I think “plagiarism” is entirely the wrong word to use here - I mean, none of those other religions had copyright, did they? Think of Christianity more as a reboot.
Or a fanfic. Jesus is kind of a Mary Sue, isn’t he?
Concerning Mithras, it’s first necessary to distinguish the Mithras cult in the Roman Empire from the earlier religion in the eastern Persia; they share little besides the name. According to Dr. Edwin Yamauchi, the earliest evidence of the Roman Mithras cult dates to between 90 and 100 A.D., with it only becoming widespread in the second century. Hence, even for those who try to late-date the Gospels, there’s not much chance of them copying from Mithras. If copying occurred, it flowed the other way. The specific connections often cited are outright false or greatly exaggerated, however, so it’s unlikely that there was any relationship at all.
The non-biblical date of Dec. 25 is copied from Pagan sources, though. That’s been known for centuries and is one reason why groups like the Puritans banned Christmas. (Whether it influenced the Grinch is an open question.)
Syncretism |= Plagiarism
Has anyone ever converted in either direction as a result of this?
Astronomy nitpick: stars do not change alignment over the course of a year. Stars only change their positions over millennia. Planets change their alignment, but their periods are not yearly.
I’m not sure what that would even mean. Planets move against the background of the stars, but the stars themselves remain in fixed positions relative to each other; that’s why they were, in olden times, called the “fixed stars” to distinguish them from the planets (“wanderers”). So I don’t know how Sirius could “align” with Orion’s belt at any point.
I’m seeing a problem with that whole idea…
As I think was mentioned, I watch Zeitgeist and personally had a lot of problems with the way Christianity was tied to other religions. As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, yes, many Christians celebrate Christmas on December 25th, but to say that he was born on that day simply doesn’t fit with a lot of the facts as written in the Bible. This is precisely why I don’t celebrate that holiday.
A lot of the other aspects may or may not have been common in other religions such as Mithraism, but I think saying they’re plagarized from them is also misleading. We have to remember that, regardless of what you think about the truth of Christianity, it’s not like this stuff was made up by the Christians, but that many of these things lead back to Jewish tradition that leads back far longer than the time of Jesus. For instance, the Baptism at age of 30 is part of Jewish tradition at the time that a man could not enter service until that age. The 3 days in the tomb leads back to the sign of Jonah. How far back, exactly, these things go, I don’t know, but I think it’s more likely to lead to a common origin than that they were plagarized by Christians.
Also, as a messiah, Jesus HAD to perform miracles and obviously would have been given names tied to other similar historical figures; it’s simply part of the job description. If he hadn’t done them, he wouldn’t have been a messiah. So, saying that two important deities/messianic figures did godlike/messianic things doesn’t really mean anything other than that they’re both gods/messiahs. So I don’t think saying that Mithra or whomever may have done them first means anything with regard to Christianity possibly plagarizing those aspects.
Now, some of the other aspects I don’t think directly follow from Jewish tradition, like the Virgin birth. Those aspects very well may be part of some filling in the gaps or revisionism; however, I don’t think that they can’t be attributed to other things necessarily means they were plagarized either. I think it’s possible that the virgin birth was added later as part of some historical revisionism in a way to make “our God” at least as good as “their god”. However, it’s not something I really put enough thought into to have a meaningful opinion on the historical accuracy of that point. Personally, I don’t think whether he has born of a virgin or not is really as important of an aspect of Christian theology as so many others make it out to be. Afterall, a man isn’t made great through his manner of conception or birth, but by his deeds.
> Afterall, a man isn’t made great through his manner of conception or birth, but by his deeds.
Hmm.
Not a Christian here, but my understanding of Christianity is that it is ALL about the circumstances of Jesus’ birth, e.g. that he is the son of God, and whatever deeds he is said to have done are not what made him great, but what demonstrated that he was in fact the son of God.
Had Jesus not done any deeds at all, my understanding of Christianity is that he would still be the son of God, there would just be less “data” to persuade people of it. The Virgin Birth being one remaining example…
Am I wrong about that?
