Pagan items adopted by Christians

Some of the items on this site are no doubt trrue. Others seem like quite a stretch.

"Astrologers are often quick to point out, that the fish is not only a Christian symbol, but indicative of the Age of Pisces, which began at the time of Jesus' birth. This is surely more than a coincidence. Wasn't Jesus' birth signalled by a bright star? This is surely strong evidence of an astrological connection. Wasn't He born in a stable, surrounded by a zodiac-like circle of animals?

Well, Christians are happy to concede that Virgo the Virgin was there, and Scorpio the Scorpion was probably close by, too. But a Leo Lion? Astronomers largely agree that at about the time of Jesus' birth, Jupiter and Saturn were seen in the constellation Pisces, but their proximity was not close enough to be seen as a single3 bright star. In any case, Christians follow the Bible teachings4 and reject astrology, unable to accept that God would use astrology to herald the birth of His Son into the world."

...You're kidding, right? (Among other things, the "Age of Pisces" only began with Christ's birth according to Neil Mann; other people put it around 200 years before his birth, or around 400 after). But even if that wasn't true ... my God! "Jesus was born in a stable, with the types of animals you'd expect to find in a stable surrounding him; this can only be a reference to the Zodiac!" Uh huh.

Then they go on to list religion that have fish as symbols. What the heck? It's not as if the Japanese fish symbol (for example) has anything in common with the Christian fish symbol, other then the "fish" part ... and honestly, "fish" isn't such an obscure symbol that you wouldn't expect to see it in more then one religion.

"Jesus made his disciples fishers of men; his main disciples were fishermen; one of Jesus' best known miracles was to feed people with fish and loaves. So when the fish became a symbol of Christianity, we immediately leapt to the logical conclussion that it must have come from astrology." That's ... that's ... honestly, what do you say to something like that?

Originally posted by Darth Revan
Err... Except that Christianity came AFTER the mentioned Pagan religions. Or is that just a lie from the Satan-worshipping historians? 😱

All it shows is that religions are invariably created by somebody, and generally have roots in previous religions. It's not unique to Christianity—everybody does it.

It's an assumption based on relics found. Pre-Moses Hebrew religion was spoken and not written, there is no evidence as to the actual beginning of Hebrew religion. Moses was somewhere between ~1200-1500 BCE, thus the Hebrew religion began earlier than this. Christianity is a sect of Hebrew religion. Given this, Christianity claims the same start point that the Jews claim. Evidence as to which actually began first is impossible to state, it can be hypothesised, but not stated as an absolute.

Christianity is a sect of Hebrew religion. Given this, Christianity claims the same start point that the Jews claim.

Christianity is a sect of Juddaism? You don't really believe that, do you?

And even if it is, what you say doesn't follow. Mormomism is a sect of Christianity, so it claims the same starting date as the Roman Catholics; confirm/deny?

Originally posted by Gregory
Christianity is a sect of Juddaism? You don't really believe that, do you?

And even if it is, what you say doesn't follow. Mormomism is a sect of Christianity, so it claims the same starting date as the Roman Catholics; confirm/deny?

"Christianity" claims that Christianity is a sect of Juddaism? "The Bible" says so. So all those letters where Paul talks about non-Jewish Christians...?

Originally posted by Gregory
"Christianity" claims that Christianity is a sect of Juddaism? "The Bible" says so. So all those letters where Paul talks about non-Jewish Christians...?

Originally posted by Regret
That is only an assumption, not a surety. If Biblical claims are true, a religious tradition has existed since the beginning of man. It follows that all other religions could be derived from the original Adamic religion, if such were the case then all common religious traditions could be derived from an extremely early Biblical religion in some form. From a Mormon stance Egyptian mythology was probably influenced by Abraham.

Of course the problem with that is the Biblical beginning of man doesn't fit in with the scientific one.

The spread of man if believed, scientifically, to have begun in Africa before tribes spread out. And there is no sign of anything approaching Judean or Christian religion there - nothing but the oldest forms of animism and the like. Nor anything comparable to the claims the OT made. So either the Bible is wrong but based upon something real or it is just pure myth.

