I'm always amazed at the claims of skeptics and cultists that certain Christian beliefs are 'pagan.' Now the skeptic simply wants to attribute all things Christian to an earlier pagan origin (usually on the basis of some perceived parallel) while the cultist usually just takes the parts that they don't like about 'mainstream' Christianity (as if their cult were some other branch of 'true' Christianity) and claim that it is pagan.
As of late I've been asking these folks to document for me what pagan documents they have actually read and which pagan cultures and customs they are actually familiar with. Last night in fact I had a Jehovah's Witness tell me that the doctrine of the Rapture was pagan and when I asked for sources that pagans believed that Jesus would return for his Church (note that the timing of the Rapture wasn't the issue but the 'catching away' itself), I was provided with none--no surprise there. I then asked the above questions and they went off on a cut and paste tangent and flooded the room with material that was completely irrelevant to pagan origins of the doctrine of the Rapture. In fact the focus of the material posted was on the word 'Rapture' being a Latin word! Well, the word is actually English and is based on a Latin word but that doesn't make it pagan, now does it?
Same night, same room, I had a Christadelphian who I have debated in the past on the doctrine of the Trinity claim that the Trinity had pagan origins. He actually had the audacity to claim that I was well aware of the pagan origins of the Trinity and believed in it anyway. Again I asked him what pagan documents he has actually read and what pagan cultures and customs he was familiar with--my answer?--He said that he had read The Two Babylons! I pointed out that Alexander Hislop's book is at best a secondary source and it is very much outdated. And it is also worth noting that Hislop accepted the doctrine of the Trinity and concluded that it was pagan religions who had represented it blasphemously (see here). In other words, it is the Triune God that is the true God and false religions merely conterfeit the true God in their idolatrous triads.
Now today I came across this web page where a skeptic reproduced some portions of a Christian man's comments on some discussion board and then proceeds to respond. I'm going to post some of the highlights. The original Christian writer's words will be green, the skeptic's responses will be blue, and my responses red.
[Christian writes]: Mithra? I have to assume that you're joking. In order to have a serious discussion about Christianity and atheism, then you have to turn aside your intense desire to disparage Christianity at every turn and instead let's talk intelligently and objectively.
[Skeptic Response]: Notice how the Christian starts out. He immediately dismisses the idea that Mithra may have been a role model for the Jesus story by assuming that any talk about Mithra is a joke. Then the Christian accuses the skeptic of not being objective and only interested in Christianity bashing. This is a rather obvious ploy which attempts to discredit the idea that Jesus may have been copied from prior savior gods by attempting to laugh off the idea from the start.
In other words, in order to "intelligently" and "objectively" discuss Christianity, silly notions that there could have been savior gods who existed prior to Jesus and who had very similar attributes to Jesus must be put aside as nonsense. When dealing with a zealous Christian, one must always remember that there is nothing in the universe which has any "real" validity other than Jesus and the Bible.
[My Response]: Here we see the skeptic assuming that the Christian has assumed that any talk about Mithra being a model for Jesus is a joke but funnily enough he never assumes that the Christian has actually studied the subject and drawn his conclusions prior to speaking with this particular atheist. What is obvious is not a ploy that attempts to laugh off evidence, but rather that this particular skeptic is not familiar with the issues at hand and is so bent on discrediting Christianity and Jesus that he will blindly accept anything that fits his preconceptions.
His second paragraph is pure emotionalism and question begging. First of all he begs the question in assuming that ‘very similar attributes’ equates to Christianity borrowing from these pagan religions. But all similarity proves is similarity. I’ve often used the example that the story of my grandfather’s birth is set in a hospital in 1916 while mine is set in a hospital in 1981—now this must mean that the story of my birth was borrowed from that of my grandfather—the parallels are just too great. Observe:
*My grandfather was born a male/I was born a male
As of late I've been asking these folks to document for me what pagan documents they have actually read and which pagan cultures and customs they are actually familiar with. Last night in fact I had a Jehovah's Witness tell me that the doctrine of the Rapture was pagan and when I asked for sources that pagans believed that Jesus would return for his Church (note that the timing of the Rapture wasn't the issue but the 'catching away' itself), I was provided with none--no surprise there. I then asked the above questions and they went off on a cut and paste tangent and flooded the room with material that was completely irrelevant to pagan origins of the doctrine of the Rapture. In fact the focus of the material posted was on the word 'Rapture' being a Latin word! Well, the word is actually English and is based on a Latin word but that doesn't make it pagan, now does it?
