New Age-prevalent or p***e?

[dave52_47]

It seems that today many in the Christian Community hold to the view that New Age is something that has 'come and gone' and doesn't warrant serious attention anymore. I personally believe that we have seriously underestimated it's penetration of Western society, and more importantly it's impact on the Church. What you think?

Dave

[bhuvana-mohan dasa]

Originally Posted by dave52_47

It seems that today many in the Christian Community hold to the view that New Age is something that has 'come and gone' and doesn't warrant serious attention anymore. I personally believe that we have seriously underestimated it's penetration of Western society, and more importantly it's impact on the Church. What you think?

Dave

Well, you may not have expected (or even positioned yourself to welcome) a response from me on this, but part of it comes as a result of a shared concern held by many Hindus in regard to the phenomenon of impersonalistic "feelgoodism" and lapse of personal accountability being promoted by bogus eastern Gurus, impelled by lust and greed, and the other part comes as a consequence of you having visited my User Profile (which demonstrates for me that you had entertained at least a momentary curiosity relative to either my person or my opinions).

It is easy for one to say that New Age is "bad" or that it can be eradicated by traditional methods, but i believe its popularity should be viewed as an expression of a commonly perceived need for reform in the practices in some western churches- perhaps a call to greater relevance in some areas (pertinent to environmental and ecological issues, for example) and also as a call to greater depth and expression of feeling in the performance of the spiritual practices of any given group. What has prevented these needed reforms is chiefly fear- fear of the "exotic" or (locally) untried, and clinging to supers***ious beliefs regarding possible outcomes of their implementation, promoted by materialistic media (TV, cinema, etc.). i personally believe that you, as Christians, make yourselves vulnerable to this fear (and hence, a ripe recruiting ground for the New Agers) by an indiscriminate dismissal of ALL that is useful and good in other religions, as well as reacting by increasing the polarity between yourselves and other religious groups, and attempting to justify that stance by viewing yourselves as occupying a given position on some "timeline" of prophecy- arbitrarily come up with by nineteenth century dispensationalistic evangelical theoreticians.

......and on that note, welcome to our Forum .

your servant,
bhuvana-mohan dasa.

[Libby]

i personally believe that you, as Christians, make yourselves vulnerable to this fear (and hence, a ripe recruiting ground for the New Agers) by an indiscriminate dismissal of ALL that is useful and good in other religions,

I think you make a good point, here, Bmd. I have to say, this very point nags at me, because I do see some good in all religions. But..what about truth? Isn't truth necessarily polarizing?

Of course, I often think no one on this earth really has absolute truth...and yet so many believe that they do. So, I guess, it's not really truth that polarizes, but so many varying beliefs about truth...beliefs that are so vastly different. THAT is polarizing.

[Trinity]

We should not incorporate the Eastern beliefs into the New Age. The buddhism tradition and the Hinduism tradition, are older than the Christianity and the Judaism.

Trinity

[bhuvana-mohan dasa]

Originally Posted by Trinity

We should not incorporate the Eastern beliefs into the New Age. The buddhism tradition and the Hinduism tradition, are older than the Christianity and the Judaism.

Trinity

Hey, Trin!

Rampant apostasy from the pure truths of the Vedas, in India, enhanced by Islamic, and later British colonialism, has significantly dimmed (what was once) the brilliant spirituality prevalent among the Indian people, considered as a group, and consequently (as we might expect) this cradle-land of spirituality has also given birth to the menacing New Age imposture. Hindus can hardly deny having provided, through ignorance of their own scriptures, impetus for this unsightly occurrence, and must accept a large measure of accountability for its consequences, acknowledging their own culpability in this matter, and working together to rectify the situation by setting a higher standard of education (in their own scriptures) among their own people.

ys,
bmd.

[dave52_47]

Originally Posted by Trinity

We should not incorporate the Eastern beliefs into the New Age. The buddhism tradition and the Hinduism tradition, are older than the Christianity and the Judaism.

Trinity

Trinity,
Are you saying that 'older' determines which is the true 'religion'? What of Babylon?

Dave

[dave52_47]

Originally Posted by bhuvana-mohan dasa

Hey, Trin!

Rampant apostasy from the pure truths of the Vedas, in India, enhanced by Islamic, and later British colonialism, has significantly dimmed (what was once) the brilliant spirituality prevalent among the Indian people, considered as a group, and consequently (as we might expect) this cradle-land of spirituality has also given birth to the menacing New Age imposture. Hindus can hardly deny having provided, through ignorance of their own scriptures, impetus for this unsightly occurrence, and must accept a large measure of accountability for its consequences, acknowledging their own culpability in this matter, and working together to rectify the situation by setting a higher standard of education (in their own scriptures) among their own people.

ys,
bmd.

Replying to your first post. Yes I did look at your profile. Did you also look at mine? I am Ok with that if you did-I haven't checked to see.

That's a pretty strong indictment against 'new age' especially since they use so much of the eastern 'perennial wisdom' in their eclectic views.

