Thursday, April 16, 2009

Is Christianity a Copycat Religion?

SKEPTIC: One of the major reasons I'm not buying the Christian story anymore is that Christianity has been shown to be a copycat religion, having borrowed most of its significant elements (virgin birth, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, etc.) from pagan and mystery religions that were present in the region hundreds, even thousands, of years before Christianity arrived on the scene. It's interesting to me that early church leaders like Tertullian felt it necessary to try to explain this problem by claiming that it was the Devil who employed a "diabolical mimicry" by causing these elements to appear in other religions hundreds of years earlier.

PREACHER: I would like to see how you verify the statement above. I believe that quite the opposite, Judaism and Christianity have been copied by the other religions. Then, there are some elements that might be just common knowledge that date back to antiquity. For instance, many cultures have traditions about a world wide flood, or mention the existence of angels or evil spirits. Possibly modern man is too quick to deny what he hasn't experienced, yet.

SKEPTIC: There is a large body of scholarly work that can verify the long list of striking parallels between Christianity and pre-Christian religions. But the interesting part of your answer, to me, is that you seem to be saying that the story of Noah's Ark and the idea of angels or evil spirits were, indeed, traditional elements of Christianity that came from prior religions. Or am I misunderstading your position?

PREACHER: Just because a religion is considered "pagan", that doesn't mean that that religion is completely deficient in conveying some truth. There are many values that Buddhism (for instance) would share with Christianity. Men are created in the image of God and by nature would have common ways of thinking that are good and right, and common very real experiences concerning the supernatural (both good and evil). The difference in our views ultimately goes back to our view of what really happened in history, especially pre-history. Unless we can travel back in time there is no way to verify, except if there is accurate historical information about those times. Archeologically speaking, I believe the Bible is the best resource we have. If you believe that man evolved from a lower creature and gradually developed to where he is today, it would be presumed that religion as well evolved from animism and polytheism to the higher religions and ultimately culminating in naturalistic humanism. Those of us who remain at the religion level just haven't arrived, yet. If you believe that God originally created man as someone who could have fellowship with Him and then fell into sin (turned away from Him), it would make sense that: 1) God would be interested in getting man's attention in some way (thus the Scriptures) 2) All of mankind would have some rudimentary remembrance of that relationship with God, but having turned away from Him would have produced surrogate ways of reaching out beyond themselves. One of the most obvious themes of the Old Testament is the issue of idolatry. The creator God comes first, then the people turn to idols. The true religion came first and through the passage of time, men who turned away from God distorted the truth. Christianity is "arrogant" enough to claim to be the original true religion ,that is it started from when God created the first man.

SKEPTIC: I agree that different religions sometimes share values. But what we're talking about here is the fact that the life story of Jesus is practically identical to the life stories of a whole host of gods that were worshipped by pagans long before Jesus came onto the scene. This suggests that early Christians plagiarized, or perhaps more kindly, borrowed virtually all the important elements of the Christian narrative. For today's Christians who contend that Jesus represents the "original true religion," this represents a profound dilemma. Was this just an amazing string of coincidences? Not likely.

PREACHER: If anything, Christianity has borrowed extensively from the Jewish Torah (Old Testament). Other religions may have been influenced by the Old Testament as well. That would be especially true during the diaspora of the last 400 years before Christ. As for the "practically identical life stories of gods" that Jesus is supposed to be a copy of, I would like to see the translations of the original documents and real evidence and not the comments of some skeptical scholar who has his own axe to grind. That being the need to rationalize his rejection of the Christian faith. If indeed those alleged sources about Jesus having been an identical copy of a pagan god are reliable enough, then the world of Biblical scholarship should be buzzing about that. Surely Time Magazine or Newsweek and Christianity Today would have had headline articles about it. The Davinci Code even made a big splash, so what have we here? LOL

SKEPTIC: So is it your position that "skeptical scholars" have risked their reputations by making up a bunch of lies to "rationalize their rejection of the Christian faith?" Seems to me that the more accurate observation would be that fundamentalist Christians are really good at ignoring any facts that contradict their fragile belief system. These are not new ideas that have just appeared on the scene. The genesis of these ideas can be traced back to the French Enlightenment.

