Origins

[No*s]

I would like you to point to an early Christian primary source that denies Jesus is God in the first three centuries. You won't find one, because Arius invented the teaching. The closest you'll get are the Ebionites in the late First Century who taught that Jesus was an angel, but they were a break-away sect and rather localized, so they wouldn't help you much either.

On the birth of Christ, why are you more sure of your position that it was pagan borrowing after it coming out Constantine didn't institute it, and that it predates it? Remember, the first reference to Christmas comes from Clement of Alexandria in 200, which predates 245 and definately Constantine.

Now for the cause of the festival, we don't know. We do know there was cultural borrowing, but it's pretty presumptuous to say the thing is just a copycat festival (most religions in the world had a holiday on Dec. 25). Why could they have simply not decided to settle for a festival to keep people from celebrating the other festival? Even at that point, it's proximity to the feast isn't a given. The calander had a lot of give and take then, and the date settled on as December 25 then occurs at January 6 on our calander. That moves it a good bit away from the date of the solstice.

Was there borrowing? You bet. Was the holiday itself borrowed? That's not exactly proven (one way or the other), but it predates your time frames, which really does put a clincher in the argument. A holiday existing at 200 wasn't based on an event in 245, and even if it came after the choice of Dec. 25 in 320 doesn't give nearly as much weight almost a century after the date of the holiday in question (why not date it close to when it occurred in his time?).

On Sunday, I've just given theological reasons and evidence for why Sunday not Saturday. Do you have any evidence for your position at all? If not, then why even label it "other reasons?"

 

[Master Vigil]

Alrighty, so Constantine didn't make it so, but it still was pagan influenced. Theres one problem with Clements Christmas though, Clement said he was born in May (which is probably the most accurate). Clement was also from egypt. This is a historical account, not an account based on religion. But why would an accurate account be changed? It's because of the pagan influence. It was moved to January 6 because of a differing calendar (But it was still a festival of Saturnalia). There is religious influence however after 247, when the solstice was indeed on December 25th, and then Pope Julius I made it jesus' birthday in 320. Birth of the Sun God, and birth of the Son of God.

 

[No*s]

Alrighty, so Constantine didn't make it so, but it still was pagan influenced. Theres one problem with Clements Christmas though, Clement said he was born in May (which is probably the most accurate). Clement was also from egypt. This is a historical account, not an account based on religion. But why would an accurate account be changed? It's because of the pagan influence. It was moved to January 6 because of a differing calendar (But it was still a festival of Saturnalia). There is religious influence however after 247, when the solstice was indeed on December 25th, and then Pope Julius I made it jesus' birthday in 320. Birth of the Sun God, and birth of the Son of God.

Are you sure everything's so black and white?

It's all a set of interpretations based on how you read the history books. We know the holiday was present before any claim to Saturnalia can even be thought of. We know why it was made: a movement in the second and third centuries to commemorate Christ. We know of at least three dates (and we can probably pick more if we went through the literature in detail).

What we don't know is what day Christ was born on. Most likely Clement didn't know any more than the people who came later. January 6 is a good bit further away from the winter solstice. It's close enough for rivalry, but I don't think I'd make my rival holiday two weeks after the holiday it's supposed to replace.

This rivalry did allow for cross-pollinization of festivals. The tree for instance comes from the pagan festivals. The holiday, though, may or may not. We know Constantine didn't invent it. We know that the date the Pope gave in 320 wasn't the first time Dec. 25th was proposed. We also know that the initial date of Jan 6th was very widespread (and still is). Heck, some of the Non-Chalcedonians still celebrate an older date on Jan. 15th. Still others back then put it in March.

If we are to loosen the rules to allow for all of this, then I could most any holidy be a borrowed holiday from any neighboring group. Christmas was initially all over the place, and if it was created from the solstice celebrations its dates would have remained in the same general area. The fact that it settled in the same ballpark as the solstice (and in some cases four weeks apart) doesn't provide much evidence the holiday was borrowed. Borrowing of customs in holidays that close is inevitable, but you're going to have to demonstrate there was a fundamental shift in every aspect of the holiday, including meaning, to maintain it was borrowed from the solstice at this point.