They spread up into the Middle East where they were able to leave behind hunter/gatherer necessities and became settled, thus religion then became far more representative/natural - nature gods, gods of natural cycles etc.

Only a fool Historian (not necessarily a Satan-Worshipping one ) would claim an absolute knowledge of when the beginning of the Hebrew religion actually was.

No, they accept there is some doubt, but there is a reasonably firm consensus that Judaism was predated by Ancient Mesopotamian religions, potentially by Australian aboriginal ones and certainly by Ancient African ones.

As it is in terms of becoming the first organised religion Hinduism holds that title. Judaism is undoubtedly old, but there were religions before it, beside it and after it.

It's an assumption based on relics found. Pre-Moses Hebrew religion was spoken and not written, there is no evidence as to the actual beginning of Hebrew religion. Moses was somewhere between ~1200-1500 BCE, thus the Hebrew religion began earlier than this. Christianity is a sect of Hebrew religion. Given this, Christianity claims the same start point that the Jews claim. Evidence as to which actually began first is impossible to state, it can be hypothesised, but not stated as an absolute.

Which began first? Christianity is dependant on Jesus - Christianity didn't exist before Jesus - that was there starting point in terms of history. That they believe the OT is all well and good but their religion didn't come about until Jesus. Judaism predates Christianity without any doubt in terms of historical narratives. There were no Christians before Jesus, only Jews and all the other religions.

Originally posted by Regret
Religion is not a racial concept. Jewish as you have used it refers to familial or racial heritage, not to religion. There are genetic Jews. Jew is a reference to race or religion, not necessarily both.

Judaism is a religion, not a race. Just like Hinduism is a religion, NOT a race....

Isreali is the "genetic Jew" just the way Indian is the "genetic hindu"

Well for one, the Chirstmas tree is pagan in origin.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Judaism is a religion, not a race. Just like Hinduism is a religion, NOT a race....

Isreali is the "genetic Jew" just the way Indian is the "genetic hindu"

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Of course the problem with that is the Biblical beginning of man doesn't fit in with the scientific one.

Time frame in the Bible is only in conflict if all time concepts presented therein are taken literally.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
The spread of man if believed, scientifically, to have begun in Africa before tribes spread out. And there is no sign of anything approaching Judean or Christian religion there - nothing but the oldest forms of animism and the like. Nor anything comparable to the claims the OT made. So either the Bible is wrong but based upon something real or it is just pure myth.

They spread up into the Middle East where they were able to leave behind hunter/gatherer necessities and became settled, thus religion then became far more representative/natural - nature gods, gods of natural cycles etc.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
No, they accept there is some doubt, but there is a reasonably firm consensus that Judaism was predated by Ancient Mesopotamian religions, potentially by Australian aboriginal ones and certainly by Ancient African ones.

Consensus does not make something fact. Given the verbal tradition and lack of material components the date of Hebrew origin could be a few thousand years prior to Moses. Also, the Biblical account does not describe events outside the Garden of Eden, and there is no reason to believe that there was no existence outside the Garden. Another issue is duration of the Garden period, this period could have been any number of years.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
As it is in terms of becoming the first organised religion Hinduism holds that title. Judaism is undoubtedly old, but there were religions before it, beside it and after it.

Religions before it are questionable. Hinduism's earliest documentation is ~1500 BCE. Only a short time before Moses, ~1400 BCE. Abraham would have been ~1800 BCE, placing Abraham earlier and Adam much earlier. Animism is assumed to have existed prior to this, but there is no conclusive evidence that such is the case.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Which began first? Christianity is dependant on Jesus - Christianity didn't exist before Jesus - that was there starting point in terms of history. That they believe the OT is all well and good but their religion didn't come about until Jesus. Judaism predates Christianity without any doubt in terms of historical narratives. There were no Christians before Jesus, only Jews and all the other religions.

Originally posted by Regret
Time frame in the Bible is only in conflict if all time concepts presented therein are taken literally.

How so? The Bible makes some fairly big claims regarding the beginning of the earth and humanity, none of which gell with the current one believed accurate by archaeologists, anthropologists and the rest.

