The Church Covered Up The TRUE ORIGINS of Christianity

The Church Covered Up The TRUE ORIGINS of Christianity

Christianity, a faith embraced by over 2.4 billion people globally, has its roots deeply intertwined with the life and teaching of Jesus. However, many followers often raised within the faith may not have delved into its historical origins. Traditionally, researchers have primarily focused on Jewish influences in the formation of Christianity. Yet, this perspective overlooks the significant impact of the Roman world, a civilization rich with a plethora of deities and diverse cultural influences, on the development of this religion. In our documentary, we embark on a fascinating journey to explore the true genesis of Christianity. We will delve into its foundational texts and uncover the substantial influence of Greek and Roman culture and mythology on the core narratives of this globally practiced religion. Prepare to embark on an enlightening journey that may redefine your understanding of Christianity’s beginnings.

Are we on a pursuit of wanting to actually understand the origins of Christianity? Much of the world has pulled on the same yarn which tells you that Jesus is absolutely unique with no comparisons. He is the one and only true Son of God who was born by divine parentage into the troubling world, lived a noble life, and faced death in a unique way. After his death, it was attributed to him that he overcame death by physically rising again, appearing to many of his disciples, then ascended into the heavens by a cloud where he was expected to return from this near end of all things. This was all prophesied long ago in the law and the prophets according to the first and second century authors.

What if I told you that most of the claims attributed to Jesus are not only found in other figures, but that many of such characters predate Jesus? Would this peak your interest? Are we still on a pursuit of truth? This documentary will reveal much about the original setting where Christianity was born. If we meet the parents of Christianity and visit the place where she was born, we could learn a ton about who she is and why she acts a certain way. We hope to reveal ideas you will never hear taught in a church sermon, you will never hear accurately represented by Christian apologists, but will absolutely find from critical scholarship like Dr. Richard C. Miller. This video is based off of his 2015 Routledge publication, Resurrection and Reception in Early Christianity.

We will expose you to early Christian voices who not only saw Jesus compared to other figures, but couldn’t avoid having to explain why he looked so much like the non-Jewish gods, demigods, Caesars, etc. The very air they breathed was Greek and Roman, and every street corner had the cult of some deity being venerated. The earliest literary works of Christianity happen to be penned by a Hellenized Jewish Pharisee named Paul, who believed it was his calling to target the non-Jewish world with his gospel of Jesus Christ. This non-Jewish world had already married the Jewish world centuries before, with Hellenism penetrating even the most devout Jewish circles among the Dead Sea sect. Did Paul really become all things to all men? Would his gospel be relatable to his Greek audiences? What we will learn is profound.

Have you ever wondered where the stories about Jesus rising from the dead come from? Let’s dive deep into this mystery, looking way back to times even before these stories were written. One of the first clues comes from a piece written in 150 AD by a guy named Justin Martyr. He mentions that the tales of Jesus have a lot in common with old stories from Greek and Roman myths where heroes had incredible adventures and sometimes even became gods. But Justin believed that these myths were actually copying the true story of Jesus, not the other way around. We will compare Jesus’s story with ancient myths like the one about Romulus, who was said to have started the city of Rome. Legends say he was taken up into the sky and became a god. Sounds familiar, right? The big question is whether stories like Romulus’s influenced the ones about Jesus.

The study isn’t just about figuring out where the stories come from. It’s also about understanding how the first followers of Jesus saw these stories. Were they making their own version of popular myths, or were they using well-known storytelling techniques from their time? This research hopes to show how the stories of Jesus fit into the bigger picture of ancient culture and books. We will learn how the Greek and Roman world plays a significant role in the origins of the Christ movement and its literature. We will show you how contemporary Caesars were competitive political models that the Christ movement tried to imitate and subvert with their own gospel. We will grasp the gospels in a way that you may never have understood before. Also, we will see why Jesus’s body needed to go missing as part of the resurrection narratives.

