Is Christianity Based on Paganism? Have Mithras, Osiris, Marduk, and Other Myths Influenced the Bible?

At some point in the sixth decade of the first century, the Apostle Peter wrote: "For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty" (II Peter 1:16, NKJV).

Sorry, Peter. In addition to challenging your authorship of the second epistle which bears your name, many critics of Christianity charge that you and your peers did, in fact, found the Christian religion based on ancient fables and pagan traditions. These critics allege that Christianity is indeed rooted in paganism and that the origins of Christianity have more to due with legend and myth than history.

Pagan Roots of Christianity?

According to the website Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth (POCM), Mediterranean cultures in the ancient world "shared standard ideas about Gods and their powers and place in the universe [and] Christianity simply adopted those ideas and applied them to Jesus."

Heaven, hell, prophecy, daemon possession, sacrifice, initiation by baptism, communion with God through a holy meal, the Holy Spirit, monotheism, immortality of the soul, and many other "Christian" ideas all belonged to earlier, older Pagan faiths. They were simply part of ancient Mediterranean culture. Along with miracle working sons of God, born of a mortal woman, they were common elements of pre-Christian Pagan religion. Mithras had 'em. So did Dionysus, Attis, Osiris, and Orpheus. And more. (Emphasis theirs)

One former Anglican priest bluntly states: "Christianity began as a cult with almost wholly Pagan origins and motivations for the first century." In fact, says Tom Harpur, the former priest turned critic, "Not one single doctrine, rite, tenet, or usage in Christianity was in reality a fresh contribution to the world."

What the Scholars Say about Paganism and Christianity

The pagan roots of Christianity is a popular argument on the Internet and a premise favored in several recent books, including The Jesus Mysteries by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy and Those Incredible Christians by Hugh J. Schonfield. However, its popularity within scholarly circles has significantly declined since the early 20th century.

T.N.D. Mettinger, a Swedish scholar who has devoted years to the analysis of pagan religions, declines to endorse the view that Christianity parallels paganism. Addressing the resurrection of Jesus specifically, Mettinger writes: "There is, as far as I know, no prima facie evidence that the death and resurrection of Jesus is a mythological construct, drawing on the myths and rites of the dying and rising gods of the surrounding world."

Interestingly, many elements of the pagan myths often associated with Christianity actually post-date the writing of the New Testament. One example is the myth of Attis. While the myth itself predates Christianity, Christian apologist Michael Licona points out that "the first report we have of a resurrection of Attis comes long after the first century."

Many aspects of various ancient religions were lifted out of context, pasted together with others, and shaped into a sort of "universal Mystery-religion" that was then paralleled with Christianity. While this approach continues to earn mileage on the Internet, the academic community no longer embraces it.

Edwin Yamauchi, a student of 22 languages and a professor of Mediterranean studies, explains that "by the mid-twentieth century, scholars had established that the sources used [for the ancient pagan religions] were far from satisfactory and the parallels [with Christianity] were much too superficial." Consequently, says Yamauchi, it's been "pretty much of a closed issue in the scholarly community."

POCM acknowledges that "modern academic orthodoxy" is against them, but they counter that this is due to the Christian bias of most religion scholars. The scope of this article does not permit an examination of this claim, but it should be noted that bias in and of itself does not fatally undermine the quest for truth or the discovery of facts. As such, it is inappropriate to dismiss "modern academic orthodoxy" out of hand, simply because a majority of modern academics disagree with POCM.

Evaluating Christianity on its Own Terms

Regardless of the apparent parallels with other faiths and religions, Christianity deserves to be assessed on its own terms. The claims of the Bible warrant examination in their own right, and the historical evidence for Jesus should be weighed irrespective of whatever has been written concerning Mithras, Osiris, or any other ancient god.

It is unlikely, however, that those advancing the claims of similarity between Christianity and paganism will respect such ground rules. According to Yamauchi, they don't even respect the ground rules of basic academic scholarship. Yamauchi writes: "They don't have the languages, they don't study the original sources, they don't pay attention to the dates, and they frequently quote ideas that were popular in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries but have already been refuted."

Apr 2, 2008 5:42 AM

Pink :

.
Just because Christianity has some similarities to some of what comes out of Paganism, does that mean Christianity is based on it?
.
What is Paganism if it isn't the idea of many gods?
.
Christianity claims one God.
.
So, if a large segment of Pagans come out of their polytheistic world into the monotheistic world of Christianity, does that mean their belief is based on something that they had in Paganism?
.
For them? Maybe?

