Christianity is Paganism

patcleaver
patcleaver's picture
Posts: 122
Joined: 2007-11-07
User is offlineOffline
Christianity is Paganism

All of Christianity can be classified into these groups:

1) that which derived from paganism

2) that which was derived from paganism through Judaism

3) that which derived from Judaism that is original to Judaism

4) that which derived from unknown non-Christian sources

5) that which is original to Christianity.

Based on what I know about Christianity, I believe that this should be the correct order of presumption.

Almost everything about Christianity is in group 1 or 2.

The rest of Christianity is in group 4 or 5, but we can never know which one, and should presume that the source is non-Christian because there is so much non-Christian influence that we are not aware of.

We should only believe that something is original to Christianity when we have some good reason to think that it really is original to Christianity.

--------------------------------

Almost all Christian Concepts are almost certainly pagan:

The Christian concept of god was derived from Greek pagan philosophers.

The Christian concept of Satan was derived from paganism.

The Christian concept of souls was derived from paganism.

The Christian concept of heaven was derived from paganism.

The Christian concept of hell was derived from paganism.

The Christian concept of sin was derived from paganism.

The Christian concept of original sin was derived from paganism.

The Christian concept of individual redemption was derived from paganism.

The Christian concept of individual redemption by faith was derived from paganism.

The Christian concept of god becoming man was derived from paganism.

The Christian concept of a divine Savior was derived from paganism.

The Christian concept of miraculous conception/birth of a divine savior was derived from paganism.

The concept of a Savior performing magic tricks was derived from paganism.

The concept of a Savior overcoming death was derived from paganism.

The concept of a savior ascending into heaven was derived from paganism.

The Christian concept of baptism for the forgiveness of sins was derived from paganism.

The Christian Eucharist was derived from paganism.

The Christian concept of non-hereditary priesthood was derived from paganism.

The Christian concept of fulfillment of prophesy was derived from Judaism, and Judaism derived it from paganism.

-----------------------------------

Many Christian Concepts contradict Jewish beliefs:

The concept of worshiping multiple gods (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) contradicts Judaism.

The concept of god becoming man contradicts Judaism.

The concept that a son of God would be a God contradicts Judaism.

The concept of human sacrifice for sin contradicts Judaism.

The concept of a virgin birth of a messiah contradicts Judaism, because the messiah has to be descended from David and the hereditary rightful king of Israel.

The concept of a magic-performing sorcerer-messiah contradicts Judaism.

The concept of souls contradicts Judaism which believed in resurrection of the preserved body.

The concept of a remote afterlife, that was not on earth, contradicts Judaism.

The concept that the messiah would not literally be the king of Israel contradicts Judaism.

The concept that a messiah would not rebuild the temple contradicts Judaism.

The concept that a messiah would not defeat all the enemies of Judaism contradicts Judaism.

The concept of symbolically (or literally e.g. RCC) eating flesh and drinking blood contradicts Judaism.

The concept of a non-hereditary priesthood contradicts Judaism.

The concept of salvation for non-Jews contradicts Judaism.
 

when you say "faith" I think "evil lies"
when you say "god" I think "santa clause"


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Would this use of 'paganism'

Would this use of 'paganism' just be a synonym for 'religion'? Otherwise, what does paganism mean?


Dogmatikon
Dogmatikon's picture
Posts: 9
Joined: 2008-12-08
User is offlineOffline
Assuming the OP is not a

Assuming the OP is not a Christian, what profit is it to assert that Christianity derives from pagan beliefs, comparing two "irrational" systems?  Does it, in your reasoning, discredit one? 

Or could it be that this is an example of pure polemic, designed to incite the almost inbred emotional aversion to paganism shared by most Christians? 

Either way, similarities do not imply causation, nor direction of causation.

