Unique concepts of Christianity

[Confused]

I look at how Christianity has spread like wildfire since the time it became the "Official Religion" of Rome. Then I look at its scripture, its celebrations, its heritage and I have to wonder, what is so unique about it? Is there any portion of Christianity that is soley related to it alone? In other words, is there anything found within Christianity that doesn't have roots from an older religion? For example, the creation myth can also be found dating back to before the OT in the Epic of Gilgamesh. Many Christian traditions are celebrated on dates not coinciding with dates of the bible or they coincide with a previous religions/beliefs such as the birth of Christ was celebrate on Jan 6 in early Christian dates (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa1.htm) as was the Alexandria God-man Aion, the death and resurrection of Christ dates coincide also with the Mithraites Attis death and resurrection. Rituals done for Christians have a history of being done in other religions as well:

Early Christians initiated converts in March and April by baptism. Mithraism initiated their new members at this time as well.
Early Christians were naked when they were baptized. After immersion, they then put on white clothing and a crown. They carried a candle and walked in a procession to a basilica. Followers of Mithra were also baptized naked, put on white clothing and a crown, and walked in a procession to the temple. However, they carried torches.
At Pentecost, the followers of Jesus were recorded as speaking in tongues. At Trophonius and Delos, the Pagan priestesses also spoke in tongues: They appeared to speak in such a way that each person present heard her words in the observer's own language.
An inscription to Mithras reads: "He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made on with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation." 1 In John 6:53-54, Jesus is said to have repeated this theme: "...Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." (KJV)
The Bible records that Jesus was crucified between two thieves. One went to heaven and the other to hell. In the Mithras mysteries, a common image showed Mithras flanked by two torchbearers, one on either side. One held a torch pointed upwards, the other downwards. This symbolized ascent to heaven or descent to hell.
In Attis, a bull was slaughtered while on a perforated platform. The animal's blood flowed down over an initiate who stood in a pit under the platform. The believer was then considered to have been "born again." Poor people could only afford a sheep, and so were literally washed in the blood of the lamb. This practice was interpreted symbolically by Christians.
There were many additional points of similarity between Mithraism and Christianity. 2 St. Augustine even declared that the priests of Mithraism worshiped the same God as he did: Followers of both religions celebrated a ritual meal involving bread. It was called a missa in Latin or mass in English.
Both the Catholic church and Mithraism had a total of seven sacraments.
Epiphany, JAN-6, was originally the festival in which the followers of Mithra celebrated the visit of the Magi to their newborn god-man. The Christian Church took it over in the 9th century.

This along with many other things leads me to search for anything in Christianity that may be considered unique to Christianity.

[Cathar1950]

What does Goat's post have to do with "the great problems of Reform Judaism" as seen by a conservative?
He does not speak for Judaism any more then you can speak for Christianity.
There are some of all walks of faith or non-faith That live with a "lack of definition". I wonder what it even means.
I did notice the concern for the "loss of membership" and thought how American(USA).
I am wonder what that has to do with the "Unique concepts of Christianity"?
It just shows another similarity.
Funny post.

[Jester]

I wanted to jump in; I hope that is not impolite.
My belief thus far is that the concept of grace is the only significant piece of theology that is unique to Christianity (though I’d also say that there is a strong argument that the concept of the Trinity is also a unique blend of monotheism and polytheism).

Bu i suggest you read about osiris: God who died was resurrected, judges people after they die if they were good they spend eternity with osiris if they were bad a dog god eats their heart and they suffer for eternity. In his cult they serrve the sacramant, ale and bread representing the blood and flesh of osiris, as egyptians thought if they ate a god they would become like him. Do you find similarities with christianity there?

Though the question was not directed at me, I certainly see quite a few similarities (Though I do wish to refute the idea that similarities to other religions diminishes, rather than supports, the idea that there is a great amount of truth in Christianity).
My response to the myth of Osiris is that we still see a religion based on performance (i.e. “if they were good they spend eternity with osiris if they were bad a dog god eats their heart and they suffer for eternity”). The idea that one must “be good” in order to enter heaven cannot be reasonably derived from the Bible (though many Christians have tried to read it in for millennia).

[Confused]

I wanted to jump in; I hope that is not impolite.
My belief thus far is that the concept of grace is the only significant piece of theology that is unique to Christianity (though I’d also say that there is a strong argument that the concept of the Trinity is also a unique blend of monotheism and polytheism).

Bu i suggest you read about osiris: God who died was resurrected, judges people after they die if they were good they spend eternity with osiris if they were bad a dog god eats their heart and they suffer for eternity. In his cult they serrve the sacramant, ale and bread representing the blood and flesh of osiris, as egyptians thought if they ate a god they would become like him. Do you find similarities with christianity there?

Though the question was not directed at me, I certainly see quite a few similarities (Though I do wish to refute the idea that similarities to other religions diminishes, rather than supports, the idea that there is a great amount of truth in Christianity).
My response to the myth of Osiris is that we still see a religion based on performance (i.e. “if they were good they spend eternity with osiris if they were bad a dog god eats their heart and they suffer for eternity”). The idea that one must “be good” in order to enter heaven cannot be reasonably derived from the Bible (though many Christians have tried to read it in for millennia).

Ok, we have switched from the concept of a Messiah, a crucifixion, and a ressurection to the concept of grace now being unique to Christianity.

First, I want to say that I don't claim the commonality between Christianity and ancient religions diminishes Christianity in any way, I only assert that it negates it being a unique religion as opposed to compilation of many religions evolved through time to become 3 dominant world religions: Judaism, Islamic, and Christian. The truth of Christianity doesn't make it unique in any form.

