves is quite absurd. Follow it out to the end, and imagine these twelve men meeting after Jesus' death and conspiring to say that he has risen from the dead. This means attacking all the powers that be. The human heart is singularly susceptible to fickleness, to change, to promises, to bribery. One of them had only to deny his story under these inducements, or still more because of possible imprisonment, tortures and death, and they would all have been lost. Follow that out."

If the empty tomb and resurrection was a fabrication, why did not at least one of the many disciples break away from the rest and reveal the claim as a lie? The Temple authorities were willing to pay good money to anyone who would provide such information. Or if money was not alluring enough, what about the possibility of proving the resurrection a lie in order to draw disciples away to follow some enterprising would-be cult leader? History has shown that this role is a popular one, and this would have been a fine opportunity. Without the strong and persuasive evidence of the resurrection, the continued unity of the early Christian leaders is inexplicable in light of the human tendency to want to promote oneself. The assumption that they were all committed to the truth of their message is the only adequate explanation of their continued unity and the lack of any revelation of fraud. Those who lie for personal gain do not stick together very long, especially when hardship decreases the benefits. If the disciples had stolen the body to make it look like he had been resurrected, they would have known that they were believing a lie, and men do not become martyrs for what they know to be false.

Early Christianity didn't plagiarize, didn't borrow anything from Mithraism.

Well, they obviously did plagiarize concepts from older religions, and Mithraism had halos

I've yet to see evidence of any "obvious plagiarism" and "halos" aren't biblical.

It doesn't have to be in the bible for it to be plagiarism. Are you going to pretend that there are no halos in Christianity? Halos come from Mithraism. They are a symbol of the sun, since Mithras was a sun god. Everytime you see a halo in Christian artwork, just remember that halo was once hovering over the head of a guy who sprang from a rock.

We can be certain that (pre-Constantine) early Christianity, of which the New Testament reflects, had nothing to do with Mithraic "halos". Any post-Constantine iconography that mirrors Mithraic art is a product of Roman Catholicism.

Josephus, as a Jew apologist, seems to be a Jesus apologist also. I don't see him as a credible source, given what I've read so far. Even so, he doesn't add much.

Josephus is an important and credible source for a great deal of historical scholarship.

There are two mentions of Jesus in his works:

1) Josephus, Antiquities 20.9.1 (Greek version)
"Since Ananus was that kind of person, and because he perceived an opportunity with Festus having died and Albinus not yet arrived, he called a meeting of the Sanhedrin and brought James, the brother of Jesus who is called Messiah, along with some others. He accused them of transgressing the law, and handed them over for stoning."


2a) Josephus, Antiquities 18.63 (Arabic summary)
"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."

Or,

2b) Josephus, Antiquities 18.63 (critical rework by Robert Eisler)
"Now about this time arose an occasion for new disturbances, a certain Jesus, a wizard of a man, if indeed he may be called a man, who was the most monstrous of men, whom his disciples call a son of God, as having done wonders such as no man has ever done.... He was in fact a teacher of astonishing tricks to such men as accept the abnormal with delight.... And he seduced many Jews and many also of the Greek nation, and was regarded by them as the Messiah.... And when, on the indictment of the principal men among us, Pilate had sentenced him to the cross, still those who before had admired him did not cease to rave. For it seemed to them that having been dead for three days, he had appeared to them alive again, as the divinely-inspired prophets had foretold -- these and ten thousand other wonderful things -- concerning him. And even now the race of those who are called 'Messianists' after him is not extinct."

Again, Jesus lived his public life in the land of Palestine under the Roman rule of Tiberius (ad 14-37). There are four possible Roman historical sources for his reign: Tacitus (55-117), Suetonius (70-160), Velleius Paterculus (a contemporary), and Dio Cassius (3rd century). There are two Jewish historical resources that describe events of this period: Josephus (37-100?), writing in Greek, and the Rabbinical Writings (written in Hebrew after 200). Of these writings, we would not expect Velleius to have a reference to Jesus (i.e. the events were just happening outside of Velleius' home area), and Dio Cassius is outside of our time window of pre-3rd century. Of the remaining Roman writers, Tacitus and Suetonius, we have apparent references to Jesus. This gives an important fact: all the relevant non-Jewish historical sources mention Jesus. Of the Jewish resources, Josephus and the Rabbinical writings (e.g. Talmud, Midrash), both make clear references to the existence of Jesus. So all the Jewish sources refer to him. This evidence tells us that Jesus of Nazareth was not trivial. For hostile historians to mention him is telling.

...as to Christians "borrowing" pagan ideas, it's beyond just Mithraism.

What Mithraic ideas are present in early Christianity (pre-Constantine)? What was "borrowed" or "plagiarised"?

Virgin births and children of gods are particularly common.

1. Hercules, born to Alkmene by the god Zeus.
2. Dionysus was "the son of the virgin"
3. Perseus was a half-god.
4. In the Epic of Gilgamesh, one of the earliest recorded legends of humanity, Gilgamesh claimed to be of both human and divine descent.

1. Alkmene (not a virgin)
2. Dionysus was not the son of a virgin. One version of the myth has Semele as the mother. Another has Persephone as the mother. Neither virgins. There's an obscure Asiatic version that has Dionysus self-born. At any rate, it's the usual fornication that Zeus and the other goddesses were prone to.
3. I don't see how Perseus (not born of a virgin) has anything to do with Christian belief.
4. Not born of a virgin. I don't think generic phrases like "half-god" or "son of a god" stand as evidence for early Christians plagiarising from mythology. It's as if one was to claim the sport of baseball borrowed ideas from tennis because a round object is used in play and the round object is struck with a hand-held thing.

Also, the concept of a god being his own father (as Jesus is god, after all), was also not unique. From wiki:

Since Horus, as the son of Osiris, was only in existence after Osiris's death, and because Horus, in his earlier guise, was the husband of Isis, the difference between Horus and Osiris blurred, and so, after a few centuries, it came to be said that Horus was the resurrected form of Osiris. Likewise, as the form of Horus before his death and resurrection, Osiris, who had already become considered a form of creator when belief about Osiris assimilated that about Ptah-Seker, also became considered to be the only creator, since Horus had gained these aspects of Ra. Eventually, in the Hellenic period, Horus was, in some locations, identified completely as Osiris, and became his own Father, since this concept was not so disturbing to Greek philosophy as it had been to that of ancient Egypt. The combination of this, now rather esoteric mythology, with the philosophy of Plato, which was becoming popular on the Mediterranean shores, lead to the tale becoming the bases of a mystery religion. Many Greeks, and those of other nations, who encountered the faith, thought it so profound that they sought to create their own, modelled upon it, but using their own gods. This led to the creation of what was effectively one religion, which was, in many places, adjusted to superficially reflect the local mythology although it substantially adjusted them. The religion is known to modern scholars as that of Osiris-Dionysus.

Jesus of Nazareth is not his own father, be it an earthly one (Joseph) or spiritually. It's just not biblical. Nor is it consistent with later orthodox trinitarian doctrine.