Let me explain by allegory: one could speculate that, as a literary theme of betrayal is explored similarly in the literature of New Rhodesia (completely fake) and Zimbabambia (also fake), and as the Rhodesian literature was older, Rhodesian literature affected Zimbabambia.  However, would it not also be reasonable to assume that the theme exists in both cultures because people have experienced betrayal in both societies?

After all, even if both are linked in some great chain of causation to one source, there still must have been something in the human spirit which compelled that first author to express his experience of betrayal, and there must be a continued, cross-cultural experience of this betrayal which keeps it relevant and active in the society's literature.

The same reasoning applies to religion.  It is given that nearly all societies of man have, at some time or another, entertained a spiritual aspect.  It is likewise given, as you have so meticulously delineated, that similar themes arise within many spiritual traditions. 

On the one hand, as you have done, one could use these themes' chronological order to imply a chain of causation.  Alternatively, one could assume that the spiritual needs of men are similar enough, and that men's experiences of God lead them to similar conclusions (just as their similar experiences of betrayal lead to shared themes in literature).

Now, it must be decided which is more likely in the case of Christianity.  Christianity emerged from the Jewish subculture existing within a Roman-occupied Judea.  Is it likely that the founding Jews of the religion, the Apostles, under the sword of Rome as they were, would suddenly overcome their aversion to all things pagan when establishing the dogma of their new faith?  Is it likely that the early Gentile Christian theologians, the Fathers of the Church, who were quite opposed even to most things Jewish (see especially St. John Chrysostom's admonition to Christians cautioning them against participating in Jewish worship http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/chrysostom-jews6.html#HOMILY_I, would borrow from the polytheistic religions when synthesising that dogma?) would choose to borrow from the polytheistic religions when synthesising that dogma?

Or is it likely that the similarities account for common themes emerging from the shared spiritual experience of man, and that the fundamental identity of any faith is how it differs, rather than how it is similar to, the others in addressing these issues?

I take it as given that you disagreed with my post; do come quickly to the point.


patcleaver
patcleaver's picture
Posts: 122
Joined: 2007-11-07
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote:Would this use

Ciarin wrote:

Would this use of 'paganism' just be a synonym for 'religion'? Otherwise, what does paganism mean?

Fourth century Christians referred to all religions as paganism except Judaism and Christianity. However, I do not think that paganism really applies to Mohammadism because Muslims worship the Jewish Scriptures just like Christians and Jews.

when you say "faith" I think "evil lies"
when you say "god" I think "santa clause"


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
patcleaver wrote:Ciarin

patcleaver wrote:

Ciarin wrote:

Would this use of 'paganism' just be a synonym for 'religion'? Otherwise, what does paganism mean?

Fourth century Christians referred to all religions as paganism except Judaism and Christianity. However, I do not think that paganism really applies to Mohammadism because Muslims worship the Jewish Scriptures just like Christians and Jews.

 

Right. So if Christianity is pagan, and paganism is every other religion but judeo-christian, then paganism is just another word for religion and paganism doesn't have any meaning.


probabilityzero
probabilityzero's picture
Posts: 4
Joined: 2008-12-07
User is offlineOffline
Doesn't 'pagan' just mean

Doesn't 'pagan' just mean non-Christian/Jewish/Muslim? What are you trying to say?

Christianity is based largely on religions that came before it, which I think might be what you mean by 'pagan' religions ... is that what you are getting at?

Down is the new up.
talkingincircles.net


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
probabilityzero

probabilityzero wrote:

Doesn't 'pagan' just mean non-Christian/Jewish/Muslim? What are you trying to say?

Christianity is based largely on religions that came before it, which I think might be what you mean by 'pagan' religions ... is that what you are getting at?

 

The word 'pagan' has multiple meanings. Some use it to mean "not judeo-christian/muslim". Some use it to mean "new age beliefs". Some  include buddhism, some don't. Some include hinduism, some don't. If you go to the dictionary you get "follower f a polytheistic religion" and "an irreligious or hedonistic person", etc.