PREACHER: So, you appeal to the French Enlightenment. That is only several hundred years ago. Is, therefore, everything recorded before the "enlightenment" took place unreliable, especially if it has the label of Christianity on it? It is interesting that since the "enlightenment" the Christian faith has spread throughout the whole world. It's demise has been rather limited to the places where this "enlightenment" occurred. We now send missionaries to those countries and some of the folks there have responded to the Gospel anew, after they see that it doesn't have to be associated with the political power the Catholic church wielded in the past.
Back to the real issue in this post though: Christ is referred to as the Hope of the nations. Even pagan religions express the need that people have for a relationship with their creator. That the pagan gods seem similar to Jesus Christ, just expresses that the majority of men are searching for some sort of salvation. Those pagan religions were just a step that God (He created everything including the people with all the religious viewpoints) used to prepare them for the real Savior. That could be one reason why the Gospel spread so fast in the early centuries.

SKEPTIC: The pagan religions were "just a step that God used to prepare them for the real savior?" So God let people worship all those false saviors for hundreds of years as a kind of placeholder until the real thing happened to come along? Why would God need any steps to prepare people for the "real" savior? People weren't ready for the real thing? It was just too big and scary? Sorry, I don't get it. Seems to me that God would come up with a better plan than that. I mean, c'mon. He's God.
PREACHER: Sounds to me like you would want to give God some advice on how He could have better reached out to us created beings.

28 comments:

  1. Loving the debates!
    Keep it up you two.

    For the record I agree with the Skeptic, but I like hearing the preacher so that when someone uses the same arguments that he uses against me, I can refer to how the Skeptic diffused their point.

    ReplyDelete
  2. >>PREACHER: I would like to see how you verify the statement above.

    There are many sources as the skeptic points out that detail similarities between Jesus and Horus for instance. http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5b.htm

    >>I believe that quite the opposite, Judaism and Christianity have been copied by the other religions.

    Even the ones preceding them? That's what we're talking about here.

    >>Possibly modern man is too quick to deny what he hasn't experienced, yet.

    The alternative would be to accept anything that anyone tells you. Observation and confirmation are the basis of the science that our modern world are built on.

    >>Archeologically speaking, I believe the Bible is the best resource we have.

    Better than actual archeology? You know, with all the study, research, carbon dating, and geological data, etc?

    >>If you believe that man evolved from a lower creature and gradually developed to where he is today...

    This isn't really a belief, any more than believing in gravity is.

    >>...it would be presumed that religion as well evolved from animism and polytheism to the higher religions and ultimately culminating in naturalistic humanism. Those of us who remain at the religion level just haven't arrived, yet.

    Pretty much, yeah.

    >>Christianity is "arrogant" enough to claim to be the original true religion...

    I think pretty much all religions claim to be the one true religion. No one is copying anyone there, that's just the nature of religion.

    >>If anything, Christianity has borrowed extensively from the Jewish Torah (Old Testament).

    Christianity is Judiaism with the New Testament tacked on. Depending on what flavor of Christianity you adhere to, the different testaments carry varying weight. Southern Baptists are very much into the fire and brimstone bit, whereas other types of Christianity are all about the loving God bit and the Old Testament is just included for historical... "accuracy."

    >>I would like to see the translations of the original documents and real evidence and not the comments of some skeptical scholar who has his own axe to grind.

    So would I. It's easy to find a dozen sites with Horus/Jesus parallels, but who knows how much interpretation is going on there. I say go do the research so you'll be armed against this type of argument instead of saying "I'd like to see..." There is always the danger that you'll find out something you don't like, but research is about knowledge, not about preserving dogma.

    >>If indeed those alleged sources about Jesus having been an identical copy of a pagan god are reliable enough, then the world of Biblical scholarship should be buzzing about that.

    If by "buzzing" you mean ignoring or actively suppressing, then yes.

    >>SKEPTIC:Seems to me that the more accurate observation would be that fundamentalist Christians are really good at ignoring any facts that contradict their fragile belief system.