The basic elements of the resurrection myth are all there, resurrection obviously...

That's inaccurate as I detailed in an earlier post:

The most common and complex version of the Osiris myth comes from the Greek historian Plutarch (approx. c.34-125 A.D.) in his work Isis and Osiris;

"Osiris's evil brother Set plotted with others to kill Osiris. This was accomplished by tricking Osiris during a banquet to lie down in a chest that had been especially prepared for him. When Osiris was inside the chest, Set and his cohorts closed it immediately and took it to the Nile and put it into the river. When Isis, the sister-wife of Osiris heard what had happened, she set out to find the chest. The legend is detailed, but to make a long story short, Isis learned that the chest had drifted out to sea and landed on the coast of Byblos. She went there, found the chest, recovered the body, embraced it, and wailed inconsolably. She hid the body in a secret place, which Set discovered, after which he severed the body into 14 different pieces and scattered them throughout Egypt. The myth then continues as Isis searched Egypt, found the body parts, put them back together, and then hovered over Osiris and fanned the breath of life back into his body.”

Not every version of the myth has Osiris returning to life; in some he simply becomes the ruler of the Netherworld. A comparison between the resurrection of Jesus and the resuscitation of Osiris is misleading and is claiming more than the Egyptian myth allows.

Encyclopedia Britannica writes, "From about 2000 BC onward it was believed that every man, not just the deceased kings, became associated with Osiris at death. This identification with Osiris, however, did not imply resurrection, for even Osiris did not rise from the dead. Instead, it signified the renewal of life both in the next world and through one's descendants on Earth. In this universalized form Osiris' cult spread throughout Egypt, often joining with the cults of local fertility and underworld deities.”

This secular source understands that “Osiris did not rise from the dead.” Osiris was originally a vegetation god. The death of Osiris symbolized to the Egyptians the yearly drought and in his rebirth the periodical flooding of the Nile and the growth of grain. This of course, represents the pattern of cyclical recurrences of seasons. Such myths are the expression of ancient nature-symbolism; the spirit of vegetation dies every year and rises every year. This is far different from Christ's bodily resurrection and ascension.

[Vaelahr]

He says that the penalty for sin is an end to one’s life.

So He's merely genocidal, rather than sadistic.

Well, that's much better, I suppose.

So, what about Daniel 12:2, Matthew 13:41-42, Matthew 22:13, Mark 9:43 (Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched), Luke 16:22-24 and John 5:28-29?

Continuing what was earlier posted regarding Luke 16;

We should note that the English word “hell” comes from an Old English word meaning “to conceal.” The first definition in Webster’s Third New International Dictionary is “a place or state of the dead or of the damned; usually under the ground” (hence, the idea of “concealed”). The second definition is “a place or state of misery, torment, or wickedness.” The idea that “hell” is a place of eternal torment came about because the Greek word hades carried with it all the connotation of Greek mythology, in which Hades was the god of the underworld, a place where the souls of dead people went to be tormented.

The New Testament certainly does speak of a place of fire where wicked people will be “punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord” (2 Thess. 1:9). This is gehenna, a Greek word that the Gospel writers used in reference to what is elsewhere called “the lake of fire.” It is significant that not only wicked people will be destroyed there, but also death and the grave (or gravedom) will be permanently destroyed. (Rev. 20:12-15)

Gehenna is the Greek word for the Hebrew “Valley of Hinnom,” which was the city dump outside of Jerusalem. When Jesus used this word to refer to the place of the future destruction of the wicked, all who heard him knew exactly what he meant. New Testament writers chose the word gehenna to describe the fate of the condemned only in the Gospels, speaking only to Jews, and only when addressing people familiar with the geography of Jerusalem.

Mark 9:44-46 "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched". This Valley of Hinnom was where trash, animal carcasses, and even carcasses of criminals were incinerated by fire. And of course, maggots devoured anything not destroyed by the heat, hence "where their worm dieth not" or "where their maggots never die." The maggots live only as long as there is food and the fire burns only as long as there is fuel. But the point was that for anything thrown into that valley, complete destruction was inevitable. Those listening to Jesus speak of the evil burning in gehenna didn't think he meant they would burn forever. They knew that the garbage they took to the city dump did not continue to exist in the fire without being consumed. Rather, it burned up, and was gone. Jesus used the word gehenna to illustrate that the wicked were like the garbage, trash worthy only of destruction. The only reason the fire continued to burn was because the whole city kept throwing their garbage there. Likewise, when it's done its job, the lake of fire too will be no more.

"Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man." Thomas Paine

"God's kindness leads to repentance" (Rom. 2:4), not some threat of eternal suffering (a false doctrine).

[Mulu]

He died for what he knew to be a lie? How is Koresh even remotely comparable? There's a difference between dying (or getting killed) for a lie and dying knowing it's a lie.

I'm pretty sure Koresh knew his claims were lies, though he probably believed them anyway. This is the hard part, understanding the brain of a religious zealot. They believe their own lies. It's hard to confess a lie that you yourself believe through your delusions.

The problem here is that you, and Pascal, are expecting rational behavior from grossly irrational zealots. That's not an expectation I share, nor do I think it's reasonable to expect it. Assuming that *any* of the facts asserted in the story of crucifixion are true, then the disciples, or at least one of them, engaged in a body snatching hoax, then they and others lied and (allegedly) claimed to see Jesus alive after he was crucified. They (allegedly) told knowing lies, and maintained the veracity of those lies under pain of death. And this makes perfect sense coming from religious freaks. It's what they do. All of the deaths from doomsday cults prove it. Within early Christianity, you probably couldn't call yourself a real Christian unless you claimed to have seen Jesus alive after his crucifixion. It would have been a social requirement of the following. Heck, there are still people claiming to see Jesus among us today, along with assorted other miracles and crying statues.

Religious people are crazy. That fact is sufficient to explain every claim of the supernatural.

Repeating Pascal ad nauseum doesn't make his argument any stronger. His argument fails, for the simple reason that he didn't understand human psychology, especially when it comes to religious zealotry. The early Christians were cultists totally devoted to their own mythology, even when they helped that mythology along by snatching their dead prophet and claiming to see him alive later. They were that whacked.

But, just to prevent this quote being relied on again, Pascal says lots of stupid things in that quote. Why is it not possible for first century Jews to imagine a man rising from the dead? It's not like the idea hadn't already been placed there by Egyptian and Greek myths. It wasn't a novel idea, so it required little imagination.

He claims that it's absurd to think the apostles could steal the body, but that's not persuasive at all. It's far more absurd to assume a supernatural myth is correct. Also, why would the disciples become unable to take any actions after Jesus was crucified? *That's* an absurd supposition. If anything they would be highly motivated to make some sense out of their years of following some self-proclaimed messiah around. After claiming that the disciples could never be "knaves," Pascal then claims they are fickle to promises and bribery. Interesting since you claimed the Roman guards would not be so fickle. So, you could bribe the truth from a disciple, but you couldn't bribe a guard to look the other way? Ridiculous and hypocritical. Then he claims the Temple would pay good money for anyone claiming the resurrection was a lie. Where did he come by that information? I think he pulled it out of his ass. And how does he know that *no* Christian ever recanted? It's not like we have 100% information awareness from that time. Dozens could have recanted without it making the history books.