Most experts today think that the tales about Jesus’s resurrection either come from old Jewish traditions or are totally unique, but this new study says it’s not that simple. It suggests that these stories mixed both ancient local languages and popular stories from Greece and Rome. By untangling these influences, researchers hope to get a clear picture of the earliest Christian stories and what they truly meant. Understanding what a translation fable is and how it relates to Jesus will probably shock most. Let’s dive into the earliest Christian fathers and reveal how it’s related to Jesus. Now let’s turn to what the earliest Christian intellectual defending Christianity has to say. Justin’s confession: not only do the earliest great minds of Christianity confess to Jesus comparing to other Greek Roman deities and demigods as well as the Caesars, they were forced to do so.

What do I mean by forced? The apologist will happily grin to this admission because they love to try discounting their Christian fathers when they clearly compare Jesus with the other gods. They eloquently try escaping these admissions by fathers such as Justin Martyr by assuming he is actually exaggerating or even lying when comparing Jesus. Dr. Miller and MythVision actually take their words for what they actually say, that is the Christian apologist in antiquity. But we might ask, you said forced, Eric? Why forced? The apologist assumed these Christians were forced to say what they said under threat of their lives, meaning we shouldn’t actually believe them when they say things like we will show soon. Dr. Miller and MythVision will say he was forced to compare because it was flat out obvious, just an analogy.

Imagine in the year 2030 that a cult developed around a man who wore a black suit and cape, had an underground lair, fought off bad people, and had a very close affinity to bats. Sometimes at night his symbol can be seen in the sky with the shape of a bat. He’s practically a genius and has been said to survive death before. We might scoff and shout, duh, that’s Batman! Though Batman is extremely fictional, I want to point out a few things. You wouldn’t know this was Batman if it weren’t for the comic books and movies in the 20th and 21st centuries. This historical and cultural context might even help us nail down the where and why this 2030 cult started. We can safely say without the knowledge of Batman we might be scratching in the dark trying to explain this cult that had its origins in 2030.

Well-known academic John Dominic Crossan had a debate with a Muslim scholar, Shabir Ali, and during their exchange Crossan pointed out that if Muhammad existed in the first century and he didn’t claim to be a son of a god, he would have been lost to history. No one would even care about who Muhammad was due to the obvious importance of having divine pedigree. If you weren’t a son of a god, then you weren’t important. You could say that these sons of gods were the Hollywood celebrities of antiquity, as Dr. Richard C. Miller points out. These sons of God usually have translation fables, which we will explain further in this documentary. That was the ancient hall of fame of anyone worthy of veneration or even worship.

Now let’s turn to the earliest Christian apology, aka or better known as defense for Christianity, by Justin Martyr in 150 CE. Quote: When we affirm that the Logos, God’s firstborn begotten without a sexual union, namely our teacher Jesus Christ, was crucified, died, rose, and ascended to heaven, we are conveying nothing new with respect to those whom you call the sons of Zeus: Hermes, the interpreting word and teacher of all; Aesculapius, who though he was a great healer was struck by a thunderbolt and so ascended to heaven; and Dionysus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Heracles, once he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and the Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who though sprung from mortals rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus.

For what shall I say of Ariadne and those like her who have been declared to be set among the stars? And what about the emperors who die among you whom you deem worthy to be forever immortalized, and for whom you bring forward someone who swears to have seen Caesar once having been consumed by fire ascend into heaven from the funeral? Justin, One Apology, 21. Wow, did you catch that? Dr. Miller opens his book with a powerful one-liner quote: Although we say the same things as the Greeks, we alone are hated. Justin, One Apology, 241. Justin Martyr a long time ago wrote a piece called One Apology. In it he basically said that stories about Jesus are similar to the legends and myths Romans told about their heroes and rulers.

Imagine him saying, hey Romans, we have stories about Jesus just like you have about your legends, so why are you attacking us? This old writing gives us a peek into how early Christians thought about their stories. Some people think Justin was hinting that the tales about Jesus being born miraculously, his dramatic death, and coming back to life were inspired by popular myths of that time. Now this idea can be pretty surprising. Some ask, did Justin really suggest that early Christians took ideas from other legends when talking about Jesus? And if he did, wouldn’t that hurt Christianity’s message, especially in its early days? What’s even more surprising is that Justin seemed to mention this idea casually as if everyone knew it. He even included himself and other Christians in this way of thinking.

