I have been told that many Christian beliefs were directly influenced by Paganism in order that they be favorably received during the formative years of Christianity. My queston is, to what degree is this true, and is it still prevalent today?

ItsUp2Me - I'd be curious to hear what beliefs you heard were directly influenced by Paganism.

Off the top of my head, I suppose that not all Pagan beliefs are necessarily Pagan, but are shared in all religions. Human beings of all religious persuasions can settle on the same side of an argument concerning reality and truth because although there are vast differences in religions, there are many things that any thinking person can conclude which make sense to many people. Take fidelity in marriage for example. No matter where you go in the world, people of all religions will believe that it is right to remain faithful in the sight of God. Well, that's not a Hindu, Pagan, Christian, or Jewish law explicitly (if you understand what I mean)... we just know in our humanity that it is the right thing to do.

To answer your original question, though, Christianity is rooted in Judaism. Jesus and the Apostles expounded upon the Old Testament and if you carefully read the New Testament, that much is obvious since you'll come across so many direct quotes taken from the Old Testament. So, I'm not convinced that Christianity is influenced by Paganism to any significant extent at all.

If you have some specific things in mind that you think are Pagan in nature, I'd be interested in hearing them and discussing this more.

Thanks, jakester, for your response. Following are some examples of some of the things that I think of as Paan in nature:
1. Isis healing the sick.
2. Aesclep;ius raising the dead.
3. Dioonysus turning water into wihne.
4. Poseidon walking on water.

Your comments will be appreciated.

Thanks, jakester, for your response. Following are some examples of some of the things that I think of as Paan in nature:
1. Isis healing the sick.
2. Aesclep;ius raising the dead.
3. Dioonysus turning water into wihne.
4. Poseidon walking on water.

Your comments will be appreciated.

You are welcome. I don't know whether I will answer your question adequately or not but here goes nothing.

It seems to me that similarities like these could take place on purpose. For example, suppose that Jesus Christ was really God (and I believe that he is) and wanted to make a strong point to the religious culture of his day, what better way to do that than to mimic the proposed power of the deities worshiped in Greek culture? What I mean by making a strong point is that Jesus, wanting to prove that he was the true visible reality of God and to those who looked to him that he was God, demonstrated to the people his power and authority in ways that would have been very striking to them. If someone who understood Greek mythology well and knew the religious importance of the gods you mentioned and what each of them was known to be capable of, and suddenly sees a man performing miracles in the likeness of those gods, the impression of those miracles would have great upon the minds of those who observed them.

This kind of phenomenon occurred before in the Exodus account of the plagues. Many of those miracles were an affront to the celebrated gods of ancient Egypt. There you had God step on the scene and visibly demonstrate power to those people in ways that registered with them because they were accustomed to designating certain powers to certain gods. Well, God demonstrated that he was over all creation in that account because he manifested his power in every way that the plethora of Egyptian gods could only do collectively, grouping all of their individual powers together.

So what's the point of all this? Well, my own belief is that there is one and only true God who is over all creation. Mankind over several millennium has attempted to create God in an image of their choosing and then worship it. It was more obvious in the ancient world because statues abounded for man to worship. But God does not want people to see statues as a means of communicating with him. This is why in the Jewish law it is forbidden to make any representation of God. But in a culture that was immersed in this form of idolatry, Jesus had at his disposal the means to communicate in very powerful ways that he was God. I don't see that Jesus was mimicking Pagan belief to make Christianity more palatable... on the contrary, I can see that he may have mimicked Pagan beliefs to make this point: men may say that Poseidon has power over the sea and Isis has the power of magic to heal, etc. But there was Jesus demonstrating that he had authority over all of those things but he was not a mere statue or figment of someone's imaginative speculation... he was flesh and blood and the visible image of the invisible God who came and dwelt among men. Some of those men responded rightly to him when they said "...And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth."