In a huge breach of logic, he claims the disciples would rather start their own cults than continue the Jesus cult unless they had actually witnessed the ressurrection. But with Jesus gone, the Jesus cult *was* their own cult. One they had totally committed themselves to, enough to be willing to lie and die for. The Branch Davidians still exist, after all.

Pascal's quote isn't an argument for anything other than that Pascal was a moron who was engaging in a self-reinforcing delusion.

We can be certain that (pre-Constantine) early Christianity, of which the New Testament reflects, had nothing to do with Mithraic "halos". Any post-Constantine iconography that mirrors Mithraic art is a product of Roman Catholicism.

Probably true. Doesn't change the fact that Christianity plagiarized from other religions at its inception. It borrowed ideas of virgin births, resurrection, and father as son, among others. It recast the ideas into a new story, but the ideas were old. Plagiarized.

Josephus is an important and credible source for a great deal of historical scholarship.

From your quotes below, Joshepus recounts the myth, and observes that Christianity, or what he calls "messianists" exist. He may be a source of support for Jesus having actually existed, but that's it. To pretend that because he claims the Jews called Jesus a wizard then he must have actually performed miracles is simply wish fulfillment on your part. The ancients believed all kinds of nonsense, and you yourself reject the vast majority of it.

So all the Jewish sources refer to him. This evidence tells us that Jesus of Nazareth was not trivial. For hostile historians to mention him is telling.

Yes, it tells me that you don't read my posts, as I already responded to this one. Nero made Jesus and his cult following famous by scapegoating them. That still leaves Jesus being trivial in his lifetime, as a standing assertion. Having swung at this one three times, that's a strike out on your part.

Do realize that the historical references you post constitute nothing more than a description of the religion at that time. The fact that the religion only merited a few sentences per author should tell you that even after Nero made Christianity famous, it was still little more than a footnote.

3. I don't see how Perseus (not born of a virgin) has anything to do with Christian belief.

He was parented by a god and a mortal woman, just like Jesus. There are two aspects of Jesus here, which you are confusing: Virgin birth and fathered by a god. No one example has to have *both* in order for the ideas to be available to the early Christians, though at least one example, Romulus, does have both. Examples include the above, plus:

Krishna, born of the virgin Devaki;
Hertha was a virgin impregnated by the heavenly Spirit and bore a son;
Scandinavian Frigga was impregnated by the All-Father Odin and bore Balder, the healer and savior of mankind;
Rome's founder, Romulus, was the Son of the God Mars, and Rea Sivia, a mortal Vestal virgin;
Other Pagan Gods born of virgins: Danae, Melanippe, Auge and Antiope;
There is even a story of the Roman Emperor Augustus's mother worshipping in the temple of Apollo when she fell asleep and was impregnated by the god.

I think it's funny that any virgin birth listed that was from a wife is considered "not a virgin birth" to you, since Mary mother of Jesus was a married woman and therefore not a virgin either. Virgin birth doesn't appear to mean "from a virgin," in this context, it means "impregnation without intercourse." Every time Zeus appeared as a sunbeam and impregnated some woman, that is a "virgin birth," even if the woman had children previously. The idea of Mary being an actual virgin as a married woman stretches credulity. Of course, so does her impregnation by a creator spirit. Why bother with a womb? God could have just made Jesus spring out of a rock full grown. *That* would be hard to explain any other way than divine action. In fact, I think Mithraism has a much stronger claim to being true than Christianity, since only a god could make a guy spring from a rock, but any guy could get a woman pregnant. What evidence is there that Mary was a virgin and conceived by god rather than her husband? Only the resurrection myth.

Here's some other similarities between Christianity and prior pagan religions. Granted, I didn't fact check these or the list above, I'm just pulling them off the web, since this isn't something I spend a lot of time thinking about. As someone who rejects the supernatural, the details of those supernatural claims are not terribly important to me.

Baptism
Pagan water purification rituals were used in the archaic Near East and are written about in the Old Testament. Homer mentions the washing of hands before prayer, and the purification of an entire army with water [Iliad, 1.313].

The Greeks even had priests, kathartai, who specialized in purification with water. Mithra's followers celebrated the sacrament of taurobolium—baptism in the blood of a bull, with the result of "Salvation." Pagans at Gerasa celebrated the Maioumas, rites in which women bathed and were purified in a sacred pool outside town.

New members into the Mysteries of Isis / Osiris began their initiation with a sprinkling of purifying waters brought from the Nile. The result of the baptism and initiation? Salvation

Sacred Meal
Mithras' faithful celebrated a sacred meal with their God. So did followers of Adonis, Attis, Osiris, and other Pagan Gods of the Mystery Religions. New members of the Mysteries of Isis and Osiris completed their initiation with a sacramental meal.

Resurrection
Osiris, Tammuz and the early middle eastern version of Adonis, had all died and been resurrected,

# 1 Raising miracles
Raising people from the dead was an old pagan idea.

Apollonius of Tyana, another first century AD divine man, did the same miracle.

#2 Raising the faithful at the end of time. Did you know early Christianity insisted that the dead faithful will be physically raised from the dead at the end of time, getting their old body back?

Raised from the dead got into Christianity by way of Judaism, which itself did not have the notion until the Babylonian captivity in the 6th century BC. The only other ancient people to believe in bodily resurrection were the Zoroastrians; their resurrection of the body theology goes back much further. Zoroastrians were in Babylon during the captivity.

Heaven Above
Comes from the pagan theology of celestial spheres, with the outermost sphere being the realm of gods.

Well, there's plenty more to copy and paste, and that's just one website, but I think the point is clear, the early Christians had a *lot* of religious material to work with, and work with it they did, as source material for their myths.

That's inaccurate as I detailed in an earlier post:

The most common and complex version of the Osiris myth...

Done. There was more than one version of the myth, and the early Christians would have access to multiple versions. One of those versions evolved into a resurrection myth, very similar to God and Jesus, where the god Osiris fathered himself in Horus, and was therefore resurrected. That's enough to plant the ideas of "father as son" and "resurrection" into the minds of these Jews with Pascal's limited imagination. That the most common version of the myth was different is simply irrelevant.

[Mulu]

And I notice you still haven't answered my question. Of course, reconciling belief in some supernatural myths but not others is going to require some pretty fancy cognitive dissonance, so I'm not surprised it's still unanswered.

[Mulu]

Jesus of Nazareth is not his own father, be it an earthly one (Joseph) or spiritually. It's just not biblical. Nor is it consistent with later orthodox trinitarian doctrine.

Can't believe I missed this one. Please explain to me how Jesus can be the embodiment of god, but not be his own father. If the trinity is to make any sense at all, and the three are in fact one, then Jesus is god, god is the father of Jesus, so Jesus is the father of Jesus. Just like Osiris fathered himself in that particular mysticism. Otherwise, Christianity is polytheistic.