 

In the context of the OP, I'm inferring that 'pagan' is being used to mean "not christian/jewish/muslim"(correct me if 'm wrong). So if we use this meaning of the word, and "christian is pagan", then all religions are pagan. If all religions are pagan, then pagan has no meaning aside from being a synonym for religion.

I'm also of the opinion that just because the abrahamic faiths are based on some form of paganism in part, I do not consider abrahamic faiths to be pagan.


patcleaver
patcleaver's picture
Posts: 122
Joined: 2007-11-07
User is offlineOffline
Words do not have inherent

Words do not have inherent meanings. Most words have many possible definitions. The meanings of words are flexible and very contextual.

If I say " Christianity is just another pagan religion of the Roman Empire" that pagan has a different definition then if I say "The Christians converted the pagans by sword and fire - they systematically burned all the temple libraries and murdered the temple priests".

when you say "faith" I think "evil lies"
when you say "god" I think "santa clause"


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
patcleaver wrote:Words do

patcleaver wrote:

Words do not have inherent meanings. Most words have many possible definitions. The meanings of words are flexible and very contextual.

If I say " Christianity is just another pagan religion of the Roman Empire" that pagan has a different definition then if I say "The Christians converted the pagans by sword and fire - they systematically burned all the temple libraries and murdered the temple priests".

Huh? Who contended that words possess inherent meanings? The word paganism has become sufficiently ambiguous to where it can mean anything from polytheism, to any religion other than Christianity, Judaism, or Islam, devil-worship, witchcraft, nature worship, etc. (I think I'm beating a dead horse). Anyways, what is the meaning of paganism that you are applying here? If you're implying "any religion other than the Abrahamic faiths," then, by definition, all religions are pagan.

Although, I suppose this semantics exchange is irrelevant. It appears that the entire point of your thread is simply to lampoon Christianity and make Christians uncomfortable by pointing out how their religion is a plagiarism of other myths and belief systems. Yet, if that were the case, why didn't you just make your point clearer? Perhaps, you had other intentions?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
patcleaver wrote: Fourth

patcleaver wrote:

 

Fourth century Christians referred to all religions as paganism except Judaism and Christianity. However, I do not think that paganism really applies to Mohammadism because Muslims worship the Jewish Scriptures just like Christians and Jews.

"mohammedanism"?  wow, i think you're the first post-victorian person i've ever heard use that term.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
An interesting post.But

An interesting post.

But could it be that there's another explanation for the similarity of the world's religions?  Of course there is.  I would propose an outline alonog the lines that all religions share roots in a common monotheism of which the "pagan" religions were a corruption.  As clans and tribes coalesced to form larger communities, perhaps single gods of different names were assimilated into the new culture and pantheons were constructed in which the "new" gods assumed different duties.  All these religions retained elements of the original truths about divinity of which man was orginally aware.

I would further suggest that the return to monotheism prevalent among humanity now is a return to those orignals truths.  Christianity being that which most clearly represents those original truths in varying degrees among its denominations.

Using the logic applied to support the claims that Christianity is a mere rip-off or a continuation of pagan beliefs one could easily construct the argument that McDonalds is the reincarnation of Babylon since the Babylonians liked gold and built arches and McDonalds using golden arces as its logo.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:Using the

totus_tuus wrote:

Using the logic applied to support the claims that Christianity is a mere rip-off or a continuation of pagan beliefs one could easily construct the argument that McDonalds is the reincarnation of Babylon since the Babylonians liked gold and built arches and McDonalds using golden arces as its logo.

yeah, except that the biblical christ has a shitload more chracteristics in common with, say, dionysus, heracles, perseus, theseus, zeus, orpheus, osiris, horus, etc., than mcdonalds has with babylon, and the christian eucharist is a blatant modification of the rituals of pagan mystery religions like mithraism.  of course, you can make the typical retroactive argument that satan knew what christianity would be like and so he created predecessors that were demonic mockeries in order to lead assholes like me into error, but then you can hardly claim to be arguing from evidence, can you?