Apr 2, 2008 7:29 AM

Migisi :

.
We've discussed this before, more than once.
.
If paganism is being defined here as 'pre-Christian' or 'primitive' religion, then Judaism fits and is pagan. Since Christianity is an offshoot from Judaism (we often say "Judeo-Christian"), then Christianity is based on paganism.
.
If paganism is being defined here as 'polytheism', Christianity fits more than Judaism, and is pagan i.e. Father/Son/Spirit = polytheism. Adherents worship and pray to God the Father ~and~ Jesus the Son. All one has to do is check a Christian prayer book. The church attempted to resolve their polytheistic theology by making each god a 'personage' of one god. I've listed before the stark similarities which Christianity shares with the 'pagan' religions i.e. virgin births, man-gods performing miracles, crucifixions, resurrections, ascensions, etc.
.

Apr 2, 2008 7:30 AM

Brian Tubbs :

Obviously, I'm NOT taking the position that Christianity is based on paganism. I'm simply calling attention to the debate, and showing that most scholars dismiss the connection. But there are many (including, I believe, our friend Migisi) who believe that Christianity borrows many of its doctrines (including the resurrection of Jesus) from pagan sources.

Apr 2, 2008 7:41 AM

Brian Tubbs :

If paganism is being defined here as 'pre-Christian' or 'primitive' religion, then Judaism fits and is pagan.
Since Christianity is an offshoot from Judaism (we often say "Judeo-Christian"), then Christianity is based on paganism.

That's not a good definition of paganism. A better comes from Dictionary.com - "One who is not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, especially an adherent of a polytheistic religion in antiquity."

If paganism is being defined here as 'polytheism', Christianity fits more than Judaism, and is pagan i.e. Father/Son/Spirit = polytheism. Adherents worship and pray to God the Father ~and~ Jesus the Son. All one has to do is check a Christian prayer book. The church attempted to resolve their polytheistic theology by making each god a 'personage' of one god.

Your description is based on the supposition that Christianity was invented by humans as opposed to being revealed by God.

I would also say that whatever adjective or descriptor you apply to the Trinity doctrine (be it "Paganism" or "Polytheism"), the doctrine deserves to be analyzed and studied in its own right.

 I've listed before the stark similarities which Christianity shares with the 'pagan' religions i.e. virgin births, man-gods, , crucifixions, resurrections, ascensions, etc. 

A majority of scholars in recent years have debunked virtually all of these similarities. For one thing, many of the developed mythical traditions POST-date Christianity, including Mithraism, which (though it originated in the East centuries before Jesus) didn't become popular and established in the West until AFTER the time of Christ. For another, many of the so-called tenets of these pagan religions were NOT written down by their adherents, but have been conjectured and hypothesized by western scholars many centuries AFTER these religions had died off.

Apr 2, 2008 7:42 AM

Migisi :

.
...Christianity borrows many of its doctrines (including the resurrection of Jesus) from pagan sources.
.
Comparative evidence supports borrowing. I've already presented it - more than once.

Apr 2, 2008 8:00 AM

Migisi :

.
That's not a good definition of paganism. A better comes from Dictionary.com - "One who is not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, especially an adherent of a polytheistic religion in antiquity."
.
Another definition of pagan according to most Christians -- everyone who is not Christian. Therefore, Muslims and Jews ~are~ pagans. Many Protestants claim that Catholism is pagan, given the worship of Mary.
.
I guess, as you've often insisted elsewhere, we need to be on the same page regarding terms and definitions.
.
Your description is based on the supposition that Christianity was invented by humans as opposed to being revealed by God.
.
Correct. Don't all spiritual thoughts originate from the mind of Man?
.
... the [Trinity] doctrine deserves to be analyzed and studied in its own right.
.
Been there, done that in many threads before. You admitted before that you couldn't explain it, and being a scholar and pastor yourself, you've studied it.
.
A majority of scholars in recent years have debunked virtually all of these similarities.
.
A majority of CHRISTIAN scholars, you mean. They debunk everything which doesn't support traditional doctrine.
.
For another, many of the so-called tenets of these pagan religions were NOT written down by their adherents,... 
.
True for Judaism and Christianity as well. Both relied heavily on oral traditions.
.
but have been conjectured and hypothesized by western scholars many centuries AFTER these religions had died off.
.
A belief system need not die off before it's "conjectured and hypothesized by western scholars". How many Christian denominations are there? How many sects of Judaism?
.

Apr 2, 2008 10:31 AM

Pink :

.
I think the major definition of Paganism includes polytheism as the main stream.
.
The resurgence of a polytheistic religion is predictable in these times where a single set of values is so difficult to find even among sectarians.
.
.
.