Dave

[dave52_47]

Originally Posted by Libby

I think you make a good point, here, Bmd. I have to say, this very point nags at me, because I do see some good in all religions. But..what about truth? Isn't truth necessarily polarizing?

Of course, I often think no one on this earth really has absolute truth...and yet so many believe that they do. So, I guess, it's not really truth that polarizes, but so many varying beliefs about truth...beliefs that are so vastly different. THAT is polarizing.

Truth is polarizing. Jesus Christ intentionally set Himself up as the standard by which all 'truth claims' would be measured by this 'polarizing statement' : "I am the way, the truth, and the life,...". I believe he purposely set up this dichotomy not caring if he 'offended' some. He offended many during His ministry on Earth, and exposed the hypocrisy and lies of the Pharisees while He was at it. He wasn't too concerned about 'PC tolerance' because no less than one's personal salvation (His purpose for coming) was at stake here. 21st Century Christians should take heed-myself included.

Dave

[Libby]

Yes, that's kind of where I started going in my first paragraph. Thanks, Dave. Real truth does tend to be polarizing.

[Trinity]

Originally Posted by dave52_47

Trinity,
Are you saying that 'older' determines which is the true 'religion'? What of Babylon?

Dave

Hello Dave,

The answer is no.

I wanted to mention that Buddhism and Hinduism are new for Westerners but not for Easterners. The usage of NEW is relative to where you live.

However, the Zoroastrianism, also an old religion, probably the oldest religion of all religions, had a great impact on Judaism and Christianity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism

Trinity

[dave52_47]

[QUOTE=Trinity;851]

However, the Zoroastrianism, also an old religion, probably the oldest religion of all religions, had a great impact on Judaism and Christianity.

Could you provide some specific ways that Zoroastrianism had "a great impact" on Christianity?

Dave

[Trinity]

[QUOTE=dave52_47;867]

Originally Posted by Trinity

Could you provide some specific ways that Zoroastrianism had "a great impact" on Christianity?

Yes.

Resemblances Between Zoroastrianism and Judaism.

"The points of resemblance between Zoroastrianism and Judaism, and hence also between the former and Christianity, are many and striking. Ahuramazda, the supreme lord of Iran, omniscient, omnipresent, and eternal, endowed with creative power, which he exercises especially through the medium of his Spenta Mainyu ("Holy Spirit"), and governing the universe through the instrumentality of angels and archangels, presents the nearest parallel to Yhwh that is found in antiquity. But Ormuzd's power is hampered by his adversary, Ahriman, whose dominion, however, like Satan's, shall be destroyed at the end of the world. Zoroastrianism and Judaism present a number of resemblances to each other in their general systems of angelology and demonology, points of similarity which have been especially emphasized by the Jewish rabbinical scholars Schorr and Kohut and the Christian theologian Stave. There are striking parallels between the two faiths and Christianity in their eschatological teachings—the doctrines of a regenerate world, a perfect kingdom, the coming of a Messiah, the resurrection of the dead, and the life everlasting. Both Zoroastrianism and Judaism are revealed religions: in the one Ahuramazda imparts his revelation and pronounces his commandments to Zarathustra on "the Mountain of the Two Holy Communing Ones"; in the other Yhwh holds a similar communion with Moses on Sinai. The Magian laws of purification, moreover, more particularly those practised to remove pollution incurred through contact with dead or unclean matter, are given in the Avestan Vendïdād quite as elaborately as in the Levitical code, with which the Zoroastrian book has been compared (see Avesta). The two religions agree in certain respects with regard to their cosmological ideas. The six days of Creation in Genesis find a parallel in the six periods of Creation described in the Zoroastrian scriptures. Mankind, according to each religion, is descended from a single couple, and Mashya (man) and Mashyana are the Iranian Adam (man) and Eve. In the Bible a deluge destroys all people except a single righteous individual and his family; in the Avesta a winter depopulates the earth except in the Vara ("enclosure") of the blessed Yima. In each case the earth is peopled anew with the best two of every kind, and is afterward divided into three realms. The three sons of Yima's successor Thraetaona, named Erij (Avesta, "Airya"), Selm (Avesta, "Sairima"), and Tur (Avesta, "Tura"), are the inheritors in the Persian account; Shem, Ham, and Japheth, in the Semiticstory. Likenesses in minor matters, in certain details of ceremony and ritual, ideas of uncleanness, and the like, are to be noted, as well as parallels between Zoroaster and Moses as sacred lawgivers; and many of these resemblances are treated in the works referred to at the end of this article."

Source: Jewish Encyclopedia
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...arch=zoroaster

The eschatological vocabulary is also similar.

Trinity

[dave52_47]

Trinity,
I asked for the similarities between Zoroastrianism and Christianity and you gave me a lengthy cut and paste about the similarities between Zoroastrianism and Judaism. I read through the whole thing and found only this reference to Christianity :

"There are striking parallels between the two faiths and Christianity in their eschatological teachings—the doctrines of a regenerate world, a perfect kingdom, the coming of a Messiah, the resurrection of the dead, and the life everlasting."

