Whats up Doc! or how a godess became a bunny girl or something.

tommy2bad

Me
I could and would love to debate the difference between religions but as PDN pointed out it's a big tangent.
If your up for it I'll start a thread!
None of your examples hold up to close examination and anyway we xians have the old foreshadowing thing as a fall-back

Quatermain
I'd be interested in discussing that. I'd say those examples stand up to very close scrutiny indeed. Much like how the Easter Bunny was in fact a Norse goddess once upon a time.

I love it!:D
I thought the easter bunny was a derivation of our hare, a fertility symbol for the celts?
Now how Pascal got to be Easter, thats a good tail.
Lets have at this because I am sick and tired of secondhand ideas mostly passed on from someone who watched http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist:_The_Movie.
Time to get it out in the open, Christianity isn't some made up religion to placate the starving masses, bread and circuses work better, nor is it a synthesis of several older religions. Well not the core message, the symbolism and theatrics may have been (cough) borrowed, but in essence its the same faith as Jesus left behind.

Not that this proves it truth or disproves it but lets at least get the facts right.

Quatermain

By all means. Ēostre, or Ostara, was a Pagan Germanic goddess associated with joy and celebration. Her festivals were generally held at the time of the Spring Equinox, when fertility and growth was returning to the world after winter. Our main source for this goddess appears to be the scholar Bede. Of course, he could have actually spirited her out of thin air when describing a pagan festival called "Eosturmonath" in a book written in 750 A.D.

Her main symbols were the egg and the hare or rabbit. Hardly symbols that would appear in a Christian church, and yet to this day are irrevocably associated with the Easter celebration.

On a side-note, there are interesting points about another Norse god, a more solidly-described one called "Odin", from whom we take the name for Wednesday. In his quest for ultimate knowledge of the world, he gave up an eye, drank the mead of poets, and hanged himself on a tree so that he could witness death. He suffered both hunger and thirst, and stabbed himself with a spear. Having died, he was later resurrected.

tommy2bad

Quatermain
On a side-note, there are interesting points about another Norse god, a more solidly-described one called "Odin", from whom we take the name for Wednesday. In his quest for ultimate knowledge of the world, he gave up an eye, drank the mead of poets, and hanged himself on a tree so that he could witness death. He suffered both hunger and thirst, and stabbed himself with a spear. Sounds awfully familiar...

Not really unless you read a lot of norse myths.
I cant see any similarity with the gospels in that story. Unless you start parsing it to seem so.
More tomorow when I'm a bit more sober.
Welcome to boards btw, good to see new ppl turning up.

Manach

For the Dec 25th date, historically I would say that the Romans had a calender full of festival days according to my Latin texts. What would have been remarkable would have been Christianity not coinciding a major festival with these. Earlier Christianity had a remarkable talent for putting the secular noses out of joint by growing a faith based community that did not accept the centralised state claim of ultimate authority, as in the Divine office of emperor.

bonniebede

English is the only language which calls Easter 'easter', in every other language it is some name derived from 'passover'.

Passover in hebrew = pesach; hence pasch ; or the adjectival paschal.

The Irish language stems from a branch of celts who linguistically are differentiated by 'p' sounds becoming 'c' sounds. Hence in irish pasch become casc as in 'Eiri amach na Casca' or the Easter rising.

AS to why we still have symbols relating to an earlier mythology hanging around, one could argue that the original symbols - spring hares, new chickens etc are drawn form nature. And as God is the Creator of all things, and as Romans 1:19,20 tells us all created things show forth his invisible power and deity, then it follows that all nature based symbolism ultimately points at God.

So no problem there...it is false Gods like ostara who hijacked the God given symbolism of nature. Christians merely took them back in to be elements of the worship of the one true God.

And what's not to love about chocolate eggs, after forty days of fasting:D

PDN

tommy2bad wrote: »

Not really unless you read a lot of norse myths.
I cant see any similarity with the gospels in that story. Unless you start parsing it to seem so.
More tomorow when I'm a bit more sober.
Welcome to boards btw, good to see new ppl turning up.