Then again, perhaps the trinity is just nonsensical. That's certainly a conclusion I've seen elsewhere.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.


It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticism that three are one and one is three, and yet, that the one is not three, and the three not one.... But this constitutes the craft, the power, and profits of the priests. Sweep away their gossamer fabrics of fictitious religion, and they would catch no more flies.

Though even as a nonsensical mysticism, it still bears strong similarity to the Osiris/Horus resurrection myth.

[Vaelahr]

Jesus of Nazareth is not his own father, be it an earthly one (Joseph) or spiritually. It's just not biblical. Nor is it consistent with later orthodox trinitarian doctrine.

Can't believe I missed this one. Please explain to me how Jesus can be the embodiment of god, but not be his own father. If the trinity is to make any sense at all, and the three are in fact one, then Jesus is god, god is the father of Jesus, so Jesus is the father of Jesus. Just like Osiris fathered himself in that particular mysticism. Otherwise, Christianity is polytheistic.

Then again, perhaps the trinity is just nonsensical. That's certainly a conclusion I've seen elsewhere.

I personally can't explain it.

The New Bible Dictionary says:

"In most formularies, the doctrine is stated by saying that God is One in His essential being, but that in this being there are three Persons, yet so as not to form separate and distinct individuals. They are three modes or forms in which the divine essence exists. ‘Person’ is, however, an imperfect expression of the truth inasmuch as the term denotes to us a separate rational and moral individual. But in the being of God there are not three individuals, but only three personal self-distinctions within the one divine essence. Then again, personality in man implies independence of will, actions, and feelings, leading to behavior peculiar to the person. This cannot be thought of in connection with the Trinity: each Person is self-conscious and self-directing, yet never acting independently or in opposition. When we say that God is a Unity, we mean that, though God is in Himself a threefold center of life, His life is not split into three. He is one in essence, in personality, and in will. When we say that God is a Trinity in Unity, we mean that there is unity in diversity, and that diversity manifests itself in Persons, in characteristics, and in operations. Moreover, the subsistence and operations of the three Persons are marked by a certain order, involving a certain subordination in relation, though not in nature. The Father as the fount of deity is First: He is said to originate. The Son, eternally begotten of the Father, is Second: He is said to reveal. The Spirit, eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son, is Third: He is said to execute. While this does not suggest priority in time or in dignity, since all three Persons are divine and eternal, it does suggest an order of precedence in operation and revelation. Thus we can say that creation is from the Father, through the Son, by the Holy Spirit."

Got that? .....Me neither. What I can grasp are clear biblical statements, like "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” (1 Timothy 2:5) and “Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.” (1 Corinthians 8:6) Many Christians are adamant that the Trinity is a pillar of the Christian faith. If that is true, what I don’t understand is why it is not clearly emblazoned on the pages of the bible (the New Testament particularly). Surely there should be terms like “God the Son,” “three-in-one,” “dual nature,” “God-man,” “Incarnation,” etc., etc. When such critical doctrines like salvation are so clearly set forth, surely "the bedrock of Christianity" would be plainly spelled out. But even Trinitarian scholars admit that it is not.

The doctrine of a three-in-one (Trinity) God was constructed by Roman Church theologians during the period of time from about 325 AD to 481 AD. Certainly not biblical early Christianity.

Why is it not possible for first century Jews to imagine a man rising from the dead?

Since childhood, their Jewish culture had taught them that the Messiah would live forever. They expected him to get an army together, conquer their Roman oppressors, oust the Pharisees and Sadducees, and rule the world. When Jesus died on the cross, they didn't know what to do, and many were scattered. His arrest and execution were profoundly disappointing and discouraging and the idea of a bodily resurrection would have sounded absurd to them.

[Perseus] was parented by a god and a mortal woman, just like Jesus. There are two aspects of Jesus here, which you are confusing: Virgin birth and fathered by a god. No one example has to have *both* in order for the ideas to be available to the early Christians, though at least one example, Romulus, does have both. Examples include the above, plus:

Krishna, born of the virgin Devaki;
Hertha was a virgin impregnated by the heavenly Spirit and bore a son;
Scandinavian Frigga was impregnated by the All-Father Odin and bore Balder, the healer and savior of mankind;
Rome's founder, Romulus, was the Son of the God Mars, and Rea Sivia, a mortal Vestal virgin;
Other Pagan Gods born of virgins: Danae, Melanippe, Auge and Antiope;
There is even a story of the Roman Emperor Augustus's mother worshipping in the temple of Apollo when she fell asleep and was impregnated by the god.

I think it's funny that any virgin birth listed that was from a wife is considered "not a virgin birth" to you, since Mary mother of Jesus was a married woman and therefore not a virgin either. Virgin birth doesn't appear to mean "from a virgin," in this context, it means "impregnation without intercourse." Every time Zeus appeared as a sunbeam and impregnated some woman, that is a "virgin birth," even if the woman had children previously. The idea of Mary being an actual virgin as a married woman stretches credulity. Of course, so does her impregnation by a creator spirit. Why bother with a womb? God could have just made Jesus spring out of a rock full grown. *That* would be hard to explain any other way than divine action. In fact, I think Mithraism has a much stronger claim to being true than Christianity, since only a god could make a guy spring from a rock, but any guy could get a woman pregnant. What evidence is there that Mary was a virgin and conceived by god rather than her husband? Only the resurrection myth.

Are any of these divinely engendered births really parallel to the non-sexual virginal conception of Jesus described in the New Testament, where Mary is not impregnated by a male deity or element, but the child is begotten through the creative power of the Holy Spirit (God)? These "parallels" consistently involve a type of "holy/divine seed" where a divine male, in human or other form, impregnates a woman, either through normal sexual intercourse or through some substitute form of penetration. In short, there is no clear example of virginal conception in world or pagan religions that plausibly could have given first-century Jewish Christians the idea of the virginal conception of Jesus.

Moreover, all so-called 'virgin births' are not necessarily such. A virgin is someone who has not experienced sexual intercourse, and a virgin birth (or parthenogenesis) is one in which a virgin gives birth. According to this definition, the story of the birth of Jesus is a virgin birth story whereas the birth of the Buddha and of Orphic Dionysos are not. Technically what is at issue is the loss or the preservation of virginity during the process of conception. Jesus' mother Mary was simply "found with child of the Holy Spirit" before she was married and before she had "known" a man. So, too, did the preexistent Buddha enter the womb of his mother, but since she was already a married woman, there is no reason to suppose she was a virgin at the time. In the Ophic story of Dionysos, Zeus came to Persephone in the form of a serpent and impregnated her, so that the maiden's virginity was technically lost.