Now, in regards to being good. Here we have a wide range of perceptions to what good really is in context to the bible. The bible states what laws of God must be followed to be "good". It also states that one should treat others as one wishes to be treated, it states that one must confess their sins and accept Christ. Consider the following:

Matthew 5:15-17 (New International Version)
15Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.
Timothy 5:9-11 (New International Version)
9No widow may be put on the list of widows unless she is over sixty, has been faithful to her husband,[a] 10and is well known for her good deeds, such as bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the saints, helping those in trouble and devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds.

1 Timothy 6:17-19 (New International Version)
17Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. 18Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. 19In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life.

John 2:14-26
Faith and Deeds
14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

19You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[d]? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,"[e] and he was called God's friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
25In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

James 3:12-14 (New International Version)
12My brothers, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water.

Two Kinds of Wisdom
13Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show it by his good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom. 14But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth.

So how exactly is this different than Osiris requiring good deeds to be done. And how does this not confirm that one must "do good" to enter heaven? Grace alone is specified in these passages as not good enough. Re: Bold highlights. Faith alone isn't good enough.

[Easyrider]

So how exactly is this different than Osiris requiring good deeds to be done. And how does this not confirm that one must "do good" to enter heaven? Grace alone is specified in these passages as not good enough. Re: Bold highlights. Faith alone isn't good enough.

Saving faith produces the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, who starts the sanctification process in the believer and leads them into Godly works (assuming the believer is cooperative). You aren't saved by good works; believers are doing Godly works because they were first saved, regenerated and filled with the Holy Spirit.

[Confused]

So how exactly is this different than Osiris requiring good deeds to be done. And how does this not confirm that one must "do good" to enter heaven? Grace alone is specified in these passages as not good enough. Re: Bold highlights. Faith alone isn't good enough.

Saving faith produces the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, who starts the sanctification process in the believer and leads them into Godly works (assuming the believer is cooperative). You aren't saved by good works; believers are doing Godly works because they were first saved, regenerated and filled with the Holy Spirit.

And this differs from Osiris how? The fact that one must submit to God which leads one to do good as a natural consequence?

Just as a side question, what of the one who gains faith but dies before the Holy Spirit can lead them into doing good works?

[Cogitoergosum]

So how exactly is this different than Osiris requiring good deeds to be done. And how does this not confirm that one must "do good" to enter heaven? Grace alone is specified in these passages as not good enough. Re: Bold highlights. Faith alone isn't good enough.

Saving faith produces the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, who starts the sanctification process in the believer and leads them into Godly works (assuming the believer is cooperative). You aren't saved by good works; believers are doing Godly works because they were first saved, regenerated and filled with the Holy Spirit.

LMAO. Where do you get these things? is there a christian cook book that shows what recipe the holy spirit uses on believers. It sounds more to me like wine making. First you ferment the grapes and then....

[Goose]

You realize that none of what you have written in any way negates carbon dating. The Norton Anthology highlighted points online are at:
http://www2.wwnorton.com/college/englis ... erview.htm

From the Norton site, point 3

Begun in 2700 B.C. and written down about 2000 B.C., the first great heroic narrative of world literature, Gilgamesh, nearly vanished from memory when it was not translated from cuneiform languages into the new alphabets that replaced them. Gilgamesh was reintroduced to the world when a portion of it, Utnapishtim's Story of the Flood, upon which the biblical story of the flood is based, was accidentally discovered in 1872. Since then, tablets containing other parts of Gilgamesh have been found at sites throughout the Middle East in various cuneiform languages. Though the identity of its author and context are now lost, its stories, with their astonishing immediacy, appeal to modern readers. With this profound familiarity, there is also something infinitely strange and remote about Gilgamesh. The narrative is concerned chiefly with Gilgamesh's friendship with Enkidu, his quest for worldly renown and immortality, and his death.

Nothing in the above disagrees with what I've already posted. It simple ASSUMES, as you have done as well, the Biblical flood account MUST have borrowed from the Epic of Gilgamesh. Carbon dating does not establish borrowing or copycatting. So far, archeology has discovered writings that are believed to predate Biblical writings. But that doesn't prove who copied who, or even that one was copying another. Tomorrow an archaeologist could make a find that predates all other written accounts and confirms our current version of Genesis. But, what would that prove? You are not addressing the textural evidence or the arguments presented. You are simply assuming your position by saying, "...none of what you have written in any way negates carbon dating." It's a quick cookie-cutter answer. If that constitutes an open-and-shut case for you, I think you are not allowing for other possibilities.

The following is a paper that takes the approach of assuming the known evidence we have of Gilgmesh predates the biblical account. The writer then analyses the texts to support her position that Genesis did not borrow from Gilgemesh.

The purpose of this research has been to examine the relationship between the flood accounts of the Gilgamesh Epic and Genesis. Three possibilities of relationship are commonly discussed: (1) that the Epic derived from the Genesis account; (2) that the Genesis account used the Epic as its source; and (3) that both accounts depended on a common source.

The first possibility—that the Epic account derived from the Genesis account—has been discounted in this research because of the dates of the extant copies of the Epic and Genesis. The original compilations of the Epic are older than the original compilations of Genesis. Few scholars would consider this theory credible. Therefore, this writer has investigated the remaining two popular theories about the relationship between the Epic and Genesis.

