Christianity – Is it a “Knock off” of Other Religions?

The Assumption

Among some critics of Christianity is the notion reflected in the following statement.  “Mithraism is but the most striking example of the appearance of these myths and ceremonies prior to the advent of Christianity. They appear—in more scattered form—in many other pre-Christian religions.”

Statement found in pamphlet referenced below in Background Section

To begin with a question or two is in order.  Is there another religion besides Christianity that has been charged with importing its ideas and doctrines of from another religion?  Is there another that has been the object of such criticism?   The only other religion with which Christianity has such a relationship is Judaism.

A little research will reveal that the religion of Mithras found its origin in ancient Persia.  That being said, it occupied a minor position and thus though considered to be the god of light and wisdom it was largely unknown until popularized some years later. 

The assumption that what can be known of early Mithraism leads one directly to the prophecies about the coming Christ and therefore the Christ has no legitimate foundation except in the thinking of those who seek to criticize and discredit Christianity. 

Consider the following.

One insurmountable difficulty confronts the student of the Mithraic mysteries. For the Eastern form of Mithraism practically nothing except documentary evidence exists, whereas the Mithras of the Roman world is known to us almost exclusively from non-literary sources. That brilliant scholar, Franz Cumont, who died in 1947, has neatly summed up the position in his Die Mysterien des Mithra: 'It is,' he writes, 'as if it were only possible to study Christianity through the Old Testament and the mediaeval cathedrals.' Because of this great gap, the story of Mithras is bound to be incomplete and distorted, and those who wish to read it must wait for and assimilate the fresh discoveries which are made year by year.

Quote available at http://www.farvardyn.com/mithras.php

However, even if one calls into question this quotation, there are still serious problems with the idea of this religion giving rise to Christianity and the beliefs thereof.  A simple but honest review of the Jewish Scriptures (the Old Testament) and the dating thereof will lead to a much different conclusion.

At question are the dates of the prophecies of the coming Christ.  Such calls into question the whole presupposition necessary for the opening statement to be true.

Dating Backgrounds

The Persian Empire came to power sometime around 538 BC and would remain in power for about 200 years until conquered by Greece in 331 BC.  Then of course Rome conquered Greece in 323 BC.  The territories involved extended east to include the former Persian Empire.  The belief in Mithras was imported by Rome it occupied little importance in the religious landscape until it suddenly appeared in the 2^nd Century AD. 

Information found at http://www.religionfacts.com/greco-roman/sects/mithraism.htm

The article continues as follows.

The time period in which Mithraism flourished is better known, thanks to the archaeological evidence. The cult of Mithras appears suddenly in the 2nd century AD - hundreds of inscriptions begin appearing after 136 AD. It then died out with the rest of Greco-Roman paganism after the conversion of Constantine in the 4th century. Its sudden emergence in the Roman world has not been explained. According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica,

The most plausible hypothesis seems to be that Roman Mithraism was practically a new creation, wrought by a religious genius who may have lived as late as c. AD 100 and who gave the old traditional Persian ceremonies a new Platonic interpretation that enabled Mithraism to become acceptable to the Roman world.

Ibid

To suggest that Mithraism is the foundation of Christianity is to play fast and loose with the dates of both religions.  Even if one accepts the premise based upon an early dating of Mithras even that does not line up with the prophecies of the coming Christ.  In other words, the prophecies predate the Persian Empire. 

Messianic Prophecies Don’t Line Up With Assumption

Reference is now made to the dating of many of those prophecies.

Moses:  The earliest prophecies of what would turn out to be the Christ are found in the writing of Moses.  His writings (Genesis through Deuteronomy) are dated some 900 years before the Persian Empire around 1450 BC. 

The Psalms:  Another place in the Old Testament that a number of prophecies are found is in the collection of Psalms one of which was written by Moses, others by King David and his contemporaries, and still others later.  Generally it is believed that the Psalms were collected sometime in the 10^th Century BC.  That would place those prophecies some 500 years before the Persian Empire.

Isaiah:  Perhaps the most referenced book of the Bible when it comes of prophecies of the coming Messiah is that of Isaiah.  Written sometime around 700 BC, it too predates the Persian Empire by as much as 200 years.

There would be others who wrote of the coming Messiah.  The prophet Micah was a contemporary of Isaiah and wrote in the same time period.  Zechariah wrote just after the Persian Empire came to power, however, there is no evidence that he used source material and in fact the purist and exclusive mind set of the Jewish people would have precluded his doing so.