How unliterally should the claims in genesis and the OT as a whole be taken? Seem to me either it is completely wrong, greatly exaggerated, or absurdly symbolic. All of which raise valid questions about the accuracy of the claims.

This is only an assumption. Nomadic lifestyles are presented in early Biblical text. Hebrew religion could have been present in the African Region and lacking material components may not have left historical markers.

Yet miraculously despite the flow of time there is still evidence that turns up of singularly non-Judean belief in Ancient Africa. There is no evidence however that Judea beliefs were ever there before the Jews themselves went to Africa thousands of years later. It is stretching the limits of probability to imply... or perhaps hope... that Judea religion originated with the Ancient African tribes and somehow miraculously failed to leave a single bit of evidence while the far more fragile nature of African belief left traces.

Consensus does not make something fact. Given the verbal tradition and lack of material components the date of Hebrew origin could be a few thousand years prior to Moses. Also, the Biblical account does not describe events outside the Garden of Eden, and there is no reason to believe that there was no existence outside the Garden. Another issue is duration of the Garden period, this period could have been any number of years.

Do you know that consensus isn't just a bunch of people sitting down and going "I say we claim these religions came before Judaism."? That it is the gradual cohesion of the views held by thousands of experts based upon facts? There is usually as reason why many historians works are so similar - because they are coming to the most accurate history possible with the available sources. It isn't an argument to say "consensus does not make something fact" when the reason for the consensus is the amount of evidence supported the claims that form it. Unless you can attack the history historians have a consensus on then it stands.

Mesopotamian myths can be traced back to long before the Egyptians - they do not reference anything remotely Biblical (though the Bible references things Mesopotamian - proof it would seem of the OT coming after it), the Aboriginals are believed to have been in Australia for up to 20,000 years - acceptance of the African origin theory would mean that there would have been people spread through Asia as well then. Africans - more then 20,000 years. Are you saying the "Garden Period" lasted for more then 20,000 years? And if so that flies in the face of the claim God had made himself known to all people as there were a lot apparently existing outside the garden completely unaware of him as their religion and culture attest.

Religions before it are questionable. Hinduism's earliest documentation is ~1500 BCE. Only a short time before Moses, ~1400 BCE. Abraham would have been ~1800 BCE, placing Abraham earlier and Adam much earlier. Animism is assumed to have existed prior to this, but there is no conclusive evidence that such is the case.

What do you mean questionable?

Organised religion. Hinduism predates Judaism as the first organised religion. Judaism existed before it, but was not classified as organised until after it.

And 1800 BCE? Then Abraham is still predated by the Egyptians (3000+ as a unified kingdom), Mesopotamians (4000+) and Africans (30,000+)as well as others. There is no evidence to my knowledge that Judaism is older then Mesopotamian myth, nor Animism. Animism is not assumed to anything. Experts no when it was in existence, and the fact there is no sign of Judaism existing with it indicates that Judaism didn't exist at that point.

It seem very unlikely the "true religion" would manage to exist for as long as all these other yet show absolutely nothing for it until BANG suddenly they are recording, despite the fact other cultures had been doing so for some time.

A common misconception. Christians believe Judaism is the pre-Christ manner of the Christian religion, in the exact same manner that the Hebrew religion was the pre-Judaism manner of Judaic religion. Yes, there are earlier forms, but they are considered the same religion by adherents.

Since Christianity is defined by historians starting with the belief in Christ then logically Christ is needed to be classified as Christian - which happened long after Judaism. However I am aware of claims made by groups that Christ came about before the time most Christians recognise in the Bible.

The problem with such claims is the historical problems. The claims made in the Book of Mormon for example, regarding the coming to America of followers is an interesting claim - but one not actually accepted by the wider historical community. If the plate book was still about then that would be a valid artifact supporting the claim - but it isn't. A claimed translation of the plates is (The Book of Mormon) - but that is a whole different kettle of fish.

Originally posted by ThePittman
I just found this surfing around and wonder what everyone thoughts are on this.

http://www.seiyaku.com/customs/pagan-symbols.html

And there are so any more. At least in the East (and I HATE when people don't want to admit it) pagan rituals of food, animal slaughter for festivals, chanty type thingys...etc. All pagan.

Pagan is the platform for a lot of religions.