    Or any fact they don't like. Examples include any time the pope says anything about condoms, or anyone insists on a curriculum of abstinence only education. Or accusing Galileo of heresy for suggestions that the Earth revolves around the sun. How a heliocentric solar system endangers Christian doctrine I can't imagine, but it does point out that Christianity and "facts" have never been bedfellows. Which is only legal in a few states anyway.

    PREACHER:Is, therefore, everything recorded before the "enlightenment" took place unreliable, especially if it has the label of Christianity on it?

    Like the bible?

    >> It is interesting that since the "enlightenment" the Christian faith has spread throughout the whole world.

    That's non-sequiter. The enlightenment happened in spite of Christianity, not because of it. Don't forget that Christianity caused the dark ages. Christianity spread because Christians spread.

    >>He [God] created everything including the people with all the religious viewpoints.

    So he made a world where 4/5 of its inhabitants don't believe in him, and many if not most sects of Christianity believe that you go to hell to be tortured for all eternity if you don't believe in him. And God is supposed to be the good one?

    ReplyDelete
  3. http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5b.htm
    This site shows some striking resemblances between Christ and a mythical person from a pagan religion. It would be far-fetched to say that they are identical, though. Also, I don't think anyone would buy the argument that just because someone in history happens to be very similar to someone in a myth, that therefore he must be a myth also.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I don't think anyone would buy the argument that just because someone in history happens to be very similar to someone in a myth, that therefore he must be a myth also.

    Hey, I do. Am I no-one?

    Why?

    Let's not oversee how incredibly difficult to believe it is that Jesus walked on water, converted water into wine, and rose people from the dead.

    ReplyDelete
  5. to my mind all three Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) are equally "evil" because they exploit the innate spirituality humans experience for purposes of power, control, advantage. other organised religions are culpable too, but the "movers and shakers" of the above religions have taken the perversion of humanity to new levels -- much to our collective detriment.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I am trying to imagine a world without the Abrahamic religions and I don7t think anyonew would like it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Well, John Lennon would like it. I would like it. I think anyone who's not a big fan of war would like it. Historically speaking, if you put the good and the bad of religion on a scale, I'm afraid it would tilt heavily to the bad side.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Doug. thanks, I agree on Lennon, and many of his lyrics reflect his humanity.

    Paul. can you put into words why you think that way?

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think that you guys are trying to say that organized religion (particularly the Judeo-Christian type) is guilty of a lot of abuse. If it weren't for these religions mankind would be living in a much more peaceful beautiful world. So, what is the track record of those outside of these faiths? Of what religious persuasion (or lack thereof) were the most infamous political leaders of the 20th century. Most of them were atheists or very poor examples of the religion they followed. How many Mother Teresa types have atheism and polytheism and pantheism produced? I know of none.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yes, there has been a lot of abuse in the name of religion. But, there has been abuse in the attempted eradication of religion as well. Wasn't it Shakespeare's Macbeth that said that power corrupts. I believe power corrupts man because of his sinful nature and not because of his religious persuasion.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The Jewdeo-Christian heritage has actually given us very much that has enhanced how we live. It's influence permeates everything from music to science. Modern science was born in this environment. And, even the way you think and reason is based on a Biblecal world view that teaches that the world can be understood. I could go on and on.

    ReplyDelete
  12. >How many Mother Teresa types have atheism and polytheism and pantheism produced? I know of none.Well, I guess you're right, unless of course you'd care to include...

    -Albert Einstein
    -Benjamin Franklin
    -Thomas Jefferson
    -Andrew Canegie
    -Ernest Hemingway
    -Charles Darwin
    -Thomas Edison
    -Sigmund Freud
    -Carl Sagan
    -Galileo
    -Clarence Darrow
    -George Bernard Shaw
    -John Lennon
    -Frank Lloyd Wright
    -Mark Twain
    -Susan B. Anthony
    -Vincent Van Gogh

    Shall I continue?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Paul, first-off thanks for replying.

    "If it weren't for these religions mankind would be living in a much more peaceful beautiful world."

    who knows, we never got the chance to find out!

    "Yes, there has been a lot of abuse in the name of religion."

    that is a very under-stated way of describing wholesale eradication of cultures and genocide.

