Since modern christianity is based on Jesus, my claim that christianity has pagan origins (not really my claim, but I'm the one claiming it here) has got to be based on the story of Jesus. The pagans had pseudo-religions called Mysteries, which were gnostic traditions which used the myths of god-men as allegories for the initiation and dedication to the mysteries, and then the attainment of Gnosis. For simplicity, I'll refer to all pagan god-men as Osiris-Dionysus. I'll number the comparisons so you can refer to them as you wish

1. Jesus is the saviour of mankind, God made man, the Son of the God equal with the Father; so is Osiris-Dionysus.
2. Jesus is born of a mortal virgin who after her death ascends to heaven and is honoured as a divine being; so is Osiris-Dionysus.
3. Jesus is born in a cave on 25 December or 6 January, as is Osiris-Dionysus.
4. The birth of Jesus is prophesied by a star; so is the birth of Osiris-Dionysus.
5. Jesus is born in Bethlehem, which was shaded by a grove sacred to Osiris-Dionysus.
6. Jesus is visited by the Magi, who are followers of Osiris-Dionysus.
7. The Magi bring Jesus gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh, which a sixth-century BCE Pagan tells us is the way to worship God.
8. Jesus is baptized, a ritual practiced for centuries in the Mysteries
9. The holy man who baptizes Jesus with water has the same name as a Pagan god of water and is born on the summer solstice celebrated as a Pagan water festival.
10. Jesus offers his followers elemental baptisms of water, air and fire, as did the Pagan Mysteries.
Read the rest here;
http://www.experts-exchange.com/Miscellaneous/Philosophy_Religion/Q_20907422.html

Divine confusion
Most Christians today believe that the gospels of the New Testament present an essentially accurate account of the life of Jesus Christ, the 'only-begotten Son of God', who was born of a virgin, wandered Galilee as a preacher and miracle-worker at the start of the 1st century, died on a cross to redeem the sins of mankind, and then rose from the dead three days later and ascended into heaven. However, the four gospels contain such glaring inconsistencies and contradictions that they are clearly not reliable historical reports. So if they are the 'word of God', then God must be terribly confused!

The Gospels of Matthew and Luke go to great lengths to show that Jesus is descended from the line of David, as the promised messiah must be according to Jewish beliefs. But apart from agreeing that Jesus was fathered by Joseph, the two genealogies bear no resemblance to each other at all; Matthew lists 28 generations and Luke 43. Furthermore, their relevance is unclear since the authors of the two gospels also say that Jesus was born of a virgin who was impregnated by the Holy Spirit.* The Gospels of Mark and John, by contrast, make no mention of Jesus' family descent or the virgin birth.


*The Holy Spirit was traditionally regarded as feminine. Hence the wry comment made in the apocryphal Gospel of Philip (25): 'Some said "Mary conceived by the holy spirit." They are in error. . . . When did a woman ever conceive by a woman?'
Matthew tells us that Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod, who died in 4 BCE (before common era). But Luke states that Jesus was about 30 in the 15th year of Tiberius' reign, implying that he was born in 2 BCE, i.e. after Herod's death. He then contradicts himself by stating that John the Baptist and Jesus were miraculously conceived six months apart in the reign of Herod, but that Jesus was born at the time of the census of Quirinius, which took place in 6 CE (common era), thereby creating the miracle of a ten-year pregnancy!

The Gospels of Mark and John do not contain any nativity story, while the nativity stories given by Matthew and Luke have nothing in common except the names of Jesus' parents and the location of his birth in Bethlehem. John however says that Jesus is from Galilee and that the Jews rejected him because he was not from Bethlehem. Only Matthew mentions the guiding star, the three wise men and Herod's murder of all the infant boys in Bethlehem, while only Luke mentions the Roman census, the appearance of angels to the shepherds tending their flocks (in the winter?!) and the shepherds' visit to Jesus.
More here;
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/DP5/christian.htm

knock-knock!! I'm here again, and I hope you wouldn't mind.

But let me point out a few things to you in your claims here. If you so desire me, I could come back and show you point by point where your claims are at best unsustained. But here are some few things to thoughtfully check out:

2. Jesus is born of a mortal virgin who after her death ascends to heaven and is honoured as a divine being; so is Osiris-Dionysus.

Christianity based on the Bible does not claim that Mary ascended to heaven after her death and was honoured as a divine being. You disagree? Read the Bible and get a verse for us to disprove me on that.

3. Jesus is born in a cave on 25 December or 6 January, as is Osiris-Dionysus.

Wrong, Christianity does not teach that Jesus was not born in a cave (check Luke 2:7 - or provide us with a verse).