Five "doctrines' are mentioned in p***ing, but nothing specific about what it is in those doctrines that are considered 'similarities' between the two religions. Could you be more specific? I will answer in kind to details given.

Dave

[Trinity]

Originally Posted by dave52_47

Trinity,
I asked for the similarities between Zoroastrianism and Christianity and you gave me a lengthy cut and paste about the similarities between Zoroastrianism and Judaism. I read through the whole thing and found only this reference to Christianity :

"There are striking parallels between the two faiths and Christianity in their eschatological teachings—the doctrines of a regenerate world, a perfect kingdom, the coming of a Messiah, the resurrection of the dead, and the life everlasting."

Five "doctrines' are mentioned in p***ing, but nothing specific about what it is in those doctrines that are considered 'similarities' between the two religions. Could you be more specific? I will answer in kind to details given.

Dave

You can add this below to what you have already found in the Jewish Encyclopedia.

Zoroastrianism---->Judaism---->Christianity

Both see God as ontologically infinite, immaterial, transcendental, and unchangeable. Truthful and cause of the order. Creator and an***hesis of chaos. Immanent.
Both agree that in God’s essentia there is unity of multas personas.
That He is simultaneously self-united and multipersonal.
We have here a close connection with the Christian’s ontological trinitarianism.
Both share the same attributes about God.
There is a cosmic battle between good and evil, light and darkness, and angels with demons are involved. The humanity is in the middle of this conflict. The free will is a necessity. A Satan is predominant in the life of humans and into the state of the world. God will made his ultimate triumph against this Satan.
Both are sharing ethical equivalents about faith and the conduct.
Water and fire are agents of purity.
Continuing battle between truth and falsehood.
Both are sharing a lot of eschatological similitudes. Last judgement, resurrection, destruction of the world by fire, new creation, kingdom of peace and justice etc.

Book suggestion:

The Great Transformation
by Karen Armstrong



http://www.amazon.com/Great-Transfor...70/ref=ed_oe_h

The Epic of Gilgamesh and the Noah flood are also into a similar line of comparison.

Trinity

[dave52_47]

Trinity,
If I am understanding you, Christianity 'evolved' or was 'influenced' considerably from Zoroastrianism because of what I would call--seeming similarities. A more thorugh investigation will reveal the weaknesses in this argument-not the least of which are the post-Christian sources cited for many of them. Even the pre-Christian sources reveal only a slight similarity-if any at all. For a thorough refutation of these claims I would highly recommend this website:

http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/zoroaster.html

thanks,
Dave

[Trinity]

Hello Dave,

dave52_47: If I am understanding you, Christianity 'evolved' or was 'influenced' considerably from Zoroastrianism because of what I would call--seeming similarities.

My comprehension is that Zoroastrianism had preceded Judaism. Like the Catholicism has preceded the protestantism. Symbols and concepts p***ed throughout the ages. And, it is obvious for anyone that the Christianity was rooted in the Judaism.

A more thorugh investigation will reveal the weaknesses in this argument-not the least of which are the post-Christian sources cited for many of them. Even the pre-Christian sources reveal only a slight similarity-if any at all.

That was not the opinion of Fathers of the Church as Tertullian, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr. Even for enemies of Christianity as Celsus.

"The devil, whose business is to pervert the truth, mimics the exact circumstances of the Divine Sacraments...Thus he celebrates the oblation of bread, and brings in the symbol of the resurrection. Let us therefore acknowledge the craftiness of the devil, who copies certain things of those that be Divine."
Tertullian, late 2nd century CE, commenting on the many similarities between Mithraism and Christianity.

We should keep in our mind, in the time of the Fathers of the Church, they did not have archeologists and anthropologists. Also, all those similarities should not affect our faith. We can not say that God spoke exclusively by us.

Amazingly, that was a factor in the faith of C.S. Lewis. The Old Testament contains many prophetic signs about a Christ, but there were also other signs throughout the collective memory of the humankind. Signs that converged until the time of the arrival of Jesus.

For a thorough refutation of these claims I would highly recommend this website:
http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/zoroaster.html

I do not know where is the refutation in this website. And I quote the author:

"Some of the things listed above are actually true and confirmed by scholarly literature..."

In his text he is agreeing that similarities are existing, and even if they are not always totally alike.

Trinity

[bhuvana-mohan dasa]

Originally Posted by dave52_47

Trinity,
If I am understanding you, Christianity 'evolved' or was 'influenced' considerably from Zoroastrianism because of what I would call--seeming similarities. A more thorugh investigation will reveal the weaknesses in this argument-not the least of which are the post-Christian sources cited for many of them. Even the pre-Christian sources reveal only a slight similarity-if any at all. For a thorough refutation of these claims I would highly recommend this website:

http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/zoroaster.html

thanks,
Dave

Would you then agree, Dave, that these "seeming similarities" to which you've alluded could be said to support Trinity's claim of "borrowing", or derivation without providing historical verification of such??

ys,
bmd.

