Christianity, the ultimate plagiarism

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-09-12 10:36pm

From: http://members.aol.com/MercStG/ChriMithPage1.html

It is surprising that Christianity was to become the international religion, when one considers that the already well-established religion of Mithraism was a natural challenger for that title. Up until the time of the Emperor Constantine, it was the latter religion which was more popular within the framework of the Roman Empire, and Christianity was regarded as being only one sect amongst numerous other sects. It was only when Constantine decreed that Christianity was to be the state religion, that Mithraism, together with a host of other religions and sects, was put into the melting pot, and ideas of that religion, most suited for the Christian purpose, were absorbed into the new state-approved religion.

Mithraism, the religion followed by those who worshipped the sun god Mithra, originated in Persia about 400 BC, and was to spread its Pagan ideas as far west as the British Isles. In the early centuries of the Christian era, Mithraism was the most wide-spread religion in the Western World, and its remains are to be found in monuments scattered around the countries of Europe, which then comprised the known civilised world.

Mithra was regarded as created by, yet co-equal with, the Supreme Deity. Mithraists were Trinitarian, kept Sunday as their day of worship, and their chief festivals were what we know of as Christmas and Easter. Long before the advent of Jesus, Mithra was said to have been born of a virgin mother, in a cave, at the time of Christmas, and died on a cross at Easter. Baptism was practised, and the sign of the cross was made on the foreheads of all newly-baptised converts. Mithra was considered to be the saviour of the world, conferring on his followers an eternal life in Heaven, and, similar to the story of Jesus, he died to save all others, provided that they were his followers.

For three centuries both religions ran parallel, Mithraism first becoming known to the Romans in 70 BC, Christianity following a century later, and it wasn’t until AD 377 that Christianity became sufficiently strong to suppress its former rival, although Mithraism was to remain a formidable opponent for some time after that, only slowly being forsaken by the people. It was only the absorption of many Mithraist ideas into Christianity which finally saw its downfall.

The big turning point was brought about by the Congress of Nicaea in AD 325. Constantine, a great supporter of the Christian religion, although not converting to it until the time of his decease, gathered together 2,000 leading figures in the world of theology, the idea being to bring about the advent of Christianity as the official state religion of Rome. It was out of this assembly that Jesus was formally declared to be the Son of God, and Saviour of Mankind, another slain saviour god, bringing up the tally of slain god-men to seventeen, of which Mithra, together with such men as Bel and Osiris, was included.

Just as Nicaea can be regarded as the birthplace of Christianity, so too it can be regarded as the graveyard of what we imagine Jesus taught. From that time onwards, Christianity was to absorb the superstitions of Mithraism, and many other older religions, and what was believed to have happened to earlier saviour gods, was made to centre around the Nazarene. The coming of Christianity under state control was to preserve it as a religion, and was the death knell of all other sects and cults within the Roman Empire.

Had Constantine decided to retain Mithraism as the official state religion, instead of putting Christianity in its place, it would have been the latter that would have been obliterated. To Constantine however, Christianity had one great advantage, it preached that repentant sinners would be forgiven their sins, provided that they were converted Christians at the time of their Passing, and Constantine had much to be forgiven for, He personally did not convert to the new religion until he was on his death bed, the reason being that only sins committed following conversion were accountable, so all sins committed by a convert, prior to conversion, didn’t matter, and he could hardly have sinned too much whilst he was lying on his death bed. Mithraism could not offer the same comfort to a man like Constantine, who was regarded as being one of the worst mass-murderers of his time.

The Emperor Julian, who followed Constantine, went back to Mithraism, but his short reign of only two years could not change what Constantine had decreed. His defeat, and death, at the hands of the Persians, was used by the Christians as an argument in favour of the new, against the old, being looked upon as an omen that Christianity had divine approval. If Julian had been spared to reign some years longer, the entire history of international religion would almost certainly have been different.

Under Emperor Jovian, who followed Julian, the substitution of Christianity for Mithraism made further progress, and old Pagan beliefs, like the Virgin Birth, Baptism and Holy Trinity, became generally accepted as the basis of the state religion. The early Christian idea of Unitarianism was quickly squashed in favour of Trinitarianism, and those who refused to accept the Holy Trinity were put to the sword, the beginning of mass slaughter in the name of religion, which was to go on for centuries.