Same night, same room, I had a Christadelphian who I have debated in the past on the doctrine of the Trinity claim that the Trinity had pagan origins. He actually had the audacity to claim that I was well aware of the pagan origins of the Trinity and believed in it anyway. Again I asked him what pagan documents he has actually read and what pagan cultures and customs he was familiar with--my answer?--He said that he had read The Two Babylons! I pointed out that Alexander Hislop's book is at best a secondary source and it is very much outdated. And it is also worth noting that Hislop accepted the doctrine of the Trinity and concluded that it was pagan religions who had represented it blasphemously (see here). In other words, it is the Triune God that is the true God and false religions merely conterfeit the true God in their idolatrous triads.
Now today I came across this web page where a skeptic reproduced some portions of a Christian man's comments on some discussion board and then proceeds to respond. I'm going to post some of the highlights. The original Christian writer's words will be green, the skeptic's responses will be blue, and my responses red.
[Christian writes]: Mithra? I have to assume that you're joking. In order to have a serious discussion about Christianity and atheism, then you have to turn aside your intense desire to disparage Christianity at every turn and instead let's talk intelligently and objectively.
[Skeptic Response]: Notice how the Christian starts out. He immediately dismisses the idea that Mithra may have been a role model for the Jesus story by assuming that any talk about Mithra is a joke. Then the Christian accuses the skeptic of not being objective and only interested in Christianity bashing. This is a rather obvious ploy which attempts to discredit the idea that Jesus may have been copied from prior savior gods by attempting to laugh off the idea from the start.
In other words, in order to "intelligently" and "objectively" discuss Christianity, silly notions that there could have been savior gods who existed prior to Jesus and who had very similar attributes to Jesus must be put aside as nonsense. When dealing with a zealous Christian, one must always remember that there is nothing in the universe which has any "real" validity other than Jesus and the Bible.
[My Response]: Here we see the skeptic assuming that the Christian has assumed that any talk about Mithra being a model for Jesus is a joke but funnily enough he never assumes that the Christian has actually studied the subject and drawn his conclusions prior to speaking with this particular atheist. What is obvious is not a ploy that attempts to laugh off evidence, but rather that this particular skeptic is not familiar with the issues at hand and is so bent on discrediting Christianity and Jesus that he will blindly accept anything that fits his preconceptions.
His second paragraph is pure emotionalism and question begging. First of all he begs the question in assuming that ‘very similar attributes’ equates to Christianity borrowing from these pagan religions. But all similarity proves is similarity. I’ve often used the example that the story of my grandfather’s birth is set in a hospital in 1916 while mine is set in a hospital in 1981—now this must mean that the story of my birth was borrowed from that of my grandfather—the parallels are just too great. Observe:
*My grandfather was born a male/I was born a male
*My grandfather was born to a man whose last name was Norelli/I was born to a man whose last name was Norelli
*My grandfather cried when he was born/I cried when I was born
*My grandfather was circumcised/I was circumcised
I mean there’s no way that the story of my birth can be unique or genuine with so many similarities to that of my grandfather, especially since my birth came 65 years later! Clearly the ridiculousness of such an argument can be seen from this example.
Next is his caricature of all Christians who would deny such a proposition of pagan origins to Christianity as ‘zealous’ people who deny that everything in the universe has ‘real validity’ other than Jesus and the Bible. This is pure nonsense and one wonders how many actual Christians this man has met. There are any number of honest skeptics who would deny the same claims because they are honest enough to follow where the evidence leads.
[Christian writes]: Firstly, even the experts will acknowledge that there is virtually no literary evidence as to the beliefs of Mirthraism (please refer to "The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries" by David Ulansey).
I mean there’s no way that the story of my birth can be unique or genuine with so many similarities to that of my grandfather, especially since my birth came 65 years later! Clearly the ridiculousness of such an argument can be seen from this example.
Next is his caricature of all Christians who would deny such a proposition of pagan origins to Christianity as ‘zealous’ people who deny that everything in the universe has ‘real validity’ other than Jesus and the Bible. This is pure nonsense and one wonders how many actual Christians this man has met. There are any number of honest skeptics who would deny the same claims because they are honest enough to follow where the evidence leads.
[Christian writes]: Firstly, even the experts will acknowledge that there is virtually no literary evidence as to the beliefs of Mirthraism (please refer to "The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries" by David Ulansey).
[Skeptic Response]: The experts? Experts are a dime a dozen. The experts at the Christian Institute for Creation Research declare that the earth is only about 6,000 years old. For every Christian "expert" on pagan religions, I can cite one who isn't a Christian and establishes that Mithra was a savior God who was worshipped prior to Jesus and whose origins date long before Jesus was supposed to have been born.