Actually, the earliest source for those details about Odin dates from about 12 centuries after Christ. So any similarities would most probably be a result of pagan borrowing from Christianity.

mdebets

bonniebede wrote: »

English is the only language which calls Easter 'easter', in every other language it is some name derived from 'passover'.

That's actually not true.
German "Ostern' has the same roots as the English Easter.
In many Slavic languages it is called "Great Day" or "Great Night".

Quatermain

Not so. In German, Easter is "Ostern". Rather similar to the name of the Germanic goddess in question.

Yes, I'm sure that symbols of natural fertility are drawn from nature. The fact that said symbols are not outright recognised in churches or as part of Christian teaching means that they are not an integral part of its ethos, more an entertaining peripheral. Much like how one rarely, if ever, sees a priest giving a mass while dressed as Santa Claus. One would think it would have strong resonance with sacrifice, one main reason animals were depicted in ancient pagan temples or associated with particular gods and goddesses.

I think you have to realise that there are and were religions that have been around much longer than Christianity that were afforded just as much credence. Simply taking every single image the world over and laying it at the feet of one god seems like a very easy answer.

As for 12th century records, Germanic peoples had an oral history, related mainly to story-telling by bards and poets. The sagas which were written in the 1200s which really nailed everything down were a conscious artistic effort based on both written and spoken words. They may have been telling the same tales for generations.

bonniebede

thank you, i stand corrected re the German, that bit was news to me.:)

PDN

Quatermain wrote: »

As for 12th century records, Germanic peoples had an oral history, related mainly to story-telling by bards and poets. The sagas which were written in the 1200s which really nailed everything down were a conscious artistic effort based on both written and spoken words. They may have been telling the same tales for generations.

They may have been telling the same tales for "generations". Or they may not.

But, given that similar details appeared in Christian sources 1000 years earlier, it would take an inordinate amount of imagination and faith to believe that Christians borrowed them from the Norse instead of vice versa.

Quatermain

PDN wrote: »

But, given that similar details appeared in Christian sources 1000 years earlier, it would take an inordinate amount of imagination and faith to believe that Christians borrowed them from the Norse instead of vice versa.

And here I thought that faith is what you guys are all about.

I just like the idea of connecting up ideas and images like this. They can't have come from out of nothing. Given that the only real contact Goths and Vikings would have had with Christians would have either been trading or outright pillaging, it's not too difficult to imagine that there was inspiration either way.

Taking what you say as read, I just think it odd that the Vikings would apparently take the part of the Bible that refers to the foundation of the entire religion, and turn it into just another feat on the part of their All-Father. After all, they had to have been able to read and understand it in order to cherry-pick its ideas. And if they could have done so, then clearly they did not appreciate its message and were content to alter its stories to suit their own heroes. It seemingly didn't have that much of an impact upon them.

PDN

Quatermain wrote: »

And here I thought that faith is what you guys are all about.

The elements of Christianity you mentioned can be seen in documents that date to the First Century AD.

The earliest source for those beliefs in North mythology dates from over 1000 years later.

To imagine that the earlier borrowed from the later would require a leap of faith that would be truly Beamonesque.

Incidentally, the same problem occurs when we hear people asserting that Christianity borrowed elements from Mithraism. Then, when we do a little research, we find that any evidence of such beliefs in Mithras all dates from after the advent of Christianity.

Bannasidhe

PDN wrote: »

The elements of Christianity you mentioned can be seen in documents that date to the First Century AD.

The earliest source for those beliefs in North mythology dates from over 1000 years later.

To imagine that the earlier borrowed from the later would require a leap of faith that would be truly Beamonesque.

Incidentally, the same problem occurs when we hear people asserting that Christianity borrowed elements from Mithraism. Then, when we do a little research, we find that any evidence of such beliefs in Mithras all dates from after the advent of Christianity.

