|
Why Christianity couldn’t be original
Regular Network Norwich & Norfolk columnist James Knight looks back at the myths that pre-date Christ and how they relate to Christianity.
I remember the awful shock I had when I nearly lost my faith. Almost as soon as my journey with Christ had begun I nearly gave up, procuring an awful feeling that I had been sucked in by a belief system that was manifestly not true, and likely based on the Pagan mysteries that predated it. I had only just started to believe that Christianity was true and, looking back, I may not have even made a commitment to Christ at that point (I can’t remember with any degree of certainty), but I was about to read something which seemed at the time like a reality check comparable to a gigantic slap in the face.
It was a set of papers documenting and annotating a few books that had been written, consisting of claims that thousands of years before Christianity Pagans had been worshipping a Son of God who had been born of a virgin, who had turned water into wine, and who had died and rose from the dead. A sense of horror came upon me – if that were true, and it seemed likely that it were, how could I carry on believing the Gospels and the letters of St Paul if the New Testament was simply a rewrite of Pagan myths of which the writers would have been fully aware at the time? My Christian journey was about to end almost as soon as it had begun.
Thankfully the Lord led me to do some research on these books (as well as reading one or two of them) and I found that their contentions were mostly a tissue of lies, fabrication, exaggeration and historical inaccuracies. But even so, was there any truth in their claims? That is to say, could what Jesus accomplished on earth be completely original; wouldn’t there be inevitable repetitions throughout history and stories and myths passed on that somehow reflected what Jesus Christ was all about? I found that however hard I tried to separate Jesus from the beliefs and superstitions and myths that preceded Him, I still could not separate Him entirely. This concerned me for a little while, but as I began to think about it some more, I realised that like all of the Bible parts that are difficult to understand, perhaps there is some deeper meaning that I had not yet considered; one which if I were to get a good cognitive purchase on it, might well bless me more with some edification and wisdom that I had not previously imagined.
Of course it is not just the Pagans - the Greeks had given us myths that closely resemble some of the parts of the Bible. Also Plato had a view of God as a supreme force, and in his Republic he argues that such consideration of supremacy, including most notably those of ‘morality’ and the ‘ultimate good’ should be undressed if they are to be seen in their proper context, unembellished by their earthly corollaries of reward, prestige, honour, and popularity. And of course when one takes the themes of the Bible as ultimate truths bestowed upon creation by God, one must naturally see them as the truths of God, the real Divine imputations and impartations that are stripped naked – the truths that have not been shabbily clothed by the Greeks or the Pagans. So of course some of the things I saw in Jesus would be unoriginal, of course things like omnipotence, omniscience, good, evil, a saviour, sacrifice, salvation, death, and resurrection would be themes repeated through the history of humanity, whether stripped, exhibited and demonstrated in their full truth or whether shabbily embellished by the rags of Paganism and Greek mythology – they are what the story of creation has been about all along.
 It has to be admitted that back in those early days I was too naïve to have noticed. But if things like good and evil and grace and rejection were themes doubled up in the tumult of earthly living, then to an extent they will remain what they are throughout many cultures. That Christ is the embodiment of good and grace, and that the Bad One is the epitome of evil and the orchestrator or many people’s rejection of Christ, is clearly an important theme through cultures and societies, and will continue to be so. When we see Jesus Christ on earth, we are not seeing a plagiarism of the Pagan or Greek myths - in fact it is the other way round - when we look back at the myths that predated Christ we are seeing a poor and myopic description, adaptation or account of what the truth of existence has been about all along – love, life, death and rebirth are the elixirs of life, and their fullest truth can only be found in Christ Jesus.
If the Pagans and Greeks happened to stumble upon ideas that were a pale reflection of God’s overall plans for creation, we can hardly be surprised if the themes they are reflecting are the very things that are instantiated in created human minds from the start. Imagine a man who had lived on a primitive and largely uninhabited island, and who had never been introduced to the outside world. He might well have developed a crude grasp of ‘love your neighbour as yourself’ by an innate a priori understanding of the dialectical distinction between being good and being bad. He could have acquired this from his crude experiences of island people alone. He might not know that there is a God who instilled that injunction and that there are millions of Christians in the outside world who put this instruction into practice as well as they can every day of their lives, just as the Pagans and Greeks did not know that their attempts at ontology were prefigured by their Creator. But if this man from the island ever saw the outside world and saw that millions of others were adopting the principle ‘love your neighbour as yourself’, he would not think to himself ‘what an odd coincidence’, rather he would think that his instincts for moral goodness had been correct and that his reality emulates the bigger truths of the outside world fairly accurately. The same of course would be true for the Pagans and the Greeks – if they captured just a bit of what Christ would go on to do for them they would see at once why they thought as they did about life, salvation, death and rebirth.