[dave52_47]

[QUOTE=Trinity;1044]Hello Dave,

My comprehension is that Zoroastrianism had preceded Judaism. Like the Catholicism has preceded the protestantism. Symbols and concepts p***ed throughout the ages. And, it is obvious for anyone that the Christianity was rooted in the Judaism.

It may have but that doesn't mean that Judaism has it's roots in Zoroastrianism. Your ****ogy breaks down with the Catholicism & Protestantism example you give. If you look back at the early church you will find the roots of protestantism which pre-dates Roman Catholicism. Catholicism did not create Protestantism. Christianity does have it's roots in Judaism but the last chapter is not written in Judaism yet. When Jesus is received as the Messiah, which according to even Jewish prophecy will happen in the future, then it will be Christian, just as it was with the disciples who were all Jewish - as was their Messiah. It is not one religion evolving into another form-but the fulfillment of God's plan of redemption.

That was not the opinion of Fathers of the Church as Tertullian, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr. Even for enemies of Christianity as Celsus.

"The devil, whose business is to pervert the truth, mimics the exact circumstances of the Divine Sacraments...Thus he celebrates the oblation of bread, and brings in the symbol of the resurrection. Let us therefore acknowledge the craftiness of the devil, who copies certain things of those that be Divine."
Tertullian, late 2nd century CE, commenting on the many similarities between Mithraism and Christianity.

Note that he is saying that the "devil' is "perverting the truth" denying that Christianity owes it's origin to Zoroastrianism or Mithraism. And I haven't said there were no similarities -only that it does not prove that Christianity
"borrowed" from it to establish their own religion. You tend to see all religion as evolutionary. I don't.

We should keep in our mind, in the time of the Fathers of the Church, they did not have archeologists and anthropologists. Also, all those similarities should not affect our faith. We can not say that God spoke exclusively by us.

Well, Jesus certainly did make that claim, as did the disciples and Apostles, and the Hebrew prophets before them.

Amazingly, that was a factor in the faith of C.S. Lewis. The Old Testament contains many prophetic signs about a Christ, but there were also other signs throughout the collective memory of the humankind. Signs that converged until the time of the arrival of Jesus.

You'll have to elaborate some on this one. It's not all that clear to me what exactly you are saying.

I do not know where is the refutation in this website. And I quote the author:

"Some of the things listed above are actually true and confirmed by scholarly literature..."

In his text he is agreeing that similarities are existing, and even if they are not always totally alike.

I guess you'll have to read it again. I don't know how you could miss it. He does agree that some similarities exist. He also quotes "post-christian" sources as the origin of some of these. You haven't commented on these sources? I'll wait on your reply.

Dave

[dave52_47]

Originally Posted by bhuvana-mohan dasa

Would you then agree, Dave, that these "seeming similarities" to which you've alluded could be said to support Trinity's claim of "borrowing", or derivation without providing historical verification of such??

ys,
bmd.

bmd,
I have provided and can provide more "historical verification'' for my claim, if need be. You have already told me that you do not put much credence in Historical documents because you don't trust the writers. You have stated this in an earlier post.

Dave

[Trinity]

Hello Dave,

dave52_47: It may have but that doesn't mean that Judaism has it's roots in Zoroastrianism.

A connection is probably a better word. Oral traditions have always preceded the writings. There are annals about the Mesopotamia flood that are older than the book of Genesis. And with the same similarities. Even the book of Genesis contain two sets of traditions, The Yahveistic and the Elohistic. Two narratives about the creation and the flood in the same book.

Your ****ogy breaks down with the Catholicism & Protestantism example you give. If you look back at the early church you will find the roots of protestantism which pre-dates Roman Catholicism.

Protestantism has borrowed many things from Catholicism. That is not a surprise and this happens in any schismatic occurrence.

Concerning the Early Church I recommend the reading of the Fathers of the Church and particularly the historian Eusebius of Caesarea. There was not protestants in the Antiquity.

Catholicism did not create Protestantism. Christianity does have it's roots in Judaism but the last chapter is not written in Judaism yet.

Protestantism has his roots in Catholicism because protestants accept easily the seven Universal Councils and the canon of the Catholic Church.

When Jesus is received as the Messiah, which according to even Jewish prophecy will happen in the future, then it will be Christian, just as it was with the disciples who were all Jewish - as was their Messiah. It is not one religion evolving into another form-but the fulfillment of God's plan of redemption.

I never used the word "evolution" in my posts. This is your perception. When two cultures or civilizations or religions clash, it is normal to see things amalgamating. Greeks, Romans and Arabs have contributed largely to the build of the western world.

Curiously, if I examine the systematic dispensationalism I can also say that the revelation knew many changes (i.e. with the distinctive covenants of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, etc).However, this is not my thought.

Note that he is saying that the "devil' is "perverting the truth" denying that Christianity owes it's origin to Zoroastrianism or Mithraism. And I haven't said there were no similarities -only that it does not prove that Christianity
"borrowed" from it to establish their own religion. You tend to see all religion as evolutionary. I don't.

