Christanity derived from paganism

TomTom

I am just reading the da vinci code here and there is a section on how the catholic beliefs were derived for a majority of pagon symbols as set up constantine. I've searched the web and found lots of different bits and pieces. I was just wondering if you could tell me what you know on the subject.
Espically the voting on Jesus stance as the son of god.

davej

I'm no expert on the subject (and i haven't bothered to 'become' one by googling) but obviously a lot pagan traditions were incorporated into christianity. Things like cycles of fasting and feasting, celebrations at Spring time etc. Does the date the 25th of December have any bearing on when Jesus was supposedly born (3 days after the Winter Solstice) ? Was he really crucified in the Spring, coincidentally at a time of rejuvenation in Nature ?

Organised religion probably began with the first agrarian societies as it played a very functional role in day to day life. These traditions weren't going to simply go away once Christianity came along..

davej

Suaimhneach

A lot of catolic celebrations were placed at the same time as pagan ones to cover the old ways and introduce the new.

Granted the calender is so out of whack that it only reflects this occasionally.

It was all adapted for change.

Talliesin

Some of the borrowing was quite conscious and deliberate, Christmas is an example; the best date one could put for Christ's birthday would be some time during the lambing season if the shepherds felt it necessary to be out at night, but Christmas is the time of the celebration of the nativity, not an aniversary and it was chosen to coincide with and compete with Pagan ceremonies.

Other practices continued because they were just what people were used to doing.

Of course everyone borrows liberally from everyone else. The pentagram loved by witches we probably borrowed from the Christians (although they don't use it much any more themselves).

stormkeeper

A lot of Christians seem to associate that symbol with Satan, even though it's the inverted one that is the one associated with Satanists. To my knowledge, the 5 points represent the elements and the spirit, self or something like that?

Suaimhneach

Yep, thats the one. Four elements and Spirit. Although I wouldn't associate it with satanists. Wiccans perhaps.

stormkeeper

I used to wear one (a Pentegram) a lot, till it started giving me a rash around my neck. I lost it now, however...

I've seen both of them and I can see why people mix them up...

Suaimhneach

People just aren't aware.

stormkeeper

The churches tend to uphold this state of unawareness....

Suaimhneach

This is true. Perhaps people do not wish to be aware. Ignorance is bliss.

It's easier to just not care and go to church every now and then.

But if they are happy, then who is to stop them.

stormkeeper

True enough

Oddly enough though, I've noticed that people are willing to learn, or at least interested...

Talliesin

Originally posted by Kennett
A lot of Christians seem to associate that symbol with Satan, even though it's the inverted one that is the one associated with Satanists.

The inverted pentacle is also used as a symbol of the Second Degree in Wicca.

It's worth adding, perhaps, that the inverted cross, is not solely associated with Satanism either, but also with St. Peter.

stormkeeper

I wasn't actually aware of this. Thanks for the info

Suaimhneach

Originally posted by Kennett
True enough

Oddly enough though, I've noticed that people are willing to learn, or at least interested...

Yeah, generally are interested. But generally aren't interested enough to get up and investigate.

stormkeeper

True. Just so long as I don't get branded a worshipper of Satan, I'll be fine, lol

Suaimhneach

Good luck with that

Beatrix

There's a very interesting *but difficult to read* book which has been thoroughly researched called "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail". It researches the possibility of Jesus not having died on the cross at all. In fact it investigates a lot of possibilities which go against the basic Catholic beliefs and all the possibilities seem quite relevant. In my opinion I don't think that Catholicism derived from Paganism. I think that it did, however, overthrow the Pagan beliefs through the Crusades and suchlike.

Constantine merely accepted Catholicism. Contrary to popular belief he was not an advocate of Christianity as he became somewhat Christian on his deathbed. He allowed Christianity in his kingdom because the Christian beliefs didn't conflict with all the other numerous Pagan ideas floating around his kingdom. Only beliefs which would upset the peace in the country were stopped. Catholicism entering the country then was just a policy of Laissez Faire than anything akin to converting. This could be how people could mistake the idea that he influenced Catholicism. It wasn't anything to do with him. It was the people blending with the other cultures as a result of the laissez faire which resulted in confusion of religion...