After discovering that people were more reluctant to give up their holidays and festivals than their gods, some pagan practices were simply incorporated into Christian festivals.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
And there are so any more. At least in the East (and I HATE when people don't want to admit it) pagan rituals of food, animal slaughter for festivals, chanty type thingys...etc. All pagan.

Pagan is the platform for a lot of religions.

Very true.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
And there are so any more. At least in the East (and I HATE when people don't want to admit it) pagan rituals of food, animal slaughter for festivals, chanty type thingys...etc. All pagan.

Pagan is the platform for a lot of religions.

Its the same globally.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
How so? The Bible makes some fairly big claims regarding the beginning of the earth and humanity, none of which gell with the current one believed accurate by archaeologists, anthropologists and the rest.

How unliterally should the claims in genesis and the OT as a whole be taken? Seem to me either it is completely wrong, greatly exaggerated, or absurdly symbolic. All of which raise valid questions about the accuracy of the claims.

Yet miraculously despite the flow of time there is still evidence that turns up of singularly non-Judean belief in Ancient Africa. There is no evidence however that Judea beliefs were ever there before the Jews themselves went to Africa thousands of years later. It is stretching the limits of probability to imply... or perhaps hope... that Judea religion originated with the Ancient African tribes and somehow miraculously failed to leave a single bit of evidence while the far more fragile nature of African belief left traces.

Do you know that consensus isn't just a bunch of people sitting down and going "I say we claim these religions came before Judaism."? That it is the gradual cohesion of the views held by thousands of experts based upon facts? There is usually as reason why many historians works are so similar - because they are coming to the most accurate history possible with the available sources. It isn't an argument to say "consensus does not make something fact" when the reason for the consensus is the amount of evidence supported the claims that form it. Unless you can attack the history historians have a consensus on then it stands.

Mesopotamian myths can be traced back to long before the Egyptians - they do not reference anything remotely Biblical (though the Bible references things Mesopotamian - proof it would seem of the OT coming after it), the Aboriginals are believed to have been in Australia for up to 20,000 years - acceptance of the African origin theory would mean that there would have been people spread through Asia as well then. Africans - more then 20,000 years. Are you saying the "Garden Period" lasted for more then 20,000 years? And if so that flies in the face of the claim God had made himself known to all people as there were a lot apparently existing outside the garden completely unaware of him as their religion and culture attest.

What do you mean questionable?

Organised religion. Hinduism predates Judaism as the first organised religion. Judaism existed before it, but was not classified as organised until after it.

And 1800 BCE? Then Abraham is still predated by the Egyptians (3000+ as a unified kingdom), Mesopotamians (4000+) and Africans (30,000+)as well as others. There is no evidence to my knowledge that Judaism is older then Mesopotamian myth, nor Animism. Animism is not assumed to anything. Experts no when it was in existence, and the fact there is no sign of Judaism existing with it indicates that Judaism didn't exist at that point.

It seem very unlikely the "true religion" would manage to exist for as long as all these other yet show absolutely nothing for it until BANG suddenly they are recording, despite the fact other cultures had been doing so for some time.

Since Christianity is defined by historians starting with the belief in Christ then logically Christ is needed to be classified as Christian - which happened long after Judaism. However I am aware of claims made by groups that Christ came about before the time most Christians recognise in the Bible.

The problem with such claims is the historical problems. The claims made in the Book of Mormon for example, regarding the coming to America of followers is an interesting claim - but one not actually accepted by the wider historical community. If the plate book was still about then that would be a valid artifact supporting the claim - but it isn't. A claimed translation of the plates is (The Book of Mormon) - but that is a whole different kettle of fish.

I don't have time at the moment, but I will attempt to address some of the points you present that do not find my view as the source of our debate some other time.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
How so? The Bible makes some fairly big claims regarding the beginning of the earth and humanity, none of which gell with the current one believed accurate by archaeologists, anthropologists and the rest.

How unliterally should the claims in genesis and the OT as a whole be taken? Seem to me either it is completely wrong, greatly exaggerated, or absurdly symbolic. All of which raise valid questions about the accuracy of the claims.