I agree with you and that was the Tertullian perception in that time. However, notice also that they believed that the devil anticipated the future and that he had foreknowledge of God plan. On this I can disagree with Tertullian.

You'll have to elaborate some on this one. It's not all that clear to me what exactly you are saying.

C.S. Lewis and even J.R.R. Tolkien his good friend. Both had seen the myths as something that is not fairy tales (ex: Heinrich Schliemann had found the city of Troy with the help of Homer poems about the epic of lliad). In brief, there is truths in myths.

Here I suggest "The Power of the Myth" by Joseph Campbell.

I guess you'll have to read it again. I don't know how you could miss it. He does agree that some similarities exist. He also quotes "post-christian" sources as the origin of some of these. You haven't commented on these sources? I'll wait on your reply.

There is sources BC also, and many. The oral sources and also scriptures as the hieroglyphs and the cuneiform had preceded Jesus. There is similarities with the Horus life too (Egypt).

Trinity

[dave52_47]

Originally Posted by Trinity

Hello Dave,



A connection is probably a better word. Oral traditions have always preceded the writings. There are annals about the Mesopotamia flood that are older than the book of Genesis. And with the same similarities. Even the book of Genesis contain two sets of traditions, The Yahveistic and the Elohistic. Two narratives about the creation and the flood in the same book.



Protestantism has borrowed many things from Catholicism. That is not a surprise and this happens in any schismatic occurrence.

Concerning the Early Church I recommend the reading of the Fathers of the Church and particularly the historian Eusebius of Caesarea. There was not protestants in the Antiquity.



Protestantism has his roots in Catholicism because protestants accept easily the seven Universal Councils and the canon of the Catholic Church.



I never used the word "evolution" in my posts. This is your perception. When two cultures or civilizations or religions clash, it is normal to see things amalgamating. Greeks, Romans and Arabs have contributed largely to the build of the western world.

Curiously, if I examine the systematic dispensationalism I can also say that the revelation knew many changes (i.e. with the distinctive covenants of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, etc).However, this is not my thought.



I agree with you and that was the Tertullian perception in that time. However, notice also that they believed that the devil anticipated the future and that he had foreknowledge of God plan. On this I can disagree with Tertullian.



C.S. Lewis and even J.R.R. Tolkien his good friend. Both had seen the myths as something that is not fairy tales (ex: Heinrich Schliemann had found the city of Troy with the help of Homer poems about the epic of lliad). In brief, there is truths in myths.

Here I suggest "The Power of the Myth" by Joseph Campbell.



There is sources BC also, and many. The oral sources and also scriptures as the hieroglyphs and the cuneiform had preceded Jesus. There is similarities with the Horus life too (Egypt).

Trinity

Trinity,
What exactly is your point about the similarities? All I can see from what you are saying is that there are some things in some religions that are like some things in other religions? What does all this prove? And what does it have to do with the OP of this thread?

[Trinity]

Originally Posted by dave52_47

Trinity,
What exactly is your point about the similarities? All I can see from what you are saying is that there are some things in some religions that are like some things in other religions? What does all this prove? And what does it have to do with the OP of this thread?

Into all serious Universities the program of the first cycle in theology (Baccalaureate) includes a course on compared religions. Also, anyone can do a major in Religious Studies. One of my sons has a Baccalaureate in Religious Studies from the University of Ottawa.

That proves that Mahomet had also borrowed from the Judaism and Christianity. That was his raw material to reinvent the faith.

I give an example. We the Christians we had borrowed our conceptualization about the hell from the Greeks, and not from the Jews. The sheol is a very boring place, nothing happens there, a real waiting room, a darkness place under the ground. The souls are almost in a state of catalepsy. Otherwise, into the hades, the souls are awake and they can suffer.

That also proves that God is disclosing himself but men interpret these revelations with the help of the human language and by their world representation.

The relation with this thread and the New Age Movement is obvious. There is nothing new under the sun.

Trinity

[dave52_47]

Originally Posted by Trinity

Into all serious Universities the program of the first cycle in theology (Baccalaureate) includes a course on compared religions. Also, anyone can do a major in Religious Studies. One of my sons has a Baccalaureate in Religious Studies from the University of Ottawa.

That proves that Mahomet had also borrowed from the Judaism and Christianity. That was his raw material to reinvent the faith.

I give an example. We the Christians we had borrowed our conceptualization about the hell from the Greeks, and not from the Jews. The sheol is a very boring place, nothing happens there, a real waiting room, a darkness place under the ground. The souls are almost in a state of catalepsy. Otherwise, into the hades, the souls are awake and they can suffer.

That also proves that God is disclosing himself but men interpret these revelations with the help of the human language and by their world representation.

The relation with this thread and the New Age Movement is obvious. There is nothing new under the sun.