The big question is, was Justin really saying that the stories about Jesus weren’t that unique compared to other tales from that time? In Justin’s apology, he challenged classical figures of ancient history, claiming that these respected deities were in reality demons. This defense didn’t use traditional argument styles, but instead straightforwardly called these gods evil. Despite similarities between early Christian stories and Greek myths, the defense argued that Greek stories were influenced by evil forces, while the Christian narrative about Jesus was the genuine truth. However, there’s a bit of inconsistency in the apology. On one hand, it acknowledges the shared themes between Greek and Christian stories, suggesting some influence. On the other, it dismisses the Greek stories as deceptive tales inspired by evil.

If someone expects logical consistency from early Christian writings, this defense might seem contradictory. These contradictions may be due to the way the authors frame their argument, focusing more on persuasive storytelling than doctrinal accuracy. They were trying to position Christianity within the broader context of ancient wisdom. They even went so far as to say that ancient thinkers like Socrates, by understanding the universal wisdom that pervades everything, essentially knew Jesus Christ. In fact, they claim anyone who understood this universal wisdom was in a way a Christian, listing famous figures from various cultures who fit the bill. The main takeaway is that early Christian thinkers were not trying to blend or replace Greek or Roman thought with Christian beliefs.

Instead, they were articulating a belief that Christian ideas had always been part of a broader shared wisdom. The defense essentially suggests that the stories about Jesus weren’t new or groundbreaking, but followed themes familiar to many in ancient times. This was not a new perspective, but simply an acknowledgment of what many already believed. The text discussed how early Christian writings tried to show that their teaching stories were not just imitations of classical tales, but were older and truer. They argued, quote: In order that this also may become plain to you, only the things which we say and which we learned from Christ and the prophets who came before him are true, and they are older than all those who were the classical writers.

It is not merely because we say the same things as they do that we ask to be accepted by you, but because we say what is true. Justin, One Apology, 231. However, the writings did not offer any evidence to back this claim. They just stated that classical stories were inspired by demons to look like Christian stories to undermine their truth and importance. According to these writings, the classical writers were tricked into creating characters and stories that resembled Christian ones. This argument suggests that early Christian teachings were trying to move away from being seen as just another myth or story. Instead, they wanted to be seen as historical fact.

In fact, in Apology 21, Justin confesses that the two groups were identical in kind when he says the Christ and the Greek Roman figures are of the same kind. He is suggesting we are doing nothing different than what you have done with your figures. Of course, he denigrates these others in the process, which again sounds contradictory. However, he wants to put Christ as morally superior and establish a monotheistic perception which condemns the other deities. This is an evolution, not a revolution. With the established societal norms of Greek and Roman deities, philosophers were criticizing the lack of asceticism and moral examples for people to follow. They were doing this with their own gods.

Zeus was known as a god who laid the pipe on many mortal females, sometimes forcing himself, which was not a moral example for people to follow. In fact, well before Christianity, the Greek philosophers were already doing this, condemning and trying to allegorize these horrific actions by a deity. It saddens me to see people are gullible enough to find this argument by Justin convincing. It appears Justin is being rhetorical rather than operating the way modern apologists do by trying to be precise in some scientific way. Justin is practically saying, stop killing us, we’re doing the same damn thing as you guys.

By the second century, there was a shift in how early Christians wanted their stories to be perceived. Initially they were content with their stories fitting in with the popular classical tales of the time, but later they wanted to elevate the stories about Jesus and the teachings of Christianity above all else, making them more special and unique. This was part of a larger aim to change the dominant cultural stories of the Roman world at the time. They felt the need to stress that their stories were not just another version of older tales, but were superior and truer. This was the main message in Justin’s writings, especially in the passage titled One Apology 21.

Justin as well as other church fathers rhetorically condemn these other stories which they admit in simple terms look just like Jesus. They do so in order to differentiate their cultic claims. In-group, out-group language is a very powerful weapon even when no evidence is provided. Look at our current state of politics in the United States; all it takes is one side to condemn the other with words and all hell breaks loose. The tension between two groups and the othering language is often rhetorical, as Professor Elaine Pagels spells out in her book on the origins of Satan. Christians othered Jews as children of the devil, a liar from the beginning.