 

[Master Vigil]

We know the holiday was present before any claim to Saturnalia can even be thought of.

Thats not true, Saturnalia and the festival of the winter solstice was around long before christ was born.

We know why it was made: a movement in the second and third centuries to commemorate Christ. We know of at least three dates (and we can probably pick more if we went through the literature in detail).

And we can base from the evidence that they chose Dec. 25, because it was a pagan holiday, there is no evidence that christ was born on this day, there is more evidence supporting Clements claim of Spring.

This rivalry did allow for cross-pollinization of festivals. The tree for instance comes from the pagan festivals. The holiday, though, may or may not.

The date was indeed a pagan holiday long before christ was born, and there is no evidence supporting that it was indeed christs birthday, but more supporting it was chosen to be so, because of pagan influence. (and making it easier to convert pagans). Thats why they did it.

We know that the date the Pope gave in 320 wasn't the first time Dec. 25th was proposed. We also know that the initial date of Jan 6th was very widespread (and still is). Heck, some of the Non-Chalcedonians still celebrate an older date on Jan. 15th. Still others back then put it in March.

When was Dec. 25th declared the birth of Christ before Julius? Any other mention of that date before was of pagan holidays.

If we are to loosen the rules to allow for all of this, then I could most any holidy be a borrowed holiday from any neighboring group. Christmas was initially all over the place, and if it was created from the solstice celebrations its dates would have remained in the same general area. The fact that it settled in the same ballpark as the solstice (and in some cases four weeks apart) doesn't provide much evidence the holiday was borrowed. Borrowing of customs in holidays that close is inevitable, but you're going to have to demonstrate there was a fundamental shift in every aspect of the holiday, including meaning, to maintain it was borrowed from the solstice at this point.

Since it was moved from spring to the winter solstice isn't a big of enough shift for you? Since it was moved to the time when pagans celebrated the birth of their god? Since the Januray 6th date is indeed the winter solstice, but in a different calendar, and yet still the feast of Saturnalia? There doesn't need to be a fundamental shift in EVERY aspect of the holiday, only enough to make it more pagan, so to easier convert them. Why is that hard to understand?

 

[The Black Whirlwind]

i dont give a damn

 

[dan]

The influences go back to the mithraism, pyramid texts, the religions of Baal and Ishtar, the egyptian gods, and of course the roman religions had great influence during constantines period.

The Egyptians come from a lineage that claimed to have the priesthood. They claimed it through Ham. This is why much of the doctrines and rituals are so similar (and yet perverted) to Christianity. Some say mesoamerican traditions are similar to Christian doctrine as well. There are stories of God's child suffering for the sins of His people in aztec history. There are stories of atonement and sacrifice throughout mayan traditionalism. There is also a book that shows how this land was partially inhabited by Jewish refugees. This explains why the words Halelujah and Jehovah can be found in mesoamerican texts, as well as in pacific island songs and temple rituals (also inhabited by Jewish refugees, via south america - see the book Kon Tiki). Some have speculated about the emergence of so many similar religions in parts of the world so isolated from each other, but the only answer that holds water is the most simple: they all came from the same place. That place is God.

 

[dan]

The neoplatonic influence of Rome had a great influence on Christianity after it was destroyed by Dioclytian, but the doctrine of the Catholic church is not original Christianity, and the Roman influence can be accurately explained and weeded out from the truth, none of which compromises Christ's divinity.

 

[No*s]

Thats not true, Saturnalia and the festival of the winter solstice was around long before christ was born.

You misunderstood my claim . The holiday of Christmas was celebrated long before any connection between it and Christmas can be made. I apologize for the miscommunication.

And we can base from the evidence that they chose Dec. 25, because it was a pagan holiday, there is no evidence that christ was born on this day, there is more evidence supporting Clements claim of Spring.

That ignores several things. First, there is no reason to believe Clement even knew the proper day on which Christ was born. Christmas was an emerging holiday then, so quite likely, the original date was not a part of Tradition.

Second, there is an old logical fallacy, "correlation does not equal causation." It applies here. The date of Christmas was all over the board including the January date (their December at the time). Why should I believe it is based on an event that takes place a couple of weeks earlier? Did they suddenly change their practice or was it always based on that? In either case, your argument needs more evidence.