The second hypothesis—that the Genesis account is dependent on the Epic—has significant difficulties. According to this hypothesis, the author of the Genesis account would have needed to revise the Epic as follows: change the concept of god from polytheism to absolute monotheism and add the strong, consistent moral motivation for the Flood by establishing God as righteous and gracious; write clear descriptions that show the Flood as universal in order to make the whole account consistent; change the character of the survivors to portray them as righteous and worthy to be saved; specify the survivors as four couples who are capable of replenishing the human race; add their descendants’ genealogy which agrees with the secular historical records; add the details about animals being included in pairs of every kind for the preservation of the created kinds; improve the source of the Flood from only rain to rain and underground water sufficient to cover the whole world; specify the duration of the Flood from only six days and nights and unspecified days to more than one year which is adequate for a universal Flood; redesign the structure of the Ark from the unstable cube to the ideal safe design for floating; change the order and the kind of the birds of the test flights in order to make them more logical; specify seven days interval between each test flight; and add the account of the freshly plucked olive leaf which is botanically realistic and more informative than the Epic.

Therefore, despite the many similarities between the two accounts, it would have been inconceivable to rewrite the Epic to the Genesis account, the more reliable one, unless the author was not only ethical, creative and logical, but also had enough knowledge about zoology, biology, physics, naval architectural skill, botany and ancient ethnic histories. If one does not accept the Genesis account as an historical record, there is no escaping the fact that an heroic effort has been undertaken to make that account appear to be historical. This has been remarkably successful at point after point, as the preceding pages have shown. Hermann Gunkel can only explain these facts by positing a long history of rewriting:

If a man such as our narrator became acquainted with the Babylonian material, filled with the most crass mythology, he would have only felt disgust. Furthermore, a comparison of the Babylonian and the very different Israelite narratives teaches that a long history must lie between the two.1

This writer believes the third theory—that both accounts descended from a common origin—is the most plausible one. As noted in chapter one, the Epic was likely derived from the Sumerian story which was probably based on an historical event, though distorted. On the other hand, according to the specifics, scientific reliability, internal consistency, the correspondence to the secular records, and the existence of common elements among the flood traditions around the world, the Genesis account seems to be more acceptable as an accurate historical record. If all human races are descendents of Noah’s three sons, the survivors from the universal Flood, and the two accounts had derived from the same historical event,2 the reason the accounts have many similarities is explicable. As K. A. Kitchen states, it is likely that “The Hebrew and Babylonian accounts may go back to a common ancient tradition, but are not borrowed directly from each other.”3 Even though the Genesis account was written in Hebrew which was used later than Akkadian in which the Epic was written, the historical event of the Flood was much earlier than the publication of the Epic. Henry Thiessen writes

First, it is known generally that a considerable portion of the people could read and write as far back as the time of Hammurabi; that genealogical tablets and lists were known in Babylonia centuries before Abraham; that it is possible that Abraham carried cuneiform tablets containing such records with him from Haran to Canaan; and that in this manner Moses may have come into possession of them. Whether because he had access to such records, or because he had only oral tradition, or because he had only a direct revelation from God, or because of a combination of these, conservative scholarship has always held that Moses wrote Genesis.4

Even if Moses had used some source materials which are not extant today, the process of his gathering and compiling them to write Genesis would have been guided correctly by God.5 Thus, after investigating the differences between the Gilgamesh Epic and Genesis, it seems reasonable for this writer to conclude that the flood account in the Epic is the story which lost historical accuracy and was distorted, whereas the Genesis Flood account is the accurate historical record of the Flood event.

About the author
Nozomi Osanai earned her M.A. writing “A comparative study of the flood accounts in the Gilgamesh Epic and Genesis” as her thesis while attending Wesley Biblical Seminary in the USA, where she also studied Akkadian.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... lusion.asp

In regards to the remaining nonsense here, I have given multiple sites as have Bernee. If you wish to provide your "evidence" on your opinion about the datings of the writings, by all means, show them. Otherwise you are passing the buck saying my evidence is good enough for you so you can choose to ignore it until I show you 1000 sites at which point you will still ignore it.

You can call it nonsense, but that doesn't address the argument presented. You've given multiple sites that do not provide reference to primary evidence to support their assertions. They are opinions based around conjecture for the most part, nothing more. Speculation around a stele with an inscription or artwork, theories revolving around ancient myths (with little to no textural evidence), and general assertions are meaningless. It's rumour mongering.

What isn't fair is your constant quotes of "no evidence being provided in the form of texts. That is so erroneous it isn't even funny.

Why is it erroneous to ask for textural evidence? It's the best way to establish borrowing. What's funny is that you believe it's not "fair" for me to ask for textural evidence. THAT is funny!

The evidence has been given. You are opting to ignore it saying it isn't textual. That is wrong. Allow some enlightenment:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/index.htm

Quote:
Modern scholars believe that the Hebrew Bible, or Tanakh, was composed by four or five writers between 1000 to 400 BCE based on much older traditions. The New Testament was composed by a variety of writers between 60 to 110 CE. The contents of the New Testament were formalized by Athanasius of Alexandria in 367 CE, and finally canonized in 382 CE.

You're not showing anything new here.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/ham/index.htm
Quote:
This, the earliest known written legal code, was composed about 1780 B.C.E. by Hammurabi, the ruler of Bablyon. This text was excavated in 1901; it was carved on an eight foot high stone monolith. The harsh system of punishment expressed in this text prefigures the concept of 'an eye for an eye'. The Code lays out the basis of both criminal and civil law, and defines procedures for commerce and trade. This text was redacted for 1,500 years, and is considered the predecessor of Jewish and Islamic legal systems alike.