In simple terms, Christianity walked like these other myths, talked like these other myths, smelled like these other myths, and looked like these other myths, but this one is true. Christianity was a verive philosophy which borrows all of its features from the existent structures, but then simultaneously establishing it as the true version. The Christ followers could both say they were the true continuation of Israel as well as the true fulfillment of the Greek and Roman world. They say that much in Paul’s letters, especially with being the descendants of Abraham. The true descendants of Abraham are not genetic; they’re the people of faith, and it kind of replaces the older model claiming to be the ones born through it.

That same idea from the Israel perspective is also in the Greek and Roman world. In a way, one could look to how Muslims in the seventh and eighth centuries posit that they have the true stories about these age-old biblical stories and how the Jews have distorted their texts. This late bloomer called Islam grows out of the Abrahamic vein, subverting the existing Judeo-Christian framework. In a way, this is exactly what Justin is doing for Christianity. Christianity evolved in various settings, even ones not so central to Roman and Greek myths. You can find its adaptations to Eastern philosophical schools with the rise of Manichaeism, which didn’t carry much of these mythology tropes. This should not surprise anyone.

The continued investigation of stories about Jesus and these legendary earlier followers gets pointed in several different lights depending on the cultural settings the Christian exists in. Dr. Miller is in good hands with his points as the legendary Jonathan Z. Smith also aligns with these observations. Christian writers tried to make their stories more prominent than ancient Greek and Roman myths. The famous poet William Blake once said, the foundation of empire is art and science; remove them or degrade them and the empire is no more. Empire follows art and not vice versa. The early Christians wanted to show that their tales were better than the classic ones from Greece and Rome. They did this by using powerful words and ideas.

In the old times, imitating someone else’s story was a way of giving a compliment, but it was also a way of competing. For example, Virgil’s famous story The Aeneid took inspiration from the older tales by Homer. Philip Hardie said about Virgil’s story: The audacity of embarking on a comprehensive imitation of Homer was compounded by the prevalent ancient view that Homer was not only the earliest poet writing in the grandest genre, but that he was a universal poet, the source of all later literature and wisdom, of almost Godlike stature, and one who saw into the deepest mysteries of the universe. It is a mark of the success of The Aeneid’s ambition that later centuries saw Virgil himself as a universal and almost Divine poet.

This act of literary aggrandizement also makes The Aeneid a peculiarly apt compliment to the ideology of the new princeps Augustus, buttressed as it is by a claim to the universal power of Rome. Virgil’s poetic triumph as vividly described at the beginning of the third Georgic makes of him the fitting poet for the triumphator Augustus; the literary imperialist rides by the side of the military imperialist. While Virgil’s Aeneid was a clear example of this imitation, later Christian writers like Justin and Lactantius took a more aggressive approach against these classical tales. By the time Tertullian came around in around 200 AD, he had a very negative view of these classic stories and cultures.

Justin in his writing took a bold stance against the cultural norms of his time. It’s worth noting that in Justin’s works he didn’t give any historical evidence to support the story of Jesus’s resurrection. This suggests that the early Christians weren’t trying to prove it as a historical fact, but rather used it differently than modern Christian thinkers do. Zeus’s sons and Jesus: how unique were the stories about Jesus compared to tales of demigods and ancient Mediterranean myths? A historical source, Justin’s apology, suggested there might be more similarities than some would like to admit. Justin didn’t just say Jesus’s story was kind of like Zeus’s son’s stories; he implied that people of that time saw Jesus in the same way they saw Zeus’s demigod children, powerful beings born from the union of a god and a human.

In fact, in the worlds of ancient Greece and Rome, many saw the main god of the Christian faith as a version of Zeus, or Jupiter as the Romans called him. This means they thought of Jesus as a kind of brother to Zeus’s other half-human, half-god children. This observation raises two big points. It highlights how the Greek culture influenced Jewish thoughts and beliefs at that time. It shows how early Christianity grew from these Greek-influenced Jewish beliefs. Understanding this helps us see how different religious ideas mixed and merged in the ancient world. This didn’t stop at religious ideas.

