Christianity is Paganism in Jewish Dress???

[Baydwin]

I read an article ages ago where a person was arguing that Christianity is the continuation of the ancient pagan religions. I can't remember all of what he said, but he mentioned Jesus being a son of a god and the idea of virgins getting pregnant, both of which he considered "very Greek".
He also said something along the lines of Catholicism being descended from the Roman cult of Isis and Horus.

He suggested that when Christianity spread to Rome, the religion had to adapt by being heavily modified with already established pagan beliefs, otherwise the gentile population simply weren't interested. It was either "paganize" or die out.

Any thoughts/opinions?

 

[Mr Cheese]

This is true to an extent, and has been argued to death by many authors,. In rfecent times, in the popular press this has been argued by Freake and Gandy (jesus ands the lost Goddess et al).

There is much truth in this view. However there are many strands of Christianity that made and make up Christianity. If we examine early christianity we could argue it was almost as fragmented as it is today!

SO to quickly conclude, yes this is quite correct, but it is not the whole story. If we examine the Gnostics for instance we can see other strands such as the "Persian Gnostic" line that gave forth groups such as Ebionites, mandaeans, manichaeans et al..... that really had little or nothign to do with supposed "pagan" connections....

Of course people like Oberon will argue to death from another perspective of how Christianity is not Pagan... which of course is silly, a large part of it is...but as with anything that is made to fit into a nice tidy box, there are exceptions that just don't sit so well in the accepted norm.

 

[DallasApple]

All I know is one thing..The "Christmas tree" was stemmed from a pagan ritual.(I think)..

And thats pretty telling.

There is no "tree" in the Bible that I know of.Except maybe the tree of good and evil and the burning bush.

I could be wrong..But it seems some pagan practices got brought in and incorprated and "tolerated" in order to convert them to Christianity.

Somebody SMACK me down if Im way off.

Love

Dallas

 

[EverChanging]

It's true and quite well known about, even by many Christians. I believe the book I have on it is called The Pagan Christ: The Pagan Christ by Tom Harpur If it is the book I remember, it isn't exactly original, but it's a great compilation of what is known.

Here is another website with lots of information, one of the first I came across in my journey out of a cult-like heretical group: POCM Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth

For some people, acknowledging the pagan origins of Christianity destroys it for them, but not for me. I don't see Christianity as any different from paganism: it is a branch of paganism, distinguished only in name, and so I don't mind the Christian influences on my own spiritual path at all because to me, Christianity is only another flavor of paganism, and because of that, I'm okay with the general term "neopagan" rather than some other term, or Christian-related term (after all, I draw from all kinds of paths.)

This is what modern Christianity is going to have to recognize: their religion is based on mythology and they need to embrace it as mythology instead of history. This will not destroy their religion, but revitilize it. They have lost the spirit of Christianity, the spirit of the law, in their dead, literal, historical, modern, logical, and scientific reading of ancient myths in a time when people thought mythologically, metaphorically, not rationally like we do today. If they did this, acknowledging the pagan origins of Christianity wouldn't be a blow to them. It would only reveal that Christianity is not enriched by separating itself from other paths, but enriched because it is syncretistic and intertwined with other paths.

 

[DallasApple]

This will not destroy their religion, but revitilize it. They have lost the spirit of Christianity, the spirit of the law, in their dead, literal, historical, modern, logical, and scientific reading of ancient myths in a time when people thought mythologically, metaphorically, not rationally like we do today. If they did this, acknowledging the pagan origins of Christianity wouldn't be a blow to them. It would only reveal that Christianity is not enriched by separating itself from other paths, but enriched because it is syncretistic and intertwined with other paths.

I agree.

Love

Dallas

 

[Oberon]

I read an article ages ago where a person was arguing that Christianity is the continuation of the ancient pagan religions.

In a word, no. Most of the popular press books (like Freke and Gandy) are full of errors, and the myths closest to the NT accounts of Jesus (e.g. the hellenistic Mithras, Attis, etc) weren't around until after the synoptic gospels were all written. That christianity, at various stages and to varying degree, was influenced by pagan philosophy, literature, etc, is undeniable. But the dying and resurrecting Jesus, the son of god, was present almost immediately after Jesus' death, and while it was still very jewish.

and the idea of virgins getting pregnant

It is quite plausible that this story is influenced by the story of Augustus Caesar. It is equally possible it is a result of scriptural exegesis by early Christians, perhaps trying to gloss over some questionable stories concerning Jesus' birth (i.e. his father is largely absent from the Jesus tradition).