At the other end of the evolution of Ancient Near Eastern law is the refined and considerably more merciful Talmud, composed two and half millenia later, also in Babylon, by expatriate Jewish scholars.

Again, this is more of the same. We know the code of Hammurabi predates the Mosaic Law. I'm not disputing that. What you are failing to do is establish that Moses "borrowed" the code. Simply saying Hammurabi predates the Bible and there are some similar ideas, does not necessarily mean Moses borrowed. You have yet to look at the textural evidence of either codes. It's another cookie cutter answer.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/index.htm
Quote:
The Vedas
There are four Vedas, the Rig Veda, Sama Veda, Yajur Veda and Atharva Veda. The Vedas are the primary texts of Hinduism. They also had a vast influence on Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism. The Rig Veda, the oldest of the four Vedas, was composed about 1500 B.C., and codified about 600 B.C. It is unknown when it was finally comitted to writing, but this probably was at some point after 300 B.C.
The Vedas contain hymns, incantations, and rituals from ancient India. Along with the Book of the Dead, the Enuma Elish, the I Ching, and the Avesta, they are among the most ancient religious texts still in existence. Besides their spiritual value, they also give a unique view of everyday life in India four thousand years ago. The Vedas are also the most ancient extensive texts in an Indo-European language, and as such are invaluable in the study of comparative linguistics

Once again, do your comparison at the site above.

No, no. You are expecting me to do your homework. Can you quote me some scripture from the Vedas that establishes that Christianity borrowed its doctrine from Hinduism? Give some references and context.

http://www.utexas.edu/courses/clubmed/gilgamsh.html

Quote:
The Epic of Gilgamesh
Study Guide



The Epic of Gilgamesh is a Sumerian epic poem that dates back to the 3rd millenium B.C. and is the first piece of written literature in the world. It was enormously popular in ancient Mesopotamia over centuries and knowledge of it extended beyond to western Asia and very possibly to the Greek world (suggested by some similarities to Achilles in the Iliad and to Greek flood stories). The poem in the form you are reading it is actually a composite of a number of Gilgamesh stories from clay tablets found at a a variety of sites in Mesopotamia (see the Introduction in the Penguin).

In the story, Gilgamesh is presented as part god, part man, that is a legendary king from the distant past. But we know of a historical Gilgamesh of Uruk (from the Sumerian King List), who reigned ca. 2700 B.C. and it may be that legendary material was "grafted" onto this king. The poem contains both fictional aspects characteristic of heroic epic, but also reflects historical aspects. Since it was so popular, it is valuable to the historian of Mesopotamian culture because it reveals much about the conceptual and religious world, e.g., attitudes toward the gods, how a hero was defined and regarded, views about death, and friendship. It can also tell us something about political and social organization in a Mesopotamian city like Uruk, as well as its physical layout. For example, the prologue (p. 61) reveals that Uruk was a developed city to the extent of having fortification walls (note that it specifies the building material) and temples, that it was a polytheistic (many gods) society from the number of gods named. Page 62 makes it clear that Gilgamesh was ruler, that is, that there was a king of some sort, and it reveals something about the organization of society (it speaks of warriors, and nobles). These are the sorts of things that you should be trying to pick out as you read.

Is this supposed to prove that Genesis borrowed from Gilgamesh? A site with no references or citations?

[Goose]

I finally got a chance to look at the site you provided. Again, another late post by me.

I've been away for a week, but noticed no response. Please provide the Hindu scripture with reference and context that substantiate Graves' claims in your previous post.

When waiting is full

I haven't a clue what that means. I'll assume you've given up trying to defend Kersey Graves' assertions.

I too have read the commentaries you mention. To say everything is valid or not valid is as inappropriate to those sources as it is to any other. Whether it is christian apologist or a supporter of the cultural basis (as opposed to theistic) of religion, neather have the whole truth.

Correct. No human has the "whole" truth. No human argument is fool-proof. However, we can establish to a degree of reasonable certainty which arguments are credible and which ones are bogus.

To claim one either is or is not is to set up a false dicochotomy.

I disagree. The burden of proof is upon the skeptisynic to establish that Christianity borrowed its doctrine. To throw in speculations with weak evidence and make the water murky with "maybe-s" and "what if-s" is simply rumour mongering. Christianity either borrowed it's core doctrine, which means it is contrived by men and therefore false, or it did not borrow and must be evaluated independently of any other claims to establish it's truth value. There IS an ultimate dichotomy here - Christianity is either true or false.

There are demonstrably similarities between all belief systems. To deny that is to deny the golden rule.

The golden rule and general similarities between religions, such as the belief in God or gods, can be seen as strong evidence of concepts such as objective morality - which can be argued is evidence for God's existence. To acknowledge the universality of the Golden Rule and then deny the Golden Rule as possible evidence for the existence of God is intellectual suicide.

No doubt, huh? You're expecting me to believe that a band of Buddhist monks wondering the country side in Geece influenced staunch monotheistic Jews to create a new religion that would place them in the face of persecution and possibly even death? Too bad neither Jesus nor His disciples gave any credit to Buddha to support your theory, huh? Buddha must be ticked.

Not at all. The development of religion is an evolution on the development of consciousness within our species. Relgious belief has clearly changed over tiime...it has evolved.

Has it clearly changed? Perhaps some have. The degree to which we accept the validity of religion and sacred texts have changed in society. But, the core of Judeo-Christian belief has not.