One extremely off concept is the six day concept. The term day is relative. The term day does not necessarily refer to 24 of our hours. Our day is in reference to a rotation of the Earth, or a reference to the rising and setting of the sun, or perhaps even the presence of light on the level of the sun's. Also, time is relative, Einstein pointed this out. Mormon's believe that God resides in this universe, and that this residence is far away. Mormons believe that God told Christ and those helping him to go to Earth and "create" a portion (a day as described in Genesis), following this "creation" God looked it over and states that it is good, created properly, then they travel back and recieve further instructions. Traveling of those aiding that were not God would require time, there is no method for describing the exact length of time that passed on Earth during this period. Thus time can not be held as absolute in this.

Mormons do not believe in a "poof there it is" creation. There are infinite possible methods that could have been employed. As well as infinite possible time requirements on the creation.

Mormons believe God works within the bounds he creates. Natural laws are bounds he may have created, or if not created, they may be intrinsic to all existence, including God's.

Mormons believe that religion should not conflict with science. Although, scientific fact and scientific inference must be understood and discriminated exactly. Mormons are skeptical of inference. Inference does not constitute fact, it constitutes a highly probable explanation for observations made, which is not the same as fact.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Yet miraculously despite the flow of time there is still evidence that turns up of singularly non-Judean belief in Ancient Africa. There is no evidence however that Judea beliefs were ever there before the Jews themselves went to Africa thousands of years later. It is stretching the limits of probability to imply... or perhaps hope... that Judea religion originated with the Ancient African tribes and somehow miraculously failed to leave a single bit of evidence while the far more fragile nature of African belief left traces.

Mesopotamian myths can be traced back to long before the Egyptians - they do not reference anything remotely Biblical (though the Bible references things Mesopotamian - proof it would seem of the OT coming after it), the Aboriginals are believed to have been in Australia for up to 20,000 years - acceptance of the African origin theory would mean that there would have been people spread through Asia as well then. Africans - more then 20,000 years. Are you saying the "Garden Period" lasted for more then 20,000 years? And if so that flies in the face of the claim God had made himself known to all people as there were a lot apparently existing outside the garden completely unaware of him as their religion and culture attest.

As to the Garden period, there is no need to assume he did not make himself known at some point to anyone that may have existed outside of the Garden. Also, between Adam and Noah, individuals that believed in God can be assumed to be minuscule in comparison to those that did not. These non-believers may have lived a normal span of life, while Adam and the descendants following him are claimed to have lived to phenomenal ages. This would provide an enourmous amount of evidence to other beliefs and minimal, if any, evidence to an Adamic belief system.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Do you know that consensus isn't just a bunch of people sitting down and going "I say we claim these religions came before Judaism."? That it is the gradual cohesion of the views held by thousands of experts based upon facts? There is usually as reason why many historians works are so similar - because they are coming to the most accurate history possible with the available sources. It isn't an argument to say "consensus does not make something fact" when the reason for the consensus is the amount of evidence supported the claims that form it. Unless you can attack the history historians have a consensus on then it stands.

Understanding priming in psychology, one must assume that many historians are primed for a specific manner of interpretation of fact. It has also been shown that reporting archaeological or historical evidence conflicting with the concensus can be, at times, a career ending choice.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
What do you mean questionable?

Organised religion. Hinduism predates Judaism as the first organised religion. Judaism existed before it, but was not classified as organised until after it.

And 1800 BCE? Then Abraham is still predated by the Egyptians (3000+ as a unified kingdom), Mesopotamians (4000+) and Africans (30,000+)as well as others. There is no evidence to my knowledge that Judaism is older then Mesopotamian myth, nor Animism. Animism is not assumed to anything. Experts no when it was in existence, and the fact there is no sign of Judaism existing with it indicates that Judaism didn't exist at that point.

It seem very unlikely the "true religion" would manage to exist for as long as all these other yet show absolutely nothing for it until BANG suddenly they are recording, despite the fact other cultures had been doing so for some time.

As to animism, I believe I addressed this above, but provide some evidence that cannot be interpretted in some other manner. There is none.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Since Christianity is defined by historians starting with the belief in Christ then logically Christ is needed to be classified as Christian - which happened long after Judaism. However I am aware of claims made by groups that Christ came about before the time most Christians recognise in the Bible.