somebody more capable wanna take this over, please?  maybe link to the mythological hero checklist, wherever the fuck it is?  this is the second night in a row i'm incapacitated by acid indigestion, so i haven't the patience to do a thorough pwning, and this so deserves one.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
I never made the argument

I never made the argument that Satan fashioned any religion to deliberately mock or imitate Christianity.  Nor do I find it in the least bit surprising that a dim recollection of the original monotheism intrinsic to mankind should spawn religions remarkably similar to that which was orginally promised to mankind.  Certainly there are similarities since all harked back to a common origin.  That some of these religions were preempted by demonic forces, I do not doubt for a second but would not use such an argument here since it is not germane to an historical discussion. 

Nor did I ever accuse you of being an asshole.  You should lighten up on yourself.

I restate here my original argument, that is, that since all religions sprang from a common religion, and that all except Judaism were corruptions of that original belief, it should not be surprising that common elements are to be found scattered amongst the world's religions.  It's an explanation that deserves consideration.  Lord Whatshisname's mythological hero checklist doesn't affect this surmise in the least.

Hope your indigestion eases.  Rest well.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:I never

totus_tuus wrote:

I never made the argument that Satan fashioned any religion to deliberately mock or imitate Christianity. 

i know.  by "can" i really meant "could."

totus_tuus wrote:

Nor did I ever accuse you of being an asshole.  You should lighten up on yourself.

i was being facetious.

totus_tuus wrote:

Hope your indigestion eases.  Rest well.

thanks.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


patcleaver
patcleaver's picture
Posts: 122
Joined: 2007-11-07
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:An

totus_tuus wrote:

An interesting post.

But could it be that there's another explanation for the similarity of the world's religions?  Of course there is.  I would propose an outline alonog the lines that all religions share roots in a common monotheism of which the "pagan" religions were a corruption.  As clans and tribes coalesced to form larger communities, perhaps single gods of different names were assimilated into the new culture and pantheons were constructed in which the "new" gods assumed different duties.  All these religions retained elements of the original truths about divinity of which man was orginally aware.

I would further suggest that the return to monotheism prevalent among humanity now is a return to those orignals truths.  Christianity being that which most clearly represents those original truths in varying degrees among its denominations.

Using the logic applied to support the claims that Christianity is a mere rip-off or a continuation of pagan beliefs one could easily construct the argument that McDonalds is the reincarnation of Babylon since the Babylonians liked gold and built arches and McDonalds using golden arces as its logo.

All explanations that are not based on evidence are wrong.

Do you have any evidence for your explanation or is it just pure BS?

when you say "faith" I think "evil lies"
when you say "god" I think "santa clause"


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
The evidence for my point of

The evidence for my point of view that human religions share a common origin lies in the fact that so many concepts in world religions coincide.  God belief is not limited merely to those religions which had access to Greek pagan thought, but such belief spans the globe; certainly the existence of evil spirits does as well.  Sacred meals, a sacrificing priesthood, the existence of sin or taboo, the promise of a wordly incarnation of a god all can be found in religions from the South Seas to the Arctic Circle.

Granted, such a hypothesis is unprovable, but so is the idea that so many common elements arose spontaneously among European, African, Asian, and even American religions.  I simply surmise that it is more probable that such concepts share their genesis rather than that they are the product of the oddest coincidence in the history of human thought.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:The

totus_tuus wrote:

The evidence for my point of view that human religions share a common origin lies in the fact that so many concepts in world religions coincide.  God belief is not limited merely to those religions which had access to Greek pagan thought, but such belief spans the globe; certainly the existence of evil spirits does as well.  Sacred meals, a sacrificing priesthood, the existence of sin or taboo, the promise of a wordly incarnation of a god all can be found in religions from the South Seas to the Arctic Circle.