Buddhist monks would not have been there to convert anyone...it is not a religion/philosphy of conversion...

Yet, they sent out "missionaries".

they would have just cited ancient teraditions and quoted the buddha. Some sunk in.

Sure, but the question is, what were they citing from? We don't really know for sure. Buddhist tradition holds that nothing was put into writing until the late first century BC. I think it's more likely the Jew's quoted Hebrew scripture from the Septuigant and some of THAT sunk in on the Buddhists.

Some even may have ended up as part of the christian lexicon. Buddha and Christ had a lot in common. Here are some...with textural references.

You've provided a link with some textural references, a lot of assumptions, and a lot of fallacies. It's poor scholarship, and is intended for shock value. Some of the sources for this list of "sayings" include non other than Acharya S. (the Queen of Christ conspiracies), Holger Kersten (proponent of the Jesus went to India myth - his sources are referenced no less than 6 times in the article, BTW), and the liberal Jesus Seminar's own Marcus J. Borg. A one sided list if I ever saw one.
It's convincing to those that do not delve into it and accept it without question. Kind of an "a-ha!" tactic. Almost every saying of Jesus in the list can be traced back to either Hebrew cultural thought or Old Testament scripture. It's more likely that Jesus was "influenced" by the OT rather than some mysterious Buddhist quotes floating around from Greece into Judea.

For kicks, here are a few problems with the wiki site you provided:
Problem 1. The evidence and quotes provided for dating of the texts is heavily biased and begs the question. It assumes the Buddhist scripture must predate the Christian because Buddha predates Christ and Buddhist tradition holds the sayings of Buddha were written in the late first century BC. Yet, the evidence for this is weak. Also, are we to accept Buddhist tradition at face value but not accept Christian traditions such as the gospels being written by Matthew Mark Luke and John with in a few years of the events?
In fact, half the Buddhist quotes from this page come from the Dhammapada part of the Pali Canon, which is derived from the Theravada school - primarily a Sri Lankan sect. Initiated under Asoka's rule. A few of the sayings of Buddha are from the Sutras or Mahayana sect, which apparently originated in India but was primarily developed later in China. Here is what a few Buddhist scholars have to say about the Pali Canon and Sutta Pitaka (part of the Pali Canon) from which most of these sayings are taken:

...Dr Richard Gombrich, Academic Director of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies, former Boden Professor of Sanskrit at Oxford University and former President of the Pali Text Society, thinks most of the first four nikayas (see below) goes back to the Buddha, in content but not in form.[1] The late Professor Hirakawa Akira (surname first in accordance with Japanese practice) says[2] that the First Council collected only short prose passages or verses expressing important doctrines, and that these were expanded into full length suttas over the next century. L. S. Cousins, former lecturer in the Department of Comparative Religion at Manchester University and former President of the Pali Text Society, holds[3] that in early times sutta was a pattern of teaching rather than a body of literature. Dr Gregory Schopen, Lecturer in Sanskrit, Tibetan, and Buddhist Studies at the University of Texas at Austin, says[4] that it is not until the fifth to sixth centuries C.E. that we can know anything definite about the contents of the Pali Canon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutta_pitaka
Here are some more comments on Buddhist texts:

It becomes clear from the foregoing analysis that in speaking of a Buddhist Canon one has to admit that it is both vast in extent and complex in character. While the earlier and more orthodox schools of Buddhism reserved the term Canonical to refer to the Body of literature, the greater part of which could be reasonably ascribed to the Buddha himself, other traditions which developed further away from the centre of activity of the Buddha and at a relatively later date choose to lay under the term Canon the entire mosaic of Buddhist literature in their possession, which is of varied authorship and is at times extremely heterogeneous in character.

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/history/s_canon.htm

Despite the many similarities among these texts, they contain enough discrepancies to have fueled a small scholarly industry. The different recensions of the Pali Dhp contain so many variant readings that there isn't yet -- even after more than a century of Western scholarship on the topic -- a single edition covering them all. The discrepancies among the Pali and non-Pali versions are even greater. They arrange verses in different orders, each contains verses not found in the others, and among the verses in different versions that are related, the similarity in terms of imagery or message is sometimes fairly tenuous

http://buddhismtoday.com/english/texts/ ... story.html

Perhaps the question that scholars of Buddhism are most often asked is, in effect, whether we have an authentic record of the Buddha’s teachings. While there are many aspects to this problem, and scholars disagree about most of them, the tendency in academia has been increasing scepticism. In the late nineteenth century, when the Pali Canon became known in the West and began to be printed and translated, western scholars more or less accepted the claim of the Theravadin tradition, which had preserved that Canon, that it did indeed contain the Buddha’s words. Later, they became aware that most of those texts had also been preserved in Chinese versions, and some in Tibetan too, but with variations ranging from the major to the trivial.

Over the last half century or so, scepticism has rapidly increased. It seems very unlikely that writing existed in India during the Buddha’s lifetime; it is sure that originally the texts were handed down orally; and it is no less sure that no manuscript of a Buddhist text has been preserved from before the Christian era, half a millennium after the Buddha. This has led some scholars to assume that where a text exists in more than one version we cannot know which is the earliest...

http://www.ocbs.org/research.php

Edwin Yamauchi, an expert in ancient history, (now a Christian, but born into a Buddhist home), said, "The scriptures of Buddha, who lived in the sixth century B.C., were not put into writing until after the Christian era, and the first biography of Buddha was written in the first century A.D.(The Case For Christ, Lee Strobel, 1998, p. 87).