Apr 2, 2008 6:05 PM

Brian Tubbs :

I don't mean a majority of Christian scholars. I mean a majority of scholars....period. Most academics who have studied ancient religions recognize that the timelines and source material doesn't support the notion that Christianity borrowed from paganism.

What's more, you seem to have a cynical notion that bias precludes any search for knowledge and invalidates the outcome of any such quest. If that is true, then NO knowledge is possible, since EVERYONE has a bias to some degree. And if THAT is your position, then communication itself is pointless as is any attempt to form any kind of a democratic consensus. I would offer that it's VERY possible for a person who is biased to compensate for that bias via proper checks and balances - and arrive at a fair-minded, even an objective conclusion. It IS possible.

Apr 2, 2008 6:11 PM

Brian Tubbs :

Been there, done that in many threads before. You admitted before that you couldn't explain it, and being a scholar and pastor yourself, you've studied it.

I admitted that I can't explain it to your satisfaction, and I've acknowledged that there's an element of mystery to the doctrine.

But I have offered some thoughts on the doctrine. See the link below...

http://protestantism.suite101.com/blogs.cfm?start=11#tackling_the_trinity

I don't expect you to agree with my position, but there it is.

Apr 2, 2008 6:25 PM

Brian Tubbs :

Migisi, what I will acknowledge is that Catholicism has incorporated into itself some pagan elements. But the Catholic Church has strayed considerably from apostolic Christian origins. It no longer represents the core Christian church that existed in the first century. And, sadly, part of its drift is that it has picked up some pagan influences along the way.

I would also agree that some of our Christian holidays have taken on pagan influences. This is obvious and can't even be contested. Christmas is the best example. In fact, it was originally a pagan ritual - the winter solstice - which was then coopted by the imperial (later Roman Catholic) church.

So, Migisi, I am in agreement with you insofar as the above is concerned. Yes, over the years, Christianity (especially Catholic Christianity) has been influenced by paganism.

Where we differ is when it comes to the core doctrines of the Christian faith - the core message of Christianity - which originated in the FIRST century! That core message was NOT based on paganism. It was based on the actual life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth and then his actual crucifixion and resurrection - and the subsequent preaching and teaching of Jesus' apostles. THAT is where Christianity (at its core) came from. Not paganism.

Apr 3, 2008 4:29 AM

Pink :

.
With this statement, "Where we differ is when it comes to the core doctrines of the Christian faith - the core message of Christianity - which originated in the FIRST century!", Brian makes the claim that the "Christian Faith" makes an original offer that none other has ever made.
.
What is that specific "core message of Christianity"?
.
It seems to me that this juncture gives you an opportunity to proclaim what many say is the most important message of all time.
.

Apr 3, 2008 8:03 AM

Brian Tubbs :

All religions bear some things in common. Perhaps the most common example would be a belief in the supernatural. But Christianity (at its core - minus all the evolutions, trappings, denominations, etc.) is unique in that it centers on one person - Jesus Christ.

The Christian message is that God came into the world as a human being, taught the "kingdom of God" during his ministry, took upon himself the sins of the world, died, and rose again. Those who accept and embrace this message - and who declare Jesus to be their Lord and Savior - receive forgiveness of their sins and the gift of eternal life.

You asked. There it is.

Apr 3, 2008 8:19 AM

Brian Tubbs :

Here's a debate between Tim Callahan (Skeptic magazine) and Gary Habermas (Liberty University & Theological Seminary) on the ressurection accounts in pagan religions...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rq64qX7bNNU

Apr 3, 2008 9:22 AM

Pink :

.
Brian wrote, You asked. There it is.
.
I think that's very close.
.
My view is slightly different; but, that could take us on a tangent about how persons are made to feel the burden of personal guilt and how it cripples the self; the meaning of guilts removal and how that applies to the experience of eternal life.
.

Apr 3, 2008 12:09 PM

Brian Tubbs :

God never intended for guilt to cripple us. The whole point of Christianity is to relieve us from any guilt.

Apr 3, 2008 12:42 PM

Pink :

.
God never intended for guilt to cripple us.
.
But, guilt does cripple us in every sense of the word.
.
That's part of what was going on with Jesus. At every turn, the priests were accusing him of sins against God and humanity.
.
Yet, Jesus claimed to be at one with God and said so.
.
This infuriated the priests for it blew their hold over the sheepish people who bought every word that came out of their mouths. And, of course, they had police officers sent out from their temples to gather up those who stood against them so that they could be stoned to death.
.
So, the people were crippled in their minds, their spirits and their soul.
.
THAT is what Christ is about and NOT some pie in the sky where people walk the streets of gold for ever and ever.
.
Liberated from the guilt of sin--HERE--NOW--to live in eternity--HERE--NOW--whole and complete human beings at one with the Spirit of the Almighty.
.