Can you please link sources for these claims?

PDN

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Can you please link sources for these claims?

For the claim about Mithras?

I think, actually, the onus is on those who claim that Christianity borrowed anything from Mithras.

In the past, in several threads on this subject I have asked them to do so. I would like to see a document, an inscription, or anything else, dating from before 33AD, that demonstrates that Mithraism taught anything that was supposedly borrowed later by Christianity. To date, no-one has presented me with such evidence.

As for the claim about Christian sources in the First Century (with regards to Jesus being crucified, raised from the dead etc) - I refer you to Paul's epistles and any good book on Biblical Studies.

Bannasidhe

PDN wrote: »

For the claim about Mithras?

I think, actually, the onus is on those who claim that Christianity borrowed anything from Mithras.

In the past, in several threads on this subject I have asked them to do so. I would like to see a document, an inscription, or anything else, dating from before 33AD, that demonstrates that Mithraism taught anything that was supposedly borrowed later by Christianity. To date, no-one has presented me with such evidence.

As for the claim about Christian sources in the First Century (with regards to Jesus being crucified, raised from the dead etc) - I refer you to Paul's epistles and any good book on Biblical Studies.

Firstly, You referred to documents which you claim back up your assertions- I asked for you to provide links to those documents. I do not think that is unreasonable.


Secondly, As Paul did not personally witness the events he wrote about in Epistles. No historian would view what he had to say as anything other then a secondary source - i.e 'hearsay'.

PDN

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Firstly, You referred to documents which you claim back up your assertions- I asked for you to provide links to those documents. I do not think that is unreasonable.

I have done so - look at Paul's epistles. Then read any good book on Biblical Studies to understand why the overwhelming scholarly and historical consensus is that letters such as Galatians were written less than 30 years after the crucifixion of Jesus and accurately reflect that the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ were part of Christian beliefs at that time.

Secondly, As Paul did not personally witness the events he wrote about in Epistles. No historian would view what he had to say as anything other then a secondary source - i.e 'hearsay'.

I think you've managed to confuse yourself. Maybe you should read back over the thread and acquaint yourself with what is being discussed before jumping in with both feet?

Nowhere in this thread are we discussing whether the actual events of crucifixion or the resurrection are historically verified. We are discussing when these things became part of the teachings of particular religions.

And any historian worthy of the name acknowledges that the letters of Paul are a primary source of evidence for the fact that the crucifixion and the resurrection were part of Christian beliefs in the First Century AD.

All I am asking is for any evidence that such things were part of Mithraism or Norse beliefs at an earlier date. No-one, so far, has provided me with any such evidence.

Gurgle

PDN wrote: »

when we do a little research, we find that any evidence of such beliefs in Mithras all dates from after the advent of Christianity.

Mithras became popular with Roman soldiers in the 1st century BC.
http://www.farvardyn.com/mithras.php

Bannasidhe

PDN wrote: »

I have done so - look at Paul's epistles. Then read any good book on Biblical Studies to understand why the overwhelming scholarly and historical consensus is that letters such as Galatians were written less than 30 years after the crucifixion of Jesus and accurately reflect that the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ were part of Christian beliefs at that time.

I think you've managed to confuse yourself. Maybe you should read back over the thread and acquaint yourself with what is being discussed before jumping in with both feet?

Nowhere in this thread are we discussing whether the actual events of crucifixion or the resurrection are historically verified. We are discussing when these things became part of the teachings of particular religions.

And any historian worthy of the name acknowledges that the letters of Paul are a primary source of evidence for the fact that the crucifixion and the resurrection were part of Christian beliefs in the First Century AD.

All I am asking is for any evidence that such things were part of Mithraism or Norse beliefs at an earlier date. No-one, so far, has provided me with any such evidence.

Less then 33 years - so you have moved the dates to c 63 AD?