Carla Salvaggio in her fabulous book Jews and the Roman Rivals spells out how Jews as well as Christians adopted many of their legal interpretations from the pagan Roman world, such as ideas like adoption and the contagious and attractive idea of giving people citizenship in the Roman identity. The Hellenized Apostle Paul literally uses these Roman concepts in his letters, which are foreign in their Jewish scriptures, often using them as interpretive glasses when interpreting the scriptures. This is obvious in the Talmud and the Mishnah as well. Adopting and adapting ideas in complimentary and subversive ways permeated all throughout the world, and Christianity is no exception.

Hellenistic Judaism living with Greek culture: in the times when the Romans ruled places like the Levant, many Jews lived in the heart of Greek-influence cities. Almost every big Greek-style city had a part where mainly Jews lived. Even though these Jews lived amidst Greek culture, they still held on to their unique Jewish identity. This caused a kind of constant tension as they were part of the city but also seen as different. Now, not just Jews, but many others in these cities were influenced by Greek culture. But here’s an interesting thing: this Greek influence wasn’t just about copying Greek ways; instead, it was about taking the best of Greek culture and making it a heart of daily life.

People wanted to show off their knowledge and appreciation of Greek culture, a bit like wearing the latest fashion. But when Jews adopted Greek styles, they did so in their own unique way. They might use Greek ways of doing things but keep their Jewish names, or they might use their traditional methods but give them a Greek name. A famous example was Philo of Alexandria’s work, where he portrayed Moses, a key figure in Judaism, as an even greater philosopher than famous Greek thinkers like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Although such writings by Jews were influenced by Greek literature, they often linked more clearly to Jewish holy books. Even as they blended their traditions with Greek and Roman ways, Jews always held on to their unique identity.

There was always a balance between fitting in and standing out, and this balance was essential for their identity. Non-Jewish folks also had their challenges. They tried to figure out how to live alongside Jewish communities, which sometimes led to more misunderstandings. In simple terms, during these times being a Jew in a Greek-influenced city was a constant dance between fitting in with the Greek culture and holding on to a unique Jewish identity. In simpler terms, think of a time when two cultures met and tried to find common ground in their beliefs. There’s a fascinating example from history where some ancient Greeks and Jews believed that their top gods—Zeus for the Greeks and the God of Judaism—were actually the same.

Historian George H. van Kooten wrote about how both these groups saw similarities between their deities, much like how another god, Amon, was linked to Zeus in Egypt. Historically, when one culture spreads its influence over another, they often tried to find parallels in religious beliefs. This made it easier for people from different backgrounds to get along and understand each other. For instance, when the Greeks, led by Alexander the Great and later by his successors the Seleucids and the Ptolemies, expanded their empire, they aimed to blend Greek and local customs. Part of this effort was to show that the local gods were just different versions of Greek gods. This policy is known as interpretatio graeca.

The Greeks also physically transformed Eastern cities, making them look more Greek. They used their advanced building techniques and resources to add features like marketplaces, gymnasia, places for physical training, and beautiful walkways. These changes were often welcomed by local residents. They also revamped religious spaces to make them align with Greek religious customs. A clear example of this blending of traditions can be seen in two temples in Jerusalem: one temple on Mount Gerizim and another on Mount Moriah underwent changes where they blended the worship of the Jewish God with that of Zeus. The temple on Mount Gerizim was dedicated to Zeus Xenios, and the one on Mount Moriah to Zeus Olympios.

While there was support for this fusion, there was also resistance, especially at the Mount Moriah Temple. The Romans followed in the footsteps of the Seleucids and Ptolemies, using similar methods to integrate and spread their culture throughout their vast empire. This practice was dubbed interpretatio romana, a term introduced by Tacitus. Cicero, a famous Roman orator, once said: Come now, do we assert that the gods actually go by the same names that they are called by us? Yet the names of the gods are as many as the human language is spoken, for it is not an issue with the gods, but with us. You are Vulcan wherever you go, but Vulcan is not Vulcan in Italy and in Africa and in Spain.

This means that while people may have different names for the same god based on their language and culture, the essence of that god remains unchanged. The Romans often adopted the gods of other cultures, but gave them Roman names. They not only took the best aspects of Greek religion, but also sometimes claimed that their version was superior. When it came to the city of Jerusalem, things got a bit complicated. Emperor Caligula once tried to place a huge statue of Jupiter, a primary Roman god, in the main temple of Jerusalem, but didn’t succeed due to his untimely death. However, Emperor Hadrian later managed to rebuild Jerusalem, naming it Aelia Capitolina, and transformed the temple for the worship of Jupiter Capitolinus.