I have been told that many Christian beliefs were directly influenced by Paganism in order that they be favorably received during the formative years of Christianity. My queston is, to what degree is this true, and is it still prevalent today?

Yes, it is true. In its formative years, Christianity took over many pagan rituals and beliefs so that Christianity would be more favorably received. However, it is not prevalent these days.

Easter, for example, remembers both the Jewish passover and the pagan rite of seasonal re-birth. Most famous is the date of Christmas which was an attempt to co-opt the Roman Saturnalia. All Saint's Day was a way to overshadow the Celtic ritual of remembrance of the dead.

All religions have a tendency to assume what has gone before. Christianity evolved from Judaism, Islam from Christianity and Judaism, Buddhism from Hinduism.

I have been told that many Christian beliefs were directly influenced by Paganism in order that they be favorably received during the formative years of Christianity. My queston is, to what degree is this true, and is it still prevalent today?

It is very ture that Christianity has adopted many practices that are found in paganism

An excellent reference on this is the book Pagan Christianity. It appears that much of what we hold to today is not Christian but pagan in origin.
Early Christianity as described in the Book of Acts bears little resemblance to the Christianity of today; There was no appointed ministry, no heirachy, no priesthood, no clerical garb, all that is a layer of paganism as are many other practices.

Yes, it is true. In its formative years, Christianity took over many pagan rituals and beliefs so that Christianity would be more favorably received. However, it is not prevalent these days.

Easter, for example, remembers both the Jewish passover and the pagan rite of seasonal re-birth. Most famous is the date of Christmas which was an attempt to co-opt the Roman Saturnalia. All Saint's Day was a way to overshadow the Celtic ritual of remembrance of the dead.

All religions have a tendency to assume what has gone before. Christianity evolved from Judaism, Islam from Christianity and Judaism, Buddhism from Hinduism.


You bring up the subject of Easter, which calls to mind a question of a different nature. Since Christ was dead in the tomb, was resurected and became a part of the trinity, i.e. he, being dead, was now a spirit, whiy was it necessary to remove the stone from the opening of the tomb? As a spirit He could simply reappear outside. A second question is why was it necessary for all this to occur in the darkness of night with no witnesses? Would it not have been more convincing had it happened in broad open daylight before the masses? Please elaborate. Thanks.

________
ItsUp2Me

You bring up the subject of Easter, which calls to mind a question of a different nature. Since Christ was dead in the tomb, was resurected and became a part of the trinity, i.e., he, being dead, was now a spirit, whiy was it necessary to remove the stone from the opening of the tomb? As a spirit He could simply reappear outside. A second question is why was it necessary for all this to occur in the darkness of night with no witnesses? Would it not have been more convincing had it happened in broad open daylight before the masses? Please elaborate. Thanks.

________
ItsUp2Me

I think you have to see this from God's perspective. He isn't about providing a spectacle for the masses that is pagan thinking. Christ apparently arose in the early morning and from subsequent events it is apparent he could materialise where ever he wanted to but if the tomb had not been opened how would the disciples have known he had risen. The moving of the stone was a testimony to the world, Jesus was fulfilling prophesy, that is all he needed to do as a witness to us. Jesus was about continuing to minister to and strengthening his disciples not preaching to the crowds. You have to perceive these things by faith not sight

I think you have to see this from God's perspective. He isn't about providing a spectacle for the masses that is pagan thinking. Christ apparently arose in the early morning and from subsequent events it is apparent he could materialise where ever he wanted to but if the tomb had not been opened how would the disciples have known he had risen. The moving of the stone was a testimony to the world, Jesus was fulfilling prophesy, that is all he needed to do as a witness to us. Jesus was about continuing to minister to and strengthening his disciples not preaching to the crowds. You have to percieve these things by faith not sight


Now comes the matter of faith. I must assume you were born and reared a Christian. This being the case, may I ask had you been born and reared a Hindu, would your faith in Jesus be the same today?