Let's be clear - you are asking for written sources for a mystery religion - i.e one that did not leave written records of its rituals and beliefs as it was a mystery and a written Norse source which pre-dates literacy among Northern European non-Romanised Germanic peoples?

As such written sources are unlikely to exist, any parallels between Christianity and other religions will be dismissed by you as either Christian first - because as Christianity is a religion based on the written word it naturally provides documents which will provide your 'proof' or unsubstantiated as non-textual religions did not provide written sources.

Pointless even trying to have a discussion in that case.

PDN

Gurgle wrote: »

Mithras became popular with Roman soldiers in the 1st century BC.
http://www.farvardyn.com/mithras.php

I know it did. That, however, is not the point under discussion in this thread. Mithraism was an evolving religion. Therefore I am asking what evidence exists that any of the elements that are purported as having been borrowed by Christianity (eg virgin birth, crucifixion, resurrection etc) were actually part of Mithraism before they were part of Christianity.

So far not one single document, inscription, statue or anything else has been offered up as evidence.

PDN

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Less then 33 years - so you have moved the dates to c 63 AD?

About 55AD actually. Whether we are talking 33AD or 55AD - the difference pales into insignificance when compared with the later dates for Mithraism or, LOL, dates over 1000 years later when it comes to the earliest sources of the Norse beliefs that might vaguely resemble elements of Christianity.

If you want any Christian to take any of this guff about Mithraism seriously, then 33AD would be the date that you need to address. Since that marks the date when Christians believe Jesus was crucified and raised from the dead.

However, I've gone for the 55AD date because that is one which Christians and non-Christians alike agree is evidence that crucifixion and resurrection were already integral parts of Christian belief by that time.

Let's be clear - you are asking for written sources for a mystery religion - i.e one that did not leave written records of its rituals and beliefs as it was a mystery and a written Norse source which pre-dates literacy among Northern European non-Romanised Germanic peoples?

I'm asking for any sources that can be demonstrated not to be imaginary.

You can't seriously expect Christians, or anyone else for that matter, to be impressed by an argument that basically says, "Some elements of Christianity were borrowed from Norse religion, but I can't produce a single scrap of evidence to substantiate that claim. However, it's completely unfair of you to ask for any evidence as you should just take my word for it."

To treat such an argument seriously would be to descend into lunacy.

As such written sources are unlikely to exist, any parallels between Christianity and other religions will be dismissed by you as either Christian first - because as Christianity is a religion based on the written word it naturally provides documents which will provide your 'proof' or unsubstantiated as non-textual religions did not provide written sources.

Pointless even trying to have a discussion in that case.

Yes, it is rather pointless if you can't produce any evidence to support such claims.

Gurgle

PDN wrote: »

I know it did. That, however, is not the point under discussion in this thread. Mithraism was an evolving religion. Therefore I am asking what evidence exists that any of the elements that are purported as having been borrowed by Christianity (eg virgin birth, crucifixion, resurrection etc) were actually part of Mithraism before they were part of Christianity.

So far not one single document, inscription, statue or anything else has been offered up as evidence.

It was a pretty secretive cult, they don't seem to have published much.
Also they pre-dated the printing press by quite a while and never gained much popularity with the ruling classes so had limited access to stonemasons and sculpters.

There's Ishtar though, will she do?

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/graves.html

The only case, that I know, of a pre-Christian god actually being crucified and then resurrected is Inanna (also known as Ishtar), a Sumerian goddess whose crucifixion, resurrection and escape from the underworld is told in cuneiform tablets inscribed c. 1500 B.C.E.,

PDN

Gurgle wrote: »

It was a pretty secretive cult, they don't seem to have published much.
Also they pre-dated the printing press by quite a while and never gained much popularity with the ruling classes so had limited access to stonemasons and sculpters.

There's Ishtar though, will she do?

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/graves.html

She would do if the tablets actually said that she was crucified. Unfortunately they don't.