.

Apr 3, 2008 3:31 PM

Brian Tubbs :

You've redefined Christianity in a way that can only be described as a minority view. My understanding of Jesus' ministry is consistent with the earliest Christian writings, namely Paul's letters, the Gospels, the book of Acts, etc. So, I think my view is much closer to historical truth.

Apr 3, 2008 3:49 PM

Pink :

.
That all depends on interpretation, doesn't it.
.
Of course, I think my view is the correct one. The shoe fits.
.

Apr 3, 2008 4:24 PM

Brian Tubbs :

In our society, people must sometimes agree to disagree to maintain civility and accord. That's understandable, but let's not confuse that with somehow accepting a notion that truth is determined by interpretation. A person's PERCEPTION is determined by interpretation - and that person's perception forms a kind of operative reality to them, but it's not necessarily an OBJECTIVE reality.

In the case of Jesus of Nazareth, there IS an objective reality. He lived. He taught. He drew a following. He died by crucifixion. His body went missing and many of his followers claimed resurrection appearances. These facts are pretty well established. Any view of Jesus that ignores, downplays, or disregards the preceding facts is on very, very shaky ground.

Add to that...

You have very early creeds, testimonies, and written records that describe Jesus' life and teachings.

It seems that you are sidestepping much of the evidence and favoring your own version of Jesus - one that you are comfortable with, but which has very shaky basis in history.

Let's set Jesus aside for a moment...

What if I came up with some kind of theory that Thomas Paine didn't really stand for independence against Great Britain, when he wrote Common Sense and An American Crisis, but what he REALLY stood for was...and then I inserted my own abstract theory. I have the freedom to do that, but not the credibility.

I think it was Hubert Humphrey who said: "Everyone has a right to be heard, but not everyone has a right to be taken seriously."

Apr 3, 2008 5:02 PM

Pink :

.
I suppose I could make the same comments you have made.
.
I know my view isn't the most popular view. But, then, neither was Jesus' view the most popular.
.

Apr 4, 2008 4:15 AM

Pink :

.
Jesus was in such a minority that the people cheered his execution.
.
Being in the minority is nothing for which anyone should ever be ashamed.
.
Generally, the majority is the place where the sheep find themselves on their way to the slaughter.
..

Apr 4, 2008 4:53 AM

Brian Tubbs :

Nice rhetoric, but it's a superficial application to the point at hand. You're right that a majority of people aren't comfortable with Jesus' teachings - then or now. But you're bringing that over into the realm of research and evidence, and it doesn't work. We're talking about the majority of not only scholars, but the majority of the writings close to the time of Jesus' actual life. You can't just stake out a minority position, and assume some level of credibility simply because you're in the minority. The evidence does not support your theory.

Apr 4, 2008 4:56 AM

Brian Tubbs :

I suppose I could make the same comments you have made.

You have the freedom to do so, but not the credibility. Take your interpretation of Jesus and compare it with mine. Which one is more consistent with the writings of Paul? I think the answer is pretty obvious, and most scholars (and if Migisi is reading this...I mean ALL scholars, not just Christian ones) agree that Paul's teachings were based in large part on his conversations with Peter, James, and John and some of the other early followers of Jesus - who knew Jesus personally!

Now if you want to disagree with the Apostle Paul's understanding of Jesus' teachings, that's your right. But I hardly think you can claim any kind of solid, credible ground in doing so.

Apr 4, 2008 9:21 AM

Brian Tubbs :

To those observing this discussion thread, check out this YouTube video of Gary Habermas very carefully and methodically explaining the historical credibility of Christianity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmunYrMVpW0

I challenge anyone to refute Habermas' specific points.

Apr 4, 2008 9:35 AM

Pink :

.
As you know, I don't take the Bible entoto as being some divine expression. I think it is as fallible as any other work. So, argumentation using the Bible as a source of absolute truth is wasted on me.
.
But, I believe that I understand the Gospel and I think my understanding is correct. I think yours is the popular one and I think it misses the mark.
.
I guess I could drop the words, believe, understand, and think in my statement like you do in yours; but, I won't do that. I don't tell others what they must believe but, I do speak for myself.
.
:)
.

Apr 4, 2008 1:34 PM

Brian Tubbs :

While I do believe the Bible to be divinely inspired, that is NOT the premise supporting my current line of argument.

There is a difference between...