Or so it appears to me.

BEAT

Originally posted by Beatrix
There's a very interesting *but difficult to read* book which has been thoroughly researched called "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail". It researches the possibility of Jesus not having died on the cross at all. In fact it investigates a lot of possibilities which go against the basic Catholic beliefs and all the possibilities seem quite relevant. In my opinion I don't think that Catholicism derived from Paganism. I think that it did, however, overthrow the Pagan beliefs through the Crusades and suchlike.

Constantine merely accepted Catholicism. Contrary to popular belief he was not an advocate of Christianity as he became somewhat Christian on his deathbed. He allowed Christianity in his kingdom because the Christian beliefs didn't conflict with all the other numerous Pagan ideas floating around his kingdom. Only beliefs which would upset the peace in the country were stopped. Catholicism entering the country then was just a policy of Laissez Faire than anything akin to converting. This could be how people could mistake the idea that he influenced Catholicism. It wasn't anything to do with him. It was the people blending with the other cultures as a result of the laissez faire which resulted in confusion of religion...

Or so it appears to me.

You are on the right track there....
Constantine was not infact Christian and only allowed christianity to become the governing religion because the masses were going that way and he didnt want to be on the losing side.
He infact, was only baptised on his deathbed, against his wishes.

When the Holy Blood & The Holy Grail came out in the eighties it caused quite a stir, my belief because what it talks about is true and people are too comfortable with what they have been fed on religion to attempt to understand or to even want to know the truth.

Cristianity was infact built on many pagan beliefs and rituals, its funneh really.

btw, beatrix...havnt seen you in creative writing lately...hope to see you post soon!

rcunning03

Beatrix wrote:

There's a very interesting *but difficult to read* book which has been thoroughly researched called "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail". It researches the possibility of Jesus not having died on the cross at all. In fact it investigates a lot of possibilities which go against the basic Catholic beliefs and all the possibilities seem quite relevant. In my opinion I don't think that Catholicism derived from Paganism. I think that it did, however, overthrow the Pagan beliefs through the Crusades and suchlike.

Constantine merely accepted Catholicism. Contrary to popular belief he was not an advocate of Christianity as he became somewhat Christian on his deathbed. He allowed Christianity in his kingdom because the Christian beliefs didn't conflict with all the other numerous Pagan ideas floating around his kingdom. Only beliefs which would upset the peace in the country were stopped. Catholicism entering the country then was just a policy of Laissez Faire than anything akin to converting. This could be how people could mistake the idea that he influenced Catholicism. It wasn't anything to do with him. It was the people blending with the other cultures as a result of the laissez faire which resulted in confusion of religion...

Or so it appears to me.

The Da Vinci code says all that, but it's a much easier read (I read in 2 days) it also goes on about pagan symbols which da vinci and others put in their work of arts. Da Vinci code is well worth a read

ancathach

Talliesin wrote:

The inverted pentacle is also used as a symbol of the Second Degree in Wicca.

It's worth adding, perhaps, that the inverted cross, is not solely associated with Satanism either, but also with St. Peter.

I was looking back over the arhives. An excellent point- the inverted pentagram is also connected to magics of density- that is to say magics that primarily manifest in Malkuth.

Brian

humanji

Kennett wrote:

True. Just so long as I don't get branded a worshipper of Satan, I'll be fine, lol

It's worth adding, perhaps, that the inverted cross, is not solely associated with Satanism either, but also with St. Peter.

Just to add my two cents, Satanists don't worship the devil. They opposed the Christian Church when it went all radical and started trying to gain power around the world. Satanists called themselves that to anger the church and chose the sign of St Peter who represents the "real church" in their eyes. It's just through Hollywood that it became a sign of the devil.

iguana

Talliesin wrote:

The pentagram loved by witches we probably borrowed from the Christians (although they don't use it much any more themselves).