Inanna was a rather unfortunate goddess who went through a lot of adventures including getting raped while she was asleep. The tablets referred to in your link say that she lost her power after gradually removing her items of clothing one by one in a kind of strip poker through the Underworld. Then she was killed. After her death, her body was hung on a hook. But she came to life again.

Anyone who describes that as being a parallel with Christ's crucifixion for the sins of the world and subsequent resurrection is really going out on a limb.

Gurgle

PDN wrote: »

She would do if the tablets actually said that she was crucified. Unfortunately they don't.

Dammit, its as hard to find reliable sources on any given religion as medical evidence either way on the legalize pot debate.

In both cases 99.999% of everything on the internet is written by people who made their minds up first and massaged the evidence to match.

Slav

Gurgle wrote: »

Dammit, its as hard to find reliable sources on any given religion as medical evidence either way on the legalize pot debate.

In both cases 99.999% of everything on the internet is written by people who made their minds up first and massaged the evidence to match.

It's not that bad. You use historical method for examining religious sources and you use scientific method to assess the pros and contras for cannabis use. The beauty of both methods is that in order to come to a conclusion you only need facts and methodology; opinions of others are of little relevance.

Gurgle

Slav wrote: »

It's not that bad. You use historical method for examining religious sources and you use scientific method to assess the pros and contras for cannabis use. The beauty of both methods is that in order to come to a conclusion you only need facts and methodology; opinions of others are of little relevance.

The problem in both cases is that unbiased facts are buried in realms of slanted opinion pieces masquerading as historical / scientific reports.

PDN

Gurgle wrote: »

The problem in both cases is that unbiased facts are buried in realms of slanted opinion pieces masquerading as historical / scientific reports.

I guess a good rule of thumb is to take anything with a pinch of salt when it comes from an obviously biased source. If anyone links to infidels.org or answersingenesis.com in a discussion, then it's probably wise to verify claims from a more impartial source.

Wikipedia oftens gets criticised, and at times it makes a horlicks of things - but it is often a good starting point and gives links to further sources on both sides of many debates.

Slav

Gurgle wrote: »

The problem in both cases is that unbiased facts are buried in realms of slanted opinion pieces masquerading as historical / scientific reports.

Not really a problem if we can distinguish between fact and opinion. Examples of facts:

"By the time the Paul's epistles were written Christians believed in crucifixion and resurrection"

"There is no evidence Christmas was celebrated in late December by the early Christian Church"

"Cannabis has documented analgesic effect"

"Scientific research suggests there is correlation between use of cannabis at teen age and later development of schizophrenia"

I think they hardly be confused for opinions. Facts are verifiable premises; opinions are conclusions.

tommy2bad

Quatermain wrote: »

And here I thought that faith is what you guys are all about.

I just like the idea of connecting up ideas and images like this. They can't have come from out of nothing.

Probably didn't come out of nothing. People are inclined to tell stories, not just for entertainment but for illustration and education. we create our reality by and large and as the human condition hasn't changed much in several thousand years, the same problems and pondering repeat with similar themes and solutions.
To claim that one stole from another is to do an injustice to the stories and their sources. Yes people recognized similarities and retold these stories much as we now have a US version of the office.
If anything arguing about which came first or who is telling the truth misses the point of the stories, that we share a common instinct.
No big surprise, sadly neither is the response of people.

It's a poor reflection on us that we would rather reject a truth than recognize it in different clothes.

tommy2bad

Slav wrote: »

It's not that bad. You use historical method for examining religious sources and you use scientific method to assess the pros and contras for cannabis use. The beauty of both methods is that in order to come to a conclusion you only need facts and methodology; opinions of others are of little relevance.

Er it's worst than that, Joe Duffy and politics have more power over the decision than facts.:p

Slav

And if facts are against you so all the worse for the facts!

Manach

In History, let's not forget viewpoints from differing participants in a historical scenario. Each have their own world-view and bring that into any written account and unaware secondary sources are subsequently coloured by this.
In the classical world, it would be rare enough to get an unfiltered primary source. For instance Pericele's famous funeral speech by being embraced and extended by Thucydides to make it fit into his grand narrative.

