Jesus Copied from Horus?

[Powers]

Originally Posted by SpyOne

Just as an example, let's just say I write a story about King Arthur in which I say Excalibur was a glowing blue sword made of energy, and that Mordred had one just like it but red.

Story, nothin. This needs to be a major motion picture!


Powers &8^]

[ITR champion]

Originally Posted by lanthanein

I've read that the early origins of Communion, particularly transubstantiation, was a deliberate ploy to convert adherents of Mithra. Also that Mithra died, stayed in a cave for a bit, and then came back out.

Christian communion was institued long before the Roman Mithra religion existed. Communion is mentioned in all the gospels and Paul's epistles, so Christians practiced it by about 40 A.D. at the latest, but probably since the foundation of the Church. The Roman Mithra religion (distinct from the earlier Persian Mithra cult) came into being around 90-100 A.D.

As for Mithra dying and being resurrected, the evidence is:

I see no references anywhere in the Mithraic studies literature to Mithra being buried, or even dying, for that matter [Gordon says directly, that there is "no death of Mithras" -- Gor.III, 96] and so of course no rising again and no "resurrection" (in a Jewish sense?!) to celebrate. ... Wynne-Tyson [Wyn.MFC, 24; cf. Ver.MSG, 38] also refers to a church writer of the fourth century, Firmicus, who says that the Mithraists mourn the image of a dead Mithras -- still way too late! -- but after reading the work of Firmicus, I find no such reference at all.

I personally do not doubt Egyptian religion and Judaism influenced one another. Jewish, and by extension Christian, eschatology was borrowed almost entirely from Zoroastrianism.

There's no evidence for this, and indeed there's no solid evidence that Zoroastrianism existed prior to Judaism.

The violent history of ancient Mesopotamia makes it impossible that any religion originating in or near there developed in isolation. There was a lot of cultural exchange as people fought, conquered, overthrew, and migrated. It's a "chicken or egg" situation, however, as written records "proving" which came first don't exist -- we have to draw conclusions from iconography and texts by self-interested historians and prophets as to the provenance of their mythology.

To some extent, yes, it's true that the historical documentation of religion in the ancient Middle East is thin. However, arguments that either Judaism or Christianity copied from Pagan sources contain a gaping logical flaw. Both the Old Testament Jews and the early Christians did not have any desire to make their religions appear similar to pagan religions from nearby areas. Instead, they wanted the differences to be as large and clear as possible. We can see this clearly in both the Old and New Testaments. Hence just because two groups lived nearby does not mean that we'd expect those two groups to mingle their religious ideas. The evidence in some cases shows that when Jewish communities were in close proximity to gentile communities, it caused the Jewish communities to become more insular and less welcoming to outside ideas.

[Irishman]

Originally Posted by ITR champion

There has never been an official response the copycat thesis from any major Christian denomination (nor any minor one was far as I know).

Perhaps nothing official, but I've certainly heard that argument from mainstream Christian sources, though personal conversations, so no cites available.

[TSBG]

I'm surprised no one's brought up Christian borrowings from Hinduism. Anyone who's ever been to a medieval church must have been struck by all the elephant-headed Jesuses.

[John W. Kennedy]

Originally Posted by Gagundathar

It is easy for some Christians to believe that their deity was preordained from the beginning of time

On the contrary, this Christian cannot make head nor tail of what you say; it makes no sense at all.

[Raider Duck]

Originally Posted by ITR champion

Christian communion was instituted long before the Roman Mithra religion existed. Communion is mentioned in all the gospels and Paul's epistles, so Christians practiced it by about 40 A.D. at the latest, but probably since the foundation of the Church. The Roman Mithra religion (distinct from the earlier Persian Mithra cult) came into being around 90-100 A.D.

Actually, the Mithraic cult was introduced to the Roman Empire in 200 BCE and became semi-popular a century later, which still leaves plenty of time for early Christianity to have co-opted some of its beliefs and practices.

[Meatros]

Originally Posted by ITR champion

If so, then whoever made The God Who Wasn't There is wrong. There has never been an official response the copycat thesis from any major Christian denomination (nor any minor one was far as I know).