    "I believe power corrupts man because of his sinful nature.."

    humans are "social" animals, not unlike dogs or cattle (though obviously not exactly like them either). the incentives to rising in "social stature" are all there, and yes, it is unsurprising that many people go to extremes to get to the top, however, "sinful" it is not, unless you consider natural instincts "sinful".

    "The Jewdeo-Christian heritage has actually given us very much that has enhanced how we live."

    like what, can you give one or more examples?

    "Modern science was born in this environment."

    in spite of the religious types, not because of them; Doug (above) was good enough to include a few scientists in his list who succeeded against the odds.

    "..even the way you think and reason is based on a Biblecal world view that teaches that the world can be understood."

    never mind how I think, do you think -- like many bible-belt US citizens -- that, for example, the world is 6000 years (approx.) old?

    ReplyDelete
  14. "sinful" cont'd.

    it is of course always wrong to kill/deceive/coerce/discriminate/etc simply to gain power or advantage.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I don't consider the list of men who have made great contributions in the realm of science to be Mother Theresa types.

    I have just finished dealing with a squable in the community that I live in over the use of public funds. The two men who were fighting it out the most were athiests. You seem to assume that without any religious influence people will naturally be good. Really!?

    ReplyDelete
  16. And you seem to assume that religious influence is required for people to be good.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Paul, it is sad really, like so many (too many?) people these days you give your side of an argument without first reading/taking in the other!

    you say: "You seem to assume that without any religious influence people will naturally be good. Really!?"

    I made no such assumption, but wrote: "humans are "social" animals...incentives to rising in "social stature" are all there... unsurprising that many people go to extremes to get to the top.."

    it might be helpful/illuminating to all debating here if you could give a little more detail re community dispute.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I want to get back to the list. It includes Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin - key figures in early American history. I would suggest that for the purposes of the argument in question (are there any people who have done great good in the world who were not shaped and influenced profoundly by judeo-christian values and ideas?)They are not valid answers. Their ideas may have been formulated primarily in political/intellectual/rhetorical terms, but the assertion that they stand utterly apart and independent from the pervasive religiosity of the times is an extremely unlikely proposition. Both Jefferson and Franklin, no matter how they might have come to differ from the judeo-christian worldview of most of their peers, still would have used a judeo-christian worldview as their departure point.

    P.S
    Comparing John Lennon to Mother Teresa? Really?

    ReplyDelete
  19. >are there any people who have done great good in the world who were not shaped and influenced profoundly by judeo-christian values and ideas?What particular values are you referencing and are you assuming that they are the exclusive provenance of the Christian community?

    As far as comparing John Lennon to Mother Teresa, you may be right. It's probably not fair to Lennon. Although it appears that they both landed on the same side of the God argument (more or less).

    ReplyDelete
  20. Mother Teresa spent her time showing love and caring for downtroden people. John Lennon wrote songs about peace and love while strung out on drugs. From simply a human standpoint they are miles apart.

    ReplyDelete
  21. re. Mother Teresa vs John Lennon

    true enough, the comparison is a bit like "apples and oranges".

    however, from a human(istic) point of view, giving direct/practical help to a (necessarily relatively small) number of people and giving hope/lifting the spirit of millions of people *both* are equally decent/good ways of behaving.

    certainly much better than manufacturing weapons or preaching intolerance.

    ReplyDelete
  22. John Lennon also sang the song "Let it Be" and Mother Mary is mentioned. Sounds pretty religious to me.

    Listening to you one would think that Christians have a corner on manufacturing weapons and preaching intolerance. What is you opinion of the dictator of North Korea. He manufactures weapons and is intolerant of all who disagree with him and doesn't mind that his own citizens are starving to death. He is an atheist.

