THE CHRISTIAN CASE (Formerly "Reasoned Musings"): world religions

Showing posts with label world religions. Show all posts

Monday, July 19, 2021

No! Historic Christianity Is Not A Copycat Religion

Mithras, Osiris, Horus, Dionysus, Adonis, Attis, Demeter, Persephone, Aphrodite, Isis, Danae, Melanippe [and who knows how many more], are some of the deities claimed to be the source for the Christian miracle narratives. The virgin birth, sacrificial death, crucifixion, resurrection, etc. have been attributed to these deities. Hence, some skeptics claim that Christianity is false since it has copied the miracle narratives from the pre-christian deities/religions.

But please note that no serious academic scholar/historian from any credible academic institution confer any credence to this accusation against Historic Christianity. This accusation is absolutely baseless and outdated, but still it makes its rounds in social media as and when appropriate.

Here is a few reasons why this accusation is without any credible foundation:

1. Dr. William Lane Craig dismisses these accusations based on the lack of serious scholarship, “When they say that Christian beliefs about Jesus are derived from pagan mythology, I think you should laugh. Then look at them wide-eyed and with a big grin, and exclaim, "Do you really believe that?" Act as though you've just met a flat earther or Roswell conspirator. You could say something like, "Man, those old theories have been dead for over a hundred years! Where are you getting this stuff?" Tell them this is just sensationalist junk, not serious scholarship. If they persist, then ask them to show you the actual passages narrating the supposed parallel. They're the ones who are swimming against the scholarly consensus, so make them work hard to save their religion. I think you'll find that they've never even read the primary sources.”¹

2. Dr. Mark Foreman questions the causal influence of the parallels. Even if there were parallels, there is no good evidence to ascertain that these parallels influenced the Historic Christian worldview. He emphasizes that Judaism, which is an extremely exclusive monotheistic religion, would not have tolerated the syncretism of the mystery religions. Moreover, the earliest Christians, who were primarily Jews, were even more exclusivistic. Hence, they would not have imported any stories from the mystery religions.²

3. Greg Koukl encourages Christians and honest seekers to primarily examine the credibility of the Historic Christian narrative. He says, “Those myths are only valuable if you first determine that Jesus is a fiction by looking at the primary source historical documentation. If you look at the historical record and decide that it is unreliable, if you first conclude that there is no good reason to believe that Jesus of Nazareth existed the way the Biblical records say He did, then it might then, and only then be useful to ask the question: How did this story come to be?”³ He also states that the primary source documentation is highly credible for Historic Christianity than the mystery religions.⁴

4. Sean Mcdowell in an article entitled “Is Christianity a Copycat Religion?” emphasizes that the differences between Christianity and the mystery religions are more profound than the alleged similarities. He also asserts that the parallels prove nothing, and the chronology is all wrong.⁵

These reasons are sufficient to dismiss these accusations against Historic Christianity.

Last but not the least, even non-christian scholars reject these accusations:⁶

Dr. Tryggve Mettinger (a Swedish professor at Lund University) has written the most comprehensive account of the dying and rising god motif. He himself affirms the concept of “dying and rising gods.”[3] Yet he concedes that he is in the strict minority: “There is now what amounts to a scholarly consensus against the appropriateness of the concept [of dying and rising gods]. Those who still think differently are looked upon as residual members of an almost extinct species… Major scholars in the fields of comparative religion and the Bible find the idea of dying and rising deities suspect or untenable.”[4] For instance, Jonathan Z. Smith (historian from the University of Chicago) writes, “All the deities that have been identified as belonging to the class of dying and rising deities can be subsumed under the two larger classes of disappearing deities or dying deities. In the first case, the deities return but have not died; in the second case, the gods die but do not return.”[5]

Skeptic Matt Dillahunty (of Atheist Experience) writes, “The first third of the film (Zeitgeist) is an unscholarly, sophomoric, horribly flawed, over-simplification that tries to portray Christianity as nothing more than the next incarnation of the astrologically themed religions that preceded it. Like all conspiracy theories, they combine a few facts, focus on correlations and build an intriguing story that seems to fit the pieces together nicely—provided you don’t actually dig below the surface to find out where they might have gone wrong.”