Granted, such a hypothesis is unprovable, but so is the idea that so many common elements arose spontaneously among European, African, Asian, and even American religions.  I simply surmise that it is more probable that such concepts share their genesis rather than that they are the product of the oddest coincidence in the history of human thought.

Assuming your hypothesis is correct...

If human religions (including Christianity) share a common origin, what makes Christianity the one true religion?

Better PR?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Cali_Athiest2
Cali_Athiest2's picture
Posts: 440
Joined: 2008-02-07
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:totus_tuus

iwbiek wrote:

totus_tuus wrote:

Using the logic applied to support the claims that Christianity is a mere rip-off or a continuation of pagan beliefs one could easily construct the argument that McDonalds is the reincarnation of Babylon since the Babylonians liked gold and built arches and McDonalds using golden arces as its logo.

yeah, except that the biblical christ has a shitload more chracteristics in common with, say, dionysus, heracles, perseus, theseus, zeus, orpheus, osiris, horus, etc., than mcdonalds has with babylon, and the christian eucharist is a blatant modification of the rituals of pagan mystery religions like mithraism.  of course, you can make the typical retroactive argument that satan knew what christianity would be like and so he created predecessors that were demonic mockeries in order to lead assholes like me into error, but then you can hardly claim to be arguing from evidence, can you?

somebody more capable wanna take this over, please?  maybe link to the mythological hero checklist, wherever the fuck it is?  this is the second night in a row i'm incapacitated by acid indigestion, so i haven't the patience to do a thorough pwning, and this so deserves one.

Not sure if I am more capable of taking over this, but this is a pretty good website I found recently dealing with the borrowing of ideas into christianity from other god concepts. I'm sure Rook would tend to disagree with some of the premises produced here, but it does contain some interesting factoids. http://www.pocm.info/getting_started_pocm.html

 

"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:Granted,

totus_tuus wrote:
Granted, such a hypothesis is unprovable, but so is the idea that so many common elements arose spontaneously among European, African, Asian, and even American religions.  I simply surmise that it is more probable that such concepts share their genesis rather than that they are the product of the oddest coincidence in the history of human thought.
Actually, that so many elements are common among religions is easily explainable and indeed do share their genesis: The common thread is humans.

Each concept finds its basis in some aspect of human nature: Survival, child-parent attachment, purposeful thinking, the assertion of order, social behaviors, etc.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Desdenova
atheist
Desdenova's picture
Posts: 410
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:, the

totus_tuus wrote:

, the promise of a wordly incarnation of a god all can be found in religions from the South Seas to the Arctic Circle.

 

Ummm, Pre-Christian Inupiat were animists. They had no promise, or even notion, of a wor(l)dly incarnation of a god. These people were too concerned with immediate survival to give more than passing nods to theology in general. Their rituals were based on appeasing animal spirits to improve hunts.

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.

Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.


Incognito
Posts: 36
Joined: 2008-04-15
User is offlineOffline
I'm a Christian, but I can't

I'm a Christian, but I can't refrain my tounge. The first post is 100% pure unadulterated bull shit!

He has commited the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (false cause). If you don't know what this is, look it up. Just because two things co-exist, does not prove one is the cause of the other. A rooster might crow before the Sun rises, but the rooster does not cause the Sun to rise. Be comes after A, but A does not cause B.

The "pagan-parallel" theory, was refuted by scholars in the early 20th century.

Virtually no scholar alive today, believes Christianity borrowed from or was influenced by pagan gods. [see Mettinger, THE RIDDLE OF RESURRECTION].

And read "THE GOSPEL AND THE GREEKS," by Nash

 

Go to Youtube and type in "ZEITGEISTDEBUNKED" and watch all those videos.


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Incognito wrote:Virtually no

Incognito wrote:

Virtually no scholar alive today, believes Christianity borrowed from or was influenced by pagan gods.