We have to be mindful of the textual data in the account. In other words, does the relevant "sacred text" describe or imply in any way, a means of impregnation or conception? Mary was simply 'found with child' The text simply omits any comment, description, or implication about the method/manner of her becoming pregnant; the sexual element is simply missing altogether. If pagan accounts suggest or give details of this process, even if not the 'normal' type of intercourse (e.g. a snake, a piece of fruit), then, it's not a 'virgin conception' (by comparison). Ancient gods and goddesses were typically very sexually explicit and sexually active, and this element is completely absent from the biblical narratives and material, especially the story of the virginal conception of Jesus.

We need also remember that our question deals only with the issue of the New Testament content, not the Councils, not the hymns, not the Fathers, not the sects, not the Apocrypha. We are concerned with the Jesus of the gospel record and of the message of post-ascension early Christianity. Items and elements 'borrowed' from non-Christian religions after the first century AD. simply cannot be used to argue for borrowing in the years 33-70 a.d., when the New Testament was composed.

Here's some other similarities between Christianity and prior pagan religions. Granted, I didn't fact check these or the list above, I'm just pulling them off the web, since this isn't something I spend a lot of time thinking about. As someone who rejects the supernatural, the details of those supernatural claims are not terribly important to me.

Baptism
Pagan water purification rituals were used in the archaic Near East and are written about in the Old Testament. Homer mentions the washing of hands before prayer, and the purification of an entire army with water [Iliad, 1.313].

The Greeks even had priests, kathartai, who specialized in purification with water. Mithra's followers celebrated the sacrament of taurobolium—baptism in the blood of a bull, with the result of "Salvation." Pagans at Gerasa celebrated the Maioumas, rites in which women bathed and were purified in a sacred pool outside town.

New members into the Mysteries of Isis / Osiris began their initiation with a sprinkling of purifying waters brought from the Nile. The result of the baptism and initiation? Salvation

Sacred Meal
Mithras' faithful celebrated a sacred meal with their God. So did followers of Adonis, Attis, Osiris, and other Pagan Gods of the Mystery Religions. New members of the Mysteries of Isis and Osiris completed their initiation with a sacramental meal.

Resurrection
Osiris, Tammuz and the early middle eastern version of Adonis, had all died and been resurrected,

# 1 Raising miracles
Raising people from the dead was an old pagan idea.

Apollonius of Tyana, another first century AD divine man, did the same miracle.

#2 Raising the faithful at the end of time. Did you know early Christianity insisted that the dead faithful will be physically raised from the dead at the end of time, getting their old body back?

Raised from the dead got into Christianity by way of Judaism, which itself did not have the notion until the Babylonian captivity in the 6th century BC. The only other ancient people to believe in bodily resurrection were the Zoroastrians; their resurrection of the body theology goes back much further. Zoroastrians were in Babylon during the captivity.

Heaven Above
Comes from the pagan theology of celestial spheres, with the outermost sphere being the realm of gods.

Well, there's plenty more to copy and paste, and that's just one website, but I think the point is clear, the early Christians had a *lot* of religious material to work with, and work with it they did, as source material for their myths.

There's certainly websites that claim anything and everything about everything and anything. That one, and others like it, fail to provide solid textual or iconographic evidence for thier claims regarding early Christianity.

They fail to show that:

The similarities between Jesus (as portrayed in the New Testament, not by the later post-apostolic Church Fathers) and the other relevant Savior-gods are very numerous, very 'striking', non-superficial, complex, within similar conceptual or narrative structures, detailed, have the same underlying ideas, be difficult to account for apart from borrowing, and be 'core' or 'central' to the story/image/motif enough to suspect borrowing.

That they can come up with a historically plausible explanation of how the borrowing occurred.

What this means, of course, is that it is not simply enough to point to some vague similarities and yell "copy cat!" One must be prepared somehow to defend their alleged parallels from the charge of being 'superficial' and to show that they are 'striking' (a rather subjective term, of course). In the scholarly world, the burden of argument is on the 'proponent' of borrowing.

One may frequently encounter critics/websites who first use Christian terminology to describe pagan beliefs and practices, and then marvel at the striking parallels they think they have discovered. One can go a long way toward "proving" early Christian dependence on the mysteries by describing some mystery belief or practice in Christian terminology. Exaggerations and oversimplifications abound in this kind of criticism. One encounters overblown claims about alleged likenesses between baptism and "the Lord's Supper" and similar "sacraments" in certain mystery cults. The mere fact that Christianity has a special meal and a washing of the body is supposed to prove that it borrowed these ceremonies from similar meals and washings in the pagan cults. By themselves, of course, such outward similarities prove nothing. After all, religious ceremonies can assume only a limited number of forms, and they will naturally relate to important or common aspects of human life. The more important question is the meaning of the pagan practices. A ritual dip in water, for example, is not a baptism if its purpose in the dogma of a particular religion is different. The lack of parallel in the underlying idea or 'conceptual usage' destroys this as piece of evidence for borrowing.

Yes, the vast majority of the pre-modern world was syncretistic, meaning that one religion would often incorporate the myth and ritual of other cults with which it came in contact. Often the deities would simply change names. Western Semites adopted deities from the Sumerian pantheon and Israel took up the pagan Canaanite cult. Closer to New Testament times, we see the Greek colonists at Ephesus adopt the goddess of the natives (e.g. The Great Mother) and call her by their name "Artemis". In some cases, deities would merge into one. Early Christianity was the opposite though. It wasn't 'inclusivistic', but 'exclusivistic', it wouldn't merge with anything. It was completely out-of-synch with the age and culture of the day. And hence, it was understood as such, and attacked by the powers and elites.

Anyway, Osiris "returns to life", but he's still a dead god, ruling the underworld.

There is no suggestion of Adonis rising (in either the Panyasisian form or the Ovidian form of the myth). The cult of Adonis has possibly been linked to the same parent deity of the cult of Tammuz. The earliest stories of Adonis report no death or resurrection and the “resurrection” of Adonis is not recorded until after A.D. 150. The story of Adonis’ death is not similar to that of the sacrificial nature of Jesus’ death. Adonis was mortally wounded by a wild boar. “At last the fair youth was killed in hunting by a wild boar, or by the jealous Ares, who turned himself into the likeness of a boar in order to compass the death of his rival.” Adonis, according to the story, was eventually given to Persephone, goddess of death, for part of the year, and to Aphrodite, goddess of love for the other. This is not a picture of a god dying for the sins of the world and being resurrected to new life that all people may partake in.

The stories of Apollonius were written some 150 years after the crucifixion of Jesus. Whether through neglect, carelessness, or outright deception, in omitting this fact critics allow the reader to assume that the gospel record is somehow copied from or influenced by the Apollonius stories. The evidence points to just the opposite.

[Mulu]

I personally can't explain it.

The New Bible Dictionary says:

If I didn't know any better I'd think they were talking about a Hindu god. I'm going to have to side with Thomas Jefferson on this one, it's simply nonsensical.

The doctrine of a three-in-one (Trinity) God was constructed by Roman Church theologians during the period of time from about 325 AD to 481 AD. Certainly not biblical early Christianity.