It would seem, no one REALLY knows with any degree of certainty when any Buddhist scripture was ACTUALLY written or the content. It seems the consensus is - there is no consensus. The earliest extant manuscripts we have for Buddhist texts come much later than the New Testament. Despite these issues should we therefore assume that it predates Christian texts? No. So, using dating of Buddhist texts as a means to prove borrowing is erroneous. It seems more likely, given Buddhism's syncretic nature, and late extant manuscripts, that Buddhist texts were influenced by Christianity.

Problem 2. Not a scrap of context for the "sayings" is provided. Lining up texts side-by-side because they appear similar in wording or terminology, then concluding there is borrowing of ideas is basically the fallacy of equivocation. With this logic we can demonstrate "influence" of the Old Testament upon Buddhist scripture by finding common religious terminology and wording. Take the first "saying" comparison for example.

"Consider others as yourself." (Dhammapada 10:1)

"Do to others as you would have them do to you." (Gospel of Luke 6:31)

Leviticus 19:18:

18 " 'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.

Similarly in Lev 19:34
Maybe the Buddhist monks borrowed from the OT, huh?
In context, the Buddhist text is actually in reference to 'do not kill or strike,' i.e. violence. Where as Jesus is speaking in context of showing love toward your enemy and those that wrong you. IOW, take the higher moral road so to speak.

Here's another "saying" comparison from wiki:

"Hatreds do not ever cease in this world by hating, but by love: this is an eternal truth. Overcome anger by love, overcome evil by good ... Overcome the miser by giving, overcome the liar by truth." (Dhammapada 1.5 & 17.3)

"Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. From anyone who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt. Give to everyone who begs from you; and if anyone takes away your goods, do not ask for them back." (Luke 6:27-30)

Here are some parallel OT scriptures that Jesus was likely drawing from:
Psalm 34:14

Turn from evil and do good; seek peace and pursue it.

Amos

5:14 14 Seek good, not evil, that you may live...

Proverbs 10:12

Hatred stirs up dissension, but love covers over all wrongs.

I guess Buddhist writers were influenced by the OT here too, huh?

another comparison:

"If you do not tend one another, then who is there to tend to you? Whoever would tend me, he should tend the sick." (Vinaya, Mahavagga 8:26:3)

"Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me." (Gospel of Matthew 25:45)

Jesus is speaking in a parable fashion in context to the final judgment. He is echoing this sentiment from Proverbs 14:31

He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God.

I highly doubt Buddha is referring to the final judgement or honouring the Hebrew God. Buddhist monks were probably influenced by the following OT thoughts:
Ezek 34:4,15

You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick...15 I myself will tend my sheep and have them lie down, declares the Sovereign LORD.

Isa 40:11

He tends his flock like a shepherd...

I guess the concept of "tending" couldn't possibly be a universal theme considering pastoral societies, huh?

and another:

"Abandoning the taking of life, the ascetic Gautama dwells refraining from taking life, without stick or sword." (Digha Nikaya 1:1:8)

Basically, all that is being affirmed here is "thou shalt not murder."

"Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take the sword shall perish by the sword." (Matt. 26:52)

Jesus is stating an obvious proverbial truth found throughout the OT.
Maybe Buddhist monks got the idea from Zeke:
Ezek 21:10

...The sword despises every such stick.

...and combined it with, do not murder.

another:

... all these do not equal a sixteenth part of the liberation of mind by loving kindness. The liberation of mind by loving kindness surpasses them all and shines forth, bright and brilliant. (Itivuttaka 27;19-2)

I think the Buddhist monks got this one from Jeremiah 31:3

The LORD appeared to us in the past, saying:
"I have loved you with an everlasting love;
I have drawn you with loving-kindness.

another:

Just as a mother would protect her only child at the risk of her own life, even so, cultivate a boundless heart towards all beings. Let your thoughts of boundless love pervade the whole world." (Metta Sutta)

Probably copied this from the concept of God's unfailing and never ending love in the OT.
Psalm 33:5

...the earth[whole world] is full of his unfailing love...

and an "everlasting" love as noted by Jeremiah.

"This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. No one has greater love than this, to lay down one's life for one's friend." (John 15:12-13)

Buddha speaks of a mother laying down her life for her child - duh! Even animals do this, it's instinct! He then says to cultivate a boundless heart. Jesus is introducing an entirely different concept by speaking of friends. The difference of course, is that Jesus actually DID lay down His life. Buddha died, presumably in peace, at the age of eighty.

another:

"Do not look at the faults of others, or what others have done or not done; observe what you yourself have done and have not done." (Dhammapada 4:7)

He said to them, "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." (John 8:4-7)

Jesus was reminding the women's accusors of this OT sentiment:
Psalm 26:4

I do not sit with deceitful men,
nor do I consort with hypocrites;

Maybe the writers of the Buddhist text liked this OT thought and borrowed it.

another:

"The avaricious do not go to heaven, the foolish do not extol charity. The wise one, however, rejoicing in charity, becomes thereby happy in the beyond." (Dhammapada 13:11)

This one is a "ringer." It's a clear case of using Christian terminology such as "heaven." There is no concept of "heaven" in Buddhism in the same context as Christianity. Fallacy of equivocation.

