So how did Christianity get started?

[randy (imported)]

As the story indicates (assuming that the artifact is real and that its dating is correct, all yet to be validated), the motif of being dead and buried for 3 days, then being resurrected and being the savior of mankind was already established in the Judean mythology decades before the purported time of Jesus. Now some folks will just say, "See, it's more divine prophecy!!" However, if one has a realistic and scientific approach to life, there is no room for prophecy....or miracles, or coming back from the dead, or walking on water, or...well, you get my drift. A more likely explanation is that the dead-for-three-days motif was alive and well in pre-Christian mythology, and it was just adopted and enfolded into Christianity as it developed, along with a lot of other motifs extant in the various religions at the time. Judea was virtually awash in religions of every stripe you can imagine, and there were more things to choose from than a Chinese menu...take a little from column A, a little from column B, mix in some miracles (all of which were attributed to previous gods, by the way), add a virgin birth (also said of Mithras, Herecles, Apollo, and others), and voila! SHAZAM! ...you have a new religion.

If I were more cynical than I am (and God knows I'm pretty cynical), I would start up my own religion and fleece lots of people out of tons of cash, and get wide-eyed young ladies to surrender their virginity to me, but even I am not that cynical. Just sayin'....ya know.

Some critics of Christianity teach that the Christian religion was not based upon divine revelation but that it borrowed from pagan sources, Mithra being one of them. They assert that the figure of Mithra has many commonalities with Jesus, too common to be coincidence.

Mithraism was one of the major religions of the Roman Empire which was derived from the ancient Persian god of light and wisdom. The cult of Mithraism was quite prominent in ancient Rome, especially among the military. Mithra was the god of war, battle, justice, faith, and contract. According to Mithraism, Mithra was called the son of God, was born of a virgin, had disciples, was crucified, rose from the dead on the third day, atoned for the sins of mankind, and returned to heaven. Therefore, the critics maintain that Christianity borrowed its concepts from the Mithra cult. But is this the case? Can it be demonstrated that Christianity borrowed from the cult of Mithra as it developed its theology?

First of all, Christianity does not need any outside influence to derive any of its doctrines. All the doctrines of Christianity exists in the Old Testament where we can see the prophetic teachings of Jesus as the son of God (Zech. 12:10), born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14), was crucified (Psalm 22), the blood atonement (Lev. 17:11), rose from the dead (Psalm 16:10), and salvation by faith (Hab. 2:4). Also, the writers of the gospels were eyewitnesses (or directed by eyewitnesses as were Mark and Luke) who accurately represented the life of Christ. So, what they did was write what Jesus taught as well as record the events of His life, death, and resurrection. In other words, they recorded history, actual events and had no need of fabrication or borrowing.

There will undoubtedly be similarities in religious themes given the agrarian culture. Remember, an agriculturally based society, as was the people of the ancient Mediterranean area, will undoubtedly develop theological themes based upon observable events, i.e., the life, death, and seeming resurrection of life found in crops, in cattle, and in human life. It would only be natural for similar themes to unfold since they are observed in nature and since people created gods related to nature. But, any reading of the Old Testament results in observing the intrusion of God into Jewish history as is recorded in miracles and prophetic utterances. Add to that the incredible archaeological evidence verifying Old Testament cities and events and you have a document based on historical fact instead of mythical fabrication. Furthermore, it is from these Old Testament writings that the New Testament themes were developed.

Following is a demonstrates some of the allegedly borrowed New Testament themes found in the Old Testament fulfilled in Jesus.

Ascension of Jesus to the right hand of God

Ps. 110:1 - Matt 26:64; Acts 7:55-60; Eph. 1:20

Atonement by blood

Lev. 17:11- Heb. 9:22

Begotten Son, Jesus is

Psalm 2:7- Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5

Crucifixion

Psalm 22:11-18; Zech. 12:10 - Luke 23:33-38

Eternal Son

Micah 5:1-2; Psalm 2:7 - Heb. 1:5; 5:5

God among His people

Isaiah 9:6; 40:3 - John 1:1,14; 20:28; Col. 2:9; Matt. 3:3

Incarnation of God

1)Ex 3:14; 2)Ps. 45:6 Isaiah 9:6; Zech. 12:10 - 1)John 8:58; 1:1,14; 2)Heb. 1:8; Col. 2:9; Heb. 1:1-3