The Bible is a collection of ancient literature, which constitutes the earliest recorded presentation of Christianity

and...

The Bible is divinely inspired

I'm basing my argument right now on the FIRST statement, not the latter.

It's clear that the Apostle Paul argues for Jesus' deity...yes? That Paul argues that we must accept Christ for the atonement of our sins...yes?

I'm not saying you have to AGREE with Paul. But you should at least give Paul the respect (as you should anyone) of acknowledging what his actual points are.

So...please understand my position here....

I'm NOT telling you what to think, Pink, insofar as whether or not you have to accept Jesus as God. I would certainly RECOMMEND that to you. :) But that's a choice you have to make.

What I am saying you (and pretty much any observer) must recognize is...

The earliest writings of Christianity present Jesus Christ as divine and the atonement for our sins.

That is NOT saying you have to AGREE with these writings, but at least grant them the respect of acknowledging what they are - and what they say.

Apr 4, 2008 1:46 PM

Pink :

.
You wrote, It's clear that the Apostle Paul argues for Jesus' deity...yes?
.
I disagree that it is clear.
.
And, I suppose you will disagree that what I set out is clear.
.
To me, I see what Jesus said is that he was at one with God and that we have that same ability to be in that same condition--exactly--without the trappings of religious rigamarole.
.
His comments infuriated the Judaic establishment of the day. And, they interpreted--on purpose I believe--what Jesus said to mean that he was God. I don't believe that anymore than I think you are God. And, I don't believe that Jesus thought he was God.
.
I do believe that what grew to be the religious authority of those first few centuries configured the scriptures in such a way so as to promote their purposes so they could get and maintain control over the superstitious people under their influence. I don't think the man, Jesus, would have ever given his imprimatur on that and of what we have today.
.
And, further, I think what we have today is headed for big trouble during this century unless it changes.
.
I watched Kenneth Copeland and his wife doing a mass healing on the tube today. It was utterly disgraceful--as bad as anything Benny HInn or John Hagee any day of the week.
.
And, twice on Sunday.
.
If you continue to interact here on a regular basis, the participation will increase. It isn't so much who participates as it is the frequency. That's what increases participation.

Apr 4, 2008 2:53 PM

Brian Tubbs :

I'm definitely NOT a fan of Kenneth Copeland, nor of Benny Hinn or John Hagee. Even though I don't, some of my church members DO like Hagee. Not so much Hinn or Copeland.

Apr 4, 2008 3:02 PM

Brian Tubbs :

To me, I see what Jesus said is that he was at one with God and that we have that same ability to be in that same condition--exactly--without the trappings of religious rigamarole.

IF ALL WE HAD WERE THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) and that was it....THEN, I could understand your point of view. I wouldn't agree with it, and I would still say that you're reducing Jesus' message. BUT...it would at least be debatable.

His comments infuriated the Judaic establishment of the day. And, they interpreted--on purpose I believe--what Jesus said to mean that he was God. 

There are incidents in the Gospels of people taking up stones to kill Jesus in response to what he said. This shows that many of his hearers understood his claims of divinity to be just that.

I don't believe that anymore than I think you are God. And, I don't believe that Jesus thought he was God.

Well, there's no debate on the first part. :) As to the second...AGAIN...if all we had were the Synoptics, then your point would have a little more traction - enough to make it credibly debatable.

BUT...your view of Jesus doesn't hold up against the Gospel of John. And it doesn't hold up against the book of Romans or the two letters to the church at Corinth (esp I Corinthians). Or Galatians. And on and on.

Apr 4, 2008 3:04 PM

Pink :

.
This post duplicated the next one.
.

Apr 4, 2008 3:05 PM

Pink :

.
If I were the pastor at your church, I would put a rousing series of sermons together on that prosperity and end times preaching. I would never give in to that stuff.
.
How much support for your local ministry is Hagee stealing from your local ministry?
.
Think of the money he charges for his tapes, CDs, and DVDs that cost him pennies to produce.
.
He is a crook!!
.
And so are Hinn, Copeland, and another bunch of money grubbers all masquerading as ministers of the Gospel. .
.
Do you have a jet plane yet?
.
Or are you lucky to get a new car every three or four years or so.
.

Apr 4, 2008 4:55 PM

Brian Tubbs :

These TV evangelists have duped a lot of people. It's truly a shame.

I have criticized the "health and wealth" preachers and evangelists as well as those who obsess over "end times prophecy."

Of course, I don't want to imply that ALL television evangelists or big-church preachers are immoral, unethical, or crooked. I think Joel Osteen, for example, means well. I am critical of him, though, to some extent. But I don't think he's a crook.

