ecco

There have been posts in this thread (including writings in the links) pointing to Christianity “borrowing” from Pagan religions. Others have postulated that Christianity “borrowed” from Judaism. It seems to me that the answer is ALL OF THE ABOVE.

Where they could tie Christianity in to Judaism in terms of “prophecies” they did so (lineage of Joseph, etc). Where they could make ties to Pagan rites, dates for the birth of Jesus and the resurrection, they did so.

This shouldn’t be surprising. They were trying to grow. The easiest way to do that was to get converts. Convert Jews by showing that their god was the same god as that of Jesus. Convert the Jews by showing that Jesus was the prophesized savior. Convert the Pagans by letting them keep their “holy days”.

That this was a damn good game plan is obvious from the fact that it worked so well.

RyanS2

The question would come, "Where's the original source?" Something Wells had a hard time figuring out. For instance, in Reverend St. Clair's "Original Sources of the Koran", he can't figure out where some stories of Muhammad were borrowed from the Jews or the Persians, because the stories were almost identical. As Theodore Reik points out in "Pagan Rites in Judaism", and Cross, "Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic", and again in Albright, "Yahweh and the gods of Canaan", the origins of the Jewish religion were as deeply rooted in paganism as anything else. Sales states in "The Koran, Preliminary Discourse" that:

"This whole doctrine concerning angels Mohammed and his disciples borrowed from the Jews, who borrowed the names and offices of these beings from the Persians."

You can find the same angels of the Bible and Jewish apocryphal writings in Babylonian mythology as well. So, tracing back the original sources of the Jesus mystery is just a tad bit harder than it seems.

Oolon Colluphid

I'm surprised no-one's linked Freke & Gandy's website (or did I miss it? ) at:

<a href="http://www.jesusmysteries.demon.co.uk/" target="_blank">http://www.jesusmysteries.demon.co.uk/</a>

TTFN, Oolon

lpetrich

Another well-known supporter of the Jesus-myth hypothesis, Earl Doherty, agrees with Freke and Gandy on the importance of the mystery religions; he also posits a development of a literalist viewpoint.

And the same can be said of Acharya S.

However, unlike either Acharya S or Freke and Gandy, who have New Age / neopagan views, Earl Doherty has a more rationalistic / naturalistic worldview, as implied by his discussion of the difficulty of grasping Hellenistic-mystical worldviews.

Earl Doherty: <a href="http://www.jesuspuzzle.com" target="_blank">http://www.jesuspuzzle.com</a>

Acharya S: <a href="http://www.truthbeknown.com" target="_blank">http://www.truthbeknown.com</a>

Vorkosigan

The truth, of course, is that the academy is no longer the friend of Christianity.

A truly scary quote. Does Bede honestly think that academicians should not adopt a neutral stance with regard to Christianity? Or should they stop short whenever their research challenges a central claim of Bede's superstitions?

Toto

I guess I made a mistake in starting a <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000014" target="_blank">second thread on this topic</a>. I thought this one had gotten too confused with all the New Age bashing, but that seems to be the way we're going.

Bede's review is discussed further in the second thread.

Bede has brushed this aside with the explanation that he was writing for a Christian audience. I guess he was pandering to the crowd, throwing them red meat. I am sure he believes that any true inquiry would show the truth of Christianity. If it doesn't, you have obviously made a mistake and need to rethink your position and not publish anything until you get the right answer

{edited AGAIN to correct link to other topic}

[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

Anunnaki

Toto,
Thanks for the short review of the book. I should not have started this thread by announcing that I`m 100% convinced that EVERYTHING to do with Jesus has been stolen from the Mystery religions.

I am however at a total loss to understand how the Jesus myth theory has been so quickly dismissed and brushed aside. I`m not a biblical scholar or well versed in history,but this theory is the only thing I`ve heard on the subject that makes any sense at all. Theres just no other reasonable way to explain all the similarities.
Surely Justin Martyr and the other early church fathers felt the same way about it. Why else would they have resorted to the ridiculous claim that all the earlier Mystery religions were products of the devils "diabolical mimicry".

I mentioned the book here hoping that I might gain some knowledge on the subect,but all I`ve learned so far is that hardly anyone has any interest in this theory at all. It`s hideous reception was expected from the theists,but I never thought it would get bashed by those who are supposably in search of the truth.

Toto

I think that the problem is that just mentioning the idea that Jesus was not a real historical personage gets Christians very upset and ends the dialogue. So people interested in continuing to talk try not to mention it.

Besides, most of the most vocal advocates of the Jesus Myth hypothesis have been mystics, not skeptics, and I think the skeptics 1) hesitate to side with mystics and 2) don't need to claim that Jesus was not a real person. It is very satisfactory for a lot of people to point out how far the church has strayed from the original words of Jesus. If there was no Jesus, you can't do that anymore.

lpetrich

I also think that it's a reasonable hypothesis; it nicely explains the Jesus Christ of Paul as well as of the Gospels. IMO, Earl Doherty has come up with the best case for Jesus-myth hypothesis that I've ever seen, and he's more in the skeptical camp than in the mystical one (Freke + Gandy; Acharya S).