He also said something along the lines of Catholicism being descended from the Roman cult of Isis and Horus.

Completely false.

He suggested that when Christianity spread to Rome, the religion had to adapt by being heavily modified with already established pagan beliefs

The son of God and dying and resurrecting savior were 1) not really pagan and 2) present prior to the spread of christianity to rome.

the gentile population simply weren't interested.

Also false. Even prior to christianity, pagans were known to worship YHWH in the synagogue, not as Jews, but just honoring/appeasing another god. So they didn't need a hellenized version of christianity; many were already interested in Judaism.

 

[Herr Heinrich]

It's true and quite well known about, even by many Christians. I believe the book I have on it is called The Pagan Christ: The Pagan Christ by Tom Harpur If it is the book I remember, it isn't exactly original, but it's a great compilation of what is known.

Here is another website with lots of information, one of the first I came across in my journey out of a cult-like heretical group: POCM Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth

For some people, acknowledging the pagan origins of Christianity destroys it for them, but not for me. I don't see Christianity as any different from paganism: it is a branch of paganism, distinguished only in name, and so I don't mind the Christian influences on my own spiritual path at all because to me, Christianity is only another flavor of paganism, and because of that, I'm okay with the general term "neopagan" rather than some other term, or Christian-related term (after all, I draw from all kinds of paths.)

This is what modern Christianity is going to have to recognize: their religion is based on mythology and they need to embrace it as mythology instead of history. This will not destroy their religion, but revitilize it. They have lost the spirit of Christianity, the spirit of the law, in their dead, literal, historical, modern, logical, and scientific reading of ancient myths in a time when people thought mythologically, metaphorically, not rationally like we do today. If they did this, acknowledging the pagan origins of Christianity wouldn't be a blow to them. It would only reveal that Christianity is not enriched by separating itself from other paths, but enriched because it is syncretistic and intertwined with other paths.

I agree with what you are saying here. I have been thinking about this lately. I generally believe that the mythology needs to be relevant to a culture to hold the most potential however. Both spiritual and practical potential. I am not saying anyone who worships a different cultures gods or looks to their mythology for guidance is wrong. I am just saying that I think it doesn't always hold the same value to someone from a different culture than it would for a person of the myths culture. An example is I could study Chinese mythology and the indigenous religion of China, but it isn't completely relevant to me since I am not of the Chinese culture. I might be able to learn many lessons from it, but I will not be able to fully grasp the myths unless I participate in the culture. I feel this same way about Christianity. We are not Jewish. We do not live in the culture of the Bible. Therefore we are not going to be able to completely grasp what it is trying to tell us. I think that is why we have some of the trouble we do with interpretation. A lot of it arises from ignorance of the culture. It can cause confusion. Just some thoughts.

 

[Perfect Circle]

In a word, no. Most of the popular press books (like Freke and Gandy) are full of errors, and the myths closest to the NT accounts of Jesus (e.g. the hellenistic Mithras, Attis, etc) weren't around until after the synoptic gospels were all written. That christianity, at various stages and to varying degree, was influenced by pagan philosophy, literature, etc, is undeniable. But the dying and resurrecting Jesus, the son of god, was present almost immediately after Jesus' death, and while it was still very jewish.

As I understand it, the resurrection story was in fact present almost immediately after Jesus' death, but the son of god element wasn't taken as literally as it is now until a little further down the line. Weren't there even debates as to the divinity of Jesus during the first council of nicaea?

It is quite plausible that this story is influenced by the story of Augustus Caesar. It is equally possible it is a result of scriptural exegesis by early Christians, perhaps trying to gloss over some questionable stories concerning Jesus' birth (i.e. his father is largely absent from the Jesus tradition).

I'm confused here. If the story is influenced by the story of August Caesar, then wouldn't that be pagan influence? Also, what story are you referring to here? I wasn't aware there was a virgin birth story of Augustus.

