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.

"Christianity - Does it Depreciate the Natural World?"

Christians Depreciating the Natural Word

Although this is the title of the article (see background below), there is a break down between the title and the article.  What the article really postulates is that because of the Christian’s belief that there is a future beyond this life, they have little concern about the natural world.

Of course even a cursory view of the history of scientific study, inquiry, and discovery will reveal a very different story.  The reality is that with the coming of the Protestant Reformation and the Roman Catholic Counter Reformation, the theological groundwork was laid for there to be magnificent scientific discoveries. (See articles at http://alviesthots.blogspot.com/2012/11/christianity-is-it-opposed-to-science.html along with two accompanying articles).  

Truth of the Matter

In sum, the truth of the matter, genuine Christians deprecate the world as presented by the naturalist who presents either a less than complete verifiable scientific narrative or an unverifiable scientific narrative born of bias.  Because genuine Christians give truth an unequalled priority, they indeed cannot be comfortable with the secular naturalists views of the science.

Generalizations Abound

Those who hold this position must resort to anecdotal example and generalization to make the point.  The reality is that any argument that relies heavily upon these two sources for information is certainly to be suspect.  Even if the conclusion were true, the lack of factual data and the innuendo discredit the notion and especially so in this case.  Of course such characterizes much of the material that this and other postings call into question.

Fact Check

The problem with the anecdotal evidence presented in this argument is that the writer is presenting out of bias and not out of fact.  For example he wrongly attributes a quote to former Interior Secretary James Watt which if he would have fact checked would reveal it was wrongly attributed to him (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1339686/posts).  As well the fact that there are Christians who are involved, rightly or wrongly, in the environmental movement is not mentioned.  Such is the behavior of one who writes out of bias and not fact.

Reality, Science, and Theoretical Conjecture

There is a basic process to be considered.  One becomes more and more convinced of that with which one feeds one’s minds.  That is to say if one fills their thinking with the theoretical it soon becomes reality. 

The problem that the secularist brings to the science table is that they are so filled with the notions of secular naturalism that they cannot see other possibilities for reality.  Consider the following quote.

Dinesh D’Souza in a debate with Christopher Hitchens regarding the notion that everything has a cause observes, “…In the weird world of the quantum, we can find exceptions to that rule.  But quantum effects cancel out when you come to macroscopic objects and whenever you hear someone say ‘consciousness I really don’t know what that is but perhaps it is a quantum thing’ what he is basically saying is that he does not know.  …The quantum is invoked to explain things that are unexplained.” (see debate at  www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V85OykSDT8&feature=g-hist).

Such suggests that there are dead ends in naturalism.

Dead End Science

The point is that because genuine science constantly runs into naturalistic dead ends they have created a whole field of theoretical conjecture to include quantum physics, theoretical mathematics, etc.  Sometimes it is just plan difficult to do science in a closed system scenario when there are constant signs pointing to the fact that genuine science must include. 

The whole area of first causes is an example of such a scientific dead end.  The question that mystifies secular science is what precipitated the “Big Bang?”   Since it is not possible to postulate that nature big banged nature into existence and since it is an inconvenient truth to acknowledge the supernatural, science then resorts to quantum physics in which there is much speculation and theoretical conjecture.

Biases Exposed

The reality is that most of what passes for secular science today is an atheist bias or philosophy which then calls upon other more empirical studies to support the position.  This is not science, this is simply bias which grasps at science, physics, mathematics, etc. for support.  Of course genuine science cannot provide such support so we arrive back at the theoretical.

Faith in Fact or Theory

Now before one runs to the conclusion that one places faith in God, Religion, and Creation as a fact, consider the following.

Not one person alive today was there when it all began.  So no one really knows for sure so the prudent person is left with a choice.  It is as follows.  Should one place their faith in a closed system theory which constantly leads to dead ends or should one place their faith in an open system theory that answers many of the questions posed by the previous theory?

Should one place their faith in a closed system that is founded more upon the mores of a particular social system that proposes relative, secular, humanistic truth or in an open system that postulates transcendent, universal, and objective truth?  While one can make that choice the outcomes of that choice are beyond one’s control and should be considered very carefully.