In describing the German higher critical school which gave birth to this entire theory (Religiongeschichtliche Schule), critical scholar Maurice Casey writes that this is “now regarded as out of date” and “significantly mistaken.”^[6]

Regarding the Cross and Atonement, atheistic critical scholar Bart Ehrman writes, “Where do any of the ancient sources speak of a divine man who was crucified as an atonement for sin? So far as I know, there are no parallels to the central Christian claim. What has been invented here is not the Christian Jesus but the mythicist claims about Jesus… The majority of scholars agree… there is no unambiguous evidence that any pagans prior to Christianity believed in dying and rising gods.”^[7]He adds, “None of this literature is written by scholars trained in the New Testament.”^[8]

So whenever you come across an accusation that Historic Christianity is a copycat religion, you can wholeheartedly pay no attention to the accusation, for it is tenuous, asinine, and sophomoric.

Endnotes:

¹https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/jesus-and-pagan-mythology/

²http://christianapologeticsalliance.com/2017/03/12/did-christianity-copy-from-paganism-part-2-no-causal-influence/

³https://www.str.org/w/the-zeitgeist-movie-other-myth-claims-about-jesus#.UcbtoT772vE

⁴Ibid.

⁵https://www.apologeticsbible.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Is-Christianity-A-Copycat-Religion_.pdf

⁶http://christianapologeticsalliance.com/2017/02/10/did-christianity-copy-from-paganism-part-1/#_ftn4

Websites last accessed on 19^th July 2021.

Saturday, July 17, 2021

Was Christianity Influenced By Zoroastrianism?

The ancient religion of Zoroastrianism (Parsi faith) apparently dates back to the 6^th century BC/BCE.¹ Zarathustra or Zoroaster² founded Zoroastrianism. While Zoroastrians claim belief in one supreme God known as Ahura Mazda, they also believe in another immortal deity called Angra Mainyu (Ahriman), who is the epitome of evil.

Critics of Historic Christianity claim that Christianity borrowed the following ideas from Zoroastrianism:³

1. Zoroaster was born of a virgin and “immaculate conception by a ray of divine reason.”

2. He was baptized in a river.

3. In his youth he astounded wise men with his wisdom.

4. He was tempted in the wilderness by the devil.

5. He began his ministry at age 30.

6. Zoroaster baptized with water, fire, and “holy wind.”

7. He cast out demons and restored the sight to a blind man.

8. He taught about heaven and hell, and revealed mysteries, including resurrection, judgment, salvation and the apocalypse.

9. He had a sacred cup or grail.

10. He was slain.

11. His religion had a eucharist.

12. He was the “Word made flesh.”

13. Zoroaster’s followers expect a “second coming” in the virgin-born Saoshyant or Savior, who is to come in 2341 CE and begin his ministry at age 30, ushering in a golden age.

These have been meticulously disproved.⁴

Although Zoroaster’s life predates Jesus Christ, all information pertaining to him comes from the book of Avesta. Interestingly, Avesta was not composed until the 4^th century (AD/CE). This is almost 400 years after the life of Jesus Christ.

Significantly, the earliest manuscripts of the Avesta have been dated to the 13^th century (AD/CE). In comparison, the manuscripts of the gospels and the Acts of the Apostles have been dated between 45-60 (AD/CE).⁵

If the New Testament manuscripts are dated much before Avesta, then it is clear that Christianity could NOT have borrowed ideas from Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism may have borrowed ideas from Christianity, but it is certainly not the other way around.

Despite the oral traditions of Zoroastrianism predating Christ, the information in Avesta could be unreliable because of the large gap in time (1000 years plus or minus). Moreover, historians claim that the book of Avesta has been updated over time.⁶If Avesta was updated over time, then it is more plausible that Zoroastrianism borrowed concepts from Christianity.

The Bible could not have borrowed the concept of Satan from Zoroastrianism. Satan appears in the book of Job, a very early book. Moreover, Satan (a created subordinate to God in Christianity) is much unlike the evil god Angra Mainyu (Ahriman), who is a dualistic equal to Ahura Mazda.

Last but not the least, the doctrine of salvation clinches the deal. Any religion that teaches salvation by works cannot be true.