Discounting the Supernatural

The Bible is clear that there are certain parts of man which are “hard wired” into his believing int here being something beyond himself and beyond the material world.  For example the Bible speaks of eternity being in the heart of man (Ecclesiastes 3:11).  As well the Apostle Paul writes to the Roman Christians that there are two witnesses to there being God, one is a witness in the inner being of man and the other is seen in Creation. 

When one factors in that 83% of the world’s population believe that there is some form of supernatural, just on sheer evidence alone one must allow for the possibility of Christianity being valid.  However, those who refuse to accept there being a supernatural element to life as we know it must work hard to support their position.

Background

To see the list of subjects to be discussed in this series see my blog (Christianity – Is it a Faith Driven by Fear? http://alviesthots.blogspot.com/2012/11/christianity-is-it-faith-driven-by-fear.html).  Contained within that blog is a reference, 20 Reasons to Abandon Christianity and in that reference is a list which is the springboard from which this subject has been discussed.

The Bible - Is it Reliable?

Why is the Bible Suspect?

Unlike any other piece of literature, the Bible is suspect until proven otherwise!  Simply taking it as a piece of literature like any other literature the prudent person asks, "Why?"  If one doubts the Bible as being the word of God, why is it not left alone?  

Then when one factors in the supernatural nature of the Bible it really evokes a great deal of criticism.  Again there is the question, "Why?"  Why if you do not believe it to be any different than any of a number of other ancient writings would one feel the need to discredit it?

The Age Old Question

From the opening chapters of Genesis until the present there is a question that has dogged the pages of Western history.  It is ever present in a number of different forms but none-the-less is there.  The question is this, “Indeed, has God said…” (Genesis 3:1)?

Biblical Scrutiny

The Bible is unique in that it has undergone such vast scrutiny.  Yet, over and over again those who set out to disprove the Christian Scriptures and their message end up proving the veracity of same.  Therefore, they resort to finding some supposed error or another and thus claim that such invalidates the whole.

Why is this attempt at discrediting the Scriptures so?  The whole notion of Christianity not to mention Judaism is based upon the validity and reliability and thus the authority of the Biblical text.  If there is no validity to it, then the messages thereof may be called into question.  It is therefore no wonder that the Bible is under attack.  

What the cynical critic generally does is to point to supposed errors in the English text and then discount any explanations that rely upon the culture of the day, the difficulties of translating one language into another, different dating systems employed, and/or explanations that have to do with dispensational or covenantal theology.   Indeed there is a reason that the Bible is to be studied, not just casually read!

The Root Issue

If the Gospel accounts prove accurate, then the central figure of those accounts, Jesus Christ and all that He was and taught must receive careful attention.   As well, the Gospel's insights into the condition of mankind also must be considered.

If on the other hand, the reverse is true as some postulate, then the divinity of Christ, the teachings of Christ, and His death, burial, resurrection, and ascension may be called into question.  For that matter even the existence of Jesus may be questioned.  As well such allows for a high view of man.  

To say the least the view one takes of the Gospel accounts effects every aspect of one's life, even those which seem only remotely connected.

Plausibility Argument

In considering the following one must ask whether each of the items and what they suggest is plausible or one might say reasonable and likely.  Also keep in mind this is one plausibility track, there are others. 

The Bible was written over a period of some 1500 to 2000 years by as many as 40 different writers and yet the various books are completely consistent with one another.  Is it not plausible that there is a supernatural element to the writing?

The comparison of the Hebrew text with the Dead Sea Scrolls (discovered in 1947) gave evidence to the accuracy of the Hebrew text.  Is it not plausible that the text is accurate as written?

The Hebrew text contained 300 or more prophesies of the coming of the Christ, the latest of which was written some 400 before the opening of the Gospel accounts.  Is it not plausible that such prophesies are true and accurate?

Jesus fulfilled all of those prophecies.  If one was to calculate the chances of only 50 of the prophecies being true depending upon which 50 one chooses the chances of one man fulfilling those prophecies is something on the order of one chance in 10 with 157 zeros.  Does it not follow then that it is plausible that Jesus is the fulfillment of those prophecies and thus the Christ?

If Jesus is the Christ, then is it not plausible that His testimony about Himself and His teaching is true?

Compare one chance in 10 with 157 zeros with the Jesus Seminar which argues against the teachings of Jesus.

The Jesus Seminar

The arguments of the Jesus Seminar come from a gathering of supposed scholars which met to decide the validity of the Gospel Text.  Even from the left or liberal perspective there is a problem with the Jesus Seminar. 