Trinity

Trinity,
I will reply to your your 'pagan source theory' first and in a separate post I will reply to the statement that the Christian 'hell' is a greek concept. It's a rather lenghty reply but I thought that it was worth the time and effort to present this side of the argument:

First of all Christians have nothing to fear about the comparisons that are made concerning Zoroastrianism, Mithra, etc, and Christianity and the similarities between them. I did the research after your first post and have found that besides the fact that the author of this theory (that Christianity must have been derived from Mithraism) is a Muslim (Yousuf Saleem Chishti) who is hardly unbiased towards Christianity; but he also believed that the doctrines of the Diety of Christ and the Atonement were pagan teachings- which he attributed to the Apostle Paul- as well as the Doctrine of the Trinity to paganism endorsed by the church fathers. I will begin with this quote:

“Mithraism". Some contemporary critics of Christianity argue that this religion is not based in divine revelation but was borrowed from mystery religions, such as Mithraism. Muslim author Yousuf Saleem Chishti attributes such doctrines as the deity of Christ and the atonement to the pagan teachings of the Apostle Paul and the doctrine of the Trinity to pagan formulations of the church Fathers.

Pagan Source Theory. Chishti attempts to demonstrate a vast influence of mystery religions on Christianity, stating, “The Christian doctrine of atonement was greatly coloured by the influence of the mystery religions, especially Mithraism, which had its own son of God and virgin Mother, and crucifixion and resurrection after expiating for the sins of mankind and finally his ascension to the 7th heaven.” He adds, “If you study the teachings of Mithraism side by side with that of Christianity, you are sure to be amazed at the close affinity which is visible between them, so much so that many critics are constrained to conclude that Christianity is the facsimile or the second edition of Mithraism” (Chishti, 87).

Chishti lists some similarities between Christ and Mithra: Mithra was considered the son of God, he was a savior, he was born of a virgin, he had twelve disciples, he was crucified, he rose from the grave the third day, he atoned for the sins of humankind, and he returned to his father in heaven (ibid., 87–88).” (Geisler, N. L. (1999). Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics. Baker reference library (490). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.)

To start with Paul did not teach a new religion or use existing mythology as sources for his teachings. The foundation of Christianity is built on the Old Testament, Judaism in general, and the life of a person named Jesus. If you study the Epistles and Gospels you will see that the sources of Paul's teachings on salvation were the O.T. and the teachings of Jesus.

Here are some comparisons of Jesus and Paul's teachings:

• Both taught that Christianity fulfilled Judaism.

-Jesus : "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets ; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Matt. 5:17)
-Paul : "Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes." (Rom. 10:4) "Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regards to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ." (Col. 2:16-17).

• Christianity taught that humans are sinful

.
-Jesus : "I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them." (Mk. 3:28)
"I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am He, you will indeed die in your sins." (Jn. 8:24)
-Paul : ".. all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." (Rom. 3-23).
"As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins." (Eph. 2:1)
"..Christ died for you sins according to the Scriptures." (1 Cor. 15:3)

• Christianity taught that blood atonement is necessary.

-Jesus : "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." (Mk. 10:45)
" This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." (Matt. 26:28)
-Paul : "In Him [Christ] we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace." (Eph. 1:7)
"But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Eph. 5:8) -(referring back to O.T. P***over, Paul said, "Christ, our P***over lamb, has been sacrificed." (1 Cor. 5:7)

• Christianity's emphasis on Christ's resurrection.

-Jesus : "He told them, 'This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day' " (Lk. 24:46)
"Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.. .But the temple he had spoken of was his body." (3n. 2:19,21)
-Paul : "He [Jesus] was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification." (Rom. 4:25) -(belief in resurrection was essential to salvation) "That if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." (Rom. 10:9)

• Christianity taught salvation by grace through faith.

-Jesus : "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life." (Jn. 3:36; cf 3:16; 5:24; Mk. 1:15)
-Paul : "It is by grace you have been saved, through faith and this not of yourselves, it is the gift of God-not by works, so that no one can boast." (Eph. 2:8,9; cf ***us 3:5-7) (faith is credited as righteousness in Rom. 4:5)

It's pretty clear that Jesus is the source for Paul's teachings on salvation and that Christianity is rooted in Judaism-not Mithraism. Another important item for consideration is that Paul's message of the gospel was checked by and approved by the original apostles (Gal. 1-2)-giving his message official recognition that it was not opposed to that of Jesus Christ. (The charge that Paul corrupted Jesus' original message was answered years ago by J. Gresham Machen in The Origin of Paul's Religion and also F.F. Bruce in Paul and Jesus.)

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity does not have it's origins in paganism either, as has been promoted by this same school of thought. Pagan religions were Polytheistic and Pantheistic, but trinitarians are Monotheists. Trinitarians are not Tritheists who believe in three separate gods; they are monotheists who believe in one God manifested in three distinct persons.

Mithraism is based in myth. Christianity is based on a real historically verifiable person. Here is how Mithra was born:

'"... Mithra was supposedly born when he emerged from a rock; he was carrying a knife and torch and wearing a Phyrgian cap. He battled first with the sun and then with a primeval bull, thought to be the first act of creation. Mithra slew the bull, which then became the ground of life for the human race." (Christianity and the Hellenistic World, Ronald Nash, 144)

Mithraism has no bodily resurrection.
Mithraism matured after Christianity, not before, so Christianity could not have copied from Mithraism.

