Christianinty borrowing from other religions

ShoulderChip

Did anyone see the show the hidden jesus on c4 christmas night?
It was presented by a black dreadlocked devout christain, who was researching how unique Jesus was with regard to other religious figures,
it was excellent television if not a bit slow and didactic.

He focuses on such figures as mithrais

“Mithras, the sun-god, was born of a virgin in a cave on December 25, and worshipped on Sunday, the day of the conquering sun. He was a savior-god who rivaled Jesus in popularity. He died and was resurrected in order to become a messenger god, an intermediary between man and the good god of light, and the leader of the forces of righteousness against the dark forces of the god evil.”
you need to watch zeitgeistmovie.com

“Mithras, the sun-god, was born of a virgin in a cave on December 25, and worshipped on Sunday, the day of the conquering sun. He was a savior-god who rivaled Jesus in popularity. He died and was resurrected in order to become a messenger god, an intermediary between man and the good god of light, and the leader of the forces of righteousness against the dark forces of the god evil.”


he was not the first sun god either to be born on this day, to have 12 disciples, to be born to a virgin, to be visited by three wise men, to start his ministry at 30 after being tempted by teh devil, to walk on water, to do tricks with bread and fish, to be worshipped with bread and wine, to be killed and rise again after 3 days etc.

take a look into osiris, horus, krishna, buddha, Mithrais, donyeus etc, many of whom share most of these features, horus was from 5000bc and a god for egyptians watch the film zeitgeist to understand why these traits came about.

zeitgeistmovie.com

Zombrex

Just to clear something up, the show on Channel 4 was called "Faith and Belief: The Hidden Story of Jesus", and was presented by Robert Beckford, a theologian at Oxford. It didn't have any thing to do with "Zeitgeist", which I know most Christians, (and non-Christians) here roll their eyes at.

http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/debates/hidden.html

SubjectSean

ShoulderChip wrote: »

It was presented by a black dreadlocked devout christain,

Vs

It was presented by a British theologian from Brum. You may as well describe him by the colour and length of the trousers he was wearing as by "black dreadlocked". If it had been presented by Robert Runcie would you have had him as a "white shorthaired devout Christian"? I kind of doubt it. The information about skin and hair isn't relevant to anything, and frankly because of that it looks a little racist, even if that's not the intention.</rant>

JC 2K3

??

If describing someone as being black with dreadlocks is racist, then following the same logic surely describing them as British would be anti-British, right?

SubjectSean

JC 2K3 wrote: »

??

If describing someone as being black with dreadlocks is racist, then following the same logic surely describing them as British would be anti-British, right?

No, the label "British" makes sense, like the label "Irish", and one can draw inferences from its use. This is not true of the label "black" or the label "dreadlocked" from which no useful inferences can be drawn. As I say the description "black dreadlocked" is as redundant and useless as if the theologian in question had been described by the colour and length of the trousers he was wearing.

[EDIT] ie: it is not relevant or of any importance so why mention it?

SubjectSean

Anywho..back on topic, there are lots of similarities between the Christian religion and those that have gone before, even the early Church Fathers knew this. It's in the describing of why this is the case that the arguments start.

An Fear Aniar

Heretic.:rolleyes:

I'll just get some kindling and it'll all be resolved, notrhing to worry about.



.

justcallmetex

1

Fanny Cradock

This topic has raised its ugly head again. OP, if you do a search on this forum with the key word 'Horus' you will find a couple of threads on the topic. At one time this was a minor hobby horse of mine. Even a cursory glance at objective sources will turn up enough holes in the theory that Jesus was plagiarised from Horus to make one suspicious of the other claims.

You may find some useful information about the supposed parallels between Jesus and Mithra here.

http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html

Although not strictly objective it is good to hear other claims. Skip down to the 'Priming the Pump with Parallels?' section for the discussion on 12 disciples, 25th December etc.


::Edit::

I've been kind and found one of the Horus threads for you. See half way down the thread for claims and counter-claims
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055140647&page=5

PDN

This tiresome nonsense is like one of those silly urban legends that seem to do the rounds periodically.

The 25th of December has nothing to do with the birth of Jesus. Christians do not believe Jesus was born on the 25th of December, nor have the Church ever taught that He was born on the 25th of December, they simply chose it as a convenient date to celebrate His birth since it was already a pagan public holiday.

As for all the other claims about Mithras - where is the evidence? I ask this every time this subject raises its head - and no-one is prepared to give me an answer. Cite me some inscriptions or manuscripts that predate Christianity to prove these assertions about Mithraism. If you can't produce such evidence then stop spouting nonsense.

