A close reading of the history of Christianity would seem to show that it borrowed ideas and beliefs from other religions. For example, it seems the idea of a garden of eden is to be found in earlier religions(perhaps Babylonian).
I would like to know how extensive this ‘borrowing’ is. How much did Christianity appropriate from other sources and what is genuinely original?
Are you counting Judaism as another religion?
Many Catholic customs and procedures are taken from pagan ideas/rituals. And of course it is completely structured on Judaism.
Kersey Graves argues in his book The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors that Christianity is not very original:
Another book that makes a similar case is Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions by T. W. Doane.
Well… tough question in that there’s a lot of stuff concerning Christianity. The beliefs, practices, and history of Christianity can fill volumes of books.
Second, how do you define original? As in first? Unique? Or merely different?
Some would argue that there’s really nothing new under the sun [;)] and that everything is just a rehashing and remixing a few original ideas from millenia ago.
Is taking an established idea and practice and putting a new spin on it original?
Depending on how one defines one’s terms both these statement could be effectively argued:
There is absolutely nothing new in Christianity. It was just a Jewish sect that borrowed a few pagan ideas.
Just about everything in Christianity is new and unique as it became so different that it can no longer be considered a Jewish sect. And any borrowed pagan practices were christianized into a completely new way of practice of faith.
Pro’s, to the right. Con’s to the left. Begin the exchange and hang on tight as we fly to Great Debates.
You’ve got Judaism in my Paganism!
You’ve got Paganism in my Judaism!
Off to Great Debates.
DrMatrix - General Questions Moderator
It’s a Mithraic cult “borrowed” almost wholesale from Zoroastrianism.
You’ve got Judaism in my Paganism!
You’ve got Paganism in my Judaism!
moriah - I laughed so hard I startled the dog.
Eh. I’ve found the claims that Christianity is based on Mithraism to be exceedingly weak. Here is a summary of the reasons why. (Among other things, such claims are based on superficial similarities, as well as terminology allegedly “borrowed” by Christianity, but which was never actually used in Mithraism.)
Here is the right one.
Uh, if it were my job to explain to a group of Moslems how Anglican Christianity differs from Sunni Islam, I’d be inclined to do a compare-and-contrast explanation. And if I saw them, for example, sharing a meal in which each presented his neighbor with a morsel of bread as a gesture of shared community, I’d be inclined to show them how this parallels the meaning of the Eucharist.
There’s tons of accretions where cultural practices were adapted to a Christian format. I’ll bet you any scholar of Asatru can show the pagan ceremony behind the St. Lucia customs. Every December we go through the Sol Invictus bit. St. Nicholas of Myra did give gifts to young people, but was not accustomed to working with reindeer or elves, for the early part of his career at least. The entire Eucharist/Holy-Week-and-Easter montage is adapted from the Passover Seder, allegedly by the Man whose death and rising we celebrate in it. I think the entire concept of the Devil as a sort of Bad-God-J.G. rebelling against the Lord God of Hosts and to be defeated by His Son in the last days has enough of Zoroastrianism/Mithraism in it to make the parallels obvious – but that’s all in people’s conceptualization of what it all means, not necessarily in any denial of the actual truth about what’s really going on. I could go on for pages. One connection I’ve always seen is that if I were a rabbi in Babylonia during the Captivity, attempting to keep my people focused on YHWH in a polytheistic society where the Enuma Elish is the accepted Creation myth, I’d definitely tell the story in such a way that the elements of the EE are placed in a framework showing the one God creating everything ex nihilo – and I suspect strongly that there was a rabbi who did just that, since a number of EE elements are alluded to in the Biblical creation story.
Correct. That is one of the points I was talking about when I mentioned the false accusations that Christianity “borrowed” terminology from Mithraism.
Some Mithraic practices, for example, are described as “baptism” – but only because modern authors co-opted this term from Christianity. In other words, modern authors are using Christian terminology to describe ancient Mithraic practices. Obviously, this does NOT mean that their (loose, alleged) Christian analogues had their origins in Mithraic teachings.
jesseboy asks:
“How original is Christianity?”
Right away I would say that not very original.
Because the words used in Christianity are not new ones, except maybe a few.
And since the words are not new, the corresponding concepts are not new.
Now, the concepts had been with mankind since the dawn of language.
The question could be asked rather what are the specific new concepts of Christianity in the very first years of Christian writings.
Please correct me, right away I would say that God as a father is apparently a new concept in Christianity right when the Gospel was being written.
And then also the idea of God being the God of all men, an idea I think emphasized by Paul, if not started by him.
But my main point is that Christianity is clothed in concepts and words already extant at its very beginning in the religious thoughts of ancient peoples surrounding the Palestian Jews of Jesus’ days; so it is not very original.
Susma Rio Sep
May I continue:
To know the specific new concepts in Christianity:
First, we have to limit the time frame of Christianity we are talking about; because the further it gets away from the original first decades the more the lack of originality;
Second, we will ask the experts of Christianity, the believing Christians, naturally of today, what exactly are the new concepts introduced by the very first founders and proponents of Christianity, like Jesus Christ and his early disciple-writers, for example the writers of the Gospels;
Third, then we can compare their so-claimed original features of Christianity with the extant religious beliefs and observances of peoples surrounding the founding members of Christianity.
I think we will find very few really original concepts and observances of Christainity in the very early decades of this religion.