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.

TRUTH SYSTEMS COMPARED AND CONTRASTED

The two previous essays asked three questions.  What is the foundation upon which one's truth paradigm is constructed?  Is it solid enough that it cannot be destructed?  If the foundation of one's truth paradigm is destructed, what will that do to the truth paradigm?

Then two different theories were explored, though not comprehensively.  The purpose was not to completely exhaust all argument appropriate to each but to provoke the reader to make two examinations.

First, the challenge was to examine the veracity of the foundation upon which one’s truth paradigm is constructed.

Second, the challenge was to examine the validity of the truth paradigm itself.

As you read the following may you make these two assessments of your truth paradigm.

ASSUMPTIONS

Life is filled with assumption both known and unknown. These essays are no different, thus there are at least three assumptions present herein. 

Theories:  The first assumption is that these are theories.  Of course those who embrace a particular position would argue against such being so.  However, for the sake of the argument the term was employed.

Two systems:  The second assumption is that there are only two truth systems.  Of course post-modernism was referenced which some might argue is a third category but since in its simplest form it is both skeptical of and rejecting of there being truth, it was not considered.

Truth and Reality:  The third assumption is that truth could be employed to describe both truth and reality.  As was noted the discussion which would compare and contrast truth and reality will be left for another essay.

LIMITATION

The limitation of the discussion may present a problem for some but it lies upon the line between supernaturalism[1] as opposed to naturalism[2].  Although the discussion has implications for same, it is beyond the purview of this essay to argue theism or atheism and related notions. 

Although the outcomes of each system are a part of the discussion, they are not the primary focus of what follows.  Again that is left for other discussions.

CLOSED SYSTEM VS. OPEN SYSTEM

In the interest of expedience, instead of compare and contrast the abbreviation “vs.” will be employed in the discussion.

Material vs. Non-Material

The major difference in the two systems is the existence of a non-material or supernatural element in truth.  The proponents of the Open System may argue over the character and qualities of the truth system but do agree that there is truth that has its existence beyond the material world.  Those who embrace Closed System suggest that if there is any such thing as non-material truth, it is simply something logic, science, or theoretical science has yet to explain.

Danger for Both!

In both camps there is a danger which though different must be considered.  Among those who embrace Open System it is the danger of ascribing that which cannot be explained to some supernatural element or another.  In the extreme, this short circuits scientific inquiry.  Said another way, before some phenomena is labeled supernatural, one does well to must make honest scientific inquiry.

On the part of the Closed System proponent the danger is twofold.  First, it is to ascribe some unexplained phenomena as the substance of the superstitious or the ill informed and thus discount the experience.  This is not uncommon in the previously referenced writing of Hitchens and Dawkins.

The second is to assume that logic, science, or theoretical science can or will explain all that remains unknown or unexplained.

Naturalism vs. Supernaturalism

The Weight of History

To consider the argument in light of history let us begin with two assumptions.  First, assume for the sake of comparison that man’s mental capacities have remained about the same over the eras of his existence. 

Second, those who postulate a young age earth argue for an existence of between 6,000 and 10,000 years.  Assume then for the sake of argument the time period at the low end of a young earth age or 6,000 years.  Then add into the discussion that the science that underpins materialism has a “coming of age” date of AD 1500.

That would mean that for a period of 500 years or about 8.33 % of recorded history, naturalism has gained traction and become popular in some circles.  Before that time there is ample evidence for the dominance of the supernatural. One need not read far in Jewish history, the Quran, Greek Mythology, Hinduism, and Buddhism to find such to be so.

Of course the date of the invention of the original printing press is lost to history.  It may have been as early as the 13^th Century.  However in the middle of the 15^th Century the invention of moveable type printing made publishing far more efficient and thus books such as Charles Darwin’s 1859, Origin of the Species could with relative ease be widely disseminated.  Such things as this added to the traction that Naturalism was gaining.  Even so Supernaturalism has been by far the greater influence. 