Yes, there was never any official response - but the early apologists certainly appealed to the notion that Satan performed such tricks. Also, the parallels were not unknown to the Christians - the early Jews criticized them for it:

Trypho critizing Justin for Pagan similarities:

And Trypho answered, "The Scripture has not, 'Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,' but, 'Behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son,' and so on, as you quoted. But the whole prophecy refers to Hezekiah, and it is proved that it was fulfilled in him, according to the terms of this prophecy. Moreover, in the fables of those who are called Greeks, it is written that Perseus was begotten of Danae, who was a virgin; he who was called among them Zeus having descended on her in the form of a golden shower. And you ought to feel ashamed when you make assertions similar to theirs, and rather[should] say that this Jesus was born man of men. And if you prove from the Scriptures that He is the Christ, and that on account of having led a life conformed to the law, and perfect, He deserved the honour of being elected to be Christ,[it is well]; but do not venture to tell monstrous phenomena, lest you be convicted of talking foolishly like the Greeks."

Here's Justin basically saying that Satan was responsible for the earlier parallels:

CHAPTER XXI -- ANALOGIES TO THE HISTORY OF CHRIST.

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; AEsculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus. For what shall I say of Ariadne, and those who, like her, have been declared to be set among the stars? And what of the emperors who die among yourselves, whom you deem worthy of deification, and in whose behalf you produce some one who swears he has seen the burning Caesar rise to heaven from the funeral pyre? And what kind of deeds are recorded of each of these reputed sons of Jupiter, it is needless to tell to those who already know. This only shall be said, that they are written for the advantage and encouragement of youthful scholars; for all reckon it an honourable thing to imitate the gods. But far be such a thought concerning the gods from every well-conditioned soul, as to believe that Jupiter himself, the governor and creator of all things, was both a parricide and the son of a parricide, and that being overcome by the love of base and shameful pleasures, he came in to Ganymede and those many women whom he had violated and that his sons did like actions. But, as we said above, wicked devils perpetrated these things. And we have learned that those only are deified who have lived near to God in holiness and virtue; and we believe that those who live wickedly and do not repent are punished in everlasting fire.

[John W. Kennedy]

Originally Posted by Raider Duck

Actually, the Mithraic cult was introduced to the Roman Empire in 200 BCE and became semi-popular a century later,

Not as far as I know. Note that the name “Mithras” (in various forms) turns up in Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, and Buddhism, as well as in the Roman-era cult known as “Mithraism”. Clear and unmistakeable evidence of actual Mithraism does not turn up until the first century AD or so. Considerably more ambiguous evidence, no earlier than about 100 BC.

[monavis]

Originally Posted by Meatros

Yes, there was never any official response - but the early apologists certainly appealed to the notion that Satan performed such tricks. Also, the parallels were not unknown to the Christians - the early Jews criticized them for it:

Trypho critizing Justin for Pagan similarities:



Here's Justin basically saying that Satan was responsible for the earlier parallels:

Jesus didn't adhere to the law, and in John 10 is quoted as saying,"It say's in your law etc." He is quoted as saying, David ate of the temple bread,(which was against the law), told the people that he who was with out sin to cast the first stone. And seemed to despise the Pharisee's who were sticklers for the law. Seemed to teach there are exceptions to the law.

[Dan Norder]

Originally Posted by MacLir

"The Golden Bough" by Sir James George Frazer deals with these parallels (and a host of others.)

It is considered one of the authoritative texts on myth and magic.

It is an interesting and widely-read popular book (or series of books if you have the long version), but it's generally not considered authoritative by modern experts. Frazer had a strong tendency to blur the line between things he had found evidence for and things he just theorized up out of thin air, and there is a lot of the latter. Many of the sources he used for his information weren't academically rigorous either.

Originally Posted by jakebean

I take exception to your comment "The real difference between Egyptian mythology and the story of Jesus is that the former is clearly a fable full of beings with super powers, whereas the latter is told in realistic terms....."

I think most people have a real problem understanding that "Egyptian mythology" (and the associated religious beliefs) span thousands of years and that within that larger traditions there were many variant beliefs and religious texts. If you are going to compare that to Christianity in any fair way you should compare thousands of years of Egyptian mythology with the thousands of years of Christian mythology, which includes dragons, creation stories, several world-destroying acts by spiteful deities and all the stuff present in all the other myths from the Middle East. If you want to focus specifically on the allegedly realistic Gospels of Christ, even there you have plenty of characters with super powers, multiple people raised from the dead (it actually gets embarrassing to count them up if you had been led to believe Jesus was supposed to be unique in this regard), and so forth, and there are also plenty of Egyptian texts that would be just as realistic which just aren't as well known to people these days.