Only Begotten Son

Gen. 22:2. - John 3:16; Heb. 11:7

Resurrection of Christ

Psalm 16:9-10; 49:15; Is. 26:19 - John 2:19-21

Return of Christ

Zech. 14:1-5; Mic. 1:3-4 - Matt. 16:27-28; Acts 1:11; 3:20

Sin offering

Ex. 30:10; Lev. 4:3 - Rom. 8:3; Heb. 10:18; 13:11

Son of God Psalm

2:7- John 5:18

Substitutionary Atonement

Isaiah 53:6-12; Lev. 6:4-10,21 - Matt. 20:28; 1 Pet. 2:24; 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 3:18;

Virgin Birth

Isaiah 7:14 - Matt. 1:25

As you can see, there is no need for any of the Christian writers to borrow from anything other than the Old Testament source in order to establish any Christian doctrine concerning Jesus. If the argument that pagan mythologies predated Christian teachings and therefore Christianity borrowed from them is true, then it must also be truth that the pagan religions borrowed from the Jewish religion because it is older than they are! Given that all of the Christian themes are found in the Old Testament and the Old Testament was begun around 2000 B.C. and completed around 400 B.C., we can then conclude that these pagan religions actually borrowed from Jewish ideas found in the Old Testament. Think about it, the idea of a blood sacrifice and a covering for sin is found in the first three chapters of Genesis when God covered Adam and Eve with animals skins and prophesied the coming of the Messiah.

Furthermore, those who wrote about Jesus in the New Testament were Jews (or under the instruction of Jews) who were devoted to the legitimacy and inspiration of the Old Testament scriptures and possessed a strong disdain for pagan religions. It would have been blasphemous for them to incorporate pagan sources into what they saw as the fulfillment of the sacred Old Testament scriptures concerning the Messiah. Also, since they were writing about Jesus, they were writing based upon what He taught: truth, love, honesty, integrity, etc. Why then would they lie and make up stories and suffer great persecution, hardships, ridicule, arrest, beatings, and death all for known lies and fabrications from paganism? It doesn't make sense.

At best, Mithraism only had some common themes with Christianity (and Judaism) which were recorded in both the Old and New Testaments. What is far more probable is that as Mithraism developed, it started to adopt Christian concepts.

"Allegations of an early Christian dependence on Mithraism have been rejected on many grounds. Mithraism had no concept of the death and resurrection of its god and no place for any concept of rebirth -- at least during its early stages...During the early stages of the cult, the notion of rebirth would have been foreign to its basic outlook...Moreover, Mithraism was basically a military cult. Therefore, one must be skeptical about suggestions that it appealed to nonmilitary people like the early Christians."1

What is more probable is that with the explosive nature of the Christian church in the 1st and 2nd century, other cult groups started to adapt themselves to take advantage of some of the teachings found in Christianity.

"While there are several sources that suggest that Mithraism included a notion of rebirth, they are all post-Christian. The earliest...dates from the end of the second century A.D."2

Therefore, even though there are similarities between Christianity and Mithraism, it is up to the critics to prove that one borrowed from the other. But, considering that the writers of the New Testament were Jews who shunned pagan philosophies and that the Old Testament has all of the themes found in Christianity, it is far more probable that if any borrowing was done, it was done by the pagan religions that wanted to emulate the success of Christianity.

____________

1. R. Nash, Christianity and the Hellenistic World" as quoted in Baker's Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Norman Geisler; Baker Books, Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1999, p. 492.

2. Wilson, Bill, compiled by; The Best of Josh McDowell: A Ready Defense; Nashville, Tenn., Thomas Nelson Publishers; 1993, p. 167.

-carm.org

You also mentioned Herceles. Im not sure if you meant Heralces or Hercules but neither of them are associated with a virgin birth. The virgin birth was something prophecied to the first woman. I would expect the prophecy to find its way into false religions.

[plix (imported)]

Like I've told you, you are someone who does his research, and for this I admire you.

You have some good points here, but I will tell you that there is supposedly accurate scholarship on each side. The Christian scholars have evidence showing that it is more probable the pagan religions borrowed from Christianity, and non-Christian scholars have evidence showing the reverse, that it is more probable

Christianity borrowed from the

pagan religions. Nothing surprising there.