Zoroastrianism opposes Historic Christianity in the doctrine of salvation. Zoroastrianism teaches salvation by works, “Salvation was by works alone; there was "practically no place for repentance or pardon:" and "no doctrine of atonement." There is some issue about the fate of the wicked; one account says they will be tormented three days, then return to do good deeds; another source says they will be annihilated. There is an essential equivalent to Heaven and Hell...”⁷

Salvation cannot be achieved by doing good deeds. Salvation can only be through the grace of God by faith in the finished work of the Lord Jesus (cf. Ephesians 2:8-9). Dr. Carl Broggi describes this beautifully, “God does not spell salvation “DO” - and God does not spell salvation “DON’T” - God spells salvation “DONE” (John 19:30).”⁸

Therefore, we can confidently assert that Historic Christianity cannot be an offshoot of Zoroastrianism.

Endnotes:

¹Dating of Zoroastrianism is much disputed.

²Zoroaster is presumed to have lived sometime between 1700 – 600 BC/BCE.

³http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/zoroaster.php

⁴http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/zoroaster.php

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3x6aOBqc9d0&ab_channel=InspiringPhilosophy

⁵https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/why-i-know-the-gospels-were-written-early-free-bible-insert/

⁶http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/zoroaster.php

⁷Ibid.

⁸https://answersingenesis.org/world-religions/world-religions-and-cults-zoroastrianism/

Websites last accessed on 17^th July 2021.

Thursday, August 24, 2017

Exclusivity Claims of Major World Religions

You may have encountered and engaged these claims, “Christianity is intolerant!” and “Christianity is exclusive!” The other religions are allegedly tolerant and hence, inclusive. Is it so? No! Every major religion claims exclusivity.

Within the theme of “Religious Diversity,” three relevant theories should be recognized.1 The “Pluralist theory” believes that one religion is as truthful as another. The “Exclusivist theory” considers only one religion as uniquely valuable – the sole bearer of truth. The “Inclusivist theory” finds merit with both the pluralistic and exclusivistic religions by arguing that while the exclusivistic religion could hold most value, the others still have religious value, for there may be partial truth in the other religions.

A religion proclaims exclusivity if it absolutely contradicts an essential doctrine (Godhead, Sin, Salvation etc.) of another religion. Since mutually contradictory statements cannot be true at the same time and in the same sense (Law of noncontradiction), the either-or logic (not the both-and) should be applied while determining the truth. When two religions mutually contradict each other, the truth remains with eitherreligion A or religion B (both religion A and religion B cannot be true, in this instance). Therefore, only one religion could be true, but the fact remains that both religions claim exclusivity, for both these religions claim to bear the truth.

Every major religion in the world, either implicitly or explicitly, claims exclusivity. Ravi Zacharias states, “The truth is that every major religion in the world claims exclusivity, and every major religion in the world has a point of exclusion…”2 Therefore, a preliminary study of the claims of exclusivity of the major world religions is in order.

Exclusivity of Hinduism

Hinduism, one of the world’s oldest religious systems, claims to be inclusive.3 But it is not so.

Hinduism excludes other religions based on its core doctrines. Consider the doctrine of God in Hinduism. Brahman, the absolute God of Hinduism, is a mysterious being.4

Although Brahman is one God, he manifests in innumerable forms, “Hinduism is unique because it is essentially a monotheistic faith which acknowledges polytheism as reflective of the diversity in God’s creation. God is one, but also many. He manifests Himself in innumerable forms and shapes.”5 But the God of Christianity does not manifest Himself in innumerable forms. Hence, Hinduism should exclude Christianity or Islam on the basis of the Godhead. The same holds true for doctrines such as karma and reincarnation, which absolutely contradict Christianity and other religions.

While Hinduism claims inclusivity, it excludes the exclusivists, “Hinduism does not recognize claims of exclusivity or a clergy. Anyone who claims to by [sic] the exclusive possessor of spiritual truth or the only ‘method’ of reaching God finds no place in Hinduism; a method or a message can only be one among many…Krishna, speaking as God in the Bhagavad-Gita, says, “All paths lead to me”, and also those who worship other gods with devotion worship me….Hinduism does not force itself on others through proselytisation…”6