Apr 4, 2008 5:08 PM

Pink :

.
There's a whole passel of those crooks. I'm sure some of them believe a lot of what they do; but, I am as sure that many of them know they are pulling fast ones on their audiences.
.
In regular American business groupings, members do self policing to keep the bad guys out. That's the American way.
.
What is there about Religion that the good guys cannot stand up against the bad guys? Are they afraid they will fall under the gun?
.

.

Apr 5, 2008 6:10 AM

Shawn Landis :

Brian, we know your grasp of Roman history is not as strong as you like to think it is. Now, it is well-known that the Catholics deliberately co-opted many traditions of local pagans in an attempt to get them to convert to Christianity. Martin Luther and other early Protestant leaders, with the possible exception of Henry VII, decided to strip it back to what they believed was its original format. (The distinction is important here. It is certain Martin Luther never intended to start a new branch of Christianity. Perhaps you should consider that you owe your livelihood today to political divisions in Germany at the time he lived.)

The mistake you are making though is that religions do not exist in a vacuum. Christianity was likely a Jewish response to the mystery religions that were dominant several hundred years before the ascension of the Roman Empire. Christianity also has some Jewish roots, although the practice of the two religions is markedly different.

Parts of Christianity do come from Pagan practices and traditions that survive. Very few traditions of the parent religion survive, and if you talked to an Orthodox Jew, he or she would not consider you a true monotheist.

Apr 5, 2008 7:17 AM

Brian Tubbs :

Brian, we know your grasp of Roman history is not as strong as you like to think it is.

In the past, Shawn, you've accused ME of being overly aggressive and argumentative - if I recall. Now, here you come out swinging. At any rate...I'm not boasting of any expertise of Roman history. I think I've done enough research to support the points I'm making, but I'm not tooting my horn. Please don't make it sound like I am.

Now, it is well-known that the Catholics deliberately co-opted many traditions of local pagans in an attempt to get them to convert to Christianity.

Yes, and I've acknowledged this.

Martin Luther and other early Protestant leaders, with the possible exception of Henry VII, decided to strip it back to what they believed was its original format. (The distinction is important here. It is certain Martin Luther never intended to start a new branch of Christianity. Perhaps you should consider that you owe your livelihood today to political divisions in Germany at the time he lived.)

The last statement is unnecessary, Shawn. Anyone who knows me knows that I'm a big advocate for appreciating our history and those who have helped shape the course of it. Can you lay off the digs, please?

To the point at hand...yes, Martin Luther didn't set out to found a new religion, but rather to restore Christianity to its origins. That is correct - and I've never said otherwise.

The mistake you are making though is that religions do not exist in a vacuum.

I don't believe religions exist in a vacuum.

Christianity was likely a Jewish response to the mystery religions that were dominant several hundred years before the ascension of the Roman Empire.

Can you cite documentary evidence to support your assertion? If not, you're simply speculating.

Christianity also has some Jewish roots, although the practice of the two religions is markedly different. 

Of course, it does. The Christian Bible contains the Old Testament (the Hebrew Scriptures) and the New Testament. So, yes, Christianity has some Jewish roots. This is obvious.

Parts of Christianity do come from Pagan practices and traditions that survive. 

I have acknowledged in a previous posting that Catholicism incorporated many pagan practices AND that our Christian holidays have been influenced by (or were coopted from - as was the case with Christmas) from paganism.

Apr 7, 2008 12:46 PM

Brian Tubbs :

At this point, it seems the active participants have faded from this discussion. For those still viewing this discussion thread, I recommend this video clip from Michael Licona - hosted on Lee Strobel's website...

http://www.leestrobel.com/videoserver/video.php?clip=strobelT1085

Apr 8, 2008 8:05 AM

Migisi :

.
I have acknowledged in a previous posting that Catholicism incorporated many pagan practices AND that our Christian holidays have been influenced by (or were coopted from - as was the case with Christmas) from paganism.
.
You've agreed that the RC church was influenced by paganism and incorporated pagan practices (and not just holiday observance). Christian denominations sprung from this parent church - the pagan-influenced RC church. A seed doesn't fall far from the tree.
.
BTW, I didn't get the sense that Shawn was attacking you in any way in his post.

Apr 8, 2008 9:14 AM

Brian Tubbs :

Migisi,

You've adopted the Catholic perspective on other Christian denominations. It's not an accurate perspective. Some of the Protestant denominations are direct spin-offs of Catholicism, and have retained much of RC theology and many of its trappings. But this not the case across the board.