What I am getting at is this. It seems to me that faith is a function of one's upbringing in most cases. I recognize that there are a few (relatively speaking) converts, but the nativity thing seems to me to be the most profound influence in the forming of one's faith.

Now my final question. Will God reward all people regardless of their faith in the after-life?

_______
ItsUp2Me

Now comes the matter of faith. I must assume you were born and reared a Christian. This being the case, may I ask had you been born and reared a Hindu, would your faith in Jesus be the same today?

What I am getting at is this. It seems to me that faith is a function of one's upbringing in most cases. I recognize that there are a few (relatively speaking) converts, but the nativity thing seems to me to be the most profound influence in the forming of one's faith.

Now my final question. Will God reward all people regardless of their faith in the after-life?

_______
ItsUp2Me

You assume too much and there by make an out of yourself. I have no idea if I was born as a 'christian" As far as I know that is an unscriptural concept. I was educated about Christ but not introduced to him, and in my mid forties came to place my face in Christ and confess him as Lord after wandering in the wilderness of the world for many years.

You assume too much and there by make an out of yourself. I have no idea if I was born as a 'christian" As far as I know that is an unscriptural concept. I was educated about Christ but not introduced to him, and in my mid forties came to place my face in Christ and confess him as Lord after wandering in the wilderness of the world for many years.

I apologize for the assumption. Like I said there are a few exceptions. Now, do you think you might offer an answer concerning the other "assumption" I made, i.e. the one about nativity influencing faith.

Early training would have to have some influence on our thinking.

BUT:

We have also been given powers of reasoning, and the measure of faith.

No reasoning person should think that he can carve out some image and it become "god" and worship it.

Abram (Abraham) was raised in idolatry, but rejected it.

Likewise, when man sees the wonders of all creation, he should have reason enough to see order, and where order and natural law, a power that brought it into existence.

As to your OP, I agree with Clete on this. The church compromised and allowed false teachings to enter. It is still happening.

As to the Greek mythology, it is called that because it IS a myth. What heathen deities promised, Jesus delivered.

AND:

Jesus was One in the Godhead from eternity past. He didn't get there after His earthly ministry.

I apologize for the assumption. Like I said there are a few exceptions. Now, do you think you might offer an answer concerning the other "assumption" I made, i.e., the one about nativity influencing faith.

Obviously the family you are born into and their beliefs influences what, if anything, you are told about God and Jesus Christ, but a person makes up their own mind about religion otherwise it would not be possible for Hindu or Muslim to convert in the face of persecution. In my case being educated in a Christian school did not complete the process even though I had a good understanding of Christianity. My parents basically left my religious education to the Church and they failed miserably. The essential tenets were missing, my nativity really wasn't the deciding influence in convincing me that Jesus Christ was the one to follow whole heartedly

Hello.

The answer to your question is deeply complex. At a superficial level a large amount of festivals and imagery was adapted from existing traditions within the cultures in which Christianity settled. At a deeper level, Greek Philosophy was a major contributor.

The superficial example might be the mid-winder solstice for Christmas. If the events of the Nativity are as reported then the shepherds would not have been tending their flocks during the night during the winter! Even the middle east would have been far too cold. Another example is the Halo, an Egyptian tradition to show divinity which was adapted by the Egyptian Coptic church.

A major influence to ideology can be traced to ancient Greek Philosophy. After the fall of the Roman Empire and the Europeon dark ages, Greek Philosophy was totally lost. However it was kept in safe keeping by the Islamic Ottoman Empire. When Christendom encountered these Islamic scholars it was rediscovered! The Saint Thomas Aquinas was largely responsible for marrying the two traditions in his Summa Theologica, over a million words long if you want some bed time reading!
Examples of the influences can be seen in the literal dichotomy between the Soul and the Body (see substance dualism) taken directly from Plato and rejection of the body etc Rational Arguments for Gods existence from Aristotle. There are huge amounts of influences and they shaped Catholic doctrine. As to the western Protestant traditions the influence still lingers, although they often claim they work from purely Biblical sources, their interpretation has been shaped dramatically in ways they would probably be uncomfortable to admit!

