Why is the Bible wrong?

by StinkyPantz 108 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  hooberus

  It has been alleged that New Testament Christianity actually came from pagan sources such as dionysus, osiris, mithras, attis, adonis, etc. an internet site was provided earlier. I have read some on this site. I have also gone to various encyclopedias and have read some of the mythic accounts of the lives of these proposed sources for Christianity. Here are some preliminary thoughts of mine.

  • The accounts of the lives of these gods are very mythical, whereas the accounts given in the new Testament are written in the historical.
  • A reading of the complete lives of these mythical characters (and not just certain parts) shows them to be as a whole very different from Jesus.
  • While the accounts of these myths are as a whole very different from the accounts of Jesus, it is claimed by some that there are parallels which indicate that certain aspects of the life of Christ were borrowed from these pagan sources.
• 

  hooberus

  I printed and read the section on "mithras" from the pagan site as well as read several encyclopedia arcticles. I also read much of the arcticle below:

  Download Shawn Meyer's paper on Mithraism, prepared for Norman Geisler for his apologetics course (he received an A!).
• 

  hooberus

  While it is true that crosses and crusifixion predated Christianity the claim has been made by some that before Christ there were other religious figures who were crucified. The Pagan Origins site under "dionysus" depicts a carving of a human-like figure on a cross with the name "bakkus" and then states "This image was made two hunded years before Christians first pictured Christ on the cross."

  Does anyone know if this caving contains an actual date?

  If it doesn't contain an actual date then how was it dated and is this date generally accepted?

  Also the cliam that the carving was made two hundred years before Christains first pictured Christ on the cross (if true) would not necessarily mean that the carving itself pre-dated the Chistian message of Christ crucified. It may only show that it pre-dated Christian pictures or carvings of this event. (The early Christians many of whom were jewish might have been opposed to images.)

  In the sites description of the legend of dionysus, he dionysis "was torn apart by the Titans, boiled, and eaten. Only leaving his heart." This seems to be a very different manner of death than crucifixion and would make this carved image seem to be later than the original legend. Since the original story of dionysis gives a manner of death very different from crucifixon it makes one ask: From where did the followers of dionysis get the idea of him being crucified? Perhaps this was an interpolation from Christianity and not the other way around.
• 

  peacefulpete

  I commend you for even looking this material up whatever your motives are. It will I'm afraid take more than 2 days to be even slightly knowledgable on this vast subject. It took me nearly two years of study reading around 20 books on this and related subjects to get a feel for this material. It required me to rethink more than the simple facts of history but to learn to stop thinking like a fundementalist and more like a researcher. Your comment that said you only read "some" of the web site but yet felt able to draw a conclusion says to me that you are not seeking knowledge as much as ammo.
  But back to the subject. Anyone can tell you for instance that the Roman theology was deeply indebted to the Greeks. How do we know this? Is it not due to the similarity of their gods? And the stories while different in purpose share imagery and elements. This similarity coupled with the known contact between these two cultures leads an objective man to conclude that the religion of the Romans drew from the older Greek mythology for ideas. The similarities of Jesus story elements with that of Buddah, Krishna and other legends such as Dionysus are equally obvious. Again the purpose or setting of some of the motifs may differ, and the specifics of the worship may differ just as this is so between the Roman and Greek gods, but the legendary elements in the story betray what sources influenced the writers. No the Jesus story was not a simple zerox of one legend. It was an amalgum of a dozen or so popular myths woven around political and religious realities. Continue your research if truth is what you are after. Your questions beg answer and a humble man will realize that he will not get these answers from simple reflection upon the few facts that you now know. Such a subject merits more than 2 days. I was unable to open the link you provided but I have read the work of other Christian apologists on this topic. I suggest you read the arguements first before reading the rebuttals as often in any controvery a spin is put on the opponent's thoughts that never was intended by the person. Or often strawman arguements are used to cloud the issues. It is as you know my contention that this is the case when dealing with Christian origins. Being aware of this and yet saying you wish to understand our position it would be only logical for you to read the books that shaped our thinking.. Invest a few bucks in books as these are much more conducive to study than web surfing in my opinion. And I do not mean books by Baptist theologians. Go to the works of people who have a view counter to yours as this will aquaint you with the the facts from a foreign perspective. This is what learning involves doing. Then after doing that read the Christian apologetical works to see if in fact they have legitimate points or are missing the point. I will not spoon feed you. You will if sincere take the effort to do the work yourself.

  Edited by - peacefulpete on 11 February 2003 2:51:49
• 

  hooberus

  peacefulpete, while I may be recent to the study of "pagan origins" proposed for Christianity, I am not recent to the study of the formation of Christianity from Judiasm. The messianic concepts found in Christianity are clearly found in the Hebrew Old Testament as well as other Jewish writings. The New Testament clearly gives its source (by quoting approx. 300 times) as being the Old Testament. The concepts of Christianity such as a suffering messiah are so Jewish, that any pagan source is unnecessary. Since the continuation from the Hebrew Old Testament through the Septuigint as well as other Jewish writings between the Testaments is an unbroken messianic hope, and since this is a fact, any other proposed sources which are not mentioned in the NT should rightly be viewed skeptically.