Also false. Even prior to christianity, pagans were known to worship YHWH in the synagogue, not as Jews, but just honoring/appeasing another god. So they didn't need a hellenized version of christianity; many were already interested in Judaism.

I'm not sure I agree with your final point here. They were interested in appeasing another of the many gods they believed in. Judaism, in the first century, was a definitive monotheistic religion... a concept many pagans would find almost laughable. I think they were more concerned with keeping in YHWH's favor as opposed to following any real tenant or philosophy of Judaism.

 

[LoTrobador]

I wouldn't say Christianity is a "continuation" or a "form" of "pagan" religions. Christians (be it "pre-orthodox", "Gnostic" or "Jewish") didn't worship the same Gods as the ancient polytheists did. Philosophical and liturgical "borrowing" / influences were there, but not the same Gods - and I can't think of any more substantial difference... A bit like with a re-marriage: one might have an identical ceremony, wear an identical ring, live in the same house; after a while one can even come to a conclusion, that yup, the spouse looks differenty, but in many respects is no different than the first one - still, the second marriage is neither a continuation nor a form of the first one.

As for telling Christians (or any religion for that matter) they don't worship who they think they do, I think it might be sometimes like 'Oh, you didn't marry who you think you did, but you just don't know it' (which reminds me a bit of the Chick Tracts and Rev. Hislop's The Two Babylons)...

 

[Smoke]

The need to paganize is greatly exaggerated, and so are most of the claims of borrowing from pagan traditions. In particular, the parallels of pagan myths to Christian myths are exaggerated to the point of fabrication.

Christianity is nevertheless more of a pagan religion than a Jewish one. As far as that goes, so was the religion of the pre-exilic Jews.

 

[Oberon]

As I understand it, the resurrection story was in fact present almost immediately after Jesus' death, but the son of god element wasn't taken as literally as it is now until a little further down the line.

That's probably true. Jesus was called the "son of God" even in Paul, who was converted a few years after Jesus' death. But it is unclear what exactly this means, and when Jesus first began to be widely considered divine.

Weren't there even debates as to the divinity of Jesus during the first council of nicaea?

Not exactly. The debate was on Arianism. That Jesus was divine was taken for granted. The question was whether or not he was on par with god, or a "lesser" divinity.

If the story is influenced by the story of August Caesar, then wouldn't that be pagan influence?

Yes, if it is. And it could be.

Also, what story are you referring to here? I wasn't aware there was a virgin birth story of Augustus.

It's in, e.g., the Life of the Twelve Caesars by Seutonius the historian.

I'm not sure I agree with your final point here. They were interested in appeasing another of the many gods they believed in.

Yes, but the point was the interest was still there, and provided a stepping stone for conversion to christianity. Moreover, it is difficult to say that the christians "adapted" christianity to make it palatable for the romans, because it wasn't until over 200 years after Jesus died that Christianity was even legal, long after the NT was written.

I think they were more concerned with keeping in YHWH's favor as opposed to following any real tenant or philosophy of Judaism.

Yes and no. Yes, as they weren't Jews. No, as it appears there was some real respect and veneration for the ancient nature of YHWH, and of the jewish religion, which was older than Plato or Socrates or even Pythagoras, and "ancient" things commanded a certain respect.

 

[Zadok]

Just because a religion was anciently referred to as Pagan does not mean that all its precepts and doctrines had no basis in religious truth. In essence religion like so many other social structures borrows from each other. It is quite possible that all religions are “evolved” from a single valid source and adapted to various cultures and societies.

It is interesting, for example, how the epoch of Baal and Zoroaster parallel Jesus Christ. Even the claims surrounding Alexander the Great have similar parallels.

We also see the emergence of many similar teachings. For example the ancient Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans believed that if one could please certain g-ds or g-d by ritual or incantation that regardless of their deeds that g-d/g-ds would assist them into the bliss of heaven. We see the resurgence of this doctrine in modern Evangelical Christianity with their “being saved” suddenly in a single ritual pleasing to G-d regardless of deeds prior or after ritual concept.

In general most in the modern western religious landscape describe heaven through “Pagan” concepts with the whole golden gates with Peter (not the Mott and/or Yamon) guardians rather that the portrait painted in Genesis with a pair of guardians armed with a sword and fire.