Most historians agree that the pentagram was originally a viking symbol. My uncle spent a lot of time studying this and that's what he told me.

solas

I always associated the pentagram with Judaism, (y'know the star of david thing?)
did someone say Malkuth?


How to perform the Quabbalistic Cross
Firstly, extend the first two fingers on the right hand.

Touch your forehead, and say:
"Ateh" (A-tay)

Touch groin, and say:
"Malkuth" (Mal- koot)

Touch right shoulder and say:
"Ve geburah" (Vay geb-oo-rah)

Touch left shoulder and say:
"Ve gedulah" (Vay ged-you-lah)

Touch heart and say:
"Leolam" (Lay-oh-lahm)

Cross arms on chest with hands to shoulders (right arm over left) and say:
"Amen".

Nevyn

there is a difference between the star of david

and a pentagram

Talliesin

Thaed wrote:

there is a difference between the star of david...
and a pentagram

Though associating the two has been used to represent 5=6; that the macrocosm and the microcosm are one.

Both symbols have also been used to represent sparkly bits in completely aesthetic (though not often successfully aesthetic) designs too

akari no ryu

iguana wrote:

Most historians agree that the pentagram was originally a viking symbol. My uncle spent a lot of time studying this and that's what he told me.

I don't think so. I am led to believe (from a quick google) that it predates the vikings massively.
It was used by greek philosophers, who I suspect took it from the middle east.

Suaimhneach

Hi all,
Jes Jes asked me to share some timing details for you.
Christ was born under a wandering star called Antares and it merged for 14 days with the planet Mars on the Spring Equinox about 4 years before ad began. His birthday was shifted to suit the displacement of a persistent pagan practice called the winter soslstice. The summer solstice 21/22 June is displaced to the 27th and renamed St John the Baptist. It was Constantines mammy who was the Christian. In 432 ad he created the Catholic (universal) church to use as single authority over his lands and the souls of his subjects. A shrewd move. The bizarre details of how Easter is calculated today are at http://www.druidschool.com/site/1030100/page/471149/site
Grá
Con

NeilJ

First can I just say that on the topic of the Da Vinci Code, it's just a book, and in my opinion not a very well written one. Also there are quite a lot of questions over the theories and research in both it and the book that inspired it The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. As to Christainity deriving it's beliefs from paganism, it didn't. As the Christain church spread through pagan and heathen europe the local customs and practises were adopted and converted to make recruitment easier. Which is why Christmas is at the solstice and not in the lambing season ie. Spring, as it should be. As to the Pentacle, it was in fact used long before the Vikings and as was previously mentioned was used by the Ancient Greeks. The early Christains are also believed to have possibly used it. And on the topic of the rather unusual method of dating Easter, first sunday after the first full moon after the equinox as far as I remember, in the defense of the Christains, the Jews used a Lunar calender.

Neil

Nevyn

Well personally a lunar caldenar makes a lot more sense.
13 lunar months , 28 sayds in each.
That way pregnacy is 10 lunar mnth, that is 280 days and not 9 and 1/2 ish.

ancathach

On the point of the dating of the birth of the Christios on the 25th, it is the festival of Mithras and from this it has its attribution.Mithras is himself quite a Jesus figure.

Originally the birth of Jesus of Nazereth wasnt attributed to a day, but the attribution was given as some early Gnostics focusing primarily on the spiritual nature of the Christ and treating him totally as a spiritual force as opposed to a spiritual force incarnate in physicality.

The incarnation of the Christ impulse in the physical body of Jesus was another early Christian teaching. If we look at the early Jesus we see the potential of destiny, but we also see this huge gap during which he went off to find himself- the turing point, and the manifestation of the Christ impulse occoured at the time of the baptism by John. After this we see the manifesting Christ force.