I’m at work, so I can’t find the links myself, but if you google “zeitgeist rebuttal”, you get a lot of information on it. The book/movie twists a lot of facts around to make it all fit. For example, (and this is from memory), one God was killed under a tree, so they say he was crucified. Another god only has 12 disciples if you count him as one. And Jesus had 13 disciples if you count both Judases. Add that to what others have said about actions being part of the job and you have a recipe for a lot of leeway in finding similarities.
I would not say that it’s ALL about the circumstances of Jesus’ birth, but yes, classic Christiain theology does say that Jesus is by his very essence The Son of God, and was therefore great, and out of his great identity, he did and taught great things.
You could say that a difference between conservative & liberal Christians
is the CC’s believe that Jesus’ words and deeds are great & authoritative because of Who He is while LC’s believe that Jesus is great & authoritative because of His words & deeds. However, there are many LC’s who do hold to JC’s essential Divine Sonship, including the virgin birth.
I heard Bill Maher make a lot of these same parallels between Jesus and Horus (not Osiris)in “Religulous”. He didn’t quote his source - I was also wondering how it was researched.
Wow! I got a response from FriarTed and didn’t come off loooking like a total idiot! 
Again, not being a Christian, I am not sure precisely who you are referring too by “Conservative Christian” and “Liberal Christian”. 2000 years, world wide interaction with politics and who knows all what else plus doctrine, makes my head spin thinking about trying to sort it out for myself.
So can you tell me what you mean by “conservative” and “liberal” in this context and tie it to actual people or groups I might be familiar with, instead of leaving it hanging as an abstract for the reader?
Cite, please, for a Liberal Christian denomination that does not hold to essential Divine Sonship, including virgin birth. I just can’t wrap my head around the notion of someone not taking those as axiomatic, and still claiming the label “Christian.”
I don’t know of any denominations, either, but I know of individual Christians who do not, at least as I understand the doctrine. They believe that everyone is a son of God, and that Jesus’ specialty was that he happened to be the most “in tune” with the Father, and thus was used to save everyone else. At least, that’s the best I can understand it.
If one considers Unitarian/Universalists as ‘Christian’, then that would be one example of a form of Christianity that does not hold with the Divine Sonship or the Virgin Birth.
Of course, since there is no real authority as to what constitutes a ‘Real Christian©’ then you have a ‘No True Scotsman’ situation arising.
My take on Christianity is that it borrowed a great deal from the existing Mystery Schools of the period including those who preserved something of the ancient Egyptian religion, and that those elements were grafted onto Essene Judaism. However, it is very difficult to determine these kinds of things except by inference since the RCC did its level best to obscure as much of the original ‘heretical’ forms of Christianity as possible.
Gnosticism, for one example, holds that the deity worshiped in the Old Testament is inherently evil. Those folks considered themselves to be Christians.
I feel prompted to point out that these parallels to pagan myths, while striking, are not necessarily bothersome to Christian theologians and philosophers. C.S. Lewis wrote a whole books about the subject called Myth Became Fact.
The Devil Take The Hindmost, I’ve Got Mine Republican crowd claim to be Christian so I guess the brand is a little diluted since the Eye of Needle/Camel days.
The “Jesus is just an imitation of Horus” claim is a common story that has been floating around for a long time. In particular, it’s made in some movie available on the Internet called Zeitgeist. I’ve tried to find a website that addresses this idea in a fairly neutral way. This is as close as I’ve been able to find:
http://stupidevilbastard.com/2005/01/ending_the_myth_of_horus/
If someone has been able to find a website with a clearer, more detailed account of the truth of these supposed resemblances, I’d like to know about it. Part of the problem of trying to counter these claims is that slightly different claims about the resemblances of Jesus to Horus are made in every website and E-mail that makes these claims, so it’s hard to address them all.
Basically, the parallels aren’t very many and really aren’t very interesting.
Indeed it has been around a long time.
Robert Taylor, a renegade priest of the Church of England, after having been thrown in jail by his bishop in 1829 for blasphemy, published that same year The Diegesis: Being a Discovery of the Origin, Evidences, and Early History of Christianity, which accused Christianity of pillaging earlier Eastern religions and denied there was anything original to it at all.
Fascinating character, Taylor. He ended up, unsurprisingly, being defrocked and summarily ejected from the Church; small wonder after antics like this:
Gotta love the guy!