4. The birth of Jesus is prophesied by a star; so is the birth of Osiris-Dionysus.

Again, the prophecy did not come by a star, but by God through the prophets of the old Testament (Isaiah 9:6 and Micah 5:2 as examples). I would be happy to see your verse from the Bible that birth of Jesus is (was) pophesied by a star.

5. Jesus is born in Bethlehem, which was shaded by a grove sacred to Osiris-Dionysus.

Born in Bethlehem - yes; shaded by a grove sacred to Osiris - do you care to prvide the verses?

6. Jesus is visited by the Magi, who are followers of Osiris-Dionysus.

Visited by the Magi - yes. That these Magi are followers of Osiris-Dionysus - care to provide the verses?

7. The Magi bring Jesus gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh, which a sixth-century BCE Pagan tells us is the way to worship God.

Okay, good then: so your credulity is raised by a sixth-century report of a first-century event. Thank God for that, so now at least you agree that you are claiming Jesus was God whom these Magi worshipped?

9. The holy man who baptizes Jesus with water has the same name as a Pagan god of water and is born on the summer solstice celebrated as a Pagan water festival.

Fascinating. There's just a simple solution to this - John the Baptist was his name; and what Pagan god of water had this name?

See, you can believe anything you want, and muster all your efforts against Christianity. All I ask is read the Bible and the gnostic gospels for yourself, then you'll see what you've been mixing up.

Lastly, I wonder how it was that this pagan religion you've been talking about had no power to save or heal in the name of their pagan god(s) as much as the Jesus whom they accused of all this borrowing.

Just my thoughts.

knock-knock!!I'm here again, and I hope you wouldn't mind.

Mind?I opened this thread just for you,and till now you have dissapointed in your responses.
Is that all you can muster?Weak,very weak!

Christianity based on the Bible does not claim that Mary ascended to heaven after her death and was honoured as a divine being. You disagree? Read the Bible and get a verse for us to disprove me on that.

That was a typo and you know it.You know fully well that it was not about Mary,but about Jesus.It was Jesus that was supposed to have ascended to heaven after ressurrection,just like Osiris.That is what the bible teaches.do you agree or disagree?

Wrong, Christianity does not teach that Jesus was[b] not[/b] born in a cave (check Luke 2:7 - or provide us with a verse).

Are you confused or what?Christianity(literalist) teaches that Jesus was born in a cave just like Osiris.True or false?The nativity story,remember?Forget the confusionist game.

Again, the prophecy did not come by a star, but by God through the prophets of the old Testament (Isaiah 9:6 and Micah 5:2 as examples). I would be happy to see your verse from the Bible that birth of Jesus is (was) pophesied by a star.

Your responses just keep on getting more and more evasive,wellborn,but i am not going to let you off the hook just like that.
Is the prophesy by a shining star part of the nativity story in the NT?Yes or no?

Born in Bethlehem - yes; shaded by a grove sacred to Osiris - do you care to prvide the verses?

No,i can't,but that cannot hide the fact that not only baby Jesus was born in the grove.

Okay, good then: so your credulity is raised by a sixth-century report of a first-century event. Thank God for that, so now at least you agree that you are claiming Jesus was God whom these Magi worshipped?

You don't get the link there now,do you?That only proves the pagan elements that surround Jesus NT stories.
These magi are pagan,aren't they?

See, you can believe anything you want, and muster all your efforts against Christianity. All I ask is read the Bible and the gnostic gospels for yourself, then you'll see what you've been mixing up.

The effort is not mustered very much against true chritianity(which died millenias ago),but against the literalist christianity of today that has misled people for almost 2000 years with all kinds of lies.And the lies will continue to be revealed,whether you like it or not,wellborn.

@wellborn
Afterall the infos that the first link provides,you cannot deny,wellborn,the pagan elements attached to Jesus which are totally overwhelming!
Christianity,as it stands today was born out of the parenthood of Osiris and Isis.Yes,christianity came out of the cult of Osiris/Isis.The evidences are just too overwhelming.
Even the imagery of Virgin Mary sitting with baby Jesus on her lap was lifted from the Isian imagery of mother goddess Isis sitting down with baby Horus on her lap.I can provide a link to the image if you would care to see it.

As a matter of fact,here it is, http://www.mnarqueologia-ipmuseus.pt/?a=3&x=1&i=106
Any comments?

Quotes from the artricle in the second link.