  This does not mean however that I will not look at he data though. So far It seems problematic to compare for example the death of "dionysus" by being "torn apart by the Titans, boiled and eaten, with only his heart remaining", to the death and resurrection of Christ. Also while Hellenism clearly influenced the culture of the Jews, the Jewish religion remained much more resistant. This can be especially seen in the attempted forced worship of "dionysus" (see 2 Maccabees 6:7) thrust upon the Jews during Hellenistic times which led to the Maccabean revolt ! Pious Jews with separatist beliefs similar to the Pharasees were the ones who supported this revolt against the attempted worship of this false god. Therefore it is very problematic to claim that Paul (a Pharasee) would incorporate elements of the myth of "dionysus" into the Jewish messianic hope.

  I would agree that in the centuries after the New testament was written that some pagan ideas were incorporated into Christianity such as the December 25 date (mid fourth century). Other items of paganism also seemed to have made it into Roman Catholicism. But the basics for New Testament Christianity come clearly from the Old Testament as well as the eyewitness testimony of the disciples themselves 2 Peter 1:16-17.

  Edited by - hooberus on 11 February 2003 17:9:39
• 

  seedy3

  The accounts of the lives of these gods are very mythical, whereas the accounts given in the new Testament are written in the historical.

  The idea that "Those other Gods are myth and Jesus is historical" is very not true. There is no more historical evidence for Jesus then there is for the other "Man/Gods. During the fist half of the first century there was not one single solitary word written about the Jesus of the bible. Also during the last half of the 1st century BC to the first half of the 2nd century AD there were no less then 8 Jewish messiahs, actually I think 9 if you count the Jesus of the bible.

  Even the early church fathers knew there was a profound simularity of the "Myths" to Jesus on the website mentioned earlier he uses quite a few quotes from Justin Martyr to show this here is a couple of the quotes on this particular topic.

  "we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter"? {St. Justin Martyr, First Apology]

  He went on to say that the only reason of the simularities is the demons set out to make it look like these other gods were infact the messiah, they read the scriptures and set up a fake messiah in the form of these other God/Men to fool mankind. So really the early christians did know that the simularities was profound.

  A reading of the complete lives of these mythical characters (and not just certain parts) shows them to be as a whole very different from Jesus.

  This is very true, much the same as a Volkswagon is different then a Rolls Royce. The point on the Website is not to show that Jesus is an exact copy, but just a new model of an old concept.

  While the accounts of these myths are as a whole very different from the accounts of Jesus, it is claimed by some that there are parallels which indicate that certain aspects of the life of Christ were borrowed from these pagan sources

  There is as much difference between Attis and Mithras and there is between Jesus and Mithras or Attis. Just becasue he is different does no make his story any less mythical.

  The Christinaity that we see today is more or less a Paulien version, it was what was established by the Church of Rome blessed by Constintine, who made all other forms of christianity or pagan religions against the law and punisable by death. Roman Christianity didn't come to popularity becasue it was true, it came about becasue it was forced down the throuts of every man woman and child not in hiding.

  Eventually all of the other forms of christianity was wiped out and their writings burned and the only thing left was Roman christianity, up until John Calvin and Martin Luther came on the scene. Then started the reformation period and we now have Protestants. But excpt for a few things Protestants still hold on to the same mythology as did the Romans, they just did it differently.

  I guess the point really is, that the ancient "Myth" beleivers beleived that their God/Man was a true and real as you do that Jesus is true and real. The idea that Jesus is real becasue there is the bible is proposterious, The writings of the ancient pagans are lost becasue the early christion fathers had them burned and destroyed to get rid of the competition. The gospels wer not written by anyone that KNEW Jesus, that is virtually a proven fact. The only writings that are known to have existed prior to about 150ad were some of the letters that were wrote by Paul and his followers, nothing more. There is an arguement that mark may have been written in the 1st century, but if it had been it was not public knowlege as the 2nd century leaders never refer to it at all until after about 150ad.

  You made the statement that you read "some" of that website, well start at the begining and go to near the end. it will take a bit of time but is well worth it. Itm ay not convince you that Jesus is a myth, but it will give you an idea as to why many of us do.

  Seedy
• 

  peacefulpete

  hooberus...baby steps. your programming has made you as resistant to change as my programing was. Your contention that the Christian theology was a continuation of Judaism is of course partly true. It is however true that Judaism was not one religion. Various sects had adopted great amounts of the wisdom of the Babylonians, persians, and Greeks. It is possible that the Christian sect saw itself as more of a continuation of these more enlightened forms of Juaism. It is near impossible to determine whether the Christians independently syncretized Jewish and Pagan concepts or simply learned this approach from the Jewish sects that comonly did so. The Jewish books that became the OT were still a work in process during this period of Hellenizing. It is also the very theme of this thread that the OT theology was in fact also a product of the more ancient and influential cultures they were in contact with. So that you see commonalities between the NT and OT is not at all surprising.
• 

  hooberus

• The accounts of the lives of these gods are very mythical, whereas the accounts given in the new Testament are written in the historical.

seedy, my earlier point on the historical issue was in regareds to the manner in which the NT is written vs. the way mythology is written. For example even those who don't believe in Genesis would have to agree that it is written in a historical manner, while for example the Gilgamesh story is written in a much more mythological perspective. This doesn't in itself proove that the NT accounts are true, but is does seem to diferentiate them from mythological accounts.