Of course influences, shared imagery etc are not actually a problem if God exists and he actually is God. The imagery and festivals are a superficial similarity and the more core beliefs and influences can be identified and removed if your that way inclined, leaving the core message very much intact.

Hello Anthony,

When you talk about,"Examples of influence can be seen in the literal dichotomy between the soul and the body etc" Are you referring to Neo-Platonism? That is the belief that one could choose to reject the physical world and become devoted to the metaphysical world of ideas or forms. If this is the case do you see this as a genuine attempt at substance dualism? I would see Descartes as making the genuine distinction.

Your thoughts on the matter

Regards

Tut

Hello Tut317

I would see Descartes form of dualism as broadly epistemological (what we can know) and Plato's as ontological (what actually is).

Descartes purpose was to escape total skepticism (how can we know anything). He used 'I am a thing that thinks" as his axiom, his reasoning that even if he was being deceived by God or a daemon, he would have to exist to be deceived.
Although he definitely was a substance dualist, his arguments that the soul does not need the body, or does not in some sense arise out of the body are not so strong or important to his mission, which is to escape skepticism.

I would see Plato as the original (ignoring the Pre Socratics for the minute) advocate of substance Dualism as his belief in the soul not just existing within the body and surviving its death, but it also its preexistence to the body (in the realm of forms)

When I referred to the influence on Christianity I cited Plato because his arguments suggest and thoughts affected Christian thought towards
1. The soul does not require a body (not really Biblical which generally implies a bodily resurrection)
2. The body demeans, distracts and brings down the body, sex is bad etc etc

Although Paul did not have a high view of sex and the body he is pretty much alone Biblically (See Song of Songs!), he was also writing and traveling through Greece funnily enough..

I may be wrong of course. But those are my thoughts!

All this indicates to me that "Christianity" needs to be re-defined, as it has lost most of its original meaning.

All this indicates to me that "Christianity" needs to be re-defined, as it has lost most of its original meaning.

Hi Gal,

Unfortunately we cannot shake off our historical Western shackles. When you say that Christianity needs to be redefined it then becomes an impossible task to pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps.

Anthony is right when he says that Plato was influential in Christian thought. Of course, there are others who turned out to be equally influential, notably Aristotle.

It is a little bit like saying that I am going to redefine physics. Newton's theories on motion are correct and any subsequent theories on physics I am going to ignore. All knowledge progresses through some type of accumulative process.

Regards

Tut

Ok, I'm just wondering but how did this turn so quickly from paganism to greek mythology. The original question related to pagan religion, then the gods/goddesses (as I do not know greek mythology well but know the names of some of the gods.) listed are greek not celtic in origin I'm just curious. Pardon my intrusion if it is not in place with said question

Ok, i'm just wondering but how did this turn so quickly from paganism to greek mythology. The origional question related to pagan religion, then the gods/goddesses (as i do not know greek mythology well but know the names of some of the gods.) listed are greek not celtic in origin i'm just curious. pardon my intrusion if it is not in place with said question

Hi Binx,

Paganism is a broad term which can include Greek culture and religion.
Plato and Aristotle were Greek philosophers. They are not part of any mythology. Plato and Aristotle did not have a lot to say in terms of religion but their philosophy was influential in forming Christian theology.

Regards

Tut

I myself am wiccan, been practicing for over 10 years. Seriously for the last 8. and I have never heard the term pagan being so "loose" as in tied to greek culture and religion. Could you provide proof of this? IE links, books, articles etc... thank you
Blessed be

I myself am wiccan, been practicing for over 10 years. seriously for the last 8. and i have never heard the term pagan being so "loose" as in tied to greek culture and religion. could you provide proof of this? IE links, books, articles etc... thank you
blessed be

"Pagan" comes from Latin and means a villager, or someone who lives in the countryside. It has a slightly pejorative meaning, so that today we would translate it as "yokel" which is probably closer to the original meaning.