Existentially, Hinduism contradicts its own claims for inclusivity. If Hinduism is truly inclusive, it would not proselytize. But Hinduism, in India – the country of its origin, is actively converting people. The recent Ghar Wapsi (Home Coming) program in India is a classic case in point. Ghar Wapsi is, “a series of religious conversion activities, facilitated by Indian Hindu organizations Vishva Hindu Parishad and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, to facilitate conversion of non-Hindus to Hinduism”7

Furthermore, Ravi Zacharias, who was born into a Hindu household, asserts the exclusivity of Hinduism, “Hinduism, for example, is often represented as being the most tolerant and accepting of other faiths. That is just not true. All Hindus believe in two fundamental, uncompromising doctrines—the Law of Karma, and the belief in reincarnation.”8

Therefore it is very reasonable to conclude that Hinduism is not an inclusive faith, since it claims exclusivity.

Exclusivity of Buddhism

Rejection of Hinduism led to the birth of Buddhism, says Ravi Zacharias, “Buddhism was born out of the rejection of two other very dogmatic claims of Hinduism. Buddha rejected the authority of the vedas and the caste system of Hinduism.”9

There are several irreconcilable differences between Buddhism and Historic Christianity. Two such differences are found below:

First, Buddhism rejects the notion of a personal God, which is in stark contrast to Christianity, “There is no almighty God in Buddhism. There is no one to hand out rewards or punishments on a supposedly Judgement Day.”10 However, Buddha is worshipped by some Buddhists.

Second, Buddhism excludes other religions that believe in sin, for there is no such thing as sin in Buddhism, “Buddhists do not regard man as sinful by nature of ‘in rebellion against god’. Every human being is a person of great worth who has within himself a vast store of good as well as evil habits…According to Buddhism, there is no such thing as sin as explained by other religions.”11

There are many such points of exclusions in Buddhism. Hence, Buddhism is also an exclusive religion.

Exclusivity of Islam

Islam, being strictly monotheistic, rejects every contradicting worldview (Trinitarian monotheism, polytheism, pantheism etc.). Moreover, Islam, by virtue of rejecting Christ’s divinity, excludes Christianity.

Islam is also a legalistic system. A Muslim must earn his salvation by holding to the “Articles of Faith” (belief in God, Angels, Scripture, Prophets, and Last Days) and following the “Pillars of Faith” (The Creed, Prayer, Almsgiving, Fasting, and Hajj Pilgrimage). This is in absolute contrast to Christianity, which believes that man is not saved by his good deeds, but is saved by the grace of God through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Therefore, Islam stakes claim to exclusivity by excluding the contradicting religions.

Exclusivity of Judaism

It may be an effortless task to prove Judaism’s claim to exclusivity vis-à-vis other religions that are not named Christianity. Judaism and Christianity have much in common. Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, in their work “Handbook of Today’s Religions,” state the fundamental similarity, “It is to historic Judaism, the Judaism of the Old Testament, that Christianity traces its roots. Christianity does not supplant Old Testament Judaism, it is the fruition of Old Testament Judaism. One cannot hold to the Bible, Old and New Testaments, as God’s one divine revelation without also recognizing and honoring the place God has given historic Judaism.”12

Given this relationship between Judaism and Christianity, the exclusivity of Judaism would be clearly emphasized if Judaism excludes Christianity. A couple of points of exclusion are highlighted below:

First, Judaism rejects the Christian belief that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, “While Christianity recognizes that the promise of a personal, spiritual savior is the core of biblical revelation, Judaism has long vacillated in the concept of messiahship. That Jesus Christ, the true Messiah predicted in God’s Word, would be rejected by the Jews of the first century shows that even at that time there was divergence of opinion on the meaning and authority of messianic passages in Scripture. In the course of Jewish history the meaning of the Messiah had undergone changes. Originally, it was believed that God would send His special messenger, delivering Israel from her oppressors and instituting peace and freedom. However, today any idea of a personal messiah has been all but abandoned by the majority of the Jews. It has been substituted with the hope of a messianic age characterized by truth and justice.”13

Second, the salvation of the Jews is predicated on sacrifices, penitence, good deeds and a little of God’s grace, since they reject the substitutionary atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ.14 Salvation in Christianity is absolutely contingent on God’s grace, but not on the performance of good deeds.

Conclusion

Every major religion of the world remains exclusive, for there are irreconcilable contradictions between these religions. The notion that Historic Christianity is the only religion that claims exclusivity is, therefore, incorrect.