It is that it is neither a fair academic discussion of textual issues nor does it conform to the basic assumptions of academic scholarship.  In fact, it would approximate medieval European scholasticism as certain dogma was assumed as opposed to beginning with a “blank” slate and from that begin academic research.   Such is explained in an article, “Unmasking the Jesus Seminar: A Critique of Its Methods and Conclusions” by Dr. Mark D. Roberts © 2005.*

*Article available at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markdroberts/series/unmasking-the-jesus-seminar/

Even the most liberal of academics would and has questioned the methodology employed and in fact in at least one case and perhaps others, left the Seminar for reasons of academic integrity.  The point is that if the main source for one’s conclusions is not reliable, neither can the conclusions reached be of any certainty. 

Wild Accusation without Foundation

Another rather ambitious statement found in the article that prompted this posting is as follows.  “These texts have been amended, translated, and re-translated so often that it’s extremely difficult to gauge the accuracy of current editions—even aside from the matter of the accuracy of texts written decades or centuries after the death of their subject.”

Once again such a statement is pure speculation as no foundational material is presented.  As well it demonstrates the ignorance of the writer in these matters.  There is no credible evidence that such is so.  It simply lacks support and therefore credibility.  However, it is consistent with the tone and purpose of his writings.

In reality the original documents were scribed in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.  Later due to the Western Church and the Eastern Church, Greek and Latin translations came into being.  Today’s translations carefully translated out of the original three languages and from the oldest and thus the most reliable of documents would in no way conform to such speculation. 

Rudimentary Investigation

Additionally, the critic of the Gospel accounts and of the story of Jesus makes several errors.  They fail to even do rudimentary investigation into the validity of the Gospel Text.  Consider a few.

Historic Accuracy:  The historical references in the Gospel text lines up with Roman and Jewish History.

Archeology:  Over and over again archaeological discovery validate places of which the Bible speaks.  As more and earlier archaeological evidence is unearthed, there is nothing comes to light to disprove the Gospel accounts but only to validate.

Integrity:  There is an internal integrity between the four Gospel accounts even though they were writing over a period of sixty years by four different writers with different purposes.

Verifiable:  At the writing of all of the Gospels, there were people living who had personally witnessed the events described or who were one generation removed from eye witnesses.

Dating:  The existing copies of the Gospel text are great in number (24,000) and dated close to the original writings.

Consistency:  The various manuscripts enjoy a certain integrity and consistency with the other manuscripts.

Prophetic consistency:  The gospel accounts are consistent with the writings of prophets dated hundreds of years earlier. 

It is therefore quite possible to conclude that as with the Jesus Seminar, the genuine “scholarship” of the below referenced source is non-existent and with such as the case much may be read into the text! 

As an aside, honest scholarship will yield that the manuscripts for the Bible are a great deal more reliable than the manuscripts of such men as Aristotle, Plato, and the story of Homer etc.  In fact, the sheer number of manuscripts and the dating which puts quite a number in the first century plus the consistency and accuracy across the various manuscripts speak to there veracity.

Why then does the secularist disregard the Scriptures and embrace these other writings?  The answer is found in the word “inconvenience.”  The Bible even in its most rudimentary teaching is inconvenient!

Background

To see the list of subjects to be discussed in this series see my blog (Christianity – Is it a Faith Driven by Fear? http://alviesthots.blogspot.com/2012/11/christianity-is-it-faith-driven-by-fear.html).  Contained within that blog is a reference, 20 Reasons to Abandon Christianity and in that reference is a list which is the springboard from which this subject has been discussed.

Christianity - Is it Homophobic?

What is Homophobic?

A good place to begin is with the examination of the term “homophobic.”  The word is made up of two root words, “Homo” or same and “phobic” or fear.   Of course “homo” refers to homosexual and “phobic” which is defined as “…Excessive or irrational fear of ….”  It also is inclusive of the notion of “…panic fear of…”

Definitions available at http://www.etymonline.com

Thus the term “homophobic” suggests that the Christian Church is in fear of those who identify themselves as or engage in homosexual behavior.  However as with other elements of the language there is a problem—a semantic problem!

Semantics Problem

The problem is not so much that the Christian is afraid of homosexuality as much as the move to redefine anything that Christians say that is less than supportive and accepting of homosexuality as “homophobic.”  This makes no sense logically and as well semantically. 

Applying this same semantic logic to other matter with which one might disagree would test the validity of the term.  Let us say for example, one expresses dislike of Wal-Mart.  So then does that make one “Wallyophobic?”  What about someone who does not like Ford automobiles and expression his opinion.  Does that make such a person “Fordophobic?”