Originally Posted by ITR champion

URL="http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html"

URL="http://www.sullivan-county.com/bush/travilocity1.htm"

Those are some pretty amateurish sources with obvious faith-based agendas at work. I can't believe anyone would seriously offer them up to try to prove anything. You might as well have just said "here's what some random nobody on the Internet said who agrees with me so I must be right".

It is very well established that the cults of Mithra and Dionysus (who had a very popular religious cult, which surprises many people who only know about him as a minor god from what their English class Greek mythology studies told them) had many of the most important features that popped up in Christianity later. And they certainly weren't the only ones either.

I actually kind of have to laugh whenever someone tries to say Christ was based upon Horus or Osiris. Their myths -- which, granted, may not be all of them, since there were so many variants, and there may be some Horus cult later some people refer to -- have some similarities but are not the best of fits, especially when there are so many others that are extremely well documented and a lot more relevant. Even if you were to prove the those features of Mithra cult came after the founding of Christianity (which does not seem at all likely based upon what we actually know), you'd have to account for the cults of Dionysus, Adonis, Tammuz and countless others as well.

Originally Posted by ITR champion

However, arguments that either Judaism or Christianity copied from Pagan sources contain a gaping logical flaw. Both the Old Testament Jews and the early Christians did not have any desire to make their religions appear similar to pagan religions from nearby areas. Instead, they wanted the differences to be as large and clear as possible. We can see this clearly in both the Old and New Testaments.

What? No. Completely the opposite, in fact. Every religious tradition at the time (and now, for that matter) claimed that they were completely different from every other, but all of them, Judeo-Christian beliefs included, copied shamelessly from all of the others. The old and New Testaments are overflowing with material clearly copied from other sources, and poorly at that. A lot of the stories that have puzzling details, are internally inconsistent or have important parts skipped over for no known reason (creation, the Garden of Eden, and Leviathan being some of the more obvious examples) make a heck of a lot more sense when they are read in their original versions.

The idea that the story of the alleged life of Jesus Christ and the features of the religion that sprung up later were in any way unique or the first in any of its tenets or claims is simply laughable once anyone does any substantive reading of history or mythology. Of course if all you read are shoddy Christian apologetics sites and books, this fundamental ignorance of other ancient religious beliefs and myths is understandable, but it's certainly not excusable in anyone trying to debate the topic.

[Meatros]

Originally Posted by Dan Norder

I think most people have a real problem understanding that "Egyptian mythology" (and the associated religious beliefs) span thousands of years and that within that larger traditions there were many variant beliefs and religious texts. If you are going to compare that to Christianity in any fair way you should compare thousands of years of Egyptian mythology with the thousands of years of Christian mythology, which includes dragons, creation stories, several world-destroying acts by spiteful deities and all the stuff present in all the other myths from the Middle East. If you want to focus specifically on the allegedly realistic Gospels of Christ, even there you have plenty of characters with super powers, multiple people raised from the dead (it actually gets embarrassing to count them up if you had been led to believe Jesus was supposed to be unique in this regard), and so forth, and there are also plenty of Egyptian texts that would be just as realistic which just aren't as well known to people these days.

This bears repeating and more repeating.

It should be noted that there was no "one set" of Egyptian beliefs. There were many, many, different sets - it's not even comparable with the early Christians (and their sects). Further, what we know about Egyptian religion comes from, primarily, their tombs and such. We have the 'book of the dead', but that really isn't a complete view of their religion in the way that the Bible is for Christians and Jews.

[ITR champion]

Originally Posted by Dan Norder

It is very well established that the cults of Mithra and Dionysus (who had a very popular religious cult, which surprises many people who only know about him as a minor god from what their English class Greek mythology studies told them) had many of the most important features that popped up in Christianity later. And they certainly weren't the only ones either.

Cite, please? Who exactly has "established" this fact. I'm guessing it's you. Also, would you mind telling exactly which "features" are included in the Mithras cult or the Dionysius cult and also in Christianity?