But what is Christ. The term Christ comes from the Greek Christios, meaning "anointed"- the baptism of the physical body of Jesus was an initiation and caused the spiritual manifestation of the Christ impulse, the spiritual side attributed to him, within the incarnate body of Jesus.

Jesus never claimed to be the son of God, only the son of man, the initiated incarnate, ie manifesting the divinity.

On the point of the pentagram, is is a Jewish symbol. It is the symbol of Solomon, of the knowledge of the four elements and the fifth pointed upwards denoting the asentitive philosophy. ie natural knowledge towards assention. Microcosm.

The six pointed star, the shield of David (commonly known as star of...) is a combination of polar opposites, fire and water, male and female, the symbol of the transendental deity which includes and encapsulates both poles. Macrocosm.

When I said the inverted pentagram is associated with dense magics, that is to say those that work primarily in malkuth I was saying the downpointed top represents spirit so it represents spirit manifest in the physical (malkuth).

As such the inverted pentagram is a very apt symbol for the Christios as a manifestation of spirit in malkuth.

It was mentioned as the symbol of the second degree in Wicca, quite true and we see this theme reiterated here in the Legend Of The Descent. Here the lord of dread is ruling the very earthly occurance of death, the Goddess descends into his realms, manifests through her love for the dread lord spirit in the physical and creates a new mystery, of the manifestation of spirit, reincarnation, in the physical earth.

Further paralells can be drawn using the tetragramaton and pentagramaton.

On the point of the pentagram as a Christian symbol it was once used to represent the five mortal wounds of Christ.

OK, id better stop now, but will gladly elabourate on anything if asked and if I can.

LVX

Brian

kieranwaldron

One of the main teachings of the Catholic Church, that man has an immortal soul, is based on pagan beliefs. The CC then built the doctrines of heaven, hell and purgatory on this false premise. There is nothing in the whole of the Bible to substantiate the belief that the soul lives on after death; the Bible indicates that man goes nowhere when he dies except to the grave.

Joe1919

kieranwaldron wrote: »

......There is nothing in the whole of the Bible to substantiate the belief that the soul lives on after death; the Bible indicates that man goes nowhere when he dies except to the grave.

What about St Paul e.g.
http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/15-14.htm

kieranwaldron

I don't see why Joe1919 referred me to St Paul who is the author of Corinthians. In now way does the latter contradict my assertion a person goes nowhere when they die. The Bible however does talk about a resurrection of the dead at a future date when Christ returns to the earth followed by a judgement in which a person is either given everlasting life or destroyed permanently.

Joe1919

kieranwaldron wrote: »

I don't see why Joe1919 referred me to St Paul who is the author of Corinthians. In now way does the latter contradict my assertion a person goes nowhere when they die. The Bible however does talk about a resurrection of the dead at a future date when Christ returns to the earth followed by a judgement in which a person is either given everlasting life or destroyed permanently.

I see what your saying i.e. The bible talks of resurrection. It is often argued that Christianity was influenced by the Greeks/ Plato transmigration of souls idea (Neoplatonism) . The Romans also used the idea that people could achieve immortality by brave and heroic acts and this was used to give an incentive to the army, (according to Cicero).

PolaroidPizza

have a look on youtube for 'zeitgeist the movie'. its a long video, but it has a long of interesting views on where the roots of Christianity can be found, particularly in what we would now class as 'pagan religions'. I'm not sure how much of it is fact, but it does get you thinking.

kieranwaldron

Joe1919 wrote: »

I see what your saying i.e. The bible talks of resurrection. It is often argued that Christianity was influenced by the Greeks/ Plato transmigration of souls idea (Neoplatonism) . The Romans also used the idea that people could achieve immortality by brave and heroic acts and this was used to give an incentive to the army, (according to Cicero).