    ReplyDelete
  23. hi Paul,

    'Let it be' is generally seen to be a Beatles song (ie. a collaboration of Lennon/McCartney), John Lennon is probably best remembered for 'Imagine'.

    you say "Listening to you one would think that Christians have a corner on manufacturing weapons.."

    well, just look at global arms sales and export statistics, N Korea is nowhere near the top of the table. (please do not construe this as an endorsement of Kim Yong Il's policies, or of his regime).

    on preaching intolerance: the three mono-theistic faiths (ie. believers in the Abrahamic god) have essentially a monopoly on intolerance, sad but true IMO; if you have some proof that shows otherwise I'd like to hear about it.

    further on Christian intolerance, please see Doug's latest post in 'The Torture Question' for an "interesting" link.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I had a closer look at this site. http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5b.htm
    It is a very good site in that the authors try to be balanced and fair.
    It is interesting that at the end of this article there are several links to sites that deal with the issue that Christ is a copy-cat of a pagan deity. Of all the articles, only one quoted transilations of primary sources (the original writings about the deities - actually there were two deities) Yes, there were some similarities, but many clear differences as well. All of the articles claiming that they were close to identical to Christ were quoting the opinions of certain experts and not the original sources.

    ReplyDelete
  25. The "similarities" you mention are doctrines that are central to Christian theology, i.e. the virgin birth, the resurrection, etc. We're not talking about things like his shoe size here. A couple of years ago, National Geographic produced an interesting documentary called "The Rivals of Jesus," which looks at some of these questions and concludes that Christianity "folded in" some of these key concepts from other religions.

    ReplyDelete
  26. There are 2 very easy ways to prove christianity did the copying of paganism,not the other way around.Justin Martyr in 150 A.D.in his apology to Trypho the pagan stated plainly that the pagans first had dying and resurrecting from the dead Savior sun gods,virgin born,crucified,ascended to heaven e.t.c.christian apologetics like to twist what he said,but below is a copy paste of what early church father Justin said.
    PASTE:This one is rather self-explanatory. Justin Martyr simply states that the virgin birth of Jesus, without sexual union, as well as his crucifixion, death, and resurrection were nothing different from the mythology surrounding Jupiter (In Greece, Zeus).

    Ch. 21

    And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.



    Similar to above, Justin Martyr compares the birth of Jesus and his status as the "Word of God' to that of Mercury, who was also born in a similar way and who was also the "Word of God." He goes on to compare the crucifixion with the lives of the sons of Jupiter, which were on par according to him. Finally concluding by comparing the birth of Jesus with Perseus, and his miracles with that of Aesculapius.

    FROM ME>>Later Justin's only excuse for the pagan gods to be earlier than christianity with these same tales he blamed it on the Devil who he said had read the prophets and caused the sun gods to be first before Jesus.From this it should be easy to see who copied,counterfeited who.The second way to prove christianity copied off the pagans is right in the Bible itself.Read Jer.10:2-there it is shown a pagan custom that was later called CHRIST-MASS is condemned and shown to be a pagan custom.Read Ezek.8:14-17 Tammuz was a pagan sun god notice they had a worship service and they faced the sun to the East and worshipped the sun,this is nothing but what later was called and still is done today an Easter sunrise service,it is also condemned and shown to be pagan.So in those 2 scriptures you can see christianity copied,counterfeited these pagan observances to christianity and to the Jesus tale.Any body with one eye and half sense should see that christianity did the copying,because the book of Ezekiel was writen long before christianity.Actually christianity copied all of it's beliefs from paganism,communion,babtism,salvation and everything in christianity came first by the pagans.Christianity did not defeat paganism it became the new paganism.
    Sincerely,In Real Truth,
    Jay Osborne
    Any answers please send to this email address:
    josephosborne59@yahoo.com

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here is a temporary existence who thinks he really knows. However, his probelem is that he assumes much about the past that he can't prove. Assuming that paganism predated God's first revelations to mankind is a big leap in the dark. Jay starts out with a naturalistic starting point that sees Christianity as a progression in human religious expression starting with "paganism" evolving to more "developed" forms of religious expression and culminating in,of all things, his own personal view of reality.

      Delete
  27. Student Loans For People With Bad Credit Online: Questionnaire FormatsOne of the best values for your Student
    Loans For People With Bad Credit with door hangers.
    Once you have a really fancy, flashy, interactive website
    that it will be so.

    Check out my weblog Private Student Loans for People

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.