And this is the truth that puts to bed all those myths and accusations that Christianity is unoriginal. How can it be wholly original? Christ is only confirming what the story has been about all along; love, grace, life, goodness, death, rebirth and salvation are everywhere we look because they have a common source in the minds of everybody who has ever lived – the eternity that encompasses these things has been placed in the hearts of everybody who has ever lived (Ecclesiastes 3:11).
Moreover we should not be surprised to find that so much falsity closely resembles the truth, for that is how the Devil works best – some of his best laid plans for leading people away from Christ are not opposites, they retain enough of the truth for a man to think he is on the right path, but really he is in the Devil’s grasp. If the truth be north and north only, the devil will not try to lead us south, north-north-west is good enough for him, for that is often the biggest ensnarement into futility (as Christ’s letter to the church of Laodicea in the book of Revelation seems to testify).
And of course we see in those other folk who are strewn with self-righteousness and sententiousness - they think themselves great but they possess an almost subversive disregard for the real truth of Christ. And as soon as their real plighted character is exposed they descend into the most fake and disingenuous pretence - in the bringing to light of their real character they play the emotional trump card when in fact an honest repudiation of all those tawdry faults is needed. And what often occurs is a form of self-debasement where resigning oneself to their faults at the expense of progression occurs – it is here that something awful is happening; a powerful engine of domination is taking over, telling them that they will never be good enough so trying is a waste of time.
But God became what we are so that we might become what He us, and there is nothing, I repeat ‘nothing’ the Devil can do to take that away from those who remain strong in Christ. If the myths and superstitions reflect at least a little bit of the truth (after all, nothing is 100% false – that is impossible) then we must remain shrewd in seeing the whole truth in our Lord Jesus, and when the Bad One comes to tempt us, we should direct him away from us, to the cross of Christ and tell him, that is where our God once hanged, but He has defeated death and all the Bad One’s pitiable attempts at subversion.
The views carried here are those of the author, not of Network Norwich and Norfolk, and are intended to stimulate constructive debate between website users. We welcome your thoughts and comments, posted below, upon the ideas expressed here. You can also contact the author direct at james.knight@norfolk.gov.uk
James is a Norwich local government officer, author and Proclaimers church member in Norwich. You can access his current collections of columns here Meanwhile, if you want to find out more about Christianity, visit: www.rejesus.co.uk |
., 22/09/2009 |
|
| | Ria Landon (Guest) | 30/09/2009, 16:43 | | Ok James, thankyou for your response and clarification. It makes a huge difference that the things that 'terrified' me in your article are aimed at the non-Christian way of life. I don't think that was made clear. Oh communication eh! What a sticky phenomenon sometimes. Thanks again everyone God Bless
| | | Carrie Sant | 02/10/2009, 00:16 | | Sorry James, I was just taking it back to basics as requested! Friends would laugh to hear you suggest that I am anti theology or ant philosophy! (The true meaning of theology is one of my favourite lines!!) Understanding the way we think and why is essential. In fact I don't think that the church will ever make the transition to post modernity if we dont look at our cultures impact on our interpretation of Gods truth recognise it and move on. I too was a little unclear about what you meant but your clarification helps. Yes there are those who avoid the truth by constant debate never comming to a knowledge of the truth, but for those of us who know Him, we must debate, think, question our thinking, challenge each other, challenge our own inconsistances, open our minds to science and honestly stive for truth asking the Holy Spirit to guide us as we do.xx Carrie
| | | Rev Mike Lamb (Guest) | 02/10/2009, 09:42 | | Hi James,
I am sure God is using your gifts of thought, analysis and application to the way people today think and see the world.
I have gained, and continue to gain a great deal from Tom Wright as one of the west's foremost N.T. historian, theologian and deeply committed Christian. He is also highly aware of the philosophical theories which constrain more profitable understanding of scripture, and therefore the power of the gospel in our society and world.
Here is the taste and see site of Tom Wright: http://www.ntwrightpage.com/
God bless you. Mike
| | | xxx (Guest) | 02/10/2009, 10:45 | | Great, A "reverend" has appeared. I was hoping, brother Mike, you might engage with the matter of the Nicolaitans or respond to the challenge I put to the "leaders". Does Tom Wright have an opinion on the matter? I would like to think that I am "seeking understanding of scripture, and therefore the power of the gospel in our society and world". Perhaps you would spare the time to fellowship with me? http://www.networknorwich.co.uk/Forums/Messages.aspx?ThreadID=207276#new
http://www.networknorwich.co.uk/Forums/Messages.aspx?ThreadID=196714&page=1#feedback
| | | Plagirism Police (Guest) | 02/10/2009, 12:25 | | Triple X - I'm sure the good rev has got better things to do than join your club. Why dont you make use of your enthusiasm by givign us your view on Rick's Hell book - he's got a point you must say?