Zadok

 

[dogsgod]

Jewish mythology is at the core of the Jesus story.

The core of the Jesus story is the Son of man, who has been hidden from the beginning of time, who will be revealed when the end of the ages is near, and who will serve as the judge of men and angels when the earth is destroyed and the New Jerusalem of heaven comes as the place of inhabitance for the righteous men of all nations where death will be abolished and the righteous live with the Son of man for ever and ever. That is who Christ is and that is who Jesus is, and that figure is a purely mythical character that existed long before the emergence of the specific story of Jesus, whose story is not fundamentally different from a dozen or so other stories from the same time and place, other than the specific name of the savior and the method of his death.

Jesus Myth Part II - Follow-up, Commentary, and Expansion

 

[Oberon]

Jewish mythology is at the core of the Jesus story.

Yes, we know that you buy into bad websites rather than serious scholarship.

The core of the Jesus story is the Son of man

Jesus often is quoted as saying huios tou anthropou but this phrase is barely found in hebrew scriptures, or in later christian writings. The only rational explanation is that the Jesus sect remembered it as a characteristic saying of Jesus.

That is who Christ is and that is who Jesus is, and that figure is a purely mythical character that existed long before the emergence of the specific story of Jesus,

We have no record of any such mythic figure. Paul is the first source, converted shortly after Jesus died, who nails Jesus' death and life both by knowing his brother and because he places Jesus' death somewhere in the period after Herod died and the romans took a more direct approach in ruling the area, because Paul has Jesus crucified.

whose story is not fundamentally different from a dozen or so other stories from the same time and place, other than the specific name of the savior and the method of his death.

Only it is. What stories are similar? And before you answer, make sure you are not just summarizing the stories as you read them on some website, if you want to avoid looking foolish. You should know when the myth originated (as Mithras and Attis and so forth postdate the gospels) and how similar it really was.

 

[logician]

Just looking at the myriad of Xian denominations today makes it certain there must have been many cults of early Xianity vying for attention. The literalists(ones that believed in a phiscial Christ), and the rise-from -the-dead cults won out over the gnostists and others, and that was the tradition that was carried on.

 

[Oberon]

and the rise-from -the-dead cults won out over the gnostists and others, and that was the tradition that was carried on.

The gnostics, the ones who believed that christ came down and only appeared human, but was really divine and not flesh and blood? Let me guess: your idea of the gnostics comes from Freke and Gandy, two people who wrote what was basically fiction and had zero qualifications.

 

[Smoke]

The gnostics, the ones who believed that christ came down and only appeared human, but was really divine and not flesh and blood? Let me guess: your idea of the gnostics comes from Freke and Gandy, two people who wrote what was basically fiction and had zero qualifications.

I'm mystified by the infatuation with Gnosticism that's become so popular, even if it's informed by better authors like Pagels. If anybody's prepared to agree that there are serious problems with Christianity, I am - but I can't imagine how anybody could prefer the Gnostic view of the body to the Christian view.

 

[DallasApple]

The need to paganize is greatly exaggerated, and so are most of the claims of borrowing from pagan traditions. In particular, the parallels of pagan myths to Christian myths are exaggerated to the point of fabrication.

Christianity is nevertheless more of a pagan religion than a Jewish one. As far as that goes, so was the religion of the pre-exilic Jews.

But see I dont CARE if Im a pagan person and neither does Jesus.

That was all about Moses!!!

I dont have a golden calf or any of that!!

LOVE

Dallas

 

[DallasApple]

I'm mystified by the infatuation with Gnosticism that's become so popular, even if it's informed by better authors like Pagels. If anybody's prepared to agree that there are serious problems with Christianity, I am - but I can't imagine how anybody could prefer the Gnostic view of the body to the Christian view.

Im curious about that too...

Love

Dallas

 

[Smoke]

But see I dont CARE if Im a pagan person and neither does Jesus.

What's the big deal about being pagan, anyway?

When I was Orthodox, I was well aware of the similarities between Orthodox Christianity and paganism. I never thought that was a bad thing; if anything, I thought it was one of good aspects of Christianity.