Even more important, the Roman Catholic Church didn't really become the Roman Catholic Church until AFTER Constantine. Prior to Christianity becoming the favored religion of the Roman Empire, you simply had "the Christian church," which some early church leaders called "catholic" (meaning "universal"), but they did so with a small "c."

The Roman Catholic Church was the institution that came out of the IMPERIAL church, and it was completely based on (and I would say "sold out to") the notion that Popes and Councils can pass on NEW revelation from God with the same authority that the original apostles had. This is completely contrary to Scripture.

I mean no disrespect to my Catholic friends, but the Roman Catholic Church has gone way beyond the original, core doctrines that historic Christianity was built upon. And Martin Luther wasn't the first person to say that.

Apr 8, 2008 10:36 AM

Pink :

.
I've heard that story about a special part of the church that was separate from Catholicism from the early days for as long as I can remember. And, they were supposed to be Baptists, right?
.
Right.
.
Historically all of those various segments of religiosity were brought under the aegis of the Catholic Church--fell away--and were brought back. The Catholic Church was downright corrupted by its leadership and that had more to do with the creation of denominations than anything else.
.
Even the Church of England was a corrupt break-a-way from the corrupt R.C. Church. Corruption seems to be the main stream of just about every form of leadership civilization has known. I think of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark who says, "Things rank and gross in nature possess it merely that it should come to this..."
.
Oh, well....

Apr 8, 2008 10:51 AM

Brian Tubbs :

I've heard that story about a special part of the church that was separate from Catholicism from the early days for as long as I can remember. And, they were supposed to be Baptists, right?

You are referring to the Baptist Landmarkism movement, the Trail of Blood adherents, and all that crowd. I've seen those "historical" narratives, and I reject them. So, you're wrong to associate me with that.

What I'm saying is what just about any church historian will tell you (other than perhaps some Catholic historians :) ), and that is this...

There have always been regional and doctrinal differences within the Christian community - going back to the time of the apostles. Anyone who reads the book of Acts can see this!

Historically all of those various segments of religiosity were brought under the aegis of the Catholic Church--fell away--and were brought back. The Catholic Church was downright corrupted by its leadership and that had more to do with the creation of denominations than anything else.

That's an over-simplification of church history. It's more complex than that. For one thing, there wasn't an institutional, organized "Catholic Church" (capital c) until AFTER Constantine. So, from the first century through the fourth century, you had various congregations spreading throughout the Middle East, Africa, Europe, and parts of Asia - these congregations were united around some core beliefs (essentially the "fundamentals"), but they differed on a variety of other beliefs. And...

Add to that the Gnostic sects and other teachers and congregations outside the "evangelical" (for lack of a better term) fold, but who were making some in-roads into SOME of the congregations.

And...during this whole time...you've gone persecution off-and-on throughout the Roman Empire (sometimes quite intense).

Then...Constantine comes to power. The Council of Nicaea is called, and the seeds for the Roman Catholic Church are planted.

Even with the rise of the Roman Catholic Church, there was STILL diversity of thought within many of the churches (incl many under the Vatican's "aegis"). And there were "dissident" (for lack of a better word) congregations that never really cooperated with or came under the Vatican.

Even the Church of England was a corrupt break-a-way from the corrupt R.C. Church. 

Indeed, BUT...the seeds of the Protestant Reformation in England had been planted before Henry wanted his divorce. Surely, you'

Apr 8, 2008 11:38 AM

Pink :

.
No doubt.
.
I would have written a similar response.
.
I guess the final point has to do with the fact that religion in all of its forms comes into existence as the result of an evolutionary process.
.
I AM gone now, for sure.
.
Have a great day.
.
Back later.
.
:)
.

Apr 8, 2008 5:27 PM

Brian Tubbs :

I think religion - in all its forms - stems ULTIMATELY from the realization implanted within our minds that there IS a supernatural dimension to life. And from the recognition that nature itself implies a Creator and Designer. See Paul's letter to the church at Rome (particularly Romans 1-2).

Nature itself - both external and internal - point us toward religious and/or spiritual exploration.

