Is Christianity based on older myths?

[Mister Agenda]

So.. from seemingly random sculptures and mosaics ,That could be depicting any number of things (Because their isnt any thing written till the 13th century AD that ties those ancient art works together)

You're saying that those Much older artistic dipictions coroborate, The 13th century mythra text somehow.

And because the Art work is older, and the 13th century text mentions the scenes found in art work... that somehow it verifies the 13th century literary work is 100% factually repersents the religion dedicated to mythra when the art work was made?!?!?!


IDK, what if someone in the 13th century simply wanted to tie several different religions together and included the art work under the name of Mythra?

That's what Mohammad did around about that time for Islam...

Y'know, Drich, you'd come off as a bit less of a tool if someone disabled your capability to use emoticons.

[SteveII]

Maybe i am wrong but from what i can tell, not a scrap of evidence has been produced in this thread which suggests Christianity was copied from other religions.

I came to the conclusion 10 pages back that there was no real substance to the claim that Christianity came from old myths. It is a useful theory to the atheist who is hell-bent on discrediting the gospels/epistles. For some atheists, discrediting them seems to be so necessary that any theory (no matter how unsupported by facts) that helps is latched onto with certainty and propagated as fact.

In a nutshell, it is a fringe theory (origins:myth) supporting a fringe theory (the NT events/writings are manufactured) in support of the fringe conclusion that Christianity was started for power and money.

[Silver]

I have yet to see any evidence that the books of the bible are more than mere fiction.

[JesusHChrist]

I came to the conclusion 10 pages back that there was no real substance to the claim that Christianity came from old myths. It is a useful theory to the atheist who is hell-bent on discrediting the gospels/epistles. For some atheists, discrediting them seems to be so necessary that any theory (no matter how unsupported by facts) that helps is latched onto with certainty and propagated as fact.

In a nutshell, it is a fringe theory (origins:myth) supporting a fringe theory (the NT events/writings are manufactured) in support of the fringe conclusion that Christianity was started for power and money.

Head in the sand much? The syncretism of Hellenism and Judaism is hardly a fringe theory.

Here's an excerpt from a book on the topic. Fingers out of the ears now if you please:

Influence of Hellenistic Religions

We have already discussed close parallels between the Christian savior and the saviors of the Hellenistic mystery religions. Many scholars categorize early Christianity, especially in its Pauline form, as a mystery religion, which has been defined as “a sacramental drama, a personal religion to which membership was open only by a religious rebirth. It appealed primarily to the emotions and aimed at producing psychic and mystic effects by which the neophyte might experience the exaltation of a new life.”14

Although the Savior Archetype is due more socio‑psychological factors than historical interchange, the parallels between Christianity and the mystery religions could have had elements of the latter. G. J. Frazer comments on some of these aspects: "...Whether he be called Tammuz, Attis, or Adonis, the main lines of the story are fixed and invariable. Always he is young and beautiful, always the beloved of a great goddess; always he is the victim of a tragic and untimely death, a death which entails bitter loss and misfortune upon a mourning world, and which, for the salvation of that world, is followed by a resurrection.”15 The mystery saviors were not historical personages like Jesus, but his charisma and horrible death could have easily merged with these traditional Hellenistic models.

Even with Paul's emphasis on the Cross, its folly, and the importance of Christ's suffering, Christian art of the first three centuries shows a strong religious and cultural synthesis with the Hellenistic world. The most predominant symbol in early Christian art was Christ as the Good Shepherd. The figures were distinctively Greco‑Roman, not Semitic, probably taken from models of Apollo Nomius or Hermes the Ram‑Bearer.16

Some early Christian fathers rejected the Cross as the standard of Christianity.17 The first known artistic portrayal of the Crucifixion comes a full 400 years after the execution of Jesus. Even when the Crucifixion is portrayed, Jesus is usually alive, showing no signs of suffering, and usually has a royal crown rather than a crown of thorns.18 It is interesting to trace the development of the Buddha as he was transformed into a Hellenistic Lord by contact with Greek culture in Northwest India.

http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/syncretism.htm

A short google search shows, many, many, MANY instances of this syncretism occurring throughout history: Korean Christianity, modern US Christianity, Catholicism in the new world, Santaria in Central America and on and on.

Do you really believe 1st century Palestine was somehow immune to a well-known and studied dynamic?

[SteveII]

I came to the conclusion 10 pages back that there was no real substance to the claim that Christianity came from old myths. It is a useful theory to the atheist who is hell-bent on discrediting the gospels/epistles. For some atheists, discrediting them seems to be so necessary that any theory (no matter how unsupported by facts) that helps is latched onto with certainty and propagated as fact.

In a nutshell, it is a fringe theory (origins:myth) supporting a fringe theory (the NT events/writings are manufactured) in support of the fringe conclusion that Christianity was started for power and money.