And it seems to have been in response to the claim that Christianity is polytheistic, which I think is the simplest answer. Given all the angels in Judaism, polytheism seems the norm in the abrahamic religions. It's nothing to be ashamed of.

Why is it not possible for first century Jews to imagine a man rising from the dead?

Since childhood, their Jewish culture had taught them that the Messiah would live forever. They expected him to get an army together, conquer their Roman oppressors, oust the Pharisees and Sadducees, and rule the world. When Jesus died on the cross, they didn't know what to do, and many were scattered. His arrest and execution were profoundly disappointing and discouraging and the idea of a bodily resurrection would have sounded absurd to them.

But the concept was a great way to save the cult, and the idea of resurrection was certainly available to them, within Judaism for that matter. So, in their desperation, they (or one of them anyway) created the resurrection myth building on prior myths of resurrection within Judaism and other beliefs, which the followers eagerly adopted to the point they all claimed to see Jesus walking again, and probably had to if they wanted to stay in the cult. Then the myth develops through oral tradition for the next 30 years until it finally gets recorded in final story form in the gospels. That makes a *lot* of sense. In fact, I think we've deduced exactly what happened.

Are any of these divinely engendered births really parallel to the non-sexual virginal conception of Jesus described in the New Testament, where Mary is not impregnated by a male deity or element, but the child is begotten through the creative power of the Holy Spirit (God)?

Yes, as I said Zeus often took the form of a sunbeam, which is merely symbolic of creative power and not a vaginal invasion.

Overall, think of it in D&D terms. Is D&D the *same* as The Lord of the Rings? No, but it has many similarities, enough so that TSR lost an early copyright infringment case.

To claim that D&D has no source in LOTR (which Gygax does, btw), is simply fallacious. And I think to claim early Christianity has no source in prior religions is equally fallacious. There are too many similarities to call it novel, and those similarities *prove* it's just another myth, the next step in the development of religion.

Of course, even if it was novel, that wouldn't prove it was true. Scientology certainly has some novel ideas. Far more than Christianity.

A virgin is someone who has not experienced sexual intercourse, and a virgin birth (or parthenogenesis) is one in which a virgin gives birth.

But as I already stated, the mother of Jesus was a married woman. Despite claims to the contrary, it's simply unfathomable that she would be a virgin, especially since she had a second child in the normal manner. Gee, I'm a married woman and I'm with child. It must have been God!

Still, the real issue is that the concept of virgin birth wasn't new. The Christians may have taken the idea more literally than prior religions, but it's not a new idea.

Ancient gods and goddesses were typically very sexually explicit and sexually active, and this element is completely absent from the biblical narratives and material, especially the story of the virginal conception of Jesus.

So, being Jews, they viewed sex with shame (causing many generations of sexual dysfunction) and rejected the traditional virgin birth concept, coming up with a new version of the virgin birth concept that was more palatable to them than a sunbeam. It's still the same idea.

Items and elements 'borrowed' from non-Christian religions after the first century AD. simply cannot be used to argue for borrowing in the years 33-70 a.d., when the New Testament was composed.

I'll give you that one. I think I win anyway.

There's certainly websites that claim anything and everything about everything and anything. That one, and others like it, fail to provide solid textual or iconographic evidence for thier claims regarding early Christianity.

They fail to show that:

The similarities between Jesus (as portrayed in the New Testament, not by the later post-apostolic Church Fathers) and the other relevant Savior-gods are very numerous, very 'striking', non-superficial, complex, within similar conceptual or narrative structures, detailed, have the same underlying ideas, be difficult to account for apart from borrowing, and be 'core' or 'central' to the story/image/motif enough to suspect borrowing.

Well, it doesn't have to satisfy copyright violation to be borrowed. By the rather simple "it sounds similar" definition, the examples succeed.

That they can come up with a historically plausible explanation of how the borrowing occurred.

If the myth existed prior to the formation of Christianity, and wasn't Mayan or some other isolated culture, then the early Christians had access to it. One of the perks of being in the Roman empire was having access to a tremendous amount of cultural information due to travel by soldiers, citizens, and traders. Exposure to these Roman, near East, Egyptian and Greek religious concepts would be a no-brainer in Roman occupied Judea.

What this means, of course, is that it is not simply enough to point to some vague similarities and yell "copy cat!"

That list looked pretty concrete to me. Baptism by water with salvation, virgin birth, resurrection, Father as son, etc. One begins to wonder if anything in early Christianity was novel. That website's argument was certainly more persuasive than the Pascal quote. I'll admit the work on direct comparisons between paganism and Christianity is sloppy, at least what I've found. The reason for that is athiests don't actually care. Everytime I think about really fact checking this stuff, I find that it doesn't matter enough to expend the energy. All supernatural claims are false, and there are thousands of them out there, perhaps tens of thousands. Why bother?

Still, the similarity in basic concepts is much stronger than "vague." It's primary. As in asimple chair and a recliner are still primarily furniture to sit on. The recliner is not really a new idea, despite patents. It borrows on older ideas, just like Christianity does.

One must be prepared somehow to defend their alleged parallels from the charge of being 'superficial' and to show that they are 'striking' (a rather subjective term, of course).

A bit too subjective. If there is similarity in concept, and it pre-dates Christianity, and it's from a culture that Jews in Judea would have access to, that's sufficient for the proposal that the ideas were borrowed, IMO.

In the scholarly world, the burden of argument is on the 'proponent' of borrowing.

Not really. I would say the burden of argument is on the proponent of a myth being real and novel, since it's a claim that lacks credulity to begin with. However, I also think I, or rather medmalexperts, has met the burden of showing significant similarity. Now you need to rebut with more than just "it's superficial," or "the details are different." The basic concepts of Christianity all predate Christianity. Mithras was a savior too.

And we're just scratching the surface of the flaws within Christianity. One of my favorites to spring on clergy is, "if the bible is a divinely inspired work, why is it written so poorly? How can Shakespeare be a better writer than god?" That always gets them worked up. I also like to ask, "if Jesus was god incarnate, why was he illiterate? And why wasn't he performing miracles his whole life? Shouldn't toddler Jesus have learned to walk on water?" I have dozens of them. Religion is for people who don't like to question. But it's the people who ask the hard questions, and don't accept the dogmatic answers, that actually advance our knowledge and understanding. Question your faith hard enough, and it will fail. Religion is a bucket full of nonsense.

After all, religious ceremonies can assume only a limited number of forms

No, they can assume an infinite number of forms. The fact that Christianity has so many similarities to existing pagan practices is simply a product of limited imagination, and a real god wouldn't be so limited.

The more important question is the meaning of the pagan practices.

I disagree, but in all honesty the rituals don't interest me. It's the basic concepts that show significant borrowing. If the underlying thesis of Christianity "we're real because we're new," well, they weren't new, simple as that. Heck, as people who believed the world was flat, they weren't even terribly insightful.

Anyway, Osiris "returns to life", but he's still a dead god, ruling the underworld.