The fact is that most, if not all, the sources for Mithraism's beliefs date from after the death and resurrection of Christ, after the establishing of churches, and after the writing of Paul's epistles - making it much more probable that the accounts of Mithraism borrowed from Christianity.

Akrasia

PDN wrote: »

As for all the other claims about Mithras - where is the evidence? I ask this every time this subject raises its head - and no-one is prepared to give me an answer. Cite me some inscriptions or manuscripts that predate Christianity to prove these assertions about Mithraism. If you can't produce such evidence then stop spouting nonsense.

We do know that mithranism was real and did exist pre-christ. We also know that it was a 'Mystery cult' that kept it's tenets highly secret and only available to initiated members and they didn't write things down.

That does not mean that there is no evidence for their beliefs. They had numerous temples, often located deep in caves or early catacombs that contained artifacts, images and iconography that give us an idea of what they believed in.

The Mithras astrology was also referred to by Plato and his followers long before Christ was ever born.

The fact is that most, if not all, the sources for Mithraism's beliefs date from after the death and resurrection of Christ, after the establishing of churches, and after the writing of Paul's epistles - making it much more probable that the accounts of Mithraism borrowed from Christianity.

You failed to address the fact that mithran belief was based around their cosmology, metaphores about the constellations, the ages and the sun. This cosmology was around long before christianity, and it seems very implausible that christianity would have so many metaphorical similarities with the zodiac if it was supposed to be a factual account of the life and times of Jesus Christ.
The 12 signs of the zodiac had been around for more than 2 thousand years before christ existed.

robindch

PDN wrote:

nor have the Church ever taught that He was born on the 25th of December

Where I grew up in the 1970's, the catholic church (or at least, its representatives down the country) certainly did say that.

PDN wrote:

Mithras [...] If you can't produce such evidence then stop spouting nonsense.

The history of Mithras is shrouded in as much mystery as the early history of the christian churches, and for much the same reason -- that producing or preserving accurate historical documents was not a priority for the institutional church.

Or to put it another way, the same thing which stops us from knowing very much about Mithraism and its influence upon christianity also prevents us from knowing much, for example, about how accurate and authentic the gospel texts really are. It's difficult to cast doubt upon one, without casting doubt upon the other too.

SubjectSean

Akrasia wrote: »

We do know that mithranism was real and did exist pre-christ. We also know that it was a 'Mystery cult' that kept it's tenets highly secret and only available to initiated members and they didn't write things down.

That does not mean that there is no evidence for their beliefs. They had numerous temples, often located deep in caves or early catacombs that contained artifacts, images and iconography that give us an idea of what they believed in.

OK sure but you are failing to distinguish between the Mithra worshipped by the Roman world and the various far older Indo-Iranian guises of Mithra. By making a compound of all of them one arrives at many more points of comparison with Jesus than if the Roman version were taken in isolation.

Akrasia wrote: »

The Mithras astrology was also referred to by Plato and his followers long before Christ was ever born.

I never heard Plato mention Mithras. Are you sure?

Akrasia wrote: »

You failed to address the fact that mithran belief was based around their cosmology, metaphores about the constellations, the ages and the sun. This cosmology was around long before christianity, and it seems very implausible that christianity would have so many metaphorical similarities with the zodiac if it was supposed to be a factual account of the life and times of Jesus Christ.
The 12 signs of the zodiac had been around for more than 2 thousand years before christ existed.

I'm guessing you never heard of the 12 tribes of Israel? Civilisation grew up and out from this part of the world, a shared symbolism is inevitable at least three times out of seven I'd reckon.

PDN

Akrasia wrote: »

We do know that mithranism was real and did exist pre-christ. We also know that it was a 'Mystery cult' that kept it's tenets highly secret and only available to initiated members and they didn't write things down.

No one is questioning that Mithraism existed. I am asking for evidence that any parallels with Christianity existed before the time of Christ. If such evidence cannot be produced then lay the bogus claims of borrowing to rest.

You failed to address the fact that mithran belief was based around their cosmology, metaphores about the constellations, the ages and the sun. This cosmology was around long before christianity, and it seems very implausible that christianity would have so many metaphorical similarities with the zodiac if it was supposed to be a factual account of the life and times of Jesus Christ.
The 12 signs of the zodiac had been around for more than 2 thousand years before christ existed.

So Mithraism and Christianity used the number 12 in entirely different contexts (one in regard to the zodiac and the other in regard to 12 disciples). And this is supposed to be evidence of religious borrowing? God give me patience!

