The image of Jesus Christ has been influenced by pagan religions (classical and middle east)

I'd like to begin by thanking Man-is-good for initiating this debate challenge. The pagan parallel argument is one that is often brought up by detractors of Christianity. As such, I will address it at length here. First, some preliminary comments about pagan parallels.ParallelomaniaThe term "Parallelomania" was first coined by scholar Samuel Sandmel to refer to the desires of some scholars to find parallels where none exist. This is perhaps most applicable to the charge that the New Testament portait of Jesus Christ has been significantly influenced -- perhaps even copied -- from pagan religions. Attempts are made to read Christian terminology into pagan doctrines in order to concoct a parallel when in fact none exists. Osirus for instance, is one alleged pagan parallel cited by my opponent. Now, I'm not exactly sure what my opponent's opening argument is trying to prove -- he did very little to show that Christianity actually borrowed from these religions. Instead, he simply described them without pointing out how Christianity borrowed from them. So, absent a connection between these two religions, there is no reason to suppose there was an influence. A mere description does not prove it.In fact, there are a plethora of reasons to think that Christianity did not borrow from pagan mystery religions. As scholars Greg Boyd and Paul Eddy point out:1. "The very category of ancient 'dying and rising god's has been called into question by most contemporary scholars. In short, when each of these myths is analyzed in detail, it turns out that either there is no actual death, no actual resurrection, or no actual 'god' in the first place!" [1]2. "There is simply no evidence for a line of influence from pagan stories to the early Christians. Indeed, with the exception of Osirus, all the written accounts of these myths date after the birth of Christianity." [2]So what about Osirus? It's argued that he had twelve disciples, was killed via crucifixion, and rose three days later. Unfortunately, this is very exaggerated. In the actual literature, Osirus was killed by his brother and his body chopped up into fourteen pieces and scattered throughout Egypt. Later, Isis "resurrected" him by reassemling these pieces. As Boyd and Eddy note, "To claim that his account parallels the Jesus story is, in our opinion, quite a stretch." Quite a stretch indeed! It's an instance of reading in biblical themes which simply aren't present. There was simply was absolutely no influence at all. [3]3. "Scholars agree that ancient myths surrounding the ostensive death and resusictation of a god were associated with seasonal vegetation cycles. The Jesus story, however, could hardly be more different from this." [4] N. T. Wright, a leading New Testament scholar, agrees:"[W]hen the Christians spoke of the resurrection of Jesus, they did not suppose it was something that happened each year, with the sowing of seed and harvesting of crops. When Paul preached in Athens, nobody said, 'Ah, yes, a new version of Osiris and such like.'" [4]Echoing these sentiments, scholars J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, and Daniel B. Wallace point out several flaws with alleged pagan parallel arguments.The Dependency FallacyAs KSW point out, simply because there may have been pagan parallels at the time of Christianity (Assuming for the sake of argument that there were!) does not mean that Christianity was influenced by them. They cite scholar Bruce Metzger, who writes: "The uniformity of human nature sometimes produces strikingly similar results in similar situations where there can be no suspicion of any historical bridge by which the tradition could have been mediated from one culture the other." [5]Adding to Metzger's comments, KSW writes: "We might add that all religions, if they are to gain any converts, must appeal to universal human needs and desires. Should we be surprised, then, to discover parallels between Christianity and any other religion... No, but in such case, it can hardly be maintained that parallels indicate dependence."The Chronological FallacyKSW argue that any alleged parallel is evidence of reversed dependence! "There is so far no archaeological evidence today of mystery religions in Palestine in the early part of the first century. Norman Anderson asserted, 'If borrowing there was by one religion from another, it seems clear which way it went. There is no evidence whatsoever, that I know of, that the mystery religions had any influence in Palestine in the early decades of the first century."Following Gary Habermas and Michael R. Licona [7], KSW argue that "The souce skeptics typically cite as evidence that pagan religions influenced early Christian beliefs postdate the writings of the New Testament. But the chronology is all wrong. Attis, Mithras, and the others show evidence of a dependence upon Christianity." [8]Platonistic and Aristotlean Influence on Early Christianity?Pro's argument here is wholly irrelevant. Recall that in his initial post, he defined the parameters of this debate to be within the New Testament portrait of Jesus Christ. Early church theologians such as Augustine and Anselm lived hundreds of years after the corpus of the New Testament was finalized. Hence, the fact that they may have been influenced by Platonism and Aristotleanism has no bearing whatsoever on the Biblical portrait of Christ. Hence, Pro's argument here is largely a red herring. Belief in a triune God was, moreover, present long before Ignatius and can be found within the New Testament itself and even in portions of the Old Testament.First Century ChristianityIt's not surprising that historical research indicates that the first century Judaism which Christianity emerged out of was very immune to pagan influence. The idea of a hellenized Judaism in the first century carries with it very little historical support. [9] The first century Christianity which emerged out of Judaism was just as robust. KSW note:"What set Christianity apart was (1) its insistence on historical credibility, which the mysteries didn't even pretend to have, versus the "going nowhere" of the vegetation cycle; (2) Christian proclamation of the gospel as accessible to all people; (3) its insistence on right belief instead of emotional frenzy; and (4) the centrality of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the coming resurrection of believes.""The mystery religions had far more in common with each other than any of them had with Christianity... Only after A.D. 100 did the mysteries begin to look very much like Christianity, precisely because their existence was threatened by this new religion. They had to compete to survive." [10]So What to Make of These Parallels?To be frank, many of the alleged similarities argued by Pro aren't similarities at all. It's just a result of inventing parallels where once isn't there. The actual religions, when examined in their cultural and historical context, have a radically different focus than Christianity (Crop/fertility cycles as opposed to the atonement of mankind). The overwhelming historical consensus, even in non-Christian circles, is that the pagan parallel argument is a relic of the 19th century school of higher criticism, which as long been debunked.I now turn it over to my opponent for his rebuttal.______Sources1. Gregory Body and Paul Rhodes Eddy, Lord or Legend? (Baker 2007) 532. Ibid, 543. Ibid4. N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Fortress: 2003) 815. Bruce Metzger, "Methodology in the Study of the Mysterty Religions and Early Christianity" as cited in KSW, Reinventing Jesus (Kregel 2006)6. KSW, Reinventing Jesus, 2287. Gary Habermas and Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus8. KSW, Reinveinting Jesus, 233 9. See Greg Boyd and Paul Eddy, The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition (Baker Academic: 2007) 10. KSW, Reinventing Jesus, 237