Early Instances of Christian Elements: Borrowings, Anticipations or Satanic Mockery?

In the Purgatory thread, starting here claims have been made and questioned about just what elements of Christian belief were first seen in earlier Pagan religions. To help keep that thread on topic, let's move that discussion here.The discussion so far, in brief: So let's discuss what elements of Christian belief were present in pre-Christian pagan beliefs, and the significance of those common elements. Christians might argue that pagan beliefs comprised a premonitory anticipation of Christ; others might assert that pagan religions passed along elements to Christianity in the same fashion that all culture evolves and synthesizes new worldviews from the old.Let me start with this passage which suggests a far more profane source for the notion (and phraseology) of virgin birth: from infidels.orgAnd one more bit of grist from the same article:

Comparative Religions?

Works for me, Queen. I'll edit the link in the Purgatory thread once it's moved.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Lot of assertions in your quotation, no real support for any of it --Dates, sources etc.When a lesser god impregnates a human woman, normally the ensuing birth is not a virgin birth, as the god is a finite being, built like a man, and impregnation is done the same way humans do it. There is no comparison with the operations of the omnipresent invisible Holy Spirit in the conception of Jesus. So more has to be said to justify this notion in relation to other religions.The idea of the virgin birth of Jesus was not the result of a mistranslation or the appropriation of Hellenistic concepts. Parthenoi was the Greek word chosen to translate "almah" from the famous text in Isaiah into the Greek Septuagint a few hundred years before Jesus, by orthodox Jewish scholars, hardly to be accused of hellenistic influences.I answered Ramoss that since "Satan" and "Savior" come from the Old Testament, that Christianity cannot be said to have "borrowed" them from some pagan source for opportunistic purposes.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-13-2006 10:19 AM

Yes, there are. I hope that they will be rebutted or supported--I was more interested in getting the discussion rolling immediately in a new on-topic thread than posting exhaustive proofs.The full article I linked to does include footnoted sources. Yes, we see the most ancient form of the divinely-begotten king to involve actual physical impregnation by the god. Yet a case can be made that this claim was, over time, becoming more subtle and spiritually sophisticated.For example, as I noted, "Zeus was said to have impregnated Danae by visiting her as a ray of sunlight..." which I think is well established mythology without requiring dates and sources. This is certainly more ethereal than a roll in the hay with the mountain god, and it seems reasonable to suggest it reflects a trend that culminates in the virgin birth claims for Jesus.Don't misunderstand me, Faith. I am not an expert in this area (you will note my lack of assertions in the OP), and I expect to learn a great deal as this thread progresses.OTOH, if your argument is a narrow one ("There is no comparison with the operations of the omnipresent invisible Holy Spirit in the conception of Jesus."), so that pagan traditions about virgin birth have to include Christian doctrine about an omnipresent invisible Holy Spirit before they are considered similar, I suppose the dicussion is over before it begins.As I understand it, the general claim by some is that many Christian elements were recognizably present in pagan form, not that they exactly corresponded.Perhaps we can focus on one element at a time, beginning with virgin birth. Let's take this example from my lengthy quote from infidels.org: Do you accept the accuracy of this statement about Zoroaster's tradition?By the way: It would be quite remarkable to learn a language without experiencing any other influence.