Depends on the version. But really, resurrection of the dead is quite strong as a Jewish concept too. Granted, they were referring to all dead, but it doesn't take a huge leap to go from all dead to one dead. Combine that with Osiris/Horus god as son, Platonic mysticim, various virgin births, add some imagination, shake well for 30 years of oral history, and you end up with a "new" religion. Easy. Heck, if a 15 year old can write a new bible, it can't be that hard to come up with this stuff. L. Ron Hubbard did a pretty good job of creating a new faith too, though I always assumed that it was a purposeful hoax, as in when you get to the highest level of Scientology, you get to watch a video of old Ronnie telling you that all religion is a fraud, and he just proved it. Wouldn't that be great? That's what I would do if I started a religion.

Early Christianity was the opposite though. It wasn't 'inclusivistic', but 'exclusivistic', it wouldn't merge with anything. It was completely out-of-synch with the age and culture of the day. And hence, it was understood as such, and attacked by the powers and elites.

Well, first of all Christianity was created from the myths and rituals of other religions (virgin birth, father as son, resurrection, baptism, etc.) and later it incorporated many, many more. I would say it merged like water, especially given the relative time periods we're discussing. "Early Christianity" is a pretty short time table.

[Vaelahr]

...the mother of Jesus was a married woman. Despite claims to the contrary, it's simply unfathomable that she would be a virgin, especially since she had a second child in the normal manner.

We have to be aware of cultural contexts when reading. Marriages were arranged for individuals by parents, and contracts were negotiated. After this was accomplished, the individuals were considered married and were called husband and wife. They did not, however, begin to live together. Instead, the woman continued to live with her parents and the man with his for one year. The waiting period was to demonstrate the faithfulness of the pledge of purity given concerning the bride. If she was found to be with child in this period, she obviously was not pure, but had been involved in an unfaithful sexual relationship. Therefore the marriage could be annulled. If, however, the one-year waiting period demonstrated the purity of the bride, the husband would then go to the house of the bride's parents and in a grand processional march lead his bride back to his home. There they would begin to live together as husband and wife and consummate their marriage physically. The gospel record should be read with this background in mind. Mary and Joseph were in the one-year waiting period when Mary was found to be with child. They had never had sexual intercourse and Mary herself had been faithful.

...being Jews, they viewed sex with shame...

Goodness no. Read Song of Solomon.

[Mulu]

You know what's really funny? I think we're the last two people reading this thread. Nothing like a religious discussion to clear the room.

[Jeppan]

You know what's really funny? I think we're the last two people reading this thread. Nothing like a religious discussion to clear the room.

Not true, I am following it. Really good stuff and I am torn between one side and the other, in spite of being a fervent anti-clergy agnostic. Good work and by all means please continue!

[Vaelahr]

...the vast majority of the pre-modern world was syncretistic, meaning that one religion would often incorporate the myth and ritual of other cults with which it came in contact. Often the deities would simply change names. In some cases, deities would merge into one. Early Christianity was the opposite though. It wasn't 'inclusivistic', but 'exclusivistic', it wouldn't merge with anything. It was completely out-of-synch with the age and culture of the day. And hence, it was understood as such, and attacked by the powers and elites.

There's evidence that the apostles and leaders in the early Christian movement made explicit and earnest attempts to resist these syncretistic impulses of the age. For example, when the Apostle Paul (author of many New Testament epistles) preached in Lystra (Acts 14:8–20), he was faced with an opportunity to make a syncretistic innovation to the gospel. Luke records that after Paul healed a crippled man the people of the city mistook him for Hermes (the messenger of Zeus) and Barnabas for Zeus. Rather than allowing any form of identification with their gods (even the identification of “the living God” with Zeus), Paul takes the bold step of telling them to “turn from these worthless things” to the one true God, the Creator (Acts 14:15). Earliest Christianity appears to have made stringent effort to resist the larger cultural trend toward the identification of deities and directed people to the one true God, who had now revealed himself through the Lord Jesus Christ.

The apostles were constantly having to deal with people who were trying to smuggle non-Jesus elements into the early church: the Jesus-plus-Law group (Galatians), the Jesus-plus-magic group (Acts 19), Jesus-plus-Apollo Tyrimnaeus (Revelation 2:18-29, Thyatira), Jesus-plus-Epicureanism (the adversaries in 2 Peter), Jesus-plus-Platonic Dualism (1 John), Jesus-plus-Phrygian-cults (Colossians), Jesus-plus-astrology (Ephesians). Early Christianity can be seen in active, aggressive, and antagonistic combat against the various pagan systems of the day; not a borrowing or merging kind of movement.

Well, it doesn't have to satisfy copyright violation to be borrowed. By the rather simple "it sounds similar" definition, the examples succeed.

The basic concepts of Christianity all predate Christianity. Mithras was a savior too.

Religious terms and concepts like "god, savior, salvation, purify, light, impurity, afterlife, faith", etc are shared vocabularies within a culture. They are not owned by pre-Christian pagan religions, any more than they were owned by pre-Christian Judaism. Early Christians weren't borrowing anything from Judaism when they called Jesus the "Messiah", nor were they borrowing anything from paganism when they called him "Lord" (Greek kurios) or "Master". Religious language, at the generic level used in the New Testament, is a shared linguistic asset, and not something "copyrighted" by pagan thought. And, as with all users of a language, the speaker will often have to qualify their use of the term to avoid confusion on the part of the listeners, Christian or not. Shared categories of language and concepts require that from all sides. The Mystery Religions, for example, had to qualify their use of the term "salvation" sometimes, when talking to their more conservative pagan neighbors. Neo-Platonists had to do the same, as did the later Gnostics, and the earlier pagan monotheists. They weren't borrowing from their audiences, they were simply explaining themselves via shared vocabulary and language conventions.

Likewise, when the early Christians used language shared with their pagan neighbors (as the movement spread into the Gentile community), they had to explain how their terminology was different from their varying-by-location audiences. There is nothing odd or shady about this practice, this is a basic feature of conceptual communication. Everybody has to do this. Aristotle pointed out long ago that to understand something you have to first place it in its class or group, and then learn how it differed from the other items in that class. This is how we communicate ordinary matters to one another, and it's no different for religious terms and concepts.

[Mulu]

There's evidence that the apostles and leaders in the early Christian movement made explicit and earnest attempts to resist these syncretistic impulses of the age.

Perhaps, but they didn't win in the long run. Easter, etc. And it still doesn't argue against incorporation at the onset.

Religious terms and concepts like "god, savior, salvation, purify, light, impurity, afterlife, faith", etc are shared vocabularies within a culture.

But herein lies the rub. If the ideas already existed, then Jesus wasn't saying anything new. Truly novel ideas require a brand new vocabulary, hence the existence of scientific nomenclature. Science has come up with lots of new ideas, and lots of new words as a result. Religions just keep rehashing the same old superstitious ones.

They weren't borrowing from their audiences, they were simply explaining themselves via shared vocabulary and language conventions.

They were doing both, just like Gygax was when he started talking about elves and orcs. He was using a shared vocabulary. He was also stealing ideas. The use of a shared vocabulary to describe pre-existing ideas is stealing ideas.