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Where I grew up in the 1970's, the catholic church (or at least, its representatives down the country) certainly did say that.

I imagine they did. I am sure you will agree that was more a case of dumbing down the message for the culchies rather than representing official Christian teaching.

The history of Mithras is shrouded in as much mystery as the early history of the christian churches, and for much the same reason -- that producing or preserving accurate historical documents was not a priority for the institutional church.

Or to put it another way, the same thing which stops us from knowing very much about Mithraism and its influence upon christianity also prevents us from knowing much, for example, about how accurate and authentic the gospel texts really are. It's difficult to cast doubt upon one, without casting doubt upon the other too.

Not so. Historians are pretty sure of what the early Christian churches taught and believed. We have, for example, Paul's letters dating back to within a couple of decades of the beginning of the Church. There are no similar texts for Mithraism.

philologos

The usage of 12 comes far before Christ.

There were 12 Tribes of Israel in Jewish tradition (if one takes the Tribe of Joseph to be one).

An Fear Aniar

This is a good site with some info on the whole Jesus as Sun God thing...

Sun Gods as Atoning Saviours



.

djpbarry

PDN wrote: »

I am sure you will agree that was more a case of dumbing down the message for the culchies rather than representing official Christian teaching.

This was also taught where I went to school in Dublin. I would imagine the line was similar throughout the country. Why else would so many people believe that Jesus was born on December 25th? Someone must have drummed it into them? I doubt this is something that is confined to Ireland.

The debate so far seems to be concentrated on Mithras, but the program in question also detailed similarities between the early lives of Krishna, Buddha and Jesus.

philologos

Except for Krishna's alleged relations with 16,000 different damsels, whereas Jesus was completely celibate.

ShoulderChip

Jakkass wrote: »

Except for Krishna's alleged relations with 16,000 different damsels, whereas Jesus was completely celibate.

Good grief you are like a tabloid journalist, what the hell is the use of this statement?

and lets not get into the reasons why do think Jesus was celibate.

PDN

djpbarry wrote: »

This was also taught where I went to school in Dublin. I would imagine the line was similar throughout the country. Why else would so many people believe that Jesus was born on December 25th? Someone must have drummed it into them? I doubt this is something that is confined to Ireland.

Not being a Catholic myself, I can only assume that you had some priests who were appallingly ignorant of their own church's beliefs. Either that or you didn't listen very well. I have never met a Christian over 7 years old who believed that Jesus was born on the 25th of December.

philologos

ShoulderChip wrote: »

Good grief you are like a tabloid journalist, what the hell is the use of this statement?

and lets not get into the reasons why do think Jesus was celibate.

no the point is this.

You say that there are so many similarities between Jesus and Krishna and Horus etc. When facts come to light, either most of the claims made are utterly false, in the case of Horus that proved to be true, or that there are far far far more differences to balance out what similarities you feel appropriate to pick from. You have to admit that is a very very big difference.

16,000 wives compared to none!

ShoulderChip

Jakkass wrote: »

no the point is this.

You say that there are so many similarities between Jesus and Krishna and Horus etc. When facts come to light, either most of the claims made are utterly false, in the case of Horus that proved to be true, or that there are far far far more differences to balance out what similarities you feel appropriate to pick from. You have to admit that is a very very big difference.

16,000 wives compared to none!

Good point, they might have different eye colour too.

philologos

hmm.

Krishna is infact a blue cattle herder, according to a book I recieved (a commentary / discussion on the Bhagavad Gita) from the Hare Krishna group.

djpbarry

PDN wrote: »

I can only assume that you had some priests who were appallingly ignorant of their own church's beliefs.

I never said anything about priests.

PDN wrote: »

I have never met a Christian over 7 years old who believed that Jesus was born on the 25th of December.

Many people do:

http://www.christiananswers.net/christmas/mythsaboutchristmas.html

Type something along the lines of 'Jesus born December 25th' into Google and you'll get a whole load of web pages dealing with this common misconception. If so few people believe that Jesus was born on 25/12, then why do so many people feel the need to publish this information?

PDN

djpbarry wrote: »

Type something along the lines of 'Jesus born December 25th' into Google and you'll get a whole load of web pages dealing with this common misconception. If so few people believe that Jesus was born on 25/12, then why do so many people feel the need to publish this information?

Because many non-Christians are so ignorant of what Christianity teaches - as is evidenced in these fora nearly every day.

I do not deny that there are baptised little pagans running about who may believe such stuff, but they are only 'Christians' if you use the word in a very vague cultural sense to refer to someone who was born in a nominally Christian country. Any Christian who has even a smattering of biblical knowledge and an interest in following the teaching of Christ knows that Jesus wasn't born on the 25th of December.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

I am sure you will agree that was more a case of dumbing down the message for the culchies rather than representing official Christian teaching.