I'm still at a loss as to how people can buy the whole religion.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2002-09-12 10:37pm

Of course Christianity is a series of plagiarisms. Note how many of the stories, including those of Noah and even that of Christ himself actually grew from earlier myths and legends in the Middle East and Europe.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-09-12 10:50pm

[fundie mode]How dare you accuse God of plagiarism! You're all going to Hell for this one!

Besides, God created the universe and everything in it. All works are his property. How can he copy from himself?[/fundie mode]

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-09-12 11:01pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:[fundie mode]How dare you accuse God of plagiarism! You're all going to Hell for this one!

Besides, God created the universe and everything in it. All works are his property. How can he copy from himself?[/fundie mode]

You need to refine your fundie mode algorithm. You forgot to capitalise "his" and "he".

Post by **weemadando** » 2002-09-12 11:32pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Wicked Pilot wrote:[fundie mode]How dare you accuse God of plagiarism! You're all going to Hell for this one!

Besides, God created the universe and everything in it. All works are his property. How can he copy from himself?[/fundie mode]
You need to refine your fundie mode algorithm. You forgot to capitalise "his" and "he".

Not only that, but he also overlooked the chance to spurt a completely irrelevant biblical quote as "evidence".

RayCav of ASVS · Post by **RayCav of ASVS** » 2002-09-12 11:46pm

[fundie mode] hi I'm a Catholic I suck dick![/fundie mode]

Yeah, my algorithm needs work too.....

Darth Yoshi · Post by **Darth Yoshi** » 2002-09-13 01:55am

[fundie]You heathens! How dare you speak of the Lord in such a manner?! You will all perish at the hand of God! Enjoy your life while you can, for when you die, you will suffer damnation, even though God loves you all.[/fundie]

Hmm...I think I combined evil phychotic dude with fundie on that one.

Kahlis · Post by **Kahlis** » 2002-09-13 02:57am

Remind me of the dating on the original Gospel texts and tell me how they place relative to 70 A.D.

Your article also has some innacuracies about the spread of the Gospel under folks like Paul back before Jerusalem was oblierated by the Romans. It also ignores the fact that the concepts of the Trinity and the Sabbath are rooted in the Christian tradition at the time of Christ (IIRC, first copies of Mark are dated some 10-25 years before Mithraism can be dated), with the Sabbath dating back some several thousand years. The specific days on which Easter/Christmas are celebrated on are inconsequential compared to their actual recognition, as is the specific date of the week which you choose to take as the Sabbath.

There are two primary problems though:
1. Your article implies that the inter-religion influence was entirely one way. There is no support within the argument for this one-way relationship with the Crucifiction and the virgin birth (among other things). In effect, enough doubt exists within the article that Mithraism was copying Christianity, rather than your opposite opinion.
2. Christianity is based on a relationship with Christ and upon the Bible. The former exists regardless of any former tradition, and the latter existed long before your talk of plagiarism.

Alas..

Post by **weemadando** » 2002-09-13 03:58am

Whats a very good arguement is the fact that in the middle east at the time of the "virgin birth", the word for virgin applied to any married woman who was yet to have a child. As such a virgin birth merely meant a first child.

Isn't misinterpretation and alteration great?

Kahlis · Post by **Kahlis** » 2002-09-13 04:01am

weemadando wrote:Whats a very good arguement is the fact that in the middle east at the time of the "virgin birth", the word for virgin applied to any married woman who was yet to have a child. As such a virgin birth merely meant a first child.

Isn't misinterpretation and alteration great?

So tell me, is the use of the Greek for "virgin" the same as the Middle Eastern vernacular?

Post by **weemadando** » 2002-09-13 04:10am

Hmm... I'd have to look around. I seem to recall something about the greek for young woman and the *forgotten what other language* for virgin were amazingly similar and got mixed up. But don't hold me to that.

The misinterpration of virgin thing, I just remember that one from a lecture about a year ago. Tis the kind of thing that sticks in your head when you are forced to battle fundies on a regular basis.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-09-13 09:15am

RayCav of ASVS wrote:[fundie mode] hi I'm a Catholic I suck dick![/fundie mode]

Yeah, my algorithm needs work too.....

Yeah, it should be:

"Hi I'm a Catholic Schoolgirl, I suck dick!"

Post by **weemadando** » 2002-09-13 10:00am

MKSheppard wrote:
RayCav of ASVS wrote:[fundie mode] hi I'm a Catholic I suck dick![/fundie mode]

Yeah, my algorithm needs work too.....
Yeah, it should be:

"Hi I'm a Catholic Schoolgirl, I suck dick!"