The ancient Egyptians and Greeks believed the soul was immortal. The Greek philosophers Socrates and Plato also believed the soul lived on after death. Plato publicised this belief in his various writings which had a big influence on the then civilised world circa 400 BC, and those who followed afterwards.
One of the main founding influences in the Catholic Church, around 200 AD, was Tertullian who was a prolific author. Tertullian asserted the belief that the soul was immortal in his writings and even gave credit for the idea to Plato. The writings of Tertullian formed the basis of what the Catholic Church taught about the soul in the following centuries.
It therefore can be seen from the above that pagan ideas got incorrectly taught by the dominant Christian church at the expense of what God said in the Bible !

kieranwaldron

PolaroidPizza wrote: »

have a look on youtube for 'zeitgeist the movie'. its a long video, but it has a long of interesting views on where the roots of Christianity can be found, particularly in what we would now class as 'pagan religions'. I'm not sure how much of it is fact, but it does get you thinking.

Over the weekend, I did have a look at the video referred to by you for an hour or so. The gist of what was said in it appears to be that everyone has lied to you including governments and church leaders. In the case of the Catholic Church, is isn't so much a case of lying to the public as teaching falsehoods which they themselves believe to be true. In the Catholic Church, you cannot legitimately challenge any of their teachings without running the risk of excommunication as happened to Martin Luther approximately 500 years ago.

Eugene Norman

kieranwaldron wrote: »

I don't see why Joe1919 referred me to St Paul who is the author of Corinthians. In now way does the latter contradict my assertion a person goes nowhere when they die. The Bible however does talk about a resurrection of the dead at a future date when Christ returns to the earth followed by a judgement in which a person is either given everlasting life or destroyed permanently.

Actually many Christian theologians don't necessarily believe you go anywhere when you die but wait for the resurrection. That's called soul sleep.

Christian theology is influenced by Judaism and the beliefs of Greek philosophy. Folk Christianity especially Catholicism is syncretic with different local pagan superstitions, with local gods becoming saints ( Brigid for example) but that's often rejected by Protestants. As was Christmas. So the "pagan" influences are not essential and rejected by the Protestant reformation.

Peregrinus

I wouldn't pay too much attention to Zeitgeist, the movie. I have only reviewed some of the claims it made about Christianity but they are, basically, b*alls on a stick. Before we rush to agree with its thesis that "everyone has lied to you including governments and church leaders" we should consider the possibility that, maybe, the producers of Zeitgeist are lying to us.

On the wider point, Christianity did get its ideas of an afterlife from the Greeks - sort of. Via Judaism.

Judaism, and in particular the Hebrew scriptures, doesn't have a great deal to say about the afterlife. It seems to have been a relatively late arrival in the Jewish worldview, but it was certainly there before the time of Christ. During Christ's own time, it was a matter of debate among different Jewish movements - basically the Sadducees did not believe in an afterlife, the Pharisees did. In adopting their views about the afterlife, and in particular their views about the nature of the afterlife, yes, the Jews were influenced by the Greek philosophy and culture with which they had come into extensive contact. And that influence of course continued during the period when Christianity emerged as a distinct movement, and separated itself from Judaism.

Eugene Norman

kieranwaldron wrote: »

The ancient Egyptians and Greeks believed the soul was immortal. The Greek philosophers Socrates and Plato also believed the soul lived on after death. Plato publicised this belief in his various writings which had a big influence on the then civilised world circa 400 BC, and those who followed afterwards.
One of the main founding influences in the Catholic Church, around 200 AD, was Tertullian who was a prolific author. Tertullian asserted the belief that the soul was immortal in his writings and even gave credit for the idea to Plato. The writings of Tertullian formed the basis of what the Catholic Church taught about the soul in the following centuries.
It therefore can be seen from the above that pagan ideas got incorrectly taught by the dominant Christian church at the expense of what God said in the Bible !