Originally Posted by Dan Norder

Even if you were to prove the those features of Mithra cult came after the founding of Christianity (which does not seem at all likely based upon what we actually know),

Cite, please? According to Dr. Edwin Yamauchi, a professor and archaeologist of the Mediterranean World, in The Case for the Real Jesus:

"Mithraism as a religion cannot be attested before about 90 A.D. ... The earliest Mithraic inscription in the West is a statue of a prefect under the Emperor Trajan in AD 101. The earliest mithraea are dated to the early second century. There are a handful of inscriptions that date to the early second century, but the vast majority of texts are dated after 140 AD. Most of what we have as evidence of Mithraism comes from the second, third, and fourth centuries AD. That's basically what's wrong with the theories about Mithraism influencing the beginnings of Christianitiy."

So there are the facts about the dates of the Mithra cult from a real scholar.

What? No. Completely the opposite, in fact. Every religious tradition at the time (and now, for that matter) claimed that they were completely different from every other, but all of them, Judeo-Christian beliefs included, copied shamelessly from all of the others. The old and New Testaments are overflowing with material clearly copied from other sources, and poorly at that.

Cite, please?

The idea that the story of the alleged life of Jesus Christ and the features of the religion that sprung up later were in any way unique or the first in any of its tenets or claims is simply laughable once anyone does any substantive reading of history or mythology.

Cite, please? Would you mind telling us exactly what "substantive reading of history or mythology" you've done that makes you so certain of this claim? Would you mind giving us actual titles and authors of up-to-date works that would validate anything that you've posted in this thread?

[ITR champion]

Originally Posted by Meatros

Yes, there was never any official response - but the early apologists certainly appealed to the notion that Satan performed such tricks. Also, the parallels were not unknown to the Christians - the early Jews criticized them for it:

Trypho critizing Justin for Pagan similarities:

Here's Justin basically saying that Satan was responsible for the earlier parallels:

It is true that Justin the Martyr wrote those two passages. However, once one comprehends the argument that Justin was actually making, it actually doesn't support the copycat thesis at all. In the mid-second century, Christians in the Roman Empire were violently persecuted for their beliefs. Pagan sources accused Christians of horrible crimes, sex with animals, and other things of that sort. Justin's goal in his first and second Apologies was to show that Christian belief and practice was not completely antithetical to norms in the Pagan society. To that end, Justin highlighted parallels between Christian scriptures and certain pagan stories. However, to do so he had to stretch the facts quite a bit to get even loose parallels. For example, he argues that the resurrection is comparable to the story of Dionysius (the same character as Bacchus). In fact, the myths of Dionysius are a confused jumble. Some of them may vaguely point to Dionysius going to the underworld and returning and others make some mention of Dionysius being torn to pieces. Nothing would actually suggest any story surrounding the death and resurrection of Dionysius with even a remote similarity to any part of the Gospels.

Frankly, the notion that the Gospel authors copied from myths of Horus or Dionysius or Mithras or any other Pagan deity is comparable to Holocaust denial as far as how much respectability it gets among mainstream scholars. We've had many threads debunking such claims on this board:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=629747

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=498997

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=547747

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=488132

And there are outside sources debunking the claims, readily available to anyone with Google. This is one of many.

Further, whenever anyone on the SDMB comes in advocating the copycat theory, they have to turn around and run as soon as cites are called for. Here's one of many threads where that happened:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=567217

[Meatros]

Originally Posted by ITR champion

It is true that Justin the Martyr wrote those two passages. However, once one comprehends the argument that Justin was actually making, it actually doesn't support the copycat thesis at all.

I'm not advocating a copycat thesis. All I'm saying is that there are similarities/parallels with Hellenistic myths and Justin was blasted by the Jews (Trypho) for it and he also advocated the first argument for diabolical mimicry.

Originally Posted by ITR champion

In the mid-second century, Christians in the Roman Empire were violently persecuted for their beliefs. Pagan sources accused Christians of horrible crimes, sex with animals, and other things of that sort. Justin's goal in his first and second Apologies was to show that Christian belief and practice was not completely antithetical to norms in the Pagan society. To that end, Justin highlighted parallels between Christian scriptures and certain pagan stories. However, to do so he had to stretch the facts quite a bit to get even loose parallels. For example, he argues that the resurrection is comparable to the story of Dionysius (the same character as Bacchus). In fact, the myths of Dionysius are a confused jumble. Some of them may vaguely point to Dionysius going to the underworld and returning and others make some mention of Dionysius being torn to pieces. Nothing would actually suggest any story surrounding the death and resurrection of Dionysius with even a remote similarity to any part of the Gospels.