The date was indeed a pagan holiday long before christ was born, and there is no evidence supporting that it was indeed christs birthday, but more supporting it was chosen to be so, because of pagan influence. (and making it easier to convert pagans). Thats why they did it.

I don't think you understand what was going on in the second and third centuries. There was a movement that arose emphasizing the events in Christ's life, quite likely in response to some heresies of the day. As a result, the people instituted feasts and commemorated these events where they could. Nobody condemned anybody for having a different date. What was important was what it was celebrating. This self-same Clement mentions groups celebrating on the 11 of Tybi (sp?) by their time. That equates to Jan. 6 our time, or on the calander in the fourth century, December 25. This wasn't a major point of fighting, and as such, it really isn't that big a thing to point to and say "aha" on today.

When was Dec. 25th declared the birth of Christ before Julius? Any other mention of that date before was of pagan holidays.

AD 200. Clement of Alexandria records that one group celebrated on the 11 of their "Tibi" (I'm not sure of the spelling). That's January 6 on our calander. January 6 on our calander is when December 25 on the calander in the fourth century occured. Clement was well-aware of that date, and he didn't seem to have much of a problem with it.

Since it was moved from spring to the winter solstice isn't a big of enough shift for you? Since it was moved to the time when pagans celebrated the birth of their god? Since the Januray 6th date is indeed the winter solstice, but in a different calendar, and yet still the feast of Saturnalia? There doesn't need to be a fundamental shift in EVERY aspect of the holiday, only enough to make it more pagan, so to easier convert them. Why is that hard to understand?

Let's rephrase that to be more accurate. It settled on December 25, our January 6 in the fourth century. There are still some old sects that celebrate on the Jan 15 and a good bit of the Orthodox Church still on Jan 6 by our calander. It settled there. It wasn't moved there, because there was no official holiday. It only became December 25 by our calander as we know it and that close to the solstice in the 16th century when Pope Gregory made a new calander. At that time December 25 occured at a different time, where before it was Jan. 6 which places it almost two weeks later.

So, the date was never moved to coincide with the solstice. It settled that way. The Dec 25 date was present in 200, which is Jan. 6 by our calander. If you mean Dec 25 by our calander, then that doesn't occur until much later, long after the solstice had died out as a celebration in Europe. It was not created for the purpose of being a solstice wannabe. There isn't any evidence I know of that the holiday's purpose and definition was changed for that.

 

[No*s]

The neoplatonic influence of Rome had a great influence on Christianity after it was destroyed by Dioclytian, but the doctrine of the Catholic church is not original Christianity, and the Roman influence can be accurately explained and weeded out from the truth, none of which compromises Christ's divinity.

Would you care to explain that further here or start a thread specifically dedicated to it? I'd love to debate it. Remember. We need exact examples not broad statements. *evil grin*

 

[Master Vigil]

You misunderstood my claim . The holiday of Christmas was celebrated long before any connection between it and Christmas can be made. I apologize for the miscommunication.

I think you meant your second christmas to be saturnalia, in which it was celebrated in spring first. I didn't claim that it was indeed originally celebrated as christs birth, but it did "settle" on saturnalia. Could that be due to its pagan influence? Why else would they do that, especially due to our modern findings being in concurrence with Clements claim of his birth being between spring and autumn, not winter?

That ignores several things. First, there is no reason to believe Clement even knew the proper day on which Christ was born. Christmas was an emerging holiday then, so quite likely, the original date was not a part of Tradition.

Modern studies shows that Clement was closest, so why did they "settle" on the winter solstice?

Second, there is an old logical fallacy, "correlation does not equal causation." It applies here. The date of Christmas was all over the board including the January date (their December at the time). Why should I believe it is based on an event that takes place a couple of weeks earlier? Did they suddenly change their practice or was it always based on that? In either case, your argument needs more evidence.

That fallacy would be in effect if there wasn't evidence supporting its "settlement" to help convert pagans. The Januray date was indeed the same as December 25th, (diferring calendars, same solstice) it is not a couple weeks earlier.