I don't know if you are a Christian or not ( I am not). Jesus clearly references his fathers house in the NT, and tells the penitent thief that he will be in paradise with him on that day. Catholic theologians were looking for Greek philosophy to justify ideas they already had ( same with Augustine and Acquinas).

kieranwaldron

Eugene Norman wrote: »

I don't know if you are a Christian or not ( I am not). Jesus clearly references his fathers house in the NT, and tells the penitent thief that he will be in paradise with him on that day. Catholic theologians were looking for Greek philosophy to justify ideas they already had ( same with Augustine and Acquinas).

I went to primary and secondary schools run by the Catholic Church. However, from a young age I had doubts about teachings such as hell as a place of punishment for the wicked, and purgatory. In recent years, since I started to consult the Bible, I have rejected such teachings as valid as the Bible confirms man does not have an immortal soul on which such teachings are founded. Therefore at present I am a Christian who doesn't belong to any particular church.

kieranwaldron

Judaism, and in particular the Hebrew scriptures, doesn't have a great deal to say about the afterlife. It seems to have been a relatively late arrival in the Jewish worldview, but it was certainly there before the time of Christ. During Christ's own time, it was a matter of debate among different Jewish movements - basically the Sadducees did not believe in an afterlife, the Pharisees did. In adopting their views about the afterlife, and in particular their views about the nature of the afterlife, yes, the Jews were influenced by the Greek philosophy and culture with which they had come into extensive contact. And that influence of course continued during the period when Christianity emerged as a distinct movement, and separated itself from Judaism.[/QUOTE]
The Greek philosophers Socrates and Plato had a big influence on mankind circa 400 BC and in the following centuries about the immortality of the soul. The statements made in the Bible on the subject got corrupted and then adapted by the main Christian church of the day, the Catholic Church, and taught incorrectly as if the source was the Bible. The Bible is quite clear that man is mortal !

Eugene Norman

kieranwaldron wrote: »

I went to primary and secondary schools run by the Catholic Church. However, from a young age I had doubts about teachings such as hell as a place of punishment for the wicked, and purgatory. In recent years, since I started to consult the Bible, I have rejected such teachings as valid as the Bible confirms man does not have an immortal soul on which such teachings are founded. Therefore at present I am a Christian who doesn't belong to any particular church.

You're a Christian who doesn't believe in an immortal soul? Seems pointless.

kieranwaldron

Eugene Norman wrote: »

You're a Christian who doesn't believe in an immortal soul? Seems pointless.

Main-stream Christian churches have incorrectly taught that the sole is immortal. Other Christian churches such as the Jehovas Witnesses and Christadelphians teach man is wholly mortal. I believe that when Jesus Christ returns to the earth, as is predicted in the Bible, there will be a resurrection of the dead followed by a judgement, and based on it a person will then either be given everlasting life (immortality) or destroyed permanently.

joseph dawton

Constantine was responsible for the modern form of Christianity, before the 4th century there were several streams, all independent.

The Romans incorporated bits of Mithra, Hermeticism (see corpus hermetica), celtic paganism, roman paganism and of course the Christian cult itself that had evolved out of radical Judaism (propably essenes).

What the CC did was eliminate gnosticism and any 'heretic' forms of christianity to create it's 'one and only' reinvented brand controlled from Rome. They thought they had destroyed or captured almost all of the Gnostic and Jewish texts that relate to the early church, but the dead sea scrolls and nag hamadi gospels survived to demonstrate that some of the ideas in christianity pre-date Jesus. The idea of the trinity was probably stolen from the druids of gaul or britain. Certainly Mary was elevated to divine status to attract followers of Isis, Ishtar, Brigid etc - without a female character to worship the CC was missing out on potential followers and income of course!

The ideas about the afterlife and judgment are lifted straight out of Egyptian religion, also the ideas about the soul relate to helenic and celtic belief in the immortal soul, although CC rejected any idea of reincarnation.

Modern christianity is a mixed bag, we'll probably never understand exactly what Jesus' pure teachings were - probably the closest we'd get is the officially discredited gospel of Thomas.