---

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

I wasn't clear. Those are just other scholars. I meant original sources. Where do they get this information? What do the original texts read like? (and since you doubt the accuracy of the transmission of the Bible, why should we trust anything ancient anyway?)I did give you a rebuttal anyway. I'd go for the interpretation that Satan, who rules all the pagan religions, was doing his best to anticipate what God had in mind, in order to imitate it and create the false idea that these things were somehow imitated by God in the birth of Jesus. I'm no expert either though. I don't think you'll get an orthodox/traditional/fundie interpretation of these things from anyone here. I could be wrong. You'll get the usual ANTI-fundie stuff no doubt. To my mind it is. All anyone who has made such claims has ever shown me on this subject is clearly a union between finite beings, and the virginity no longer exists thereafter. I don't know about this ray of sunshine bit. The Roman gods were always disguising themselves but they were still what they were. When was that one concocted too, I'd like to know. OK. It's just that this is always argued to "disprove" the claims of Christ, and the Christian interpretations are ignored. I wish I could remember C.S. Lewis' discussion of this. Something about the idea occurring to many but its real fulfillment in reality only once. Depending on the pagan myth that echoes what is in the Bible, Biblical theology would interpret it as being a dim and distorted memory of the same event, or an anticipation of a future real event based on historical clues, or a Satanic invention to depreciate the real event. I don't know how one could ever prove one way or the another which is the truth, but for a believer in the Bible, they are all at best approximations, at worst counterfeits. The Real Thing is in the Bible. I have no idea what to make of it. But I think the best I can do with this subject I just stated above. Bible translators go all over the world, learning the languages and the cultures of all the myriads still unreached by the gospel, in order to translate the Bible into their conceptualizations. (Often the people are illiterate and the translators have to give them an alphabet by which they transliterate their spoken language, and then teach the written version to the people). In the process of learning the culture we don't expect them to imbibe the beliefs of the peoples they are there to teach {abe: Meaning we don't expect them to accept those beliefs. They learn them in order to make the Bible understandable to the people. This is certainly what the Jews who translated the Septuagint did. They knew what "Parthenoi" meant and they chose it over the Greek word for a "young woman" because they intended to say "virgin."}This message has been edited by Faith, 02-13-2006 11:26 AM

Certainly Christianity borrowed from and adopted traditions from other cultures and religions. Much of Paul's ministry was based around identifying those facets of other religions and cultures that were a barrier to joining Christianity and adopting them or tossing out the existing ones.Paul went through the list of Christian practices, customs and traditions and threw out those he felt were a barrier. But he also adopted practices from other religions. One good example is found in the story of "the unknown God" where he simply adopted an existing facility.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Paul did what missionaries always do if they're any good. They make use of existing concepts in the culture they are trying to reach with the gospel. In the case of the shrine to the "unknown God" it gave Paul an opportunity to appeal to the Greeks about the one true God, who is unknown to all peoples except in the most shadowy forms, without the revelation of the word of God. It is this unknown God I declare to you, he told them.The Greeks had some beliefs that were useful for conveying his point, including some writings by their philosophers. He did what Greeks did when they wanted to have a philosophical discussion. He went to the Areopagus and presented his case. (This is what it means that Paul became all things to all people. It doesn't mean the false idea that Paul falsified anything. You use what comes to hand to communicate. That's all he did.)Christianity borrowed absolutely nothing from anywhere. It was all the outworking of the revelation of God through His prophets to Israel. No other factors entered into it.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-13-2006 11:39 AM

You keep saying that even when you contradict yourself in the same post. And that is the whole point.The history of religions, including Christianity, does not exist in a vacuum. Religions, including Christianity are the creation of man, and they borrow. Religions are influenced by the cultures of the peoples in an area and in an era. The Christians built on a basis of the Jews who in turn were influenced by earlier civilizations and religions. In time they borrowed from other religions and peoples, the Greeks, the Romans, the Celts, the Druids, the Norse.As you said, "You use what comes to hand to communicate."

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Using what comes to hand in order to communicate is not the same thing as borrowing. No wonder you think I'm contradicting myself. If I borrow your choice of words to convey something to you in a way I think you might understand better than if I use my own, I am not borrowing your ideas into my own, I am using yours to convey mine to you.

You will have to remember, that the concept of SATAN was taken from the persians.. and the 'salvation' was actually retrofitted onto the old testament when it comes to translations from the hebrew, even though there are other terms that are just as good or not better.
There is no concept of 'salvation' as the christian knows it in the Jewish faith. The Latin terms for salvation and savior came directly from cult of Ceasar Augustus.As for Satan, the Jews took the concept from Persia. The concept that Satan was this demigod that was seperate from God came from Greek influnces. In the Jewish religion, Satan was just an angel of god, and (this is an important thing), angels did not have free will, therefore they could not revolt against god. The term 'satan' might have come from Judaism, but the nature of Satan came from the persians.And let us look at the concept of "Hell". There is no concept of "hell" as a place of eternal torture, but the Roman Catholic Church adopted the concept from Zoroastrianism, mixed in the concept of Sheol (the grave) from Judaism, and made 'hell' a place of eternal torment.Now, you might say that 'almah' means 'virgin' because it was translated to pathenos in the greek. I happen to disagree. If you look at rape of Dianah in Genesis 34, she was referenced as 'parthenos' even after she was raped by Shechem. There is also the use of 'almah'
in the song of solomon, which a young lady is refered in a very erotic and sexual manner (and most assurdly not a virgin).So, to claim that the concept of a virgin birth for the messiah is in the old testament is just plain incorrect. There are many other sources for that concept, but not from the passage you are pointing too. Besides, if you read Isaiah 7:14 in context, it is fairly obvious that Isaiah was refering to his own wife (the prophetess), and not someone who was born 600 years later.