To be sure there are similarities but that doesn't prove the connection you are alluding to. Not even close as the above proves. I'm sure that Jesus was not born out of a rock, fully clothed and armed at that-with a hat on.

It is just amazing that anyone could think that Christianity had it's origins in these Myths. Yes, a comparison can be made as you say, And I think that's a good idea-because the deeper you go into it the more unlike each other they become. In reality if you stood them side by side you would see the King and the pretender to the throne.

Dave

[Trinity]

Hello Dave,

Originally Posted by dave52_47

Trinity,
I will reply to your 'pagan source theory' first and in a separate post I will reply to the statement that the Christian 'hell' is a greek concept. It's a rather lenghty reply but I thought that it was worth the time and effort to present this side of the argument:

Ok. No problem.

First of all Christians have nothing to fear about the comparisons that are made concerning Zoroastrianism, Mithra, etc, and Christianity and the similarities between them.

We agree on this. Similarities does not mean that it is the real thing, the right stuff. Chess, the checkers game or the Go game have some tactical similarities (ex: time, space and dynamic) but we have here three distinct games. Though this three games are board games invented by men. Men have an input on the creation and the development of the game rules. This is also true with all religions, including christianity. The human factor is everywhere (ex: without the authority of a council composed by men, we can not have a canon for the bible. A convention is necessary. You and me we never selected which book should be part of the bible. And the bible did not fall from the sky integrally as one book.)

I did the research after your first post and have found that besides the fact that the author of this theory (that Christianity must have been derived from Mithraism) is a Muslim (Yousuf Saleem Chishti) who is hardly unbiased towards Christianity;...

I do not know this guy, and I never heard about him.

“Mithraism". Some contemporary critics of Christianity argue that this religion is not based in divine revelation but was borrowed from mystery religions, such as Mithraism. Muslim author Yousuf Saleem Chishti attributes such doctrines as the deity of Christ and the atonement to the pagan teachings of the Apostle Paul and the doctrine of the Trinity to pagan formulations of the church Fathers.

Mithraism was a sect from the Zoroastrianism (1000-440 BCE). In brief, this new sect was only the prolongation of the old religion. They believed that Zoroaster was their founder, as the Mormons believe today that Jesus is the founder of their church.

Religion do not pop up from nothing, into the time and space.

Manichaeism and the Christian Manichaeism, also derived from the Mithraism.

To start with Paul did not teach a new religion or use existing mythology as sources for his teachings. The foundation of Christianity is built on the Old Testament, Judaism in general, and the life of a person named Jesus.

We agree. We agree. However, the eschatology, symbols, and the images of Judaism was influenced by other religions and cultures (i.e. ***yria, Babylon, Persia, Greek and Roman). Keep also in mind, before there were writings, there were oral traditions. Those traditions have met together and often. Throughout the caravans in the desert and by the migration of the nomads.

If you study the Epistles and Gospels you will see that the sources of Paul's teachings on salvation were the O.T. and the teachings of Jesus.

I have no problem with this. Jews have problems with this because they have a very different set of interpretations.

It's pretty clear that Jesus is the source for Paul's teachings on salvation and that Christianity is rooted in Judaism-not Mithraism.

I never mentioned the Mithraism, only the Zoroastrianism and in one occasion an example of similarities, from Egypt (Horus). Anyway, as mentioned above, the Mithraism derived from the Zoroastrianism. They exist because of the actions and beliefs from the past. All religions have siblings.

Catholicism---> Protestantiism---> Biblical fundamentalists---> Mormons---> ???

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity does not have it's origins in paganism either, as has been promoted by this same school of thought. Pagan religions were Polytheistic and Pantheistic, but trinitarians are Monotheists.

Hinduism have a similarity called "Trimurti", but this is not the same thing like the christian Trinity.

Trinitarians are not Tritheists who believe in three separate gods; they are monotheists who believe in one God manifested in three distinct persons.

I know.

Mithraism is based in myth. Christianity is based on a real historically verifiable person.

I believe so. There was a historical Jesus. No doubt.

However, there is also truths in the myths. They are images and symbolize things that have existed or virtues, or vices. JFK, Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. are mythical heroes. They tattooed our collective imagination.

Here is how Mithra was born:

Here some informations about the life of Horus (Egypt).

Conception by a virgin.
Only begotten son of the God Osiris.
Mother = Meri or Miriam (a.k.a. Mary).
Father= Seb (Jo-Seph)
Of royal descent.
Birth location - in a cave.
Annunciation - by an angel.
Birth heralded by: The star Sirius, the morning star.
Birth date: Ancient Egyptians paraded a manger and child representing Horus through the streets at the time of the winter solstice (typically DEC-21).
Birth announcement: By angels.
Birth witnesses: Shepherds.
Later witnesses to birth: Three solar deities.
Death threat during infancy: Herut tried to have Horus murdered.
Baptism location: In the river Erid****.
Age at baptism: 30
Baptized by: Anup the Baptiser.
Subsequent fate of the baptiser: Beheaded.
Temptation:Taken from the desert of Amenta up a high mountain by his arch-rival Sut. Sut (a.k.a. Set) was a precursor for the Hebrew Satan.
Result of temptation: Horus resists temptation.
Activities:Walked on water, cast out demons, healed the sick, restored sight to the blind. He "stilled the sea by his power."
Raising of the dead: Horus raised Osirus, his dead father, from the grave.
Transfigured: On a mountain.
Method of death: By crucifixion.
Fate after death: Descended into Hell; resurrected after three days.
Resurrection announced by: Women.
Future: Reign for 1,000 years in the Millennium.
And many more.