| | | xxx (Guest) | 02/10/2009, 15:08 | | Even a pencil has a point, sometimes! I have just listened to some of his speaking. Regarding the falsehood of blood atonement. My initial impression of him is he is way off in his understanding of the blood of Christ. He Negates the preciousness of it and would seem to consider Christ`s blood a common thing and his death simply a heinous unjustifiable murder. He isolates books of the bible and does not seem to have (despite his lofty claims) an overview of Gods eternal economy, from Genesis to Revelation. Despite this, there are some matters to which I would be in agreement with him especially his negative views regarding many other practices and teachings of organised and systematised Christianity. However his view of the blood of Christ has dinged the bell of warning in me and I note that his speaking is void of the anointing of God. Rather than Gods economy which is in faith he promotes questionings and reasoning's unending genealogies and is just more distraction from Christ himself. Any genuine teacher of the Lord should usher the hearer into the presence and enjoyment of the person of Christ himself, not simply be a teacher of teachings even if they are the teachings of Christ, they are something of the Lord rather than the Lord himself. A genuine teacher ushers others into the Christ that the teacher himself genuinely enjoys and experiences. He should not be just a sign post teacher, but the reality of the thing taught.
Furthermore PP. When were you promoted to be the spokesperson for the Rev. And what are you on about "club"? I must admit to liking a lot of choclate on my biscuit but would never join the club! Lets see if you know what I am on about there PP.
| | | James Knight | 06/10/2009, 13:35 | | Ok Carrie - my cautionary remark was directed at this line of yours "There is enough here to keep us busy for eternity without worrying too much about theology!" - that's all. I'm glad to hear you're not anti-theology or anti-philosophy.
You said "..for those of us who know Him, we must debate, think, question our thinking, challenge each other, challenge our own inconsistencies, open our minds to science and honestly strive for truth asking the Holy Spirit to guide us as we do"
Yes, go girl go!!!
Blessings
James
| | | James Knight | 14/10/2009, 13:58 | | As for the 'simple vs complex' issue, well believe it or not, the world isn't very simple. It's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it.
| | | James Moar (Guest) | 14/10/2009, 17:04 | | James says "As for the 'simple vs complex' issue, well believe it or not, the world isn't very simple. It's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it."
That's right. The question of having to see things simply can be answered by a lovely example of cats and mice . Basically, if the mice population goes up, so does the cat population as there's more food. This decreases the mouse population through predation, which will in turn decrease the cat population through lack of food. This seems simple enough, but the whole thing is dependent on the "reproduction coefficient" of the mice, and if this alters then it can no longer be understood in terms of simple oscillation, but develops emergent properties which mean that exact population levels of cats and mice at a given time in the cycle are difficult to predict. They can't be seen simply because although we can know everything about the process (we can set things like the initial populations of the model and even the mouse reproduction coefficient), we can't predict how the populations will develop without precise modelling and acknowledging the inherent complexity of the process. If such things that involve merely nonlinear processes that we know the full extent of and can control all inputs can be unpredictable, how can we even consider to think of the world at large, which has many factors that we cannot understand in it, in simple terms? It may make things easier as far as basic bodily functions go, but it fosters no true understanding of the world or our place within it. To even begin to understand that in terms of basic causality, we must open ourselves up to emergent complex problems.
| | | James Knight | 15/10/2009, 12:46 | | Thanks for this Jimbo. Nice to see you on here, it's been a while. I welcome and appreciate and respect anybody that wants live by faith in a simple way, and equally I feel the same about those who enjoy the complex as well. Different strokes for different folks. Funnily enough it's the former that always seem to have trouble with the latter; very rarely is it the other way round in my experiences. Your example of nonlinearity is also used with the foxhunting problem, it's called the Lotka-Volterra model. Exponential growth rate of X is decreased by the presence of Y and the exponential death rate of Y is decreased by the presence of X. With rabbits and foxes, if the predator population is small, they will always eat the prey at a rate proportional to their product. In other words, one hundred foxes surrounded by one million rabbits would each have to eat ten times more than one hundred foxes surrounded by one hundred thousand rabbits. As you rightly point out, chaotic and complex behaviour does not require many complex and interacting systems, it can arise even in a very simple system. Two facts will do it: iteration (feedback from point A to point B) and nonlinearity in the feedback mechanism.
Of course part of the problem that causes so many of these 'simple vs complex' debates on Network Norwich (and elsewhere) is that often it is not acknowledged that an ordered system and its complex and chaotic version are, in most cases, both faces of one indivisible process. Couple that with the fact that the implicit structure of our precipitations often reveals rather tendentious habits of mind in vying for simple over complex, and we can see why one might be defensive about complexity. However, if the underlying notion here is that issues of faith and salvation are by and large elements of truth that, when it comes to stability, regularity and consistency, reside in the simple tenets of growth and daily living, then complexity bandits should have no trouble putting down their guns.
|
(page
1
2
3)
|
|
| |