I don't think you understand what was going on in the second and third centuries. There was a movement that arose emphasizing the events in Christ's life, quite likely in response to some heresies of the day. As a result, the people instituted feasts and commemorated these events where they could. Nobody condemned anybody for having a different date. What was important was what it was celebrating. This self-same Clement mentions groups celebrating on the 11 of Tybi (sp?) by their time. That equates to Jan. 6 our time, or on the calander in the fourth century, December 25. This wasn't a major point of fighting, and as such, it really isn't that big a thing to point to and say "aha" on today.

I understand, it wasn't a big point of argument back then, because everything was still pagan influenced. It was no big deal for a christian feast to be on the same day as a pagan holiday.

AD 200. Clement of Alexandria records that a sect celebrated on the 11 of their "Tibi" (I'm not sure of the spelling). That's January 6 on our calander. January 6 on our calander is when December 25 on the calander in the fourth century occured. Clement was well-aware of that date, and he didn't seem to have much of a problem with it.

Why would he, everyone was used to the pagan feasts, thats why it was so easy for the christians to celebrate them on that day, if they chose other days to claim as holy days, than there would be fighting.

Let's rephrase that to be more accurate. It settled on December 25, our January 6 in the fourth century. There are still some old sects that celebrate on the Jan 15 and a good bit of the Orthodox Church still on Jan 6 by our calander. It settled there. It wasn't moved there, because there was no official holiday. It only became December 25 by our calander as we know it and that close to the solstice in the 16th century when Pope Gregory made a new calander. At that time December 25 occured at a different time, where before it was Jan. 6 which places it almost two weeks later.

Fine, it "settled" there because of the pagan influences. Better? December 25th was indeed Januray 6th. Same day, different calendar. It was Januray 6th, and became December 25th because they are the same day.

So, the date was never moved to coincide with the solstice. It settled that way. The Dec 25 date was present in 200, which is Jan. 6 by our calander. If you mean Dec 25 by our calander, then that doesn't occur until much later, long after the solstice had died out as a celebration in Europe. It was not created for the purpose of being a solstice wannabe. There isn't any evidence I know of that the holiday's purpose and definition was changed for that.

Alrighty, the date settled to coincide with the solstice. Januray 6 was the solstice in 200, then became December 25th when the calendars changed. In which the solstice was still a celebration, it was just called christmas instead.

"Natalis Invicti. The well-known solar feast, however, of Natalis Invicti, celebrated on 25 December, has a strong claim on the responsibility for our December date. For the history of the solar cult, its position in the Roman Empire, and syncretism with Mithraism..." - Catholic Encyclopedia

I am still wondering why you don't see that Mithra was a sun god, feast - Winter solstice.
Roman religion - Sun Cult - Saturnalia - Winter Solstice
Christianity - Son of God religion - feast - Winter Solstice

 

[No*s]

I managed to crash my system just a second ago. X has a bug in it that causes it to lock up tighter than Ft. Knox sometimes. I still haven't figured it out, but I'm going to make this one as brief as possible; it's a little bit annoying to lose a post, and I can't browse this site CLI anymore.

I think you meant your second christmas to be saturnalia, in which it was celebrated in spring first. I didn't claim that it was indeed originally celebrated as christs birth, but it did "settle" on saturnalia. Could that be due to its pagan influence? Why else would they do that, especially due to our modern findings being in concurrence with Clements claim of his birth being between spring and autumn, not winter?

Was it based on the solstice on every date chosen? I don't think you'd go that far or even look for a parallel with a religious holiday for every date. To date, all you have is a correlation between dates to mount your argument, and now, a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

I'm remiss to cite this one, because it doesn't come from the Fathers directly. I prefer to deal in primary sources on this and have avoided using this argument, but I'll cite an article in Touchstone on this subject. It provides an alternative view for which I want you to point out the flaws in.

Basically, it goes thusly. There was a belief that a prophet died nine months separated from his birth or conception. We, next, know that March 25 is nine months separated from December 25. We know that the Anunciation was much more popular then than Christmas, so we can't have the Anunciation's date moved to accomodate Christmas. It provides ample doctrinal reason, but it also does away with any need for a copycat holiday. A very similar phenomena occurs with the Epiphany on April 6th w/ January 6th.