I couldn't agree with you more. People who make their living selling religion have always adapted their message to the needs of the religious consumers. And Kerry in the 1970's was no different to any other religious marketplace, culchies or otherwise.

PDN wrote:

Historians are pretty sure of what the early Christian churches taught and believed. We have, for example, Paul's letters dating back to within a couple of decades of the beginning of the Church. There are no similar texts for Mithraism.

Indeed, but the documents we have were largely written, or filtered, by the side that won. In the febrile ideological atmosphere of the time, that does not suggest to me that they were free from bias to start with, or protected from later changes by well-meaning, but unfaithful editors and copyists, as that well-known marginal comment from the Codex Vaticanus suggests.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

I couldn't agree with you more. People who make their living selling religion have always adapted their message to the needs of the religious consumers. And Kerry in the 1970's was no different to any other religious marketplace, culchies or otherwise.Indeed, but the documents we have were largely written, or filtered, by the side that won. In the febrile ideological atmosphere of the time, that does not suggest to me that they were free from bias to start with, or protected from later changes by well-meaning, but unfaithful editors and copyists, as that well-known marginal comment from the Codex Vaticanus suggests.

The issue is not who recorded what, or whether they were biased or not, otherwise 99% of human history would need to be junked.

The issue at hand is that we have abundant evidence at hand for what early Christians believed. We do not have any such evidence for the supposed Mithraic beliefs that Christianity is supposed to have borrowed from. Talk about winners is irrelevant - the various Gnostic cults did not win out, but we have evidence of their beliefs. Therefore, if someone starts this nonsense about Christianity borrowing from Mithraism then we are entitled to ask for some evidence that predates Christianity. So far no-one is willing or able to produce it.

As for the marginal comment on the Codex Vaticanus - that is evidence that they had a quality control system in place, and one that worked very well.

ShoulderChip

SubjectSean wrote: »

Vs

It was presented by a British theologian from Brum. You may as well describe him by the colour and length of the trousers he was wearing as by "black dreadlocked". If it had been presented by Robert Runcie would you have had him as a "white shorthaired devout Christian"? I kind of doubt it. The information about skin and hair isn't relevant to anything, and frankly because of that it looks a little racist, even if that's not the intention.</rant>

He was a presenter on a c4 slightly contraversial documentary, I was very surprised to see that he was black and had dreadlocks.
Maybee that means I am racist.
maybee it means c4/tv documentarys typically are racist.
maybee it makes you racist for freaking,
who cares,
also how amazing are dreadlocks never seen them like that before.



shocking that he was a doctor though!

SubjectSean

ShoulderChip wrote: »

I was very surprised to see that he was black and had dreadlocks.

Why I wonder?

Anyhow I didn't say you were a racist I said what you were saying looks a little racist or could be construed that way. I hope you can see how focusing on somebodys skin colour when it isn't at all relevant might lead to such accusations.

PDN

SubjectSean wrote: »

Why I wonder?

Anyhow I didn't say you were a racist I said what you were saying looks a little racist or could be construed that way. I hope you can see how focusing on somebodys skin colour when it isn't at all relevant might lead to such accusations.

Actually it is pretty relevant in this case because Robert Beckford's job title is Reader in Black Theology and Popular Culture at Westminster Institute of Education and he presented a documentary on Channel 4 called God is Black.

Since there are more black Christians than white Christians in the world we should not be too surprised at a black doctor in Theology. I am currently reading the Africa Bible Commentary, edited by Tokunboh Adeyemo. It is a one-volume Bible commentary written by African theologians and biblical scholars and I am finding it fascinating how familiar passages of Scripture look different when viewed from an African context.

Fanny Cradock

Double post:o

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote: »

I am finding it fascinating how familiar passages of Scripture look different when viewed from an African context.

Does the overall context and the thrust of the passages remain the same to what we (broadly speaking) have in the West?

SubjectSean

PDN wrote: »

Actually it is pretty relevant in this case because Robert Beckford's job title is Reader in Black Theology and Popular Culture at Westminster Institute of Education and he presented a documentary on Channel 4 called God is Black.

I am saying we are not our skin, Robert Beckford apparently doesn't know this. How is his skin in any way relevant to the job he does? I can't see that it is by any stretch. There are a wide variety of cultures and peoples lumped together wrongly as one clumsy homogenous mass by this word 'black'. Frankly it's a nonsense.