Head in the sand much? The syncretism of Hellenism and Judaism is hardly a fringe theory.

Here's an excerpt from a book on the topic. Fingers out of the ears now if you please:

Influence of Hellenistic Religions

We have already discussed close parallels between the Christian savior and the saviors of the Hellenistic mystery religions. Many scholars categorize early Christianity, especially in its Pauline form, as a mystery religion, which has been defined as “a sacramental drama, a personal religion to which membership was open only by a religious rebirth. It appealed primarily to the emotions and aimed at producing psychic and mystic effects by which the neophyte might experience the exaltation of a new life.”14

Although the Savior Archetype is due more socio‑psychological factors than historical interchange, the parallels between Christianity and the mystery religions could have had elements of the latter. G. J. Frazer comments on some of these aspects: "...Whether he be called Tammuz, Attis, or Adonis, the main lines of the story are fixed and invariable. Always he is young and beautiful, always the beloved of a great goddess; always he is the victim of a tragic and untimely death, a death which entails bitter loss and misfortune upon a mourning world, and which, for the salvation of that world, is followed by a resurrection.”15 The mystery saviors were not historical personages like Jesus, but his charisma and horrible death could have easily merged with these traditional Hellenistic models.

Even with Paul's emphasis on the Cross, its folly, and the importance of Christ's suffering, Christian art of the first three centuries shows a strong religious and cultural synthesis with the Hellenistic world. The most predominant symbol in early Christian art was Christ as the Good Shepherd. The figures were distinctively Greco‑Roman, not Semitic, probably taken from models of Apollo Nomius or Hermes the Ram‑Bearer.16

Some early Christian fathers rejected the Cross as the standard of Christianity.17 The first known artistic portrayal of the Crucifixion comes a full 400 years after the execution of Jesus. Even when the Crucifixion is portrayed, Jesus is usually alive, showing no signs of suffering, and usually has a royal crown rather than a crown of thorns.18 It is interesting to trace the development of the Buddha as he was transformed into a Hellenistic Lord by contact with Greek culture in Northwest India.

http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/syncretism.htm

A short google search shows, many, many, MANY instances of this syncretism occurring throughout history: Korean Christianity, modern US Christianity, Catholicism in the new world, Santaria in Central America and on and on.

Do you really believe 1st century Palestine was somehow immune to a well-known and studied dynamic?

Again. Theories from a guy who writes a book in 1986 entitled: God, Reason and the Evangelicals: Case Against Evangelical Rationalism. You can't simply assert that Syncretism is responsible for the gospels or epistles. You would have to either show proof of the positive or show how all other theories are at the very least unlikely.

[FatAndFaithless]

[Mudhammam]

Maybe i am wrong but from what i can tell, not a scrap of evidence has been produced in this thread which suggests Christianity was copied from other religions.

I came to the conclusion 10 pages back that there was no real substance to the claim that Christianity came from old myths. It is a useful theory to the atheist who is hell-bent on discrediting the gospels/epistles. For some atheists, discrediting them seems to be so necessary that any theory (no matter how unsupported by facts) that helps is latched onto with certainty and propagated as fact.

In a nutshell, it is a fringe theory (origins:myth) supporting a fringe theory (the NT events/writings are manufactured) in support of the fringe conclusion that Christianity was started for power and money.

Steve, meet Inductive Reasoning, Inductive Reasoning meet Steve.

May your future together be fruitful.

[dyresand]

Again. Theories from a guy who writes a book in 1986 entitled: God, Reason and the Evangelicals: Case Against Evangelical Rationalism. You can't simply assert that Syncretism is responsible for the gospels or epistles. You would have to either show proof of the positive or show how all other theories are at the very least unlikely.

http://www.vor.org/truth/rbst/hist-theology-002.html
http://www.librarything.com/topic/158213

[JesusHChrist]

Again. Theories from a guy who writes a book in 1986 entitled: God, Reason and the Evangelicals: Case Against Evangelical Rationalism. You can't simply assert that Syncretism is responsible for the gospels or epistles. You would have to either show proof of the positive or show how all other theories are at the very least unlikely.

Your mind is truly closed.

Syncretism is mainstream thought with numerous examples given, both ancient and modern. It's rather a trivially obvious observation of historical sociology.

If that's not enough for you, nothing will be.

[Exian]

It is a useful theory to the atheist who is hell-bent on discrediting the gospels/epistles.

When I went on my search for the origins of Christianity and to form a time-line of the patriarchs, I was a Christian. I was "hell-bent" on learning more about my religion. What I found helped to form my atheism, and I'm sure this is true for many atheists, so to say its a useful theory for atheists to discredit the gospel smacks my honest search for god in the face. That facts discredit bullshit just comes with the territory. There's no atheist conspiracy.