The New Testament is in Greek. The New Testament used the Hebrew translation into GREEK, not Latin, and that was done by Jews a few hundred years before Christ. It was a direct translation from the Hebrew scriptures and wasn't retrofitted to nuthin. Translators aren't idiots. They know the languages they are dealing with, no doubt far better than you do. They used the proper equivalents. I have no idea where "the Jewish faith" got anything, but the Hebrew Bible got its stuff straight from the mouth of God Himself. Sorry again, the scriptures in the OT are quite clear. You are simply interpreting yourself out of ever understanding them. That's fine, your business, but the New Testament writers knew what they were saying, knew what the Hebrew scriptures meant -- they grew up hearing them every Saturday for their entire lives after all -- there is no such thing as a "Christian concept" in the Bible except from that basic Jewish source. Yes that is what many of the Jews were wrongly expecting, and therefore missed their Messiah, but those Jews who understood their scriptures recognized Him when He came.

This is ridiculous. Satan is a real being. Who cares where the terminology came from to describe him? See my post #13 which I was writing in answer to your post on the previous thread while you were writing this one.The Jews misunderstood their own scriptures -- partly because, in order to confuse Satan, a lot of it wasn't fully revealed until Christ came. To stick to the Hebrew scriptures alone, without the revelation of the New Testament, is to dig yourself into a complete misunderstanding. The Hebrew scriptures teach that the angels revolted. This comes from that source and from nowhere else. Oh, now you say the term came from Judaism. Well, so did the concept of Satan, aas Satan is not a "demigod" he is an angel who revolted, which is what the Hebrew scriptures say, not the Persians or the Greeks. The prophets of Jehovah consulted Jehovah, they did not consult foreigners. Hell is simply the European equivalent for the Biblical terms Sheol and Hades. All cultures have a concept of a place of the dead or a place of torment. When you translate the BIble you use the terms that are available in the receiving culture. Obviously. I simply give the authoritative Jewish translators - seventy of them I believe -- of the Greek translation of teh Hebrew scriptures known as the Septuagint (because of those seventy translators), and the writers of the New Testament, and the scholars and believers of the New Testament over the last two millennia, more credence than I give you.And ditto for all the rest of what you say: The term "virgin" is not applied to the Shulamite, but to the "virgins" plural:

quote:

---

Sgs 1:3 Because of the savour of thy good ointments thy name [is as] ointment poured forth, therefore do the virgins love thee.

​

Sgs 6:8 There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and virgins without number.

---

I'm sorry, you do not have any credentials or authority over the writers of the New Testament or all its scholars since then, and they declare it a virgin birth. They are authoritative on the Old Testament, and you are not. This is an obtuse literalminded rendering of what is in reality a prophetic scripture.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-13-2006 06:07 PM

The terms where known by their greek equivilants.. yes..But, no... when it comes to the Hebrew, the original hebrew often meant' helped'.There is no concept of 'salvation' for the afterlife in Judaism. There is no 'savior' except for soemone who helps for this life.. not the next.And, I am sorry, but the tanakh is quite clear. You are retrofiting Christina concepts that do not fit into the Jewish scriptures. You are going to have to do better that make the blanket claim that OT is quite clear. I gave examples in specific passagages in the Tanakh, with specific words. You will have to refute what I said using the terms used in the Greek and the Hebrew, or show how I am mistaken in context. Merely proclaiming the OT is clear, and I am wrong is a little like sticking your hands in your ears and yelling 'I can't hear you'