The Weight of Data

Statistics having to do with current religious belief show that 82.2 % of the world’s 6.2 billion hold to there being a supernatural.  The sheer number of Judeo-Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus etc. that hold to supernaturalism cannot be easily dismissed.  While the naturalist looks with askance at those who have a high element of supernaturalism in their belief system, those of the orient have an equal view of those without.

Drawing the Line Between

Even among the 1.1 billion who hold to there not being a supernatural component to truth, one will often hear words that indicate and acknowledge the non-material.  For example, the notion of love, like, fear, care, and other similar concepts suggest that at the very least there are some elements of the closed truth paradigm that cannot be explained, much less measured.

May I hazard a guess?  Perhaps the line is drawn where it is because of the inconvenience of a non-material theistic element.  It would be of interest to hear an explanation of why the line is where it is.

The Argument from Example

It is true that there are lists of hundreds if not thousands of non-theists / non-supernaturalists who have lived during recorded history.  However, it must be remembered that while they certainly had followings, there was no way in which their influence could have had the impact it does today in our technological culture.  Yet they are there and are fielded as critical elements in the argument for the closed system.

However, on the other side of the argument are those who also lived throughout recorded history and who argued for the reverse.  In fact there were many more of them than the non-supernaturalists.

The Argument from Incident or Lack Thereof

In the course of the discussion one is likely to hear on both sides of one’s experience or lack thereof.  Such subjective truth is often generalized to be universal truth as opposed to being what it is, an isolated experience.  This is especially troubling for the one who builds his truth paradigm on some isolated experience or another.

The danger of this kind of a jump in logic cannot be over-estimated.  In reality it is not possible to move from subjective truth paradigms to objective truth paradigms.  It is just not logical nor is it legitimate. 

CLOSING THOUGHTS

The discussion has only begun, there is much, much more to be considered as one examines the foundation and structure of one’s truth paradigm.  However, this further discussion is much more than can be reasonably considered in this essay. 

The Curious Irony

However, there is a curious if not cruel irony that underpins and makes possible the discussion.  The irony is that the positions of those who are not just skeptical of but are opposed to Open System Truth Theory are not possible without the work and influence of those with whom they disagree. 

The foundation for much of the science that the skeptic claims as foundational to their thinking found its origin in and among those of Open System Truth Theory.  Other essays include an abbreviated list of the contributions of these men and women most of whom were people of deep faith.[3]  

Prominent among them are men such as Da Vinci, Mendel, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Ohm, Ampere, and the list goes on and on.  It is the order that these and others discovered and taught that allowed for the integrity of the closed system rationalists.   

Final Thought

The final thought is this.  Though at the outset of this essay the statement was made that, “Although the outcomes of each system are a part of the discussion, the outcomes of each system are not a focus of this comparison and contrast” please allow this one final observation.  

As with any idea, theory, or even unproven and highly speculative theory, there is an influence and that influence has one or more consequences.  One way to view the veracity of a truth theory is to push it out and view the logical outcomes.  I will leave it to the reader to push both theories out to their logical ends and then compare those outcomes. 

In an effort to do so one might benefit from a review of history.  There is a decided difference between those who embraced one theory and those who embrace the other.  Such a difference should say something about the veracity of each truth theory.

---

[1] Supernaturalism:  early 15c. "above nature, transcending nature, belonging to a higher realm," from M.L. supernaturalis "above or beyond nature," from L. super "above" (see super-) + natura "nature" (see nature). Originally with more of a religious sense, "of or given by God, divine; heavenly;" association with ghosts, etc., has predominated since c.1799.  definition available at http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=s&p=76&allowed_in_frame=0

[2] Naturalism from Natural: …as "of the world of nature (especially as opposed to man)," from O.Fr. naturel "of nature, conforming to nature; by birth," and directly from L. naturalis "by birth, according to nature," from natura "nature" (see nature). From late 15c. as "not miraculous, in conformity with nature." Meaning "easy, free from affectation" is attested from c.1600. Of things, "not artificially created,"… full definition available at http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=n&p=2&allowed_in_frame=0

[3] See Schmidt, Alvin  Under the Influence, republished under the title, How Christianity Changed the World