Your arguments in this post are mostly about Mithra, which is only one of the many pagan gods who are said to share many similarities with Christ. Even if you do manage to shoot one down, which I am by no means saying you have, you have the many others to deal with. No, I am not going to list them all because there are far too many.

Also, part of your argument can be used to support another argument opponents of Christianity might use. You say that it is from Old Testament writings that

New Testament themes were developed.

Ok, so how do we know that the New Testament writers didn't look up the prophecies about a supposed messiah in the Old Testament, and then craft this Jesus to fit all of the prophecies? In other words, the gospel writers created Jesus based on the prophecies rather than the prophecies creating him. I would advise you to remove this statement from your argument, as you are only giving your opponents something to use against you. Instead, you should only focus on showing how Christianity did not borrow its ideas from other religions. Claiming that Christianity borrowed from Judaism is not a wise proof to use for trying to show that.

Keep it up. I look forward to reading more

[randy (imported)]

It is certainly possible

that the New Testament writers

worked together and concocted a plan to use a good man named Jesus, who had recently died, in order to gain power and influence for themselves. But just because something is possible does not mean that it is a reality. It is possible that there is an ice cream factory on Jupiter, but that does not mean that one exists. When we look at the New Testament claims of Christ do we see what looks like an elaborate deception concocted by several people? Or do we see that their behavior is more consistent with the idea that Jesus actually did do miracles and rise from the dead? It is the latter explanation that best fits the facts.

Following is a list of reasons why the conspiracy theory does not work.

It would require great coordination of events and writing over a long period of time.

First of all, in order for this conspiracy to work several people would have needed to get together and write documents that were not only inspirational but reflected accurate historical accounts, could stand up to cross examination, and agreed with each other sufficiently to avoid being exposed as a fraud. After all, if their stories and writings were contradictory, their conspiracy would fall apart. This means that there had to be large and sophisticated collusion and careful, deliberate fabrication over a long period of time since the New Testament documents were written over approximately a 50 year span. The writers would have to be very careful about who was named and what places were mentioned. Why? Because the accounts dealt with actual places and people and they would have to make sure it was all correct.

If these people wanted to gain power and influence by concocting a plan as grandiose as this, is it logical to say that they agreed to make up a story about this person Jesus, who was known to many people, and say things about Him that were not true, and then get people to believe that He had risen from the dead? Does it make sense that they would go against not only the Jewish system but also that of the Roman Empire, all so that they could try and gain power and influence in an area already dominated by two powerful cultures, the Jewish and Roman? Or is it more logical to say that they didn't conspire to deceive, but simply wrote and testified to what they saw? Doesn't it make more sense to say that they wrote what they knew, recorded the facts, the places, and the events and that it was all true and that that explains the New Testament documents better than anything else?

It would mean that the NT writers wrote about truth based on a lie

T

he writers of the New Testament

used the words "true" and "truth" 170 times. They lived for the truth of what they believed and they died for it as well. They wrote about truth (Rom. 9:1; 2 Cor. 4:2), honesty (Luke 8:15), love (1 Cor. 13:4-8), integrity (2 Cor. 7:2), compassion (Col. 3:12), forgiveness (Col. 3:13), etc., and it was all based upon their love for and dedication to the truth of Jesus. They spoke against hypocrisy (Rom. 12:9), lying (Col. 3:9), jealousy (James 3:13), and selfish ambition (James 3:16). In fact, they lived according to their words. Does it really make sense to say that the NT writers deliberately conspired to misrepresent the truth and then go to great depths, even to suffer beatings and death, all while they were continuously telling people to believe in a lie? Add to this how they knew they would be persecuted for this alleged conspiracy of lies and we have serious problems explaining their behavior. It would make far more sense to simply acknowledge that they were telling the truth and that it was not a conspiracy to deceive.