All the following features of the story of Jesus can be found in earlier stories about pagan godmen [2]: he is the saviour of mankind, the son of God, born of a virgin; he is born in a cave or cowshed on 25 December or 6 January;* his birth is prophesied by a star and witnessed by three shepherds; he is wrapped in swaddling clothes and placed in a manger; he is tempted by the devil; he is baptized; he heals the sick, exorcises demons and turns water into wine; he preaches the gospel of love, charity and forgiveness; he is surrounded by 12 disciples; he rides triumphantly into town on a donkey while crowds wave branches; his disciples symbolically eat bread and drink wine to commune with him; he dies at Eastertime as a sacrifice for the sins of the world by being hanged on a tree or crucified; his corpse is wrapped in linen and anointed with myrrh; his empty tomb is visited by three women followers; after his death he descends to hell, then on the third day he rises from the dead and ascends to heaven in glory; his followers await his return as the judge during the Last Days; through sharing in his passion, Jesus offers his disciples the chance to be born again.

Exactly like the NT Jesus.

The pagan mysteries were practised in different forms by nearly every culture in the Mediterranean and inspired the greatest minds of antiquity. Their primary aim was to promote moral regeneration and spiritual progress. At the heart of the mysteries was the myth of a dying and resurrecting godman, who was known by different names in different cultures: in Egypt he was Osiris, in Greece Dionysus, in Asia Minor Attis, in Syria Adonis, in Italy Bacchus, in Persia Mithras.

Just like the NT Jesus.

   The story of Jesus clearly shows a startling lack of originality. Some early Christians tried to explain this by claiming that the pagan mysteries were mythical precursors of the 'real thing' -- the historical coming of Jesus. Several church fathers, such as Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Irenaeus, even resorted to the desperate claim that the pre-Christian pagans had been inspired by the devil! A more rational conclusion is that the story of Jesus is simply a reworking of the far older myth of Osiris-Dionysus. No one believes the stories about pagan godmen are literally true, and relating the same events in a Jewish setting hardly turns them into historical facts.

Shocking that the NT stories about Jesus demonstrate a total lack of originality!Now whether the real Jesus that walked the sands of Palestine will agree to all these propaganda NT stories,is another thing.

Far from being a Christian heresy, the broad philosophical tradition known as Gnosticism was the original Christianity which developed from the pagan mysteries. The gnostics did not necessarily deny the historicity of the gospel story of Jesus' life as it was an essential part of the outer mysteries of Christianity, which were designed to attract new would-be initiates. But any literal interpretation of the Jesus story was only the first step presented to spiritual beginners, while the inner mysteries revealed that it was not a factual account of God's one and only visit to earth, but a mystical story designed to help each of us become a christ by achieving union with our higher, spiritual self.

The difference between the gnostics and the literalists who won and bastardised the true christianity with their NT versions.

[center]ISIS SUCKLING HORUS[/center]

Reminds you christians of the virgin Mary suckling baby Jesus,no?

@jagunlabi,

First, I thank you for your magnanimity in opening this thread just for me - it shows that you're the one getting restless unnecessarily because you worry that I'm a NT Christian and have no excuses for defending my faith.

Do yourself just one simple thing and end your headaches. Go read for yourself the original sources of the gnostic documents that you're misrepresenting - it will do you a lot of good so that you can see how weak your "researchers" are!


Your Researcher is twisting words!

What you call "research" is a sob story - you're the one ferreting websites and links, and yet you can't defend one of the things you misread there. FYI I've been shown that website several times in other blogs, so it's not new. Something you need to note is this: you copied the rants of an 18 year old UK student (Andrew Walker, now 20 y.o. - follow the link; it was another weblog and his username is "Synthetics")! Meanwhile, scroll down a bit on the page and you'll see how many people (some of who haven't read the Bible enough to know) disagreed with him, and some have asked him questions to clarify his views - but he disappeared from the scene! Is that what you call research? Please! That's why I asked you to slow down and read the TANACH and the Bible - because your "researchers" are blowing smoke in your face and giving you false info.

Example: On the first weblink you recommended (http://www.experts-exchange.com/Miscellaneous/Philosophy_Religion/Q_20907422.html), your poor Andrew Walker said this (underlined words mine):

           "3. Jesus is born in a cave on 25 December or 6 January, as is Osiris-Dionysus.
           The word usually translated as 'stable' in the gospels is "katalemna" which literally
           means a temporary shelter or cave. It was widespread early Christian tradition that
           Jesus was born in a cave."