Early Christians weren't borrowing anything from Judaism when they called Jesus the "Messiah"...

Of course they were. Jesus was claiming to be the messiah of prophecy, and Christianity still makes that claim, hence the need to free Israel.

This is how we communicate ordinary matters to one another, and it's no different for religious terms and concepts.

Only if you consider the ideas of Christianity to be "ordinary," which I suppose they are. Extraordinary ideas, like those from science, need new words. The use of mundane terminology is strong evidence that the ideas were mundane to the times as well, and thus nothing more than a continuation of prior religious beliefs.

[Vaelahr]

If the ideas already existed, then Jesus wasn't saying anything new.

Much of his teachings were correctional or revelatory. He often would preface a teaching with, "You have heard it said before that....but I say to you...", and so forth. The fact that he said something so new is why he was arrested and eventually crucified.

Truly novel ideas require a brand new vocabulary...

They had to differentiate their specific usage by additional details, and by additional negations. When the early Christians utilized familiar concepts and terms in order to communicate their faith, they made two significant changes to them. First of all, they used them in an exclusivist sense. When they proclaimed that the risen Jesus was the Savior of the world, it carried with it a powerful negation: "Neither Caesar, nor Asklepios, nor Herakles, nor Dionysos, nor Ptolemy, nor any other god is the Savior of the world - only Jesus Christ is." And they devoted time to explaining that the gods of paganism were demons, dead men, or just didn't exist.

If the Christians took over many basic concepts and ideas from their cultures (note: not from the pagan religions), and how could they do otherwise, they nevertheless filled them with such new meaning that their contemporaries were often mystified and even violently repelled by what they heard. Justin of Caesarea said, "People think we are insane when we name a crucified man as second in rank after the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things, for they do not discern the mystery involved." The Apostle Paul had also experienced the rejection of the teachings: his Jewish kinsmen considered it an abhorrent blasphemy, while his Greek listeners thought it utter foolishness. Nevertheless, this didn't prevent him or other Christians from continuing to use, and break up and reshape into new meaning, all of the familiar concepts and well-known categories in their attempts to communicate something new, something radically unfamiliar, which had been revealed to them by God through Jesus Christ. Christians emphasized that it was a revolt "against the old ways". To pagans the most startling way in which the novelty of Christianity appeared was in its substitution of new ideals for old.

The shared linguistic and cultural base was more than adequate for the New Testament authors to be able to express distinctive Christian content, and this communication was generally understood by their audiences both Jewish and pagan. The Christians were often confused (in the first generation) with the Jews, but never with the Mithraic cult. The Mithraists weren't fed to the lions, or used as human torches by an emperor. For a sect who allegedly borrowed so much from the welcomed mystery cults, they certainly didn't blend it very well, in the eyes of those in power.

[Mulu]

If the ideas already existed, then Jesus wasn't saying anything new.

Much of his teachings were correctional or revelatory. He often would preface a teaching with, "You have heard it said before that....but I say to you...", and so forth. The fact that he said something so new is why he was arrested and eventually crucified.

No, we've already been over this. Jesus was crucified for advocating the overthrow of Roman rule. His religious ideas were irrelevant.

In fact, even the exclusivity and the rejection of other religious ideas itself was nothing new. They got it from their Jewish past. Judaism is quite exclusive, calling all others gentiles. The primary difference is that in Judaism, you had to be born into it, whereas Christianity was preached to the masses.

Christianity was the right combination of exclusion, inclusion, optimism, mysticism, doomsday prophecy and charismatic cult to grow as a religion, but all of those components previously existed in other religions. That still makes it just another religion, one that was based on prior religious thought. To again using some gaming analogies, since this is a gaming forum, Christianity was the multiclassed powerbuild of its time, though certainly there were and are other powerbuilds out there.

And it still teaches irrationality and intolerance, thus making the world a worse place than it could be, and they still pray for the End of Days and actually want the world to be destroyed, thus making them ultimately an enemy of humanity. Most moral religion? I'd say it's the most immoral. Doesn't get any worse than ending the world, and I get the strong sense that the true believers may engage in a little self-fulfilling prophecy to make armageddon happen, a little helping hand to ensure that everything goes as planned. Anyone who desires the world to end is crazy, and anyone who helps it along is malicious to the core.

True morality means helping to ensure the survival and evolution of the species, not waiting for some mythical beast to take you to mythical heaven. I think all religion is morally bankrupt. Like alternative medicine, it prevents you from seeking real medicine, and right now we need some real medicine.

Seriously, it's way past time humanity woke up from its nightmare of religion and superstition. I think this will be the ultimate Darwinian test of humanity, can it break free of superstition? Because superstition + technology = destruction, eventually. I think we are approaching one of many evolutionary crossroads, where as a species we either adapt or go extinct. The primary difference this time is that *we* are the potential extinction event we need to adapt to. Talk about challenging. It's a challenge that can only be faced through reason and rational thought.

[Zakharra]

In fact, even the exclusivity and the rejection of other religious ideas itself was nothing new. They got it from their Jewish past. Judaism is quite exclusive, calling all others gentiles. The primary difference is that in Judaism, you had to be born into it, whereas Christianity was preached to the masses.

Christianity was the right combination of exclusion, inclusion, optimism, mysticism, doomsday prophecy and charismatic cult to grow as a religion, but all of those components previously existed in other religions. That still makes it just another religion, one that was based on prior religious thought. To again using some gaming analogies, since this is a gaming forum, Christianity was the multiclassed powerbuild of its time, though certainly there were and are other powerbuilds out there.

And it still teaches irrationality and intolerance, thus making the world a worse place than it could be, and they still pray for the End of Days and actually want the world to be destroyed, thus making them ultimately an enemy of humanity. Most moral religion? I'd say it's the most immoral. Doesn't get any worse than ending the world, and I get the strong sense that the true believers may engage in a little self-fulfilling prophecy to make armageddon happen, a little helping hand to ensure that everything goes as planned. Anyone who desires the world to end is crazy, and anyone who helps it along is malicious to the core.

True morality means helping to ensure the survival and evolution of the species, not waiting for some mythical beast to take you to mythical heaven. I think all religion is morally bankrupt. Like alternative medicine, it prevents you from seeking real medicine, and right now we need some real medicine.

Seriously, it's way past time humanity woke up from its nightmare of religion and superstition. I think this will be the ultimate Darwinian test of humanity, can it break free of superstition? Because superstition + technology = destruction, eventually. I think we are approaching one of many evolutionary crossroads, where as a species we either adapt or go extinct. The primary difference this time is that *we* are the potential extinction event we need to adapt to. Talk about challenging. It's a challenge that can only be faced through reason and rational thought.

Take out religion and insert ideology/a cause, and you can get the same thing in your arguement, Mulu. You are assuming that people willl be rational without religoon. If religion is removed, people will find something else to replace it. A cause or an ideal that they will follow. Some to illogical extremes. You do not have to be religious to be a nut.