So far, though, your argument points to no historical evidence beyond the calander. It neglects the diversity of dates, and assumes that because it settled at that point, then it must have done so on account of the solstice. It neglects the fact that the solstice is not a moveable holiday in the calander changes, because it is a natural phenomena.

Modern studies shows that Clement was closest, so why did they "settle" on the winter solstice?

Your question answers itself. "Modern studies" show that Clement was the closest. They didnt' have access to scientific calanders and whatnot on the subject. This is one of those places where the modern world can definately have advantages. Of course, we could also be wrong.

That fallacy would be in effect if there wasn't evidence supporting its "settlement" to help convert pagans. The Januray date was indeed the same as December 25th, (diferring calendars, same solstice) it is not a couple weeks earlier.

I ask you to start pointing to some evidence beyond "They arrive at similar times." You haven't given that evidence yet, not one primary source, and I've asked for it. I do appreciate your quoting form the Catholic Encyclopedia now, though, but that still simply repeats your argument and doesn't supply any evidence (it's the same "correlation equals causation" style of reasoning).

I understand, it wasn't a big point of argument back then, because everything was still pagan influenced. It was no big deal for a christian feast to be on the same day as a pagan holiday.

They didn't ignore trying to calculate the proper season for the birth, but they didn't have massive fights over it. If it was important to calculate it exactly in all respects there would have been, and I can promise you there would have been if they were appropriating paganism.

I would like, though, for you to prove that the early dates and arguments for Christmas were "pagan influenced." I don't think it was that important to them, because they were calculating it still. It had nothing to do with "everything" sill being "pagan influenced."

Why would he, everyone was used to the pagan feasts, thats why it was so easy for the christians to celebrate them on that day, if they chose other days to claim as holy days, than there would be fighting.

I suggest you read Clement's treatise "An Exhortation to the Greeks" before you repeat that one. I promise you Clement would fight. He loathed paganism and spent a good bit of time attacking the holidays and rituals. Given that, I seriously doubt your proposition.

Fine, it "settled" there because of the pagan influences. Better? December 25th was indeed Januray 6th. Same day, different calendar. It was Januray 6th, and became December 25th because they are the same day.

Alrighty, the date settled to coincide with the solstice. Januray 6 was the solstice in 200, then became December 25th when the calendars changed. In which the solstice was still a celebration, it was just called christmas instead.

Not quite yet, because I keep asking for something beyond an argument based on the correlation of the late dates. I haven't received any.

"Natalis Invicti. The well-known solar feast, however, of Natalis Invicti, celebrated on 25 December, has a strong claim on the responsibility for our December date. For the history of the solar cult, its position in the Roman Empire, and syncretism with Mithraism..." - Catholic Encyclopedia

I am still wondering why you don't see that Mithra was a sun god, feast - Winter solstice.
Roman religion - Sun Cult - Saturnalia - Winter Solstice
Christianity - Son of God religion - feast - Winter Solstice

The reason it doesn't hold much weight for me is that first, Christmas was clearly not created in response to it. It couldn't have been with parallel dates at the start in March, May, April, January, and December (and that's what I know of). That renders Christmas as a solstice copy impossible.

Secondly, it is an argument based almost exclusively on correlation but with no clear evidence for it. When the date finally settles, the argument's strongest points are based on the correlation of the final dates. It is assumed that they are significant, but not once is primary evidence ever given that they are. It is assumed, and then it is used as a means of criticizing Christianity. I can, and I will, ask for evidence every time the pagan mallet is swung here. To date, not one person has been forthcoming, not even scholars in a university. Each time I do this, I become more and more convinced that the theory is unsubstantiated, and worse, last December I found an article giving other reasons for the date (and thus substantiating my doubts when they have arisen).

Lastly, there are only a handful of Mithraic specialists. I haven't ever been referenced to a work by someone who is a Mithraic specialist claiming this and written in the last twenty or so years. Almost all of it is dependent on a nineteenth century work book, and it's based extensively on interpretations of vague icons and things, most of which are post-Christian. That lacks force and authority with me (kind of like the Egyptian painting).

The claim is repeated over and over, but the primary sources are never forth-coming, and when they are, I almost universally find that it's exceedingly vague. For instance the "virgin birth" of Mithra is from him being depicted being born alive out of a rock and being held by a woman. It is assumed, without any evidence, that she is his mother and a virgin. The virginal part comes from the rock. I find such evidences weak and will point out the flaw in every case.