Slav

Historical method takes it into account.

philologos

Bannasidhe wrote: »

PDN wrote: »

The elements of Christianity you mentioned can be seen in documents that date to the First Century AD.

The earliest source for those beliefs in North mythology dates from over 1000 years later.

To imagine that the earlier borrowed from the later would require a leap of faith that would be truly Beamonesque.

Incidentally, the same problem occurs when we hear people asserting that Christianity borrowed elements from Mithraism. Then, when we do a little research, we find that any evidence of such beliefs in Mithras all dates from after the advent of Christianity.

Can you please link sources for these claims?

I think the people who make these claims against Christianity should have this burden.

It's simple if the only texts we have of these pagan religions postdate Christian scripture how can we know that people truly believed those things before Christ?

As PDN said the borrowing could have very easily been the other way around.

The argument is simply flawed.

Bannasidhe

The capacity for assimilation demonstrates as well a particular genius of destroying former traditions by including, rather than excluding, their rituals and festivities into the greater context of the Christian revelation. Such appropriation of the trappings of other religious systems was not atypical of the advent of Christianity, for after all, Christianity itself had begun as an appropriation of Hebrew writings and religious motifs that were themselves often associated with other religious conceptions.

The idea of monotheism itself had a model, for example, in the failed religious reforms of the Pharaoh Akhenaten who reigned a couple of generations before Moses led the Hebrews out of Egypt in Exodus. At that time, God had instructed Moses and the Hebrew to take with them whatever they could use; to literally “pillage the Egyptians.”

Such pillaging may have preserved many pagan beliefs and rituals. The Judeo-Christian dualistic struggle of the universe as portrayed in the fight between Good and Evil, as well as Light and Darkness, bore similarities to the moral dualism of the Persian Zoroastrian magi; which was also a motif common to Egyptians and Babylonians. Later mystic cults, such as the dualistic Manichaeism and Gnosticism held the same dualistic outlook, and a renewed interest in dualism would show up as a theme in Hebrew mystical sects in the last centuries B.C.E., as well as in Christianity.

The cult of Isis, popular in the Roman Empire in the form of a Hellenized adaption of Egyptian ritual, believed in Isis giving virgin birth to Horus (she was often portrayed suckling the infant), and the resurrection of Osiris, who then became the Judge of sinners. The use of holy water, in turn, was similar to the water from the Nile that was kept in a cistern as a protection against evil.

The passion plays of Christianity had their counterpart in pagan mystery plays, the most famous of which was the Eleusinian mystery cults originating in Attica. The Eleusinian mystery was famed for its celebration of Demeter, the Great Fertility and Corn Goddess, and Persephone, goddess of the underworld--and its mystery promised death/rebirth and the hope of immortality. Many of these cults, no doubt, had a basis in the very ancient cults of the Great Earth Mother which stressed hope in the eternal return of the fertile spring and a rebirth of growth after the death of winter.

Such Hellenized Asiatic and Greek mystery cults were flourishing in the Roman Empire at the time of the rise of Christianity. They were spread by merchants and soldiers and their prevalence shows a very real psychic need and concern for the afterlife at this time in history. One of the most important of these sects was the cult of Mythra.

Mythra was originally an Iranian warrior god who, according to the Avesta (Zoroastrian scripture) assisted the God of supreme Goodness and Light, Ahura-Mazda, in his cosmic battle against the Lord of Evil and Darkness, Ahriman. Somehow the Roman Mythras (not Mythra) gained autonomy from his Iranian roots as worship of him spread across the Greek and Roman worlds.