It would mean that the conspiracy would have to survive cross examination

For the conspiracy to work, it would have to face cross examination. Remember, the gospels were written as historical documents mentioning places, people, and events. There certainly were many people who were still alive and who could verify and/or deny the miraculous events concerning Jesus. If you want to make a conspiracy work, you don't offer verifiable facts. Instead, you make up stories that cannot be verified but sound good. This is what Joseph Smith did when he began Mormonism. Nothing of his great cities and civilizations in the Book of Mormon have been verified since 1830 when he published his book of Mormon. Smith's religion isn't based on historical fact with verifiable locations and events. Instead, it is based on a story that cannot be verified. This is not the case with the New Testament books. The Gospels contained records of Jesus performing many miracles and eventually rising from the dead in Jerusalem. He was crucified at the hands of the Romans who were urged by the Jewish Sanhedrin. This was verifiable at the time especially since names and places are listed in the gospels and epistles. All anyone would have to do is contact those people (or check the court records) and go to those places to verify the accounts.

If it was all a conspiracy, then where are the contradictory accounts refuting what the New Testament writers claimed? The problem is that there are no contradictory documents known anywhere that attempt to refute the claims recorded in the Gospels. In other words, there is no contradictory evidence even though there were plenty of people around who could have written material contrary to the claims of the New Testament. After all, Pontius Pilate was named (Matt. 27:2), as was Herod, king of Judea (Luke 1:5), the high priest Caiaphas (Matt. 26:3), Elizabeth (Luke 1:57), Mary (Matt. 1:25), John the Baptist (Matt. 3:1), Paul the apostle a convert from Judaism (Acts 9), etc. Locations were cited: Damascas (Acts 9:10), Cyprus and Cyrene (Acts 11:20), Jerusalem (Matt. 16:21), etc. Also, claims of Old Testament prophetic fulfillment were made (see Prophecy, the Bible, and Jesus) and all people had to do was read the Old Testament to check. In other words, there were plenty of people, most of whom were still alive, and places to go to and check in order to expose the conspiracy. But we find no contrary evidence or writings concerning the miraculous events of Jesus life, death, and resurrection.

If there is no contrary evidence, no contrary writings, then does it make sense that it was all a conspiracy? Of course not. If it was a conspiracy, then where is the evidence for it?

It would mean the conspirators would have to face persecution

Undoubtedly, if

the writers of the New Testament

documents wanted to gain power and influence by writing about a new religious system that would go against the culture of Judaism as well as that of the Roman Empire, they most assuredly knew they would face persecution. We have to remember that the culture of the time was not beset with litigation and polite procedures. People often reacted irrationally and would spontaneously try to kill people (John 8:59). It also means that those who wrote the New Testament faced certain social, economic, and theological pressures.

In the Jewish culture the religion was intimately interwoven into the social and economic fabric. Anyone who would go against that system would knowingly risk starvation, mockery, beatings, ridicule, loss of family and friends, etc. This is not something to be considered lightly. Perhaps a single demented individual might consider doing such a thing, but how is it possible to get Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, Jude, Timothy, Apollos, etc. to all join in the charade, risk loss of family, reputation, economic stability, be persecuted and maybe even face death? Is this something that is rational to consider? Should we believe that they were all working together to deceive people so they could gain power, fame, and influence? It is simply extremely unlikely and full of problems as a theory.

It would have to explain Paul's Conversion

How did the Christian conspirators persuade Paul who was a devout Jew, educated in Jerusalem at the school of Gamaliel, (Acts 22:3), a Pharisee of Pharisees (Acts 22:3), and who was given letters of authority by the Jews to go out and arrest Christians (Acts 9:1-2), to become a Christian and thereby give up everything he had come to believe and stand for? Remember, Paul was a heavy persecutor of Christianity: "And Saul was in hearty agreement with putting him [Stephen] to death. And on that day a great persecution arose against the church in Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles," (Acts 8:1).

The most logical reason for Paul's conversion is that Jesus actually appeared to him on the Road to Damascus in Acts 9. It would take something pretty severe to cause Paul to abandon everything he had been taught his whole life and to not only convert, but to also advocate, and teach about the risen Lord Jesus -- and he did this for years before he was finally killed for his faith. So, how would the conspiracy theory account for Paul's incredible conversion and life long pursuit of proclaiming Jesus as Lord and Savior? If an adequately plausible explanation cannot be offered, then the simplest one is best; namely, that Jesus appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus and Paul was then converted.