In general, I find claims of pagan copycatting in Christianity tends to fall into one of those three categories, but this one is especially so. It is generally poorly researched and relies on vague parallels (virgin births not involving virgins for instance). I will continue to challenge such claims to see how often people can cough it up. There are legitimate pagan inheritances, but in general, people overlook those.

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

Good evening all. You guys remind me of my brothers. Oh yeah, you are my brothers. :jiggy::jiggy: :jiggy:

You guys are full of soooo much information. I'm so excited to have met you. I spend most of my time around a 2year old girl and a 8yr old boy. It's nice to be stimulated by all this wisdom.

But to the subject at hand. I don't know how this switched to a discussion about Christmas. But isn't the calendar man made? And hasn't it changed a few times over history? And isn't history biased? Why can't we just call it what it is. A celebration in honor of the birth of a man who made history. We all have birthdays, the mere fact that a large portion of the worlds population celebrate this particular birthday is somewhat miraculous.

 

[No*s]

Good evening all. You guys remind me of my brothers. Oh yeah, you are my brothers. :jiggy::jiggy: :jiggy:

You guys are full of soooo much information. I'm so excited to have met you. I spend most of my time around a 2year old girl and a 8yr old boy. It's nice to be stimulated by all this wisdom.

But to the subject at hand. I don't know how this switched to a discussion about Christmas. But isn't the calendar man made? And hasn't it changed a few times over history? And isn't history biased? Why can't we just call it what it is. A celebration in honor of the birth of a man who made history. We all have birthdays, the mere fact that a large portion of the worlds population celebrate this particular birthday is somewhat miraculous.

Well thank you ES. I don't know how I'm exuding much wisdom, but the compliment is appreciated.

Now on the thread, I think it narrowed down to Christmas, because that's the most potent candidate for the paganization of Christianity mentioned. The others kind of fizzled. For my part, I tend to agree more with your view as I understand it. It's a Christiani holiday, and I don't see the need to proof-text it as a pagan knock-off. Soon enough there'll be another point to debate .

 

[Master Vigil]

It did kind of get narrow there didn't it. I understand that correlation doesn't necessitate causality. I recognize my fallacy. But you also commited a fallacy, the "since we don't have all the evidence, it isn't true" fallacy. But thats ok, to me I find more evidence than not. When I look at the history, I see a pagan influenced christianity. I agree that originally the festival of christs birth had nothing to do with paganism. And I do believe that it is a christian holiday, much like christianity is not judaism. I do believe though, that there is pagan influence. I do believe that it was settled on the winter solstice because of pagan influence. I have given all the evidence I have, I have no more desire to do anymore research, for it will not change either of our minds. It is always fun to debate with you though.

I wonder though, what are the legitimate pagan inheritances you speak of?

 

[No*s]

It did kind of get narrow there didn't it. I understand that correlation doesn't necessitate causality. I recognize my fallacy. But you also commited a fallacy, the "since we don't have all the evidence, it isn't true" fallacy. But thats ok, to me I find more evidence than not. When I look at the history, I see a pagan influenced christianity. I agree that originally the festival of christs birth had nothing to do with paganism. And I do believe that it is a christian holiday, much like christianity is not judaism. I do believe though, that there is pagan influence. I do believe that it was settled on the winter solstice because of pagan influence. I have given all the evidence I have, I have no more desire to do anymore research, for it will not change either of our minds. It is always fun to debate with you though.

I wonder though, what are the legitimate pagan inheritances you speak of?

Thank you .

My objection wasn't so much "It doesn't have concrete proof so it can't be true," but that it shoudln't be passed off as fact. As I said, I've grown more and more convinced on this one that it isn't a fact. It's entirely possible Diocletian instituted the 25th as the Solstice in response to the Christian holiday. He's rather famous for his antagonism with Christianity.

My objection to the pagan copycat connections is that they are almost always superficial when people do them. Roman Mithraism doesn't impress me much any more, but the Ugaritic texts heavily impress me and do so more and more each time I read them.