Mithraism matured after Christianity, not before, so Christianity could not have copied from Mithraism.

Mithraism is a branch of the Zoroastrianism, and Zoroastrianism has preceded the Judaism and the Christianity.

In every cultural or religious encountering between people or nations throughout the ages, there is always things that are amalgamated or borrowed to explain the inexplainable.

Trinity

[dave52_47]

[QUOTE=Trinity;1238]

I give an example. We the Christians we had borrowed our conceptualization about the hell from the Greeks, and not from the Jews. The sheol is a very boring place, nothing happens there, a real waiting room, a darkness place under the ground. The souls are almost in a state of catalepsy. Otherwise, into the hades, the souls are awake and they can suffer.

Trinity,
* NOTE: I tried to post this three times a couple of nights ago and for some reason It wouldn't post . It was really late so I gave up-but-I'll try again now-here goes:

Here is the reply to your origin of 'hell' statement:

Gehenna

NET Glossary: a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew words ge hinnom ("Valley of Hinnom"), the valley along the south side of Jerusalem which in Old Testament times was used for human sacrifices to the pagan god Molech (Jer 7:31; 19:5-6; 32:35), and came to be used as a place where human excrement and rubbish were disposed of and burned; in the intertestamental period, it came to be used symbolically as the place of divine punishment, i.e., hell

Gehenna [EBD]
(originally Ge bene Hinnom; i.e., "the valley of the sons of Hinnom"), a deep, narrow glen to the south of Jerusalem, where the idolatrous Jews offered their children in sacrifice to Molech (2 Chr. 28:3; 33:6; Jer. 7:31; 19:2-6). This valley afterwards became the common receptacle for all the refuse of the city. Here the dead bodies of animals and of criminals, and all kinds of filth, were cast and consumed by fire kept always burning. It thus in process of time became the image of the place of everlasting destruction. In this sense it is used by our Lord in Matt. 5:22, 29, 30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15, 33; Mark 9:43, 45, 47; Luke 12:5. In these p***ages, and also in James 3:6, the word is uniformly rendered "hell," the Revised Version placing "Gehenna" in the margin. (See HELL; HINNOM.)

GEHENNA [SMITH]
[HINNOM]

GEHENNA [ISBE]
GEHENNA - ga-hen'-a (geenna (see Grimm-Thayer, under the word)): Gehenna is a transliteration from the Aramaic form of the Hebrew ge-hinnom, "valley of Hinnom." This latter form, however, is rare in the Old Testament, the prevailing name being "the valley of the son of Hinnom." Septuagint usually translates; where it transliterates the form is different from Gehenna and varies. In the New Testament the correct form is Gee'nna with the accent on the penult, not Ge'enna. There is no reason to ***ume that Hinnom is other than a plain patronymic, although it has been proposed to find in it the corruption of the name of an idol (EB, II, 2071). In the New Testament (King James Version margin) Gehenna occurs in Mt 5:22,29,30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15,33; Mk 9:43,15,47; Lk 12:5; Jas 3:6. In all of these it designates the place of eternal punishment of the wicked, generally in connection with the final judgment. It is ***ociated with fire as the source of torment. Both body and soul are cast into it. This is not to be explained on the principle that the New Testament speaks metaphorically of the state after death in terms of the body; it presupposes the resurrection. In the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) Gehenna is rendered by "hell" (see ESCHATOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT). That "the valley of Hinnom" became the technical designation for the place of final punishment was due to two causes. In the first place the valley had been the seat of the idolatrous worship of Molech, to whom children were immolated by fire (2 Ch 28:3; 33:6). Secondly, on account of these practices the place was defiled by King Josiah (2 Ki 23:10), and became in consequence ***ociated in prophecy with the judgment to be visited upon the people (Jer 7:32). The fact, also, that the city's offal was collected there may have helped to render the name synonymous with extreme defilement. Topographically the identification of the valley of Hinnom is still uncertain. It has been in turn identified with the depression on the western and southern side of Jerusalem, with the middle valley, and with the valley to the E. Compare EB, II, 2071; DCG, I, 636; RE3, VI.
Geerhardus Vos

Source: Bible.org

This is the origin of 'hell' according to scripture and history. Both O.T. and N.T. confirm the common use of the term used for the "dump that burned continuously" outside of the city of Jerusalem to apply, as Jesus Himself-as well as His Apostles used it-to refer to a place of eterenal punishment called Hell.

Dave