"If you wish to be perfect, go sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven." (Matt.19:21)

Here Jesus is speaking to a wealthy young man. Jesus had also placed the stipulation, in the preceding verses, to keep the commandments in order to have eternal life. The additional request by Jesus for the young man to sell his possessions is obviously in the context of wealth being seen as a stumbling block to the young man's quest for eternal life. Jesus is NOT necessarily extolling or rejoicing in charity or poverty. Jesus is echoing an OT sentiment found in Proverbs:
Prov 11:4

Wealth is worthless in the day of wrath,
but righteousness delivers from death.

Maybe the Buddhist monks got their ideas from Job 36:18-19

18 Be careful that no one entices you by riches;
do not let a large bribe turn you aside. 19 Would your wealth
or even all your mighty efforts
sustain you so you would not be in distress?

or maybe Eccl 5:8-18 influenced the Buddhist writers. It fits in with the Buddhist doctrine to shed all desire.

10 Whoever loves money never has money enough;
whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with his income.
This too is meaningless... 12 The sleep of a laborer is sweet,
whether he eats little or much,
but the abundance of a rich man
permits him no sleep.

The wiki article also tries to give the allusion that the Buddhist text portrays some concept of a sacrifice similar to that of Christ on the cross. Noting the "cross-bar" in the Buddhist text as evidence of this alleged parallel is so weak it's comical. It then delves into some mumbo-jumbo about buddha and the sacrifice of Purusha, the "Cosmic Man". Some of these alleged similarities in events are dealt with here:
http://www.mysteriesofthekingdom.com/buddha.htm

I've not gone through the entire list here for the sake of time, but could continue through the list in similar fashion demonstrating that context is crucial and that simply finding commonality in the wording of texts is easy and does not prove borrowing or influence on thought or doctrine. Most of the apparent similarities are either superficial or entirely out of context.

Problem 3. The article assumes that the Hebrews must have incorporated Buddhist thought because the Greeks were receptive to it and translated edicts from Asoka into Aramaic and Greek. The article also assumes that Buddhist scripture must have been translated and circulated as well. It further assumes because Jesus may have spoken Aramaic (a lingua franca at the time of Christ), that He was influenced by these assumed Buddhist/aramaic texts. It is non-sequitur built upon non-sequitur. The article fails to understand the strict monotheistic exclusiveness of Judaism. It is clearly NOT a syncretic religion. Buddhism has syncretic tendencies. It's more likely Asokas Buddhist missionaries in Greece were influenced by Hebrew scripture such as the Septuigant.

Problem 4. Jesus's "sayings" are obviously derived from Hebrew thought and Old Testament writings as I've demonstrated. Given the Jewish unwillingness to accept other religions as valid, combined with Christian scripture's complete lack of any recognition of Buddhist influence (after all, if Jesus was teaching honesty, He would have given credit to Buddha, don't you think?), it's very unlikely that Christian scripture was influenced by Buddhist thought. It more likely went the other way.

Problem 5. Recognizing superficial similarities between the two religions to imply "influence" upon Christianity but failing to address the immense differences in their core doctrines is misleading and intellectually dishonest.

Problem 6. The article fails to recognize evidence of early Christian missionaries to India such as Saint Pantaenus in the late second century who apparently found the Gospel of Matthew already in circulation in India.

Any similarities in textural evidence is just as likely and more so, to be a case of Buddhist writers later editing their texts and drawing from a movement that had enormous conversion appeal and credibility, i.e. Christianity.

Bernee, I asked for textural evidence with context. You linked me to site with textural references and that's all. Do you have anything else that isn't laced with fallacies and an anti-Christian agenda?

[Goose]

you telling me to Google it shows me you have no references or sources at all. I am asking for the mithran writings which would confirm it. do you have them? can you quote them?

Beati popere spiritu.
by saying to you all that you had to do was google it means there is so many writings about it it is nauseating. The fact that you did not do that already and want them posted for you, it means you have no interest in finding anything for yourself. Maybe you like to have people tell you what to do (for example the preist). Well despite the fact that i would rather have you read about osiris still this is a part on mithra, enjoy:

Mithra
Other spellings: Mitra, Mithras
God of Indo-Iranian religion. He was the god of light and wisdom, and appears also to have been the god of oath and mutual obligation.
The cult of Mithra originated from the Mesopotamian kingdom of Mitanni in the 2nd millennium BCE. Some theories reconstruct his origin to India, mentioned first time around 1400 BCE.
Mithra would become perhaps the most important religious export item throughout the next 1500 years, being passed on to every major civilization of the eastern Mediterranean Sea and deep into Europe, reaching as far as the British Isles. He was important in Zoroastrianism, with the Greeks and had his own dedicated cult within the Roman Empire. Many see Mithra as one of the models for Christianity's Jesus.
In its Assyrian and Babylonian versions in the 7th and 6th centuries BCE, Mithra was nothing less than the god of the sun. The dominating myth relating to Mithra was where he slain a divine bull, from which all good plants and animals came. This myth would follow him through all later developments.
Mithra had an annual celebration, relating to his birth. This occurred around winter solstice, and would at some time in history be fixed to December 25.
Mithra is mentioned in the Zoroastrian writings, although not by Zarathustra himself, as the chief yazata, which is a benevolent spirit. Zoroastrianism placed Mithra as a lesser deity than Ahura Mazda, but would in a later theological stage define him as Ahura Mazda's earthly representation. His function was to protect the souls and see them safe on their journey to Paradise.
Around 400 BCE the Zoroastrians provided for Mithra a mother, Anahita. In a temple from 200 BCE she was referred to as "The Immaculate Virgin Mother of Lord Mithra".
The Zoroastrian version of Mithra survived the longest in Armenia, which also became the first country to embrace Christianity as state religion.
The Greeks came from the 4th century to identify Mithra with the Greek sun god Helios. For the Greeks, the slaying of the bull was a central motive.
In its Roman shape, Mithra was named Mithras. From the 3nd century CE he became identified with the god Sol Invictus, which also incorporated the popular cult of Apollo. In 274, the cult of Sol Invictus was made official.
The Roman mythology of Mithras can only be reconstructed from surviving imagery and indirect accounts. Mithras is represented as closely associated with the creation of the cosmos. What is most possibly a depiction of Mithras, we see him being born from an egg while 12 signs of the zodiac surround him. In total, Mithraic iconography relates closely to heavenly objects.
Followers of Mithras were subject to strict regulations in their battle for the victory of light and truth.
In other accounts Mithras dies, is buried in a cave and then resurrected. The cave plays another important role as being the place where Mithras slain the sacred bull. The cave would in Roman Mithraism become the hall of congregation for members of the cult.