 

HAHAHAHAAMWHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAMWNAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAEHEHEHEHHAHAHAHAHOHOHOHOHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

 

:cough:

 

HWHAHAHAHAHEWMWMAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!


Incognito
Posts: 36
Joined: 2008-04-15
User is offlineOffline
It's easy to hide behind

It's easy to hide behind laughing when one does not know anything about the subject material.

 

TND Mettinger, a famous Swedish scholar, who is not a Christian, did a survey on contemporary scholarship. In his recent book "THE RIDDLE OF RESURRECTION," he says that most scholars in the world today, do not believe there were any pre-Chrisian god's that parallel the death and resurrection of Christ.  The scholars who are open to the possibility that there were such god's, you can count these scholars on the fingers of one hand.

The book is detailed, but worth reading.


patcleaver
patcleaver's picture
Posts: 122
Joined: 2007-11-07
User is offlineOffline
Incognito wrote:I'm a

Incognito wrote:

I'm a Christian, but I can't refrain my tounge. The first post is 100% pure unadulterated bull shit!

He has commited the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (false cause). If you don't know what this is, look it up. Just because two things co-exist, does not prove one is the cause of the other. A rooster might crow before the Sun rises, but the rooster does not cause the Sun to rise. Be comes after A, but A does not cause B.

The "pagan-parallel" theory, was refuted by scholars in the early 20th century.

Virtually no scholar alive today, believes Christianity borrowed from or was influenced by pagan gods. [see Mettinger, THE RIDDLE OF RESURRECTION].

And read "THE GOSPEL AND THE GREEKS," by Nash

Go to Youtube and type in "ZEITGEISTDEBUNKED" and watch all those videos.

----------------------------------

It's easy to hide behind laughing when one does not know anything about the subject material.

TND Mettinger, a famous Swedish scholar, who is not a Christian, did a survey on contemporary scholarship. In his recent book "THE RIDDLE OF RESURRECTION," he says that most scholars in the world today, do not believe there were any pre-Chrisian god's that parallel the death and resurrection of Christ.  The scholars who are open to the possibility that there were such god's, you can count these scholars on the fingers of one hand.

The book is detailed, but worth reading.

The logical fallacy that you are committing is called "appeal to authority" or "argument from authority". Almost all Christian Bible scholars are unable to overcome their prejudices and biases about the bible, and that renders them incompetent to be scholars in the field in which they can not overcome their biases. Most Christian Bible Scholars are engaged in wishful thinking and rationalization - they are insane quacks. Historians laugh at Christian Bible Scholars - Christian Bible Scholars are superstitious idiots.  How could you cite these crackpots as authority for anything? Why would you think that we would take the word of prejudiced religious bigots regarding the truth of their psychotic delusions?

You're using a straw man argument. I never claimed that the death and resurrection of Christ was exactly the same as the death and resurrection of previous pagan Gods. Heracles dies and is cremated and then his soul rises to Mt. Olympus and he becomes a God. Caesar tragically dies, but his soul is seen by hundreds rising from his funeral pyre toward heaven, and the Senate declares that he is a God. Obviously the Jesus story in which Jesus dies and is entombed and resurrects and arises into heaven as a God is just a revision of the Heracles story and similar pagan defeat and surprise triumph stories. All I am claiming is that the similarities between pagan stories and the Jesus story prove that the Jesus story is just fictional.

Your claim that I committed a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy is incorrect because its well known that fictional stories often copy ideas from previous fictional stories. We would not expect a true story to copy ideas from previous Jewish Scripture or Pagan religious beliefs.

These pagan ideas almost certainly existed before they were incorporated into the Christian mythology. Its a fact that new religions evolve from older religions. Its a fact that people write new stories that incorporate ideas from older stories.

If you disagree with any of the statements in the OP, then just present evidence that Christianity included it before it known to the pagans.

when you say "faith" I think "evil lies"
when you say "god" I think "santa clause"