This change was not well received by many Jews, leading to resistance movements. In fact, both Emperor Hadrian and Emperor Antoninus Pius redesigned another temple, this time on Mount Gerizim, to include the worship of Jupiter. The repeated attempts by the Seleucids, Ptolemies, and Romans to integrate Judea into their empires led to negative stereotypes about Jews in the Greek-speaking world. Despite this, some Jews tried to bridge the gap by emphasizing elements of their culture that aligned with Greek and Roman values. The Romans generally found the Jews who adopted more Greek and Roman ways, especially those living outside of Judea, easier to govern than those who held on to their distinct traditions. Especially these Hellenistic Jews influenced by Greek culture fit into the larger backdrop of classical studies and should be seen as part of the broader cultural landscape, even if Romans sometimes viewed them with a degree of prejudice.

Early Christianity’s blend of cultures: have you ever wondered about the diverse influences that shaped early Christianity? Imagine a melting pot of Greek, Roman, Jewish, and Persian cultures, each contributing its flavor to create something entirely new. In ancient times, a city like Neapolis in Samaria was a cultural hub. Here, Jewish beliefs met Greek Hellenistic ideas, causing both tension and blending. As different as these traditions were, they played a big role in the birth of early Christian movements. The intersection of these cultures, along with significant events like Jewish wars and Roman rules on Jewish practices, created a unique backdrop for the rise of Christianity.

For new Christian communities and regions influenced by Greek culture, Hellenistic Judaism, a blend of Jewish and Greek beliefs, was a significant influence. When we look at early Christian writings like the letters of Paul, the gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles, we see a move away from some traditional Jewish practices. These writings also adopted Greek themes such as divine birth and ascension. Interestingly, Paul, a key figure in early Christianity, seemed to have more in common with a traveling Greek philosopher than a typical Jewish teacher of his time. This suggests that while early Christianity had its roots in Jewish traditions, its structure and forms were largely influenced by broad classical cultures with just an outer layer of Jewish elements.

But what’s fascinating is the way early Christianity transformed these influences. Instead of staying within the confines of traditional Jewish quarters and cities, it reached out, adopting and adapting from both Jewish and Greek traditions. This dynamic blend created a movement that spread rapidly across the Mediterranean world. The early Christian texts, especially the gospels and Acts of the Apostles, were written from a perspective that wasn’t deeply rooted in local Jewish settings like Galilee or Judea. Instead, they seem to reflect a more general viewpoint, like that of visitors or people returning after a long time. These works were also influenced by common stereotypes of Jewish Palestine at the time. Simply put, early Christianity was shaped by a rich blend of cultures and traditions. This unique combination allowed it to connect with diverse audiences and grow rapidly across the ancient world.

Understanding the connection: the earlier summary emphasizes the significant tension that existed within ancient Abrahamic religions, particularly in their efforts to merge with larger theological perspectives of the Hellenistic kingdoms and the Roman Empire. Recognizing the influence of these Hellenistic and Roman elements, both within and outside the early Jewish milieu, helps us understand the deeper theological consequences of merging these diverse belief systems. This awareness aids in providing context and insight into the Christian term “Son of God.” Such instances highlight the adaptation of Christian teachings to traditional Greco-Roman forms. It prompts a discerning observer to notice a resemblance: does the Judeo-Christian narrative parallel the tales of Zeus and Jupiter featuring a demigod son born to a human woman?

This blending of ideas is evident not only in stories of demigods, but also in early Christian attempts to incorporate platonic concepts of God, thereby integrating classical philosophical traditions. It shouldn’t shock anyone to find divine births of the Caesars by Apollo, as noted in Suetonius. Justin specifically mentions Zeus, so we should keep that in mind as we move forward. Justin’s arguments pivot on a fundamental premise: while acknowledging the parallels between Christian teachings and classical narratives, he simultaneously criticizes prior myths as misleading, unauthorized, and even malevolent. He often references traditional structures to validate his theological stance while redefining the narrative for his audience.