Encyclopedia of the orient
http://i-cias.com/e.o/mithra.htm

This is of course the problem with these theories:

...The Roman mythology of Mithras can only be reconstructed from surviving imagery and indirect accounts...

They are based around some one's speculation on artwork and secondary material. It's almost impossible to know anything for certain. It's conjecture.

[Confused]

Goose wrote:
No, no. You are expecting me to do your homework. Can you quote me some scripture from the Vedas that establishes that Christianity borrowed its doctrine from Hinduism? Give some references and context.

I am not expecting you to do anything other than read the texts provided at the links, as you requested. If you are wanting me to cut and paste every single text, then be prepared for a lot of wasted space. You requested the actual texts, I gave you sites to them.


Goose wrote:

Nothing in the above disagrees with what I've already posted. It simple ASSUMES, as you have done as well, the Biblical flood account MUST have borrowed from the Epic of Gilgamesh. Carbon dating does not establish borrowing or copycatting. So far, archeology has discovered writings that are believed to predate Biblical writings. But that doesn't prove who copied who, or even that one was copying another. Tomorrow an archaeologist could make a find that predates all other written accounts and confirms our current version of Genesis. But, what would that prove? You are not addressing the textural evidence or the arguments presented. You are simply assuming your position by saying, "...none of what you have written in any way negates carbon dating." It's a quick cookie-cutter answer. If that constitutes an open-and-shut case for you, I think you are not allowing for other possibilities

And I think you need to read the OP again. In no way did I say that Christianity borrowed from all these other religions. I said that these concepts predated Christianity, hence weren't original concepts. Sure, there are similarities. There are also differences, I never claimed there weren't. I will say this once again: Is there any concept of Christianity that is unique to Christianity, in other words, wasn't a concept that existed prior to Christianity. Note: I said concept, not exact belief.

You can dispute Gilgamesh all you want. That is your right. But I have provided the dates for the first writings found of the epic, these weren't just picked out of the air, but were based on carbon dating of the cuniform stones that predated the bible. As were the other texts I provided links to. I don't say that Genesis stole from Gilgamesh. I say that the concept of the origin of man and woman etc.. wasn't original, the flood wasn't original, the 10 commandments weren't original, the Messiah/Savior/crucifixion/resurrection weren't original. Once again, I don't say that Christianity stole its roots from a variety of these other religions. I asked (re: OP) if there were any unique concepts.

Goose wrote:

You can call it nonsense, but that doesn't address the argument presented. You've given multiple sites that do not provide reference to primary evidence to support their assertions. They are opinions based around conjecture for the most part, nothing more. Speculation around a stele with an inscription or artwork, theories revolving around ancient myths (with little to no textural evidence), and general assertions are meaningless. It's rumour mongering.

Wrong again. You requested sites to the original texts since you didn't have access to the Norton Anthology. I gave you sites to review the texts at your leisure. The sites were not presented in an effort to establish any such claim that Christianity stole its concepts from them. You instead decided to ignore the OP, then lose track of the thread, then jumped in and made claims that no one provided you whatever information you were looking for. That is your problem, not mine. I have provided you with sites that have the texts that have been shown to predate the bible and Christianity. In these texts, there are many concepts that Christianity holds that existed before Christianity (note: once again, to avoid the common misinterpretation on your part: I am not stating Christianity stole their events from these texts, only that the concepts existed prior). If you wish to read between the lines, then by all means do so. But don't throw your misinterpretations at me as if I am presenting a false argument and then expecting you to prove or disprove it.

[

b]Goose wrote:[/b]

Why is it erroneous to ask for textural evidence? It's the best way to establish borrowing. What's funny is that you believe it's not "fair" for me to ask for textural evidence. THAT is funny!

How much more textural evidence would you request? I have given you sites to the actual texts. What more is there to give. I think you need to reconsider you post as a Brothers Keeper. It is doing damage.

Goose wrote:

Again, this is more of the same. We know the code of Hammurabi predates the Mosaic Law. I'm not disputing that. What you are failing to do is establish that Moses "borrowed" the code. Simply saying Hammurabi predates the Bible and there are some similar ideas, does not necessarily mean Moses borrowed. You have yet to look at the textural evidence of either codes. It's another cookie cutter answer.

And again, where did I say that Moses borrowed from the Code of Hammurabi? If all you wish to do is to continue to misrepresent my OP, then by all means, feel free to ignore me Goose. You trying to put words in my mouth or a separate meaning behind my OP is nothing more than wrong.