The real problem is that if some parts of the Jesus story were patterned after "pagan" Gods, then the validity of the New Testament as the word of God is in jeopardy and Christians can't allow that.
[My Response]: My, oh my, how the tables have turned—the shoe is on the other foot—the pot has called the kettle black—umm… I can’t think of any more clichés to describe what has just happened so now I’ll comment on it. The skeptic has just dismissed experts on Mithraism with the wave of a hand while just above he criticized the Christian for thinking it a joke to equate Christianity with Mithraism.
You will also notice that rather than deal with what the experts admit (and yes, the Christian provides a reference to a credentialed scholar and one of his works on the subject) the skeptic has simply tried to change the subject by referring to Creationists who date the earth to 6000 years old. One wonders what does the age of the earth have to do with Mithraism and its alleged relationship to Christian origins. You will also notice that this skeptic is not at all familiar with the author referenced so he places the title ‘expert’ in quotations as if this man was anything less than that. In point of fact Dr. Ulansey has a doctorate in Religion from Princeton University and he specializes in ancient Mediterranean religions with an emphasis on the Mystery religions (which includes Mithraism!).
So the real problem is that some skeptics are not informed enough to actually offer a meaningful critique to the Christian position. At best all we can expect is conjecture and ‘what ifs’ that are supposed to somehow render all Christian arguments null and void because the skeptic, speaking according to his blind faith and hatred for Christianity wants them to.
[Christian writes]: The simple reason that Mithraism could not possibly have influenced first-century Christianity (in fact, the opposite was likely true) is that the timing is all wrong. Mithraism didn't really begin to flourish until AFTER the closing of New Testament canon (see "The Mysteries of Mithra" by Franz Cumont) and in fact, no monuments to this religion can be dated any earlier than AD 90 - 100.
[Skeptic Response]: Here we see the mind of a Christian zealot in all it's radiant splendor. Instead of Jesus being copied from Mithra, he asserts Mithra was copied from Jesus. The Christian turns the tables by saying that pagan copycats used the Jesus story to invent Mithra.
It's simply not possible in this persons mind that the Jesus story could have been influenced by stories of other god/men who existed in history prior to Jesus.
It's simply not possible in this persons mind that the Jesus story could have been influenced by stories of other god/men who existed in history prior to Jesus.
Since Mithra was a Persian God who was introduced to the Romans before Jesus was ever written about, Mithra was around in some form before Jesus. Notice how the Christian dances around this by saying that Mithraism "didn't really begin to flourish" until the NT canon was closed. The issue is not when Mithraism was at it's most popular in the region, but how old it's foundations are and where they originated from.
This Christian can sing and dance and quote any number of books he wants.
[My Response]: See the straw man? I do! The Christian didn’t say that Mithra was invented later than Christianity and patterned after Christ (although his alleged resurrection can be proven to have come post-Christianity). He simply pointed out a fact that credentialed scholars (and again the Christian actually refers the atheist to one) admit, which is that Mithraism did not flourish pre-Christianity. So no tables have been turned and there is no Christian conspiracy to suppress the truth of Mithraism—there are only the facts that those who are in ‘the know’ acknowledge.
Again, the skeptic doesn’t stop to consider that the possibility of Jesus having been patterned after Mithra is excluded because the Christian writing has actually taken the time to study the issue and has found the claim to be without warrant. The skeptic presupposes that the ‘Jesus story’ (as he calls it) had to have been patterned after some other myth because of course the ‘Jesus story’ cannot possibly be true. What we have here is a classic example of projection where the skeptic is projecting his presuppositional bias to the Christian.
And finally this skeptic shows us his uncanny ability to completely miss the point—the issue is not whether Mithraism existed before Jesus, but whether Christian belief about Jesus was BORROWED or PATTERNED after Mithra. The Christian readily acknowledges the existence of Mithraism in the first century, he only points out that it was not in a position to influence Christianity, but in fact the opposite was true.
So the skeptic can sing and dance and fail to quote any authority on the subject thud demonstrating his utter inability to do any kind of scholarly research all he wants.
Without quoting the rest of the article, I’d just point out that after this point the skeptic goes on the quote the Encarta Online Encyclopedia and then a Dr. Michael D. Magee to show that Mithraism pre-existed Christianity as if that was a point of dispute. But notice here how credentialed scholars who specialize in the field are quickly dismissed by the skeptic yet he runs to an online encyclopedia and a guy who admits to ‘just write as a hobby’ and whose web page claims to ‘revolutionize Jewish and Christian origins.’ And please note that Dr. Magee is not a historian, theologian, or philosopher. He is a scientist.