Christianity is a religion that started and grew in the cities of the Roman Empire. Countryfolk were usually the last to embrace Christianity. Hence, "pagan" came to have the new meaning of non-Christian - someone who still worshiped the "old" gods and goddesses.

The word further developed over time to indicate someone who did not believe in one God. Still later, it came to mean those who were not members of the major world religions.

Today, it is in the process of again being redefined and is used to loosely describe New Age religions, including Wicca.

Plenty of information is available by Googling the word.

Ahh yes I know it is easy to Google. But on this site you should always add souces. Following proper forum ettiqute

Ahh yes i know it is easy to google. but on this site you should always add souces. following proper forum ettiqute

Googling will provide you all the sources you require.

You have not been on this site often have you? With all factual information (not advice, personal experiences etc.. ) should come with sources. I will find my post about bacteria to prove this.

Ok edit... adding post information which links to my post about bacteria

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/ecology-environment/what-some-info-bacteria-409983.html

They state I had no sources, and if I had taken it from say a book or some legitimate source (just like you are saying there is... sources should be posted)

In every religion and every belief there is the concept of right and wrong, good and bad. In the majority there is the goal of being good or right. That requires, most often, a sacrifice for the atonement of wrong behavior or sins.

Is this because God created us?

Sure Christmas and Easter have secularized features that have, unfortunantly, overshadowed the true meaning; but at its core is there a religion where the god himself sacrifices himself for the salvation of his creation?


Here is an example

Doesn't the religion of Mithra prove that Christianity is false? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (http://www.carm.org/christianity/bible/doesnt-religion-mithra-prove-christianity-false)



G&P

you have not been on this site often have you? With all factual information (not advice, personal experiences etc..) should come with sources. I will find my post about bacteria to prove this.

Ok edit... adding post information which links to my post about bacteria

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/ecology-environment/what-some-info-bacteria-409983.html

they state i had no sources, and if i had taken it from say a book or some legitimate source (just like you are saying there is... sources should be posted)

Thank you for your advice on how to post on this site. May I return the favor?

Get yourself a book on basic grammar and spelling. You won't get far in this life without being able to write a coherent sentence.

OK do you want to know something. There is no need to be IGNORANT. I've been on this site for years and have tons of reputation as being a good poster giving good information. Sometimes when its late at night and I'm sitting typing away in the dark I hit the keys in the wrong order or place a word in where it doesn't exactally belong. . You have no right to treat me so disrespectfully and rudely. No right at all. But hey, I don't need to explain myself to you, someone who's only been on here for a couple years with LESS than half the posts I've got. Grow the heck up and get some manners I was just trying to be helpful. Or leave. You remind me of a troll.. someone who's just here to piss other people off. *sighs* and this is why sometimes I think I should leave this forum. If it was not for the wonderful people on here that I know I wouldn't still be here.

ok do you want to know something. there is no need to be IGNORANT. i've been on this site for years and have tons of reputation as being a good poster giving good information. Sometimes when its late at night and i'm sitting typing away in the dark i hit the keys in the wrong order or place a word in where it doesnt exactally belong. . You have no right to treat me so disrespectfully and rudely. no right at all. But hey, i dont need to explain myself to you, someone whos only been on here for a couple years with LESS than half the posts i've got. Grow the heck up and get some manners i was just trying to be helpful. or leave. You remind me of a troll.. someone whos just here to piss other people off. *sighs* and this is why sometimes i think i should leave this forum. if it was not for the wonderful people on here that i know i wouldnt still be here.

The personal pronoun "I" is always capitalized, as is the beginning of every new sentence.