Anyway, we can thank the CC for preserving our festivals (albeit wrong dates) and some pagan practices such as candle lighting, holy water, altars, visiting holy wells, baptism etc - what they could not destroy they assimilated instead )

Peregrinus

joseph dawton wrote: »

Constantine was responsible for the modern form of Christianity, before the 4th century there were several streams, all independent . . .

OK, there's a few grains of truth in here, but it's basically all Dan Brown-type nonsense. There is no historical record of systematic attempts by the church to destroy gnostic or Jewish texts; while the Nag Hammadi texts are important, most of the gnostic texts we have survived because they were preserved in monastic libraries. Beliefs about the Trinity certainly do not stem from Celtic druidism. There were independent streams of Christianity not only before the fourth century, but after it. And there still are today. Christian ideas about afterlife and judgment are not "lifted straight out of Egyptian religion"; they were inherited from first-century Pharisaic Judaism. I don't think many scholars believe that Christianity evolved from Essene Judaism; the Essenes may have had some influence on St. Thomas Christianity in India, but in general Christianity's inheritance from Pharisaic Judaism is obvious and striking. And so forth.

Are there elements of Christianity derived from paganism? Yes, but they are mostly superficial - date of Christmas, veneration of holy wells, that kind of thing - and they are massively outweighed both by the elements derived from Judaism and by the influences of Greek philosophy - both direct (influences on early Christian thought) and indirect (influences on pre-Christian Jewish thought, transmitted through Judaism to Christianity).

None of this is news, and people who proclaim it as though they think it's a massive "Gotcha!" are usually disappointed at the equanimity with which it is received. This is old news, not particularly disturbing and in no way a challenge to Christian belief. It's entirely consistent the the self-understanding of mainstream Christianity.

kieranwaldron

joseph dawton wrote: »

Constantine was responsible for the modern form of Christianity, before the 4th century there were several streams, all independent.

The Romans incorporated bits of Mithra, Hermeticism (see corpus hermetica), celtic paganism, roman paganism and of course the Christian cult itself that had evolved out of radical Judaism (propably essenes).

What the CC did was eliminate gnosticism and any 'heretic' forms of christianity to create it's 'one and only' reinvented brand controlled from Rome. They thought they had destroyed or captured almost all of the Gnostic and Jewish texts that relate to the early church, but the dead sea scrolls and nag hamadi gospels survived to demonstrate that some of the ideas in christianity pre-date Jesus. The idea of the trinity was probably stolen from the druids of gaul or britain. Certainly Mary was elevated to divine status to attract followers of Isis, Ishtar, Brigid etc - without a female character to worship the CC was missing out on potential followers and income of course!

The ideas about the afterlife and judgment are lifted straight out of Egyptian religion, also the ideas about the soul relate to helenic and celtic belief in the immortal soul, although CC rejected any idea of reincarnation.

Modern christianity is a mixed bag, we'll probably never understand exactly what Jesus' pure teachings were - probably the closest we'd get is the officially discredited gospel of Thomas.

Anyway, we can thank the CC for preserving our festivals (albeit wrong dates) and some pagan practices such as candle lighting, holy water, altars, visiting holy wells, baptism etc - what they could not destroy they assimilated instead )

Thanks for your comments on my posts. I agree with quite a lot of what you have said above.
I believe basically that true Christianity is as per the Bible. That said. you have got to be careful with the Bible because it contains mistranslations and other errors. However, some teachings or principles are repeated again and again by the various different authors in the Bible and therefore should be considered as central to the overall message.
I did my own investigations as what the Catholic Church (CC) teach on various subjects and came to the conclusion they contradict the Bible with their doctrines on the following.
!. The doctrine of the trinity.
2. The teaching that man has an immortal soul.
3. The teaching that their is immediate judgement after death.
4. The teaching of hell as a place of punishment for the wicked.
5. The teaching of the existence of a place called purgatory.
6. The teaching that salvation entails getting to heaven.
7. Their encouragement of the worship of the Virgin Mary.
The above listed are just the CC's main diversions from the Bible on doctrine. Their practice of insisting on celibacy for priests also contradicts the Bible. Some of their dates for festivals and practices are also derived from pagan origins.