One may smile at the ridiculousness of those terms but there is a great issue.  Such a distortion of the language and the sensitivities involved does not allow for honest discussion of the differences and of the issues involved in those differences.

However to view the original source that prompts this series of postings will show that such liberties with language and literature are a part of the anarchist, liberal, progressive strategy to disrupt and destroy American culture in general and Christianity in particular.   (See reference at end of posting)

Inconsistent Standards

Another issue to consider is that of the standards involved.  While Christians are disparaged for saying anything that can be taken, even remotely, as denigrating homosexuality, the homosexual movement is not held to that same standard. 

The same voices that demand Christianity accept their life-style and in doing so seek to impose their beliefs upon Christians, seem to have no trouble taking offense when Christians seek to share faith with them.  It seems that if you are going to demand your right to impose on one side of the question, one must be willing to be imposed upon by those on the other side of the question.  To not do so is to be at the very least inconsistent and at the most overtly unfair.

One need not look long at the news to see the great disparity in the treatment of both groups.

Fear and Acceptance

Repeatedly the Bible enjoins the Christian-the follower of Jesus to not be in fear or to “fear not.”  Depending upon the version or translation consulted those words may appear as many as 60 times in the English Bible.

The second issue that bears on the subject is that matter of acceptance.  Scripture is clear that those who follow Christ are to be accepting of others.  However to accept a person does not imply that one must accept his or her life style and in this case, the choice to engage in a homosexual life style.  Incidentally, this goes far beyond the matter of homosexuality to include quite a number of other issues in which the Christian is to be accepting of the person but not his behaviors (cf Jude 1:20-23).

Basis of Behavior

To consider the question in an effective way calls upon one to consider what is the basis for one’s behavior?  If on the one hand the unchanging Judeo-Christian Scriptures provide the standards of and basis for behavior then the question of homosexuality will be answered in one way.

If on the other hand the individual view himself as the basis for truth then such a person’s personal appetites are paramount in his authority structure.  It is then that the question will be decided in an all together different way—a way that is both personal and based upon desires.

So then key to the discussion is the question of what one is willing to presuppose to be true.   Therefore one arrives again at which of the truth paradigm is acceptable.  See previous posting, “Are These Truths Universal” along with the three additional related postings.*

*http://alviesthots.blogspot.com/2012/10/are-there-universal-concepts.html

The Effects of Authority Structures

The acceptance of such authority structures as one holds to be valid is not without outcomes.  This is much more than an academic exercise.  Such notions as one holds to be true is far reaching in one’s beliefs and of course such belief then has an effect upon one’s standards, attitudes, and actions.     

The problems come when one does not have a firm grasp on a stable standard for behavior.  Such a situation will result in a mindset that seeks external validation.  Such has been the case in the homosexual movement.  Individually and corporately there is a great need for external validation. 

One of the milestones for validation was gained in the 1973 edition of the Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders when homosexuality was no longer listed as a mental disease.  This came as a result of a decision by the American Psychiatric Association. 

Many places homosexuals were granted minority status.  Another instance of seeking validation was the 2011 end of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”   The 2012 validation of homosexual marriage in several states pushed forward the homosexual agenda.

Considerations

What is one to make of this notion of “homophobic?”

1. The term “homophobic” is another instance of the breakdown of the English language—to lump together all who do not agree with homosexuality into one group is inaccurate, unfair, and illogical. 
2. Dialogue is key to understanding and acceptance.  To grant one group in society special standing and thus treatment is to disadvantage others and thus make dialogue increasingly difficult.
3. To demand is to impose and to impose tempts the possibility of push back.  Such can only create further misunderstanding and separation.
4. The demand for external validation strongly suggests an internal validation that at best is weak.

Clint and Darrel (not their names) were in a homosexual relationship.  Their belief was to live and let live and incidentally they had done so for many, many years.  They had no agenda other than being left alone to live together and to collect their Persian rugs.  If you were to visit in their home as I did, you would find them to be typical of many couples, one outgoing and warm the other reticent and quiet.  To imagine that one or both of them would march for homosexual rights is something of a stretch.  The problem is that with all the notoriety of today's homosexual movements one can only wonder if they would be left alone?  

Background

To see the list of subjects to be discussed in this series see my blog (Christianity – Is it a Faith Driven by Fear? http://alviesthots.blogspot.com/2012/11/christianity-is-it-faith-driven-by-fear.html).  Contained within that blog is a reference, 20 Reasons to Abandon Christianity and in that reference is a list which is the springboard from which this subject has been discussed.