Occam's Razor

There is a principle known as Occam's Razor. This principle states that generally the simple

st explanation is the best. Whe

n we examine the facts about the New Testament claims is it simpler to say that the New Testament writers conspired over many decades to write about actual places and people in such a way so as to convincingly deceive thousands of people into believing that Jesus was the Messiah, fulfilled Old Testament prophecy, healed the sick, cured diseases, claimed to be divine, raised Lazarus from the dead, was crucified by Romans after enduring the religious court of the Sanhedrin, was buried, and rose from the dead or that it simply all happened and they recorded it? Which is the simpler explanation? Which requires greater faith?

Did the conspirators get what they were after?

Finally, if power and influence were sought by the New Testament writers, did they attain it? At best, what they have gained by such an elaborate hoax would have been influence in a small group of people who were outcasts in Israel as well as Rome. Remember, to get followers into Christianity meant that you went against not only the Jewish system but also the Roman system, not to mention being able to concoct a story that could stand scrutiny. Obviously the odds are extremely against such a thing.

Did they get what they were after? They were outcasts in their own society. They were beaten, ridiculed, accused of debauchery, jailed, beaten, and executed. If it was all a conspiracy, did they get the influence and power they were after? It doesn't seem so. Instead, it simply makes more sense to believe the New Testament than to say it was all a hoax.

carm.org

[Slammr (imported)]

There is a principle known as Occam's Razor. This principle states that generally the simple

st explanation is the best.

Then, the simplest explanation is that Jesus, if he existed, was but a man.

[snoopy (imported)]

Don't mind me... i'm just throwing petrol on the primordial fire...

"It may be that our role on this planet is not to worship God but to create him." -- Arthur C. Clarke

"Got created man and man returned the compliment." -- Unknown

-s

[A-1 (imported)]

Originally Posted by randy regular

There is a principle known as Occam's Razor. This

principle states that generally the simple

st explanation is the best. Then, the simplest exp

lanation is that Jesus, if he existed, was but a man.

William of Ockham ("Occam" is the Latin spelling) (http://atheism.about.com/library/weekly/aa051600a.htm) was an English theologian of the fourteenth century. YUP! a Catholic! But a good one in the fact that he rebelled against the Pope who proclaimed that his Franciscan Order was to asume the ownership of property. (It is a strange story, but please, don't use his "RAZOR" to 'GUT' it...)

Much like Theodoric-of-York (http://www.truveo.com/Theodoric-of-York/id/3366775194) whose medical ideas are ridiculed his ideas are rather Medieval not to mention his theological philosophy.

But want to know what is the STRANGEST thing? Atheists base their atheistic arguments (http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions ... ns_3.shtml) on his religious philosophies...

...and so it goes...

:shakemitk

[randy (imported)]

William of Ockham ("Occam" is the Latin spelling) (http://atheism.about.com/library/weekly/aa051600a.htm) was an English theologian of the fourteenth century. YUP! a Catholic! But a good one in the fact that he rebelled against the Pope who proclaimed that his Franciscan Order was to asume the ownership of property. (It is a strange story, but please, don't use his "RAZOR" to 'GUT' it...)

Much like Theodoric-of-York (http://www.truveo.com/Theodoric-of-York/id/3366775194) whose medical ideas are ridiculed his ideas are rather Medieval not to mention his theological philosophy.

But want to know what is the STRANGEST thing? Atheists base their atheistic arguments (http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions ... ns_3.shtml) on his religious philosophies...

...and so it goes...

yes atheists do use the razor. i could be wrong but i dont think slammr is an atheist. he is probably a diest. he has just as much right to use O's.R. as i do. with that said, if we are going to have a civilized religious discussion, without envoking the wrath of the dark side, we probably shouldnt get personal. this will be my last time responding to an opinion, in a religious thread, that was not based on a fact.

[A-1 (imported)]

yes atheists do use the razor. i could be wrong but i dont think slammr is an atheist. he is probably a diest. he has just as much right to use O's.R. as i do. with that said, if we are going to have a civilized religious discussion, without envoking the wrath of the dark side, we probably shouldnt get personal. this will be my last time responding to an opinion, in a religious thread, that was not based on a fact.

Randy,

Don't sweat slammr,

He knows I have a LOT of respect for him, and for you, too. It was just an observation.

...irony, you know....

...as for the dark side, I seem to have a knack for raising the