Grow up.. So what if I don't CAPITALIZE I over and over. Who cares. It doesn't need to be 100% correct for someone to get their point across

Grow up.. So what if I dont CAPITALIZE I over and over. who cares. It doesnt need to be 100% correct for someone to get their point across
So on this site we don't have to write with good grammar, punctuation, and capitalization, but have to be sure to cite sources? By the way, what Athos explained so clearly about the word "pagan" is common knowledge to anyone with a smattering of Latin and/or who reads history and/or who can search in a dictionary. Citing sources is not necessary in that case.

***ADDED***If I told you the side effects of Arimidex or listed Boy Scout rules and regulations, it would be important that I cite sources.

Its just nice to have proof is all. And a lot of people ask for sources. Especially the experts on the site

its just nice to have proof is all. and alot of people ask for sources.
Proof? Or maybe support is the better word? But one doesn't have to cite sources for every post he makes.

Thinking about how pagan beliefs influenced the forming of Christianity reminds me of one of the books I wrote. It told how Catholic missionaries came to Texas to Christianize the Indians there. The missionaries didn't force the Indians to toss out every spiritual or religious belief they already had, but worked with those ideas so that the Christian teachings would be more palatable to the Indians. For instance, when the Franciscans began converting the Jumanos, that tribe told of a vision of "the Woman in Blue" that some had seen briefly. The Franciscans decided and then told the Indians that she must be a Spanish Franciscan nun, María de Jesús de Agreda (whose order wore blue in honor of the Virgin Mary), who apparently appeared through bilocation and never physically left Spain.

Here is an example

Doesn't the religion of Mithra prove that Christianity is false? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (http://www.carm.org/christianity/bible/doesnt-religion-mithra-prove-christianity-false)



G&P

Hi inthebox,

I found this article interesting, however the question,"Doesn't the religion of Mithra prove that Christianity is false?" This is not really a moot point. Even if Mithra could be shown to be the origin of Christian belief, it is irrelevant. Discovering the source of a religion has nothing to to with the truth of falsity of the religion. Consequently there is nothing to defend in the article.

The other point I would like to make concerning the article centres on this claim:

"Furthermore, those who wrote about Jesus in the New Testament were Jews (or under the instruction of Jews) who were devoted to the legitimacy and inspiration of the Old Testament scriptures and possessed a strong distaste for Pagan religions".

This statement seems to reflect the idea that popular Roman culture was somehow the dominant culture throughout the occupied territories.This was not the case for those who could read and write

The occupied territories of the time were Hellenized long before Roman occupation. For the educated elite the dominant philosophies of the Greco-Roman world would have been Stoicism and Platonism.
Platonism would have been popular with early Christian writers for a variety of reasons. Some of these reasons could be outlined at a latter stage.


Tut

I don't see the comparison between Greek or Roman mythology and the basic tenants of Christianity so I don't see how one "copied" the other. Is their another belief or religion that has a god that sacrifices himself for his creation?

Common things are common, it doesn't mean that they are directly related. Themes of good and bad, right and wrong are universal. It doesn't prove a relation.

What is the archaelogic, the historical, the scholarly proof of these pagan beliefs?



G&P

I don't see the comparison between Greek or Roman mythology and the basic tenants of Christianity so I don't see how one "copied" the other.
Did the array of Catholic saints evolve because of Greek & Roman pantheism? Does the Christmas celebration have roots in Saturnalia?

Wondergirl and inthebox

Platonism, Stoicism and Epicureanism are NOT in any way related to mythology. They are genuine philosophical positions, recognizable today.
The content of these philosophies would have been known by Christian scholars of the time.

For example, Platonism is the first known attempt at identity theory. Identity theory is of course significant in later Christian theology,i.e.. The Trinity.

wondergirl

Platonism, Stoicism and Epicureanism are NOT in any way related to mythology.
I know. Did I say they were?

Did the array of Catholic saints evolve because of Greek & Roman pantheism? Does the Christmas celebration have roots in Saturnalia?

1- No, they did not.
2- No, but the DATE of the celebration does.