Let Us Discuss The True Origins Of Christianity!

[DirtbagDan]

Hey everyone, I have recently come across an article that claims to unveil the true history of Christianity. It involves discussing a Roman Emperor Constantine during the fourth century, who united all religious factions under one composite deity - and what came of it is Christianity. Apparently he (through holding gatherings and polls among religious leaders) chose two gods: the Druid god Hesus, and the Hindu/eastern god Krishna. What do you get? Hesus Krishna. Sound familiar? Here is a link to the article posted on someone's blog:

 

http://inpursuitofhappiness.wordpress.com/2007/06/04/the-forged-origins-of-the-new-testament/

 

Now, I like to analyze and question everything I read in order to see whether or not it has validity. The articles provides a plentiful amount of references, which is good. However, upon researching the god Hesus, for example, I came across different sources that state that experts claim that the name 'Hesus' and 'Jesus' is purely a coincidence. Just an example.

 

I'd like to know if anybody else here can verify the validity of this story (and hopefully provide some good quality references), and if this is all new to you then by all means post your insight and what you think!

 

I've tried a searching this forum for this topic but I didn't find anything answering my questions about it, or any siginificant posts on the topic - so here I am creating this thread.

 

Lets discuss!

[Shyone]

Hey everyone, I have recently come across an article that claims to unveil the true history of Christianity. It involves discussing a Roman Emperor Constantine during the fourth century, who united all religious factions under one composite deity - and what came of it is Christianity. Apparently he (through holding gatherings and polls among religious leaders) chose two gods: the Druid god Hesus, and the Hindu/eastern god Krishna. What do you get? Hesus Krishna. Sound familiar? Here is a link to the article posted on someone's blog:

 

http://inpursuitofhappiness.wordpress.com/2007/06/04/the-forged-origins-of-the-new-testament/

 

Now, I like to analyze and question everything I read in order to see whether or not it has validity. The articles provides a plentiful amount of references, which is good. However, upon researching the god Hesus, for example, I came across different sources that state that experts claim that the name 'Hesus' and 'Jesus' is purely a coincidence. Just an example.

 

I'd like to know if anybody else here can verify the validity of this story (and hopefully provide some good quality references), and if this is all new to you then by all means post your insight and what you think!

 

I've tried a searching this forum for this topic but I didn't find anything answering my questions about it, or any siginificant posts on the topic - so here I am creating this thread.

 

Lets discuss!

Constantine ruled Rome starting in about the turn of the 4rth century. Greek writings predating this already include variations of Jesus and Christ.

 

While Constantine may have heard of the other gods (or not) the words used by the Church were already established.

 

There were, AFAIK, no significant numbers of Druids in Rome, and the contingent of Indians was relatively small. Overall, I'd say that the likelihood of this particular scenario is about as likely as Obama being the anti-christ.

[dB-Paradox]

But Constatine played a major role in Christianity gaining as much popularity as it did, so there may be *some* truth to it.

[nightflight]

Take one part ancient Judaism and mix in some Platonism and viola!

[Shyone]

Take one part ancient Judaism and mix in some Platonism and viola!

Who was it that Aquinas kept calling "The Philosopher" and from whom he got so many ideas?

 

I think Aristotle. But what the heck. It's all Logos to me.

[nightflight]

Take one part ancient Judaism and mix in some Platonism and viola!

Who was it that Aquinas kept calling "The Philosopher" and from whom he got so many ideas?

 

I think Aristotle. But what the heck. It's all Logos to me.

 

 

Nietzsche called Christianity "Platonism for the masses". I wonder if Paul was stepping out on Gamaliel and seeing some high-falutin Greek on the other side of Rome..

[Loren]

Thanks for posting that, Dan. I thought this was hilarious, both for the hypocrisy and the fact that it never ends:

 

“…the most rustic fellows, teaching strange paradoxes. They openly declared that none but the ignorant was fit to hear their discourses … they never appeared in the circles of the wiser and better sort, but always took care to intrude themselves among the ignorant and uncultured, rambling around to play tricks at fairs and markets … they lard their lean books with the fat of old fables … and still the less do they understand … and they write nonsense on vellum … and still be doing, never done.”

(Contra Celsum ["Against Celsus"], Origen of Alexandria, c. 251, Bk I, p. lxvii, Bk III, p. xliv, passim)

 

Sounds like today. The rhetorical wars between the early church fathers are always a hoot. And it just went on and on to today. Arminianism v. Calvinism, and so on.

 

As to Christos/Krishna, I think that's just a homonym. The meaning of Christos as given by the church is actually one of the few things where I take them at their word. "Anointed one," is a pretty direct carry-over from the Greek definition to the savior concept. Although it got corrupted right away in that what most Christians think it means is more exclusive, sort of an idea that it's a title that only one person could have, like there would only be one. Actually, it was much more akin to our words, "Representative, Congressman, Councilman or President" in usage. It was far more of a generic title for any holder of some office or other. The terms, "Senator or Judge," could be applied to anybody and many people at the same time. Nor did it confer any particular kind of holiness or divinity. But give it a couple thousand years of exclusive and wrong popular usage, and, "Senator," becomes a term that can only be used of one particular person and it confers holiness of some sort.

 

Let's see... How about, "Loren, Senator." Then it becomes, "Loren Senator," as if that's my name, although True Believers will hear many fine sermons preached entirely about how that's not my real name, and the crowds will be wowed by what a scholar the damned preacher is. Eventually, when you hit your thumb with a hammer, you'll be able to say,

"Loren H. Senator!!!"

 

And pious little old ladies will be offended. Young people these days just have no respect for Senator anymore!

 

As to the name, "Jesus," that was a fairly popular name in that part of the world at the time. There were a lot of Jesuses running around loose. It was about as common as the name, "George." Certainly not the most common name, but common enough that you could be sure of running into a fair number of them during your life.

 

As to the Krishna cult origins, I've seen a lot of different sources who latch on to some particular pagan influence for early Christianity as if that's the only or main one. Generally, I think that sort of thing is poor scholarship, where real research gives way to personal enthusiasm for one pet hypothesis. If there's any single thing I've learned from years of looking into just the sort of thing cited in your original post, it's that that particular area of the world at the time was a real carnival of various sects, cults and religions, all or most of them influencing each other. It's a truly tangled web.

 

It had to do with the trade routes, big surprise.

 

But the site linked to in your op was a fun read and did have some good digging, anyway. You might enjoy this one, just for the visual comparisons of early Christian to pagan iconography in art.

 

Pagan Origens Of The Christ Myth