What about: "I'm a catholic priest, and you little boy, will..."
Erm yes... You get the idea.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-09-13 12:12pm

Yeah, it should be:

"Hi I'm a Catholic Schoolgirl, I suck dick!"

That's a stereotype that is very exaggerated.

Post by **weemadando** » 2002-09-13 12:28pm

But you can't help but look at them in those cute as little uniforms and think...

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-09-13 02:25pm

[fundie mode 2.0]How dare you accuse God of plagiarism! You're all going to Hell for this one!

Besides, God created the universe and everything in it. All works are His property. How can He copy from Himself?[/fundie mode 2.0]

Next of Kin · Post by **Next of Kin** » 2002-09-13 06:56pm

Could one make a case and say that the biblic story of Jesus somewhat parallels the story of Hercules? Both were popular and underwent their respective trials.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-09-13 08:46pm

But you can't help but look at them in those cute as little uniforms and think...

Naturally. I went to Catholic school for 8 years. 6 of those years were my puberty years. Do the math.

Post by **weemadando** » 2002-09-13 09:09pm

Next of Kin wrote:Could one make a case and say that the biblic story of Jesus somewhat parallels the story of Hercules? Both were popular and underwent their respective trials.

Thats a bit of a stretch... And the characters are far too different, Jesus was apparently firmly pacifistic. Read some Greek and Roman epic and Hercules raped, looted and pillaged his way around the place, even if the place he was in happened to be his ally.

Darth Eris · Post by **Darth Eris** » 2002-09-14 02:00am

Next of Kin wrote:
Could one make a case and say that the biblic story of Jesus somewhat parallels the story of Hercules? Both were popular and underwent their respective trials.

Thats a bit of a stretch... And the characters are far too different, Jesus was apparently firmly pacifistic. Read some Greek and Roman epic and Hercules raped, looted and pillaged his way around the place, even if the place he was in happened to be his ally.

Plus, Hercules had less brains than Zeus (as difficult as that is) while Jesus was at least somewhat intelligent. Either that or he was good at faking it.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » 2002-09-14 05:08am

See down the bottom for comments on the relationship between Christianity and Mithraism:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10402a.htm

Kahlis wrote: There are two primary problems though:
1. Your article implies that the inter-religion influence was entirely one way. There is no support within the argument for this one-way relationship with the Crucifiction and the virgin birth (among other things). In effect, enough doubt exists within the article that Mithraism was copying Christianity, rather than your opposite opinion.

However, the implication remains that part of Christianity's rise can be attributes to it's adoption of Roman tactics. Rome conquered (where possible) by leaving existing governments intact and ruling through them. Christianity conquered by taking pagan rituals and incorporating them into its own fabric (this practice is quite a canny one, and continues today in Africa, the Pacific Islands, and pretty much anywhere that Christian missionaries are attempting to make inroads against indigenous beliefs).

The degree of borrowing, and the fact that the borrowing sometimes went the other way is a meaningless semantic quibble.

2. Christianity is based on a relationship with Christ and upon the Bible. The former exists regardless of any former tradition, and the latter existed long before your talk of plagiarism.

But how do we know that? Why, from the body of knowledge passed down by the Church in its various incarnations. And how do we know to what extent that body of knowledge was influenced by the cynical incorporation of others beliefs in order to persuade them to become Christian (and not-so-incidentally add coins to the missionaries purse)? Why, guess what, we don't, unless we choose to take the Church's word for it. But which Church should we ask in order to get the 'official' version?

Rhadamanthus · Post by **Rhadamanthus** » 2002-09-14 06:40pm

Of course, it is one of the driving principles of Christianity "What you cannot destroy, absorb, assimilate and claim it was yours from the beginning."

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2002-09-15 11:54am

Rhadamanthus wrote:Of course, it is one of the driving principles of Christianity "What you cannot destroy, absorb, assimilate and claim it was yours from the beginning."

Or if that doesn't work come with some way of making all the other stuff fit into your definition of evil. IE. The Devil looking like several half-man half-animal pagan dieties (Pan, Priapus,Herne etc..) . The pentagram being made the Devil's symbol instead of symbol of protection.

Ba'al was a competing god with Yaweh and was often refered to by his followers as "Lord of the House". The Israelites turned that into a joke making it into something that sounds similar in ancient Hebrew but meant "Lord of the Flies" which is the basis for one of the Devil's "names", Belzebob.