In the Roman cultic version, Mythras was a sun-god born miraculously in a cave. The miracle pointed to future miraculous accomplishments (not unlike Horus or Jesus). His birthday was celebrated with the kindling of lights just after the winter solstice: namely December 25--a date that was considered as well to be that of the birth of the sun. Early Christian celebrated Jesus’ birth on January 6, currently the date of the feast of the Epiphany. January 6, by the way, may have also been a holdover from more ancient rites, as it was considered the date of the birth of Osiris. Christmas was later moved to December 25.

http://www.litjournal.com/docs/fea_pagan2.html

tommy2bad

http://www.litjournal.com/docs/fea_pagan2.html

Such adaptions of superficial, crowd-pleasing, rites and pastimes merely suggest how pagan activities are hidden just beneath the surface of Judeo-Christian culture.

Or layered on top of.

Later mystic cults, such as the dualistic Manichaeism and Gnosticism held the same dualistic outlook,

Both heresies btw and definably not Christian.

The cult of Isis, popular in the Roman Empire in the form of a Hellenized adaption of Egyptian ritual, believed in Isis giving virgin birth to Horus

Not true, Isis was not a virgin as she shagged Osiris, admittedly after he was dead but still not exactly a virgin birth.

We could do this all day, it wont produce any linear set of themes or ideas sequentially passing from one religion to another. What it will show is people creating a narrative to explain the mystery of life.

Bannasidhe

The point being that there are some here who appear to be arguing that Christianity was fully formed in the first century AD, it existed outside human cultural influences and never adopted or adapted local customs/religious beliefs to its own doctrine.

This despite the fact that Christianity itself was considered a Jewish cult and Judaism was influenced by the religions around it.

I would not for a second argue that Christianity did not influence other religions but I will dispute that this cross-fertilisation was a one-way street with Christianity remaining inviolate.

tommy2bad

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The point being that there are some here who appear to be arguing that Christianity was fully formed in the first century AD, it existed outside human cultural influences and never adopted or adapted local customs/religious beliefs to its own doctrine.

This despite the fact that Christianity itself was considered a Jewish cult and Judaism was influenced by the religions around it.

I would not for a second argue that Christianity did not influence other religions but I will dispute that this cross-fertilisation was a one-way street with Christianity remaining inviolate.

Absolutely, and for the good, I would add.
You don't think God would start small anyway,;) I'm sure He was just as concerned for the rest of the people as He was for the Jews.
Religion is not a set of laws handed down from on High, though a lot of people think/wish it was. It's a relationship with God, however you define god. It develops and changes. Would you want to be in a static relationship?

Quatermain

Just turned up something I think a few people here might find interesting.

Utnapishtim tells Gilgamesh a secret story that begins in the old city of Shuruppak on the banks of the Euphrates River.
The "great gods" Anu, Enlil, Ninurta, Ennugi, and Ea were sworn to secrecy about their plan to cause the flood.
But the god Ea (Sumerian god Enki) repeated the plan to Utnapishtim through a reed wall in a reed house.
Ea commanded Utnapishtim to demolish his house and build a boat, regardless of the cost, to keep living beings alive.
The boat must have equal dimensions with corresponding width and length and be covered over like Apsu boats.
Utnapishtim promised to do what Ea commanded.
He asked Ea what he should say to the city elders and the population.
Ea tells him to say that Enlil has rejected him and he can no longer reside in the city or set foot in Enlil's territory.
He should also say that he will go down to the Apsu "to live with my lord Ea".
Ea will provide abundant rain, a profusion of fowl and fish, and a wealthy harvest of wheat and bread.

Taken from "The Epic of Gilgamesh", circa 1300 - 1000 BC. Is this story at all familiar to anyone?

PDN

Quatermain wrote: »

Just turned up something I think a few people here might find interesting.



Taken from "The Epic of Gilgamesh", circa 1300 - 1000 BC. Is this story at all familiar to anyone?

Not in connection with what we were discussing (Jesus, crucifixion, resurrection).

However, I've often thought the Epic of Gilgamesh sounds like a garbled version of Noah and the Flood.

SonOfAdam

It's no surprise that an historic event would provide the original inspiration for various versions of that event - which is what we find here; Gilgamesh does not pre-date the flood account in Genesis.