Please note something here: this fellow has twisted the word "katalemna" to mean a "cave" so he could force his opinion that Jesus was born in a cave. First, he did not quote a verse in the gospels where he got the word "stable" from. Second, the Bible does not say so other than that He was wrapped in swaddling clothes and laid in a manger (Luke 2:7). Third, the Greek word (κατάλυμα) is "kataluma" [not "katalemna"], and it simply means an 'inn', a lodging place, or a guest chamber (check the word 'inn' in Young's Analytical Concordance of the Bible; or, Strong's Analytical Concordance; or any other Greek lexicon of your choice on the word 'kataluma'). The word cave in Greek is σπήλαιον - that is, spēlaion (as in John 11:38 - "Jesus therefore again groaning in himself cometh to the grave. It was a cave [σπήλαιον, spēlaion], and a stone lay upon it".

Jesus was not born in a cave as your research website is misleading the public to believe. Furthermore, your researcher does not know Greek but twisted words to mean different things so that he could sell his story to people who would not take the time and labour to carefully check the sources he pretended to be quoting from. There are so many things wrong, twisted, misrepresented and misquoted in Andrew Walkers article - and that is what you're posting here as "research"?

I feel so sorry that you did not bring a better stuff from advanced "scholars" - the sort of fellows who have more subtle lies to tell the public. Let me recommend some for your next game: contact the following source material - the Jesus Seminar publications (they're expect at selling what they can't authenticate, but they have stronger misrepresentations than Andrew Walkers' lullaby). When you bring such, then you'll see classic debates!  

I'm a Christian, a deeply committed one, who knows firsthand that Christ lives and what I read of Him in the Bible has been proven in my life again and again. He offers salvation stronger than Osiris or any pagan deity made up to slur the Christian faith. Jesus' power is truly able to save - and it is still available today. Believe in Him and see the difference He makes from the gnostic documents or the websites you've been reading. In loving affection, I extend this invitation to you: God loves you, jagunlabi.

@Wellborn
From that response up there,i am now absolutely certain that you have nothing to offer in defense of your dear NT,so i will torture you no further.I actually thought that you will put up a better fight.The scholarly researches and findings are hard to repudiate,no?
May God help you open your eyes wide to the truth.sometimes ignorance ain't bliss o,my brethren!
Chiao!

@jagunlabi, First, you're the one feeling tortured by your run-away websites; second, you don't seem to be getting to the issues, and all the self-congratulatory come backs are not actually helping your case. Your researchers lied by twisting Greek words, unless you want to assert that katalemna is the same thing as kataluma (κατάλυμα), which is NOT. If you can't see that, it would not surprise me the type of websites you have been reading from that you class as "research".

About the star, may I ask you to show me the verses in the Bible, like your researcher has misled you to believe, where in fact it is ever stated that "The birth of Jesus is prophesied by a star" - you don't need to scurry to any 18 year old student for answers. Since you're pushing that agenda, please show me the verses rather than the wisecracks you keep coming back with to congratulate yourself.

Your problem is that you simply refuse to take up the challenge - go and read the documents for yourself! Your claim to have read the Bible has not been demonstrated here at all - otherwise, you should have been quoting the verses in support of your assertions.

Blessings.

Hmmm,looks like africa is the original parent of christianity afterall.Gives us africans more claim to the religion.An african for the papalcy?

The Jesus story incorporated elements from the tales of other deities recorded in this widespread area, such as many of the following world saviors and "sons of God," most or all of whom predate the Christian myth, and a number of whom were crucified or executed.

Adad of Assyria
Adonis, Apollo, Heracles ("Hercules") and Zeus of Greece
Alcides of Thebes
Attis of Phrygia
Baal of Phoenicia
Bali of Afghanistan
Beddru of Japan
Buddha of India
Crite of Chaldea
Deva Tat of Siam
Hesus of the Druids
Horus, Osiris, and Serapis of Egypt, whose long-haired, bearded appearance was adopted for the Christ character34
Indra of Tibet/India
Jao of Nepal
Krishna of India
Mikado of the Sintoos
Mithra of Persia
Odin of the Scandinavians
Prometheus of Caucasus/Greece
Quetzalcoatl of Mexico
Salivahana of Bermuda
Tammuz of Syria (who was, in a typical mythmaking move, later turned into the disciple Thomas35)
Thor of the Gauls
Universal Monarch of the Sibyls36
Wittoba of the Bilingonese
Xamolxis of Thrace
Zarathustra/Zoroaster of Persia
Zoar of the Bonzes

Buddha
Although most people think of Buddha as being one person who lived around 500 B.C.E., like Jesus the character commonly portrayed as Buddha can also be demonstrated to be a compilation of godmen, legends and sayings of various holy men both preceding and succeeding the period attributed to the Buddha.37