Christ believed in the Bible (Jewish Scripture of the time). His teachings, he claimed, were extensions of the Jewish religion and not something else. The inception of the term Christianity is irrelevant, Christianity is a sect of the Hebrew religion and can claim the same origin.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
The problem with such claims is the historical problems. The claims made in the Book of Mormon for example, regarding the coming to America of followers is an interesting claim - but one not actually accepted by the wider historical community. If the plate book was still about then that would be a valid artifact supporting the claim - but it isn't. A claimed translation of the plates is (The Book of Mormon) - but that is a whole different kettle of fish.

Originally posted by Darth Revan
Err... Except that Christianity came AFTER the mentioned Pagan religions. Or is that just a lie from the Satan-worshipping historians? 😱

All it shows is that religions are invariably created by somebody, and generally have roots in previous religions. It's not unique to Christianity—everybody does it.

✅

...and since we're posting websites that illustrate this point...

http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/index.html

Originally posted by Regret
One extremely off concept is the six day concept. The term day is relative. The term day does not necessarily refer to 24 of our hours. Our day is in reference to a rotation of the Earth, or a reference to the rising and setting of the sun, or perhaps even the presence of light on the level of the sun's. Also, time is relative, Einstein pointed this out. Mormon's believe that God resides in this universe, and that this residence is far away. Mormons believe that God told Christ and those helping him to go to Earth and "create" a portion (a day as described in Genesis), following this "creation" God looked it over and states that it is good, created properly, then they travel back and recieve further instructions. Traveling of those aiding that were not God would require time, there is no method for describing the exact length of time that passed on Earth during this period. Thus time can not be held as absolute in this.

Which seem to be something of a justification of either a false or completely metaphorical claim. The OT was written in a period when times were well established - there is no reason for the Israelites to be using "day" if it wasn't applicable. The could have used cycles or years or lunar cycles - but then without the sun to judge by there was nothing to judge time.

Why not merely say "God created over a long period" - instead they use a pretty much established unit of time (a solar cycle.)

Mormons do not believe in a "poof there it is" creation. There are infinite possible methods that could have been employed. As well as infinite possible time requirements on the creation.

But isn't that simply a way of insuring that no matter what turns up one can still say "ah, but that might very well still fit in with what we believe." Certainly I admire open mindedness to the fact we are always learning and might be wrong, but it seems to go a bit to far to be open minded to the point that says "there may have been infinite methods of creation thus will take any possible method as proof we are correct."

Still it is a much better world view then the "poof, there it is" creation.

As to the Garden period, there is no need to assume he did not make himself known at some point to anyone that may have existed outside of the Garden. Also, between Adam and Noah, individuals that believed in God can be assumed to be minuscule in comparison to those that did not. These non-believers may have lived a normal span of life, while Adam and the descendants following him are claimed to have lived to phenomenal ages. This would provide an enourmous amount of evidence to other beliefs and minimal, if any, evidence to an Adamic belief system.

Once again it seems to be extremely hopeful thinking - and if one accepts God is correct, and the claims many make that "all people are searching for him" it is hard to believe his religion could fail to take off so profoundly outside the garden in a time when religion was a vital part of the ancients world view - the way they explained the world.

And that still suggests that millions of people throughout history lived and died without having any knowledge, nor opportunity, to know of the "correct faith."

History is fiction. Attacks on many religious claims, particularly Bible based claims, stem from the historians presenting the history being biased, and falsifying an account. If any historian can be attacked based on this, all historians must be scrutinized in a similar manner.

How is history fiction? History is distinctly non-fiction. History is a narrative built upon textual and artefactual evidence - and history in the modern world is far more stringent - hence the rise of historiography.

Once again I fail to see it as an argument in defense of Biblical claims to say "history being fiction" and that historians "attacks" on the Bible stem from "being biased" I have studied a lot of history, and the reason I see history not agreeing with the Bible is because there is little to agree about. If the Bible doesn't fit in with the evidence then the Bible is wrong. Civilisations didn't go around organising themselves on the principal "3000 years in the future this will really confuse historians as our civilisation totally disagrees with the Bible" - it simply didn't work like that.