kieranwaldron

Peregrinus wrote: »

O

Are there elements of Christianity derived from paganism? Yes, but they are mostly superficial - date of Christmas, veneration of holy wells, that kind of thing - and they are massively outweighed both by the elements derived from Judaism and by the influences of Greek philosophy - both direct (influences on early Christian thought) and indirect (influences on pre-Christian Jewish thought, transmitted through Judaism to Christianity).

None of this is news, and people who proclaim it as though they think it's a massive "Gotcha!" are usually disappointed at the equanimity with which it is received. This is old news, not particularly disturbing and in no way a challenge to Christian belief. It's entirely consistent the the self-understanding of mainstream Christianity.

The incorrect teaching by mainstream Christian churches that man has an immortal soul, as publicised by Plato, is hardly " superficial" ; it is the central plank on which the teachings of going to heaven, hell or purgatory at death are based.

Peregrinus

Well, I'm not sure why you label it as "incorrect". But leave that aside; the question is whether Christianity acquired the notion of an immortal soul from paganism or inherited it from Judaism? And the answer is, from Judaism.

Jewish beliefs may in turn have been influenced by pagan beliefs, of course. On that view you can argue that the entirety of the Christian faith is derived from paganism. But I don't think that's what you're saying.

kieranwaldron

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, I'm not sure why you label it as "incorrect". But leave that aside; the question is whether Christianity acquired the notion of an immortal soul from paganism or inherited it from Judaism? And the answer is, from Judaism.

Jewish beliefs may in turn have been influenced by pagan beliefs, of course. On that view you can argue that the entirety of the Christian faith is derived from paganism. But I don't think that's what you're saying.

With regard to your comments, the idea that the soul is immortal was first asserted by the ancient Egyptians. The Egyptians influenced the ancient Greeks who adopted the same belief. The Greek philosophers Socrates and his pupil Plato also believed the soul lived on after death. Plato publicised this belief in his writings circa 400 BC. The writings of the latter influenced the civilised world, including the Jews, during his lifetime and for centuries after that. No less a publication than the Encyclopedia Britannica acknowledges this fact when it said the following: "Traditional Western philosophy, starting with the ancient Greeks...shaped the basic Western concepts of the soul."

It can therefore can be seen from the above that the belief in the immortality of the soul clearly has pagan origins. The writings of Plato also influenced Christian scholars like Tertullian, who asserted this belief in his writings , and gave credit for the concept to the Greek philosopher. Tertullian had a major influence in setting out the core beliefs of the Catholic Church around 200 AD; and those beliefs are still with us today.

When I said in my post that the belief in question was " incorrect ", I mean it contradicts the Bible. There is no statement to be found anywhere in the Bible substantiating the belief that man, or any part of him, is immortal.

Peregrinus

kieranwaldron wrote: »

With regard to your comments, the idea that the soul is immortal was first asserted by the ancient Egyptians. The Egyptians influenced the ancient Greeks who adopted the same belief. The Greek philosophers Socrates and his pupil Plato also believed the soul lived on after death. Plato publicised this belief in his writings circa 400 BC. The writings of the latter influenced the civilised world, including the Jews, during his lifetime and for centuries after that. No less a publication than the Encyclopedia Britannica acknowledges this fact when it said the following: "Traditional Western philosophy, starting with the ancient Greeks...shaped the basic Western concepts of the soul."

Sure. But in that sense all Christian beliefs, without exception, are of pagan origin, aren't they?

kieranwaldron wrote: »

When I said in my post that the belief in question was " incorrect ", I mean it contradicts the Bible. There is no statement to be found anywhere in the Bible substantiating the belief that man, or any part of him, is immortal.

Apart from the references to eternal life, of course.