Two things - this doesn't address his dialogue with Trypho at all and Trypho blasts Justin for Christianities similarities to Roman religions. In particular the virgin birth as well as some others.

The second thing, in the apology Justin was arguing that Christianity was superior to Roman beliefs because of the morality issue. In short, he's arguing that Satan (or his cronies) put forth all these false beliefs out there and you can the true beliefs because of the moral character of the people in them.

Here's what he says in his first apology:

But if any one objects that He was crucified, in this also He is on a par with those reputed sons of Jupiter of yours, who suffered as we have now enumerated. For their sufferings at death are recorded to have been not all alike, but diverse; so that not even by the peculiarity of His sufferings does He seem to be inferior to them; but, on the contrary, as we promised in the preceding part of this discourse, we will now prove Him superior--or rather have already proved Him to be so--for the superior is revealed by His actions. And if we even affirm that He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you accept of Ferseus. And in that we say that He made whole the lame, the paralytic, and those born blind, we seem to say what is very similar to the deeds said to have been done by AEsculapius.

+

And, secondly, because we--who, out of every race of men, used to worship Bacchus the son of Semele, and Apollo the son of Latona (who in their loves with men did such things as it is shameful even to mention), and Proserpine and Venus (who were maddened with love of Adonis, and whose mysteries also you celebrate), or AEsculapius, or some one or other of those who are called gods--have now, through Jesus Christ, learned to despise these, though we be threatened with death for it, and have dedicated ourselves to the unbegotten and impossible God; of whom we are persuaded that never was he goaded by lust of Antiope, or such other women, or of Ganymede, nor was rescued by that hundred-handed giant whose aid was obtained through Thetis, nor was anxious on this account that her son Achilles should destroy many of the Greeks because of his concubine Briseis. Those who believe these things we pity, and those who invented them we know to be devils.

You are leaving out half of what his apology was all about. What he argues, at length is that Christianity is superior to the Roman religions and that the Christians should not be put to death. Christianity is true, Roman religions are false.

That's what his apologies are about, but his dialogue with Trypho is an attempt to argue that Christianity is line with the ancient Scriptures - which Trypho expressly denies.

Trypho states flat out:

Moreover, in the fables of those who are called Greeks, it is written that Perseus was begotten of Danae, who was a virgin; he who was called among them Zeus having descended on her in the form of a golden shower. And you ought to feel ashamed when you make assertions similar to theirs, and rather[should] say that this Jesus was born man of men.

Now, is anyone saying they are a one to one copy cat? No, not even me, although you attempt to strawman me into that. I'm saying that they had pagan influences, which is hard to deny since that's what they were accused of by the Jews and how they defended their religion to the Romans (and how they attempted to show Christianity was superior).

Originally Posted by ITR champion

Frankly, the notion that the Gospel authors copied from myths of Horus or Dionysius or Mithras or any other Pagan deity is comparable to Holocaust denial as far as how much respectability it gets among mainstream scholars. We've had many threads debunking such claims on this board:

Yet that's something I'm not actually advocating, so I agree with you here. Why you would bring this up in a response to me is kind of puzzling though. Unless you are denying there are any similarities at all and if you are then I'm afraid you are clearly mistaken (as noted above). Jesus performed miracles that were widespread throughout the culture (one being his curing blind people with spit - which Vespasian was said to have done).

[Meatros]

It's like if you strawman the notion that Christianity had similarities with pagan religions into Christianity merely cut and paste Jesus into pagan religion you can forget about any of the similarities.

Life doesn't work that way though.