Apr 9, 2008 5:07 PM

Migisi :

.
An interesting site, IMO.
.
Quoting from (and my bold):
A Brief History of Christian Denominations
http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/denominations/history.htm
.
"For the first thousand years of Christian history, there were no "denominations" within the Christian church as there are today.
.
"Various offshoot groups certainly existed, but they were considered "heresies" and not part of the Christian church. Most were small and, until the 16th century, were never very influential. From the beginnings of Christianity through the Middle Ages, there was only one the catholic ("universal") church. Basically, if you did not belong to the Church, you were not considered a Christian.
.
"The first division within Christendom came in 1054 with the "Great Schism" between the Western Church and the Eastern Church. (More on this in the article on Orthodox Christianity.) From that point forward, there were two large branches of Christianity, which came to be known as the Catholic Church (in the West) and the Orthodox Church (in the East).
.
"The next major division occurred in the 16th century with the Protestant Reformation. The Reformation was famously sparked when Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses in 1517, but "Protestantism" as a movement officially began in 1529. That year marked the publication of the Protestation, directed at the imperial government. The authors, German princes who wanted the freedom to choose the faith of their territory, protested that "in matters which concern God's honor and salvation and the eternal life of our souls, everyone must stand and give account before God for himself." {1}
.
"With its emphasis on individual interpretation of scripture and a measure of religious freedom, the Reformation marked not only a break between Protestantism and Catholicism, but the beginning of denominationalism as we know it today..."

Apr 9, 2008 5:25 PM

Pink :

.
Some teachers claim the Anabaptists represent a direct vein that pre-exists the Roman Catholic Church.
.
Here is some information: http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/anabapt.htm
.

Apr 9, 2008 6:36 PM

Brian Tubbs :

This is where definitions are so important. We too often read terms in articles like these - and project backwards. The right way to understand history is to put ourselves into the time period we are studying - understand the terms as the players of that era understood them.

The Apostle Paul wrote repeatedly to the various churches that they were all part of "one body" - the "body" of Christ. That is the universal church. But was Paul contemplating the Roman Catholic Church when he wrote this?

Hardly

Also...if by "division" the author of this piece means "disagreement" or "serious disagreement," then he or she is flat out wrong. One only needs to read the New Testament, especially the book of Acts, to see that there were "divisions" and "contentions" within the overall church - indeed, within many of the local congregations themselves. For crying out loud, read the letters to Corinth!

Apr 10, 2008 7:55 AM

Pink :

.
You kick against language games but you say, "...definitions are so important...", as though you recognize that meaning change depending on their context. I remember when it was so upsetting to me to recognize this "fact" of the times.
.
Think of jargon. Maybe that helps the reader have a better understanding.
.
I can give four instances of language for anyone that might be interested:
1.The sense (the possible meanings of the phrase)
2.The referent (the thing to which the phrase refers)
3.The addressor (that from which the phrase comes)
4.The addressee (that to which the phrase is sent)
.
For details on this, you can go to: http://www.iep.utm.edu/l/Lyotard.htm#SH4b . .
.
Once you get there, you can scroll down to the section that clarifies these four instances.
.
.

Apr 10, 2008 10:54 AM

Brian Tubbs :

You kick against language games...

Only when the gamesmanship becomes extreme and ridiculous.

...but you say, "...definitions are so important...", as though you recognize that meaning change depending on their context.

Definitions ARE important. Language is important. I agree. And, yes, words can and do change their meanings over time. We need to be aware of this.

But, earlier, you said that Jesus' message changes over time. I disagree categorically. The original intent BEHIND Jesus' language (and conveyed THROUGH the language of his day) is the constant. THAT does NOT change. It's our job to wrestle with the language as much (or as little) as needed in order to get back to that original meaning.

Apr 10, 2008 2:27 PM

Pink :

.
We are both correct in our understandings.
.
My point is that we are able to apply the message of the Gospel to our life here in this age as we apply our meanings to it. It is different because we are different and the times are different. If we come to the place where we are unable to apply the message to our present day circumstances, the message will have lost its power to influence us.
.
A movie came out in the 1960s (1950s?) with the title of, The Russians Are Coming. What that meant to the market in those days compared to what that meant to the market today confuses us.
.

Aug 18, 2008 2:11 PM

Guest :

Any biblical scholar will admit that the proper translation of 'Elohim' in Genesis:I26 is 'Gods' and not 'God', therefore Genesis actually reads 'In the beginning Gods made heaven and earth'.

Also, ALL Christian churches are astronomically aligned and many are also built on top of holy sites such as sacred caves and other important sites in ancient polytheistic traditions. Many great cathedrals are covered with astronomical and astrological symbols.
Then there is the common knowledge that all Christian holidays were changed to correspond with pagan holidays. All these factors point towards Christianity having strong roots in polytheistic religions and when you read the Bible with this in mind, it is easy to see that the writers of the Bible also thought that way.

There are many more convincing points I could note but it'd take a long time. All of my points can be backed up if needed, please look them up for yourselves if you don't believe me. I have long thought that Christianity is not worshipped the way it was intended, it has been somewhat spoiled by men that want to use it to exert control and gain power over the common people.