Here are some hard connections:

There is no doubt that the editors of the Pentateuch (I'm traditional, so I see it going back quite a bit) were heavily influenced by the Code of Hammurabi, but it contains quite a bit of theological redaction (it makes me think a good part of the intent was "Look at yall's God and look at ours").

The word elohim is plural for the word in local Caananite religion for El, their chief God. It was acceptable to call God El, but not Baal (that's a thread in itself).

The model and form of much of the style in Wisdom literature is from Egyptian.

The Christian terminology for Christ as the Logos comes from Greek philosophy and Hellenized Judaism.

Those are some pretty clear influences, and they are hard because the parallels are clear, firmly substantiated, and don't require any semantic gymnastics to prove (which is almost always the case in the copycat arguments).

 

[Master Vigil]

I'm interested in knowing what conclusions you draw from your belief. That Christianity is false? Tainted somehow? Or that this validates pagan religions? Or that Christianity IS pagan without realizing it?

I'm going to pick your brain, eventually, Master Vigil. Muahaha

In conclusion I wanted to show that all religions are influenced in some way by their predecessors. It had nothing to do with validating or invalidating any religion.

 

[Master Vigil]

Thank you .

My objection wasn't so much "It doesn't have concrete proof so it can't be true," but that it shoudln't be passed off as fact. As I said, I've grown more and more convinced on this one that it isn't a fact. It's entirely possible Diocletian instituted the 25th as the Solstice in response to the Christian holiday. He's rather famous for his antagonism with Christianity.

My objection to the pagan copycat connections is that they are almost always superficial when people do them. Roman Mithraism doesn't impress me much any more, but the Ugaritic texts heavily impress me and do so more and more each time I read them.

Here are some hard connections:

There is no doubt that the editors of the Pentateuch (I'm traditional, so I see it going back quite a bit) were heavily influenced by the Code of Hammurabi, but it contains quite a bit of theological redaction (it makes me think a good part of the intent was "Look at yall's God and look at ours").

The word elohim is plural for the word in local Caananite religion for El, their chief God. It was acceptable to call God El, but not Baal (that's a thread in itself).

The model and form of much of the style in Wisdom literature is from Egyptian.

The Christian terminology for Christ as the Logos comes from Greek philosophy and Hellenized Judaism.

Those are some pretty clear influences, and they are hard because the parallels are clear, firmly substantiated, and don't require any semantic gymnastics to prove (which is almost always the case in the copycat arguments).

Wow, I forgot about the elohim part, and the greek terminology. Didn't know about the editors of the Pentateuch, that is beyond my knowledge. Thanks for the connections. I will read more about them.

 

[No*s]

Wow, I forgot about the elohim part, and the greek terminology. Didn't know about the editors of the Pentateuch, that is beyond my knowledge. Thanks for the connections. I will read more about them.

Welcome. Those are pretty sure . The Pentateuch is sure because we have an earliest composition, which is at best Moses' life 13th century BC. It almost certainly reaches its final form in the fifth century BC (I think the language was principally updated, but that's beyond this thread, and I'm rather conservative). The CoH predates any possible date of the Pentateuch. There are parallels too close to be accidental. I don't think it's direct, but that there was a whole set of cultures with similar literature.

I'm sure you'll read about them also .

 

[Master Vigil]

I do have to say, that the only thing that fascinates me about christianity is the history of it. I love studying religious history, I think it helps to better understand the religions in context. Much like, reading about communism. It sounds GREAT!!! But when you look at the history of it, you see that it doesn't work at all. I feel more people should have to study comprehensive history of their religion.

 

[No*s]

I do have to say, that the only thing that fascinates me about christianity is the history of it. I love studying religious history, I think it helps to better understand the religions in context. Much like, reading about communism. It sounds GREAT!!! But when you look at the history of it, you see that it doesn't work at all. I feel more people should have to study comprehensive history of their religion.

Stop doing this. We're not supposed to agree!

I also like to study religious history, and for me, it shores up my faith more than practically anything . I even like to read about the history of other faiths, but the study of Christianity's 2000 years, and the 1300 years of Judaism before it that it's heir to takes up most of my religious history study, granted the last 2000 years has a lot more information. I even like to study ancient paganism (Graeco-Roman especially) believe it or not .