I am inclined to the view that the originality of Christianity is the universal fatherhood of God as the main point of emphasis.
It is not an original concept, but the emphasis, i.e., the application is universal to all people recognized as similar to the founding members of the original religion, meaning possessed of the same humanity.
Pleased correct me, though, universality of the fatherhood of God does not seem to be always taken for granted; for example, the Mormons (correct me, I think I might be wrong here) do not extend the fatherhood of God to black peoples); because black peoples do not share the same humanity as white Mormons, but they accept brown peoples.
Susma Rio Sep
In truth, I think that as we look into the past with holy books and archeology from countries around the world available at our fingertips, it’s easy to say that Christianity took a bit of this from here, and a bit of that from there.
I see Christianity as a seeking of the way of Christ to follow, and in one sense that makes it completely original because no one else ever sought the way of Christ Himself. In a world where messages of faith travelled only by the word and hand of messengers, it’s harder to take an idea from a given place and apply it in a manner to suggest that it’s planned.
‘Love thy neighbor’ is an easy enough message to come to either way.
jesseboy asks:
How original is Christianity?
A close reading of the history of Christianity would seem to show that it borrowed ideas and beliefs from other religions. For example, it seems the idea of a garden of eden is to be found in earlier religions(perhaps Babylonian).
I would like to know how extensive this ‘borrowing’ is. How much did Christianity appropriate from other sources and what is genuinely original?
---------------------
I would like to break up jesseboy’s inquiry from the standpoint of his mind and heart.
And also from that of our mind and heart here as respondents-discussants in regard to his question.
In my opinion, we can all agree that Christianity is not an original religion; that much is clear to our mind.
Next, it is clear also to our mind that there is yet some originality in Christianity; that is why Christianity is different from the extant religions then prevailing in the lands of its founding members, specifically from Judaism.
jesseboy is asking for the items of borrowing and the items of originality in Christianity, which is a very big order:
…borrowed ideas and beliefs
…how extensive this borrowing is
…how much did Christianity appropriate
…what is genuinely original
Briefly, though, as a person who has lived in a Christian society all his life, I can say that the new in Christianity is the universal fatherhood of God, as I said earlier; and maybe the idea of someone appeasing this God for everyone else.
These are matters for the mind; nothing to be excited about, if we all conduct ourselves as investigators for example say in a criminal scene.
Now, the question of the heart: Is jesseboy excited with the new in Christianity or disappointed by its meager originality.
Is anyone here aside from jesseboy, namely, are we here, similarly excited or disappointed.
Maybe we should all be asking ourselves as to why we should be excited or disappointed with Christianity, in a very demanding self-examination.
If we should find ourselves still very excited, then we have no need to change religion.
If we should find ourselves instead disappointed, maybe we should try some of the other religions old and new easily accessible nowadays.
Perhaps some of us will reach the decision that religion is purely a matter of academic curiosity for themselves, nothing to be excited about or disappointed with, except for the good and ill it has brought upon mankind down the centuries.
Susma Rio Sep
Susma, Greek mythology was heavily patriarchal.
There seems to be an implicit assumption being made here that influence is a bad thing: people keep putting the term borrow into quotations, and perhaps I am overly sensitive, but I am seeing that as a snide little way to say “Of course I mean steal”, as if this somehow calls the religion into question or is a strike against it.
I really don’t see how the utility or validity or worthiness of a religion could hinge on its originality: scientology is loads more original than most mainstream religions, but I hardly think that that makes it more (or, to be fair, less) of a religion than any other.
Comparing Christianity to Mithraism and suggesting that Chrisitanity is somehow less of a religion because it is less original is like comparing English to Basque and claiming that since English has borrowed all these words it is less original and hence less “real”. This ignores both the fact that a) the degree to which Basque may have borrowed is unknown and unknowable and b) the very act of borrowing ( or being open to influence) may well be the key to long term vigourous utility.
The supposition that lack or originality constitutes a flaw in a religion is by no means axiomatic, and I think needs to be demonstrated. If no one can demonstrate it, I suggest taht we leave the snide little quote marks off of “borrow” : borrowing, being influenced by, isn’t anything to be ashamed of, excused, or justified. It’s as if someone always wrote that Elvis “borrowed” all his songs, wink wink, nudge, nudge. No, Elvis didn’t write his own songs nad didn’t pretend to. No, Christianity didn’t arise in a vacuum and has never pretended to.
>“Of course I mean steal”, as if this somehow calls the religion into question or is a strike against it.<
Perhaps “co-opt” would be more appropriate. I can see how realizing that the religion you’ve followed is just a patchwork of rehashed myths from many previous religions would tend to undermine it’s credibility. Each of them was absolutely certain of being the one and only “True Faith.” I don’t blame Jesus. He’s as much a victim of the scam as anyone else.
Tarantara, are you STILL insisting that Christianity is simply a rehashment of Mithraic Zoroastrianism? The article which I cited demonstrated the shallowness and fallacy of that claim.
Critics like to claim that Mithra was born of a virgin, and that Christians “obviously” co-opted this tenet in constructing their doctrines. The problem is, Mithra WASN’T born of a virgin. Rather, he emerged from a rock wall, in full adult form. Now, some emphasize that the rock was, by definition, a virgin, but that strikes me as a weak attempt to insist on parallels where none exist.