Quatermain

PDN wrote: »

However, I've often thought the Epic of Gilgamesh sounds like a garbled version of Noah and the Flood.

Given that the Epic predates the Bible, one might think it would be the other way around...

PDN

Quatermain wrote: »

Given that the Epic predates the Bible, one might think it would be the other way around...

One might, if one had already rejected the Bible and was operating under a preconceived prior assumption that the Bible is not inspired by God.

But, to a Christian, who believes the Bible to be inspired by God and that it speaks of events that predate the Epic of Gilgamesh, such an argument cuts little ice.

Quatermain

PDN wrote: »

One might, if one had already rejected the Bible and was operating under a preconceived prior assumption that the Bible is not inspired by God.

But, to a Christian, who believes the Bible to be inspired by God and that it speaks of events that predate the Epic of Gilgamesh, such an argument cuts little ice.

Similarly, to a person who has a long history of evaluating and reading historical texts and debating their authenticity, such an argument as "we're right because we think we are" cuts little ice.

tommy2bad

PDN wrote: »

One might, if one had already rejected the Bible and was operating under a preconceived prior assumption that the Bible is not inspired by God.

But, to a Christian, who believes the Bible to be inspired by God and that it speaks of events that predate the Epic of Gilgamesh, such an argument cuts little ice.

They would still be wrong.
Am I understanding you right here? Your saying that the bible in it's entirety predates every other myth and story?
What? How? Based on what?, no one doubts that a lot of Gilgamesh and Babylonian mythology is retold in the OT, would this be a problem other from a Jewish perspective of being 'chosen' in some weird exclusively deal with God?
No Gods before me, doesn't restrict God, just us.

tommy2bad

The written Epic of Gilgamesh (or Gilgameš) possibly finds its roots as far back as 3,700 years ago but the oral tale seems to have appeared circa 2100 BCE[citation needed] This is in stark contrast to the age of the main story in the Book of Exodus where Moses leads the Hebrews out of Egypt. There is no evidence for any historical "Exodus"; efforts to connect the biblical story to real historical figures and eras have often tried to connect them to the 13th century BCE. Even if we were to accept these dates as being accurate this would make the earliest known tales told about Gilgamesh close to a thousand years older than any possible oral telling of the story in the Book of Exodus. Based on evidence alone, even the oldest written biblical accounts are at least some 1500 years younger than the Sumerian poems about Gilgamesh.

Forgot to include the wiki bit above.

PDN

tommy2bad wrote: »

They would still be wrong.
Am I understanding you right here? Your saying that the bible in it's entirety predates every other myth and story?

No - I said nothing like that.

lmaopml

tommy2bad wrote: »

They would still be wrong.
Am I understanding you right here? Your saying that the bible in it's entirety predates every other myth and story?
What? How? Based on what?, no one doubts that a lot of Gilgamesh and Babylonian mythology is retold in the OT, would this be a problem other from a Jewish perspective of being 'chosen' in some weird exclusively deal with God?
No Gods before me, doesn't restrict God, just us.

The OT mentions other 'Gods' - and the people of those times, it's a narrative of the nation of Isreal and it's relationship - unique because they were the first to recognise and be chosen by God. Jacob was renamed 'Isreal' and yet God chose to have them in chains for four hundred and thirty years before they learned more, or were ready for more...

Harsh? Yeah, maybe not when you understand how a nation grows up, or a people -

The OT is rather beautiful, even Leviticus is 'inspired' when it's understood with the idea of a father and nation, and of course as a Christian to know Christ. Think about just how much Christianity penetrated the nations that value the human person - yes, there are exceptions to the message, but the message remains nonetheless. That's the beauty, and the 'truth' -

I often think about 'Pilot' asking - 'What is Truth?' to Christ, when he said he was 'Truth', and out of fear he washed his hands - and I think it's a very very real thing - this 'truth', everybody knows it, that there is 'truth', but they just don't really want to know what it is....