Understanding priming in psychology, one must assume that many historians are primed for a specific manner of interpretation of fact. It has also been shown that reporting archaeological or historical evidence conflicting with the concensus can be, at times, a career ending choice.

Correct - hence historiography - understanding the motives and world view of a historians. And then differentiating - ancient from modern. A ancient historian, writing contemporary to events, will reveal further social context in regards to how he writes.

And it is a gross oversimplification to imply that disagreeing with the concensus is career ending. History doesn't work like that. It encourages new views - hence why the Biblical, romanticised view of the Crusades has fallen out of favor. Hence why we are looking at other cultures in a fairer light rather then simply comparing them with the classical civilisations - a view promoted by Eurocentric dark ages thinking. And so on.

I have never seen a report that saw a historian cast down for his views -unless those views are justifiably bad - like claiming "Blacks were to primitive too build the African monuments of such and such - clearly white people came and did it in an Ancient time" - and you leave out the treatment of historians who disagreed with the Church 100, 200, 500 years ago - they were harmed because they, rightfully, disagreed with the popular Church endorsed view.

It is only unlikely if there was a large group of people believing in this religion, the Bible does not describe a large group of believers until the period of captivity in Egypt.

Yet we know there were large groups of people believing other things long before.

As to animism, I believe I addressed this above, but provide some evidence that cannot be interpretted in some other manner. There is none.

Animism gets debated as to whether it qualifies as a religion or not a lot. From memory it is believed to have originated stone age prehistory era groups (Africa, Asia) as evidenced by cave art. Now, the art is thought to be about 30,000+ years old. These are found in Europe, which means occurred some long after the exodus from Africa. However while theories have been put forward regarding the likelihood of religious significance (such as the appearance of animal skulls placed within the caves) and how in every culture up till a certain point art had a religious purpose this is not proof (yet, just very promising theory)

Thus the oldest examples are contentious as in what they really refer to. As such while it is possible (and who can rule it out?) we shave away years till we get to more certain times:

The Laas Gaa'l cave art - put at between 8,000 and 9,000 years old are believed to show examples of some of the earliest animist expression - the apparent worship of animals (cows I think.)

Then we get down to Bushman cave paintings - examples dated to 3,000+ and indicated to have religious significance. Originally mis dated at only 1000 years a test of many thousands of pieces of rock art reveal the 3000 year mark as accurate.

Australian cave art - Australian Aborigines have a profound spiritual religion - believed animistic. Aboriginals are thoughts to have been in Australia for at least 20,000 years (though everything points to them having been here for closer to 40,000, coming over on land bridges.) They used, in there rock painting, a non-organic paint (thus a problem for radiocarbon dating) - however other direct, absolute dating methods have produced results putting certain images at 20,000 years - hence why some believe Australian rock art is some of the oldest in the world. Those examples with direct and clear religious imagery (mythological spirit beings) can be put at 4000+ years.

Burial mounds in N.E Thailand - dated between 3,000 and 3,500 BC. Archaeologists noted these mounds do not show the tell tale signs of being a new belief and so have links going back further - links to animism found in grave goods and the like.

These are the examples I found by typing "early animism" into my university journal finder. However you can debate interpretation. The dates given are the conservative ones (since it is possible they are older, but thought near impossible they are younger.) Likewise you could debate - "what is religion" - which many do, in a why I believe to try and exclude animism from the religious classification as it is a by product of outdated, discomfort that ancient cultures may have had strong religious beliefs before the Egyptians and Israelites and all the rest.

[b]Christ ...b]

Which is not something many Christians believe. Not many theological historians. They see Christianity more as a child of Judaism - but a separate entity none the less. Despite the inclusion of the OT there are enough differences - both technical and doctrinal and practical to make them two separate religions, not different versions of the same.

However it is true Christians worship the same God as the Jews - but they do so from a different religion. Jesus, his birth and death, are the point at which they split. Most Jewish people remained with Judaism, and Christianity went of of as an independent and separate religion. Christianity did not exist prior to this point Judaism did. And Judaism is not Christianity.