The Buddha character has the following in common with the Christ figure:38

Buddha was born of the virgin Maya, who was considered the "Queen of Heaven."38a
He was of royal descent.
He crushed a serpent's head.
Sakyamuni Buddha had 12 disciples.38b
He performed miracles and wonders, healed the sick, fed 500 men from a "small basket of cakes," and walked on water.38c
He abolished idolatry, was a "sower of the word," and preached "the establishment of a kingdom of righteousness."38d
He taught chastity, temperance, tolerance, compassion, love, and the equality of all.
He was transfigured on a mount.
Sakya Buddha was crucified in a sin-atonement, suffered for three days in hell, and was resurrected.38e
He ascended to Nirvana or "heaven."
Buddha was considered the "Good Shepherd"39, the "Carpenter"40, the "Infinite and Everlasting."40a
He was called the "Savior of the World" and the "Light of the World."
Regarding the Buddhist influence on the gospel story, in 2003 Buddhist and Sanskrit scholar Dr. Christian Lindtner wrote the following:

"The Sanskrit manuscripts prove without a shadow of doubt:

"Everything that Jesus says or does was already said or done by the Buddha.

"Jesus, therefore, is a mere literary fiction.

"The Last Supper was the Last Supper of the Buddha.
"Baptism in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit was baptism in the name of the Buddha, the Dharma and the Samgha.
"All the miracles performed by Jesus had already been performed by the Buddha.
"The twelve disciples of Jesus were, in fact, the twelve disciples of the Buddha.
"It was king Gautama--not Jesus--who was crucified.
"It was Tathâgata--not Jesus--who was resurrected,
"There is nothing in the Gospels, no person, no event, that cannot be traced back to cognate persons, events or circumstances in the Buddhist gospels.
", Jesus is a Buddha disguised as a new Jewish legislator, teacher, Messiah and king of Israel.
"The Gospels, forming the foundation of Christianity, are, therefore, typical Buddhist literature, fiction, designed for missionaries whose language was Greek.40b"

Concerning the "crucifixion" of Buddha, as related in a Buddhist text dating to the first century BCE (Samghabhedavastu/ Mahâparinirvâna sûtra), Ken Humphreys states:


"In this story of 'Gautama, a holy man' our hero is wrongfully condemned to die on the cross for murdering the courtesan Bhadra. Gautama is impaled on a cross, and his mentor Krishna Dvapayana visits him and enters into a long dialogue, at the end of which Gautama dies at the place of skulls after engendering two offspring - the progenitors of the Ikshavaku Dynasty."

Humphreys further relates that "the dead Buddha is burned and it is the smoke of his corpse which rises - the true 'resurrection.'"


According to Dr. Burkhard Scherer, a "classical Philologist, Indologist and Lecturer in Religious Studies (Buddhist and Hindu Studies)" at Canterbury Christ Church University, the fact that there is "massive" Buddhist influence in the gospels has long been well known among the elite scholars. Says Dr. Scherer:

", it is very important to draw attention on the fact that there is (massive) Buddhist influence in the Gospels,

"Since more than hundred years Buddhist influence in the Gospels has been known and acknowledged by scholars from both sides. Just recently, Duncan McDerret published his excellent The Bible and the Buddhist (Sardini, Bornato [Italy] 2001). With McDerret, I am convinced that there are many Buddhist narratives in the Gospels.40c"

All religions are of pagan origin. If you want to understand christianity, you have to go back to Africa and study the Egyptian mysteries. That is where everything began. The Europeans just stole and made their various versions.

BigSis:

All religions are of pagan origin. If you want to understand christianity, you have to go back to Africa and study the Egyptian mysteries. That is where everything began. The Europeans just stole and made their various versions.

Whats your source honey ?

Wellborn I like the way you responded and all your points are salient. Christianity was never founded on paganism and could never have been.

I'd like to ask you this question however. Do you think that as much as christianity started out as pure, that Satan would not have used the opportunity to at least infiltrate its pure teachings with some semblance of paganistic practises? Notice I said practises!!!

I once raised the issue on this board in a thread that was created by another poster, and was personally attacked by some religious quacks. Of course they mis-construed what I meant so I hold no grudges.

Hmmm,looks like africa is the original parent of christianity afterall.Gives us africans more claim to the religion.An african for the papalcy?

Come on my friend why can't you take up wellborn's challenge? Find the scriptural passages to support your views. Is that too hard for you?

Here (Scroll>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

xtianity is just pure paganism