[lanthanein]

I don't have any particular attachment to any religion or to anti-theism. I would, however, as a person without particular religious faith, find it difficult to believe that Christianity might be the only non-syncretic religion on the planet. I enjoy comparative religious studies. I do not accept that if Judaism and Christianity were influenced by other religions in their long history, that they are somehow "debunked" (any more than any mythology can be "debunked" as bunking isn't the point). On the contrary, I find it inspiring to see the cultural and historical context out of which they arose. So there's no point in defending Christianity's honor to me. In my opinion, those aren't grubby fingerprints smearing the religion, they're the souls of our predecessors which instill life, inspiration, and humanity into the traditions of Christianity et al.

Originally Posted by ITR champion

Christian communion was institued long before the Roman Mithra religion existed.

Christianity was founded in the 1st century by the followers of Jesus of Nazareth who they believed to be the Christ or chosen one of God.

The Mithraic Mysteries were a mystery religion practised in the Roman Empire from about the 1st to 4th centuries AD. (Which says nothing about when it was founded nor whether it had precursors to which Paul and other early Christians may have been familiar).

That Christian communion existed "long before" Mithraism would difficult if they were founded around the same time. However, I did not say that communion was taken from Mithraism, I said that transubstantiation may have been influenced by Mithraism. Considering that the doctrine of transubstantiation is not universally accepted by Christians and that we don't know for sure when the belief came about, only that it was written of in around the 1st century and formalized in the 10th century, I see nothing in what you said that concretely disproves the possibility.

Particularly if you recall that Roman Mithraism didn't come out of thin air in the 1st century, that there was a pre-existing tradition, as some evidence indicates.

Originally Posted by ITR champion

There's no evidence for this, and indeed there's no solid evidence that Zoroastrianism existed prior to Judaism.

Tradition holds that Abraham founded the Jewish religion in Israel, around the year 2000 BCE. Although, no exact date or year is known.

Zoroastrianism ... was probably founded some time before the 6th century BCE in Greater Iran. Zoroastrianism emerged out of a common prehistoric Indo-Iranian religious system dating back to the early 2nd millennium BCE (2000 if you please).

Luckily Zoroastrianism per se, and even any religious tradition from which it stemmed would not have needed to exist prior to Judaism in order to influence Jewish eschatology. It would only have needed to exist prior to those portions of Jewish eschatology it is believed to have affected. Which, strangely enough, is the entire reason many religious scholars believe this. Because of certain Jewish beliefs that arose and gained prevalence only during and after a period during which Persia dominated Mesopotamia.

Originally Posted by ITR champion

Both the Old Testament Jews and the early Christians did not have any desire to make their religions appear similar to pagan religions from nearby areas. Instead, they wanted the differences to be as large and clear as possible. Hence just because two groups lived nearby does not mean that we'd expect those two groups to mingle their religious ideas.

If you're assuming they designed it deliberately, maybe. But human sociology simply doesn't work this way. It's like saying that African-American subculture wasn't influenced by forced relocation and immersion in the white majority's culture. Certainly slaves must have more than adequate reason to despise their persecutors, band together, and create an exclusionary subculture. Yet it's simply not possible on a personal and mass level to respond to changes in cultural context.

I'm afraid I can't cite most of my sources as they are books that I read over the last 15 years. However, I'll take Joseph Campbell's word over a random internet site any day. The internet contains a lot of good information, but it's difficult to verify. One can say anything one pleases, and lack of a historical record is not proof of a lack of history.

I believe I have done enough research over the years to legitimately draw my own conclusions. While those conclusions may not be correct and may someday be conclusively disproved, as yet they remain valid theories.

[wendolynne1]

Originally Posted by ITR champion

Both the Old Testament Jews and the early Christians did not have any desire to make their religions appear similar to pagan religions from nearby areas. Instead, they wanted the differences to be as large and clear as possible.

For Old Testament Jews this probably true. But the Christians set out to convince as many people as possible to join them. There is a lot of discussion in the New Testament about whether the Gentile converts should be required to conform to Jewish law - see all the references in the new testament to "circumcision" to get a sense of how Christianity diverged from its Jewish roots, and how controversial that was.

The original message of Jesus Christ was directed at Jews, predicting the coming of a Jewish Kingdom. This message had to be altered to appeal to a wider audience. Yes, the Christian proselytizers wanted to make a clear distinction between what they were offering and what the Gentile audience already had, but they certainly also tried to make it palatable to the Gentile crowd. A few miracles spice up the story nicely.

[monavis]

I guess it still boils down to what human one wants to believe!