There is one other comment that I have to post here and respond to before ending this post.
[Christian #2 writes]: If there was any borrowing it was the pagans from the Christians. Christianity is based on a historical person. A big difference from mythology.
[My Response]: See the straw man? I do! The Christian didn’t say that Mithra was invented later than Christianity and patterned after Christ (although his alleged resurrection can be proven to have come post-Christianity). He simply pointed out a fact that credentialed scholars (and again the Christian actually refers the atheist to one) admit, which is that Mithraism did not flourish pre-Christianity. So no tables have been turned and there is no Christian conspiracy to suppress the truth of Mithraism—there are only the facts that those who are in ‘the know’ acknowledge.
Again, the skeptic doesn’t stop to consider that the possibility of Jesus having been patterned after Mithra is excluded because the Christian writing has actually taken the time to study the issue and has found the claim to be without warrant. The skeptic presupposes that the ‘Jesus story’ (as he calls it) had to have been patterned after some other myth because of course the ‘Jesus story’ cannot possibly be true. What we have here is a classic example of projection where the skeptic is projecting his presuppositional bias to the Christian.
And finally this skeptic shows us his uncanny ability to completely miss the point—the issue is not whether Mithraism existed before Jesus, but whether Christian belief about Jesus was BORROWED or PATTERNED after Mithra. The Christian readily acknowledges the existence of Mithraism in the first century, he only points out that it was not in a position to influence Christianity, but in fact the opposite was true.
So the skeptic can sing and dance and fail to quote any authority on the subject thud demonstrating his utter inability to do any kind of scholarly research all he wants.
Without quoting the rest of the article, I’d just point out that after this point the skeptic goes on the quote the Encarta Online Encyclopedia and then a Dr. Michael D. Magee to show that Mithraism pre-existed Christianity as if that was a point of dispute. But notice here how credentialed scholars who specialize in the field are quickly dismissed by the skeptic yet he runs to an online encyclopedia and a guy who admits to ‘just write as a hobby’ and whose web page claims to ‘revolutionize Jewish and Christian origins.’ And please note that Dr. Magee is not a historian, theologian, or philosopher. He is a scientist.
There is one other comment that I have to post here and respond to before ending this post.
[Christian #2 writes]: If there was any borrowing it was the pagans from the Christians. Christianity is based on a historical person. A big difference from mythology.
[Skeptic Response]: Historical people are not the product of virgin births as Christians claim Jesus was. Pagan god/men in mythology are however often the products of a God mating with a human female. Christians always ignore this fact.
[My Response]: Says who? There is no doubt that Jesus was a historical person and the only reliable accounts of his birth that we have are from the Gospels which claim that he was born of a virgin. Notice also the false analogy in equating the Christian doctrine of the virgin birth with pagan myths of gods mating with human women (although this is only one of many alleged accounts of Mithra’s birth). God did not mate with Mary because had he done so she would have ceased to be a virgin and no virgin birth would then be possible. But then again, we’re dealing with a skeptic and skeptics have proven to not be the sharpest tools in the shed.
I would recommend that everyone reading this BLOG post check out this article and read it in full. Get familiar with the uninformed arguments of internet skeptics and arm yourselves (not with facts to correct them because obviously that doesn’t work) but rather with a thick enough skin to not let the utter lack of cogent argument bother you.
[My Response]: Says who? There is no doubt that Jesus was a historical person and the only reliable accounts of his birth that we have are from the Gospels which claim that he was born of a virgin. Notice also the false analogy in equating the Christian doctrine of the virgin birth with pagan myths of gods mating with human women (although this is only one of many alleged accounts of Mithra’s birth). God did not mate with Mary because had he done so she would have ceased to be a virgin and no virgin birth would then be possible. But then again, we’re dealing with a skeptic and skeptics have proven to not be the sharpest tools in the shed.
I would recommend that everyone reading this BLOG post check out this article and read it in full. Get familiar with the uninformed arguments of internet skeptics and arm yourselves (not with facts to correct them because obviously that doesn’t work) but rather with a thick enough skin to not let the utter lack of cogent argument bother you.
Trust me, with their presuppositions you’ll never win an argument so rather than getting all frustrated at their inability to look at the issues objectively, just learn to do what the Christian gentleman did above… assume that their joking because whatever follows is sure to be pure comedy.
