And the best part is, as far as historians can tell, the alterations to the story were completely accidental

I'm not too familiar with this - what alterations?

Typo in the title - an Indian king*

Christianity instead of Buddhism, Josaphat instead of Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha himself being inexplicably split into two separate characters, etc

Rumor has it he can jump really high

Uhh, it seems fairly clear to historians, especially given the etymology of his name, that it was not accidental in the least.

[removed]

A myth based on a myth. Funny.

It's a poor translation of a poor translation of a poor translation, etc. Several centuries of scribes going "Hmm... that doesn't seem right. Oh, I think I knew what they meant!" Haven't you ever played telephone?

I've read this article before, and I read it again just now. If you've got a second article that supports your claims, I'd be very interested in seeing it.

The Catholics actually did create saints that corresponded to non-Christian famous humans, various deities, and legendary humans, usually as they were moving into an area and trying to convert the inhabitants. Saint Josaphat clearly has the Buddha’s backstory, and some major holy festivals are clearly kludged from pagan deities, Easter being the most famous example. As far as Easter goes, the pagan celebration of Eostre, goddess of springtime and renewal was held in spring with baby animals, eggs, and fresh grass. I’d argue that Easter the celebration of the brutal torture, death, and resurrection of Jesus is directly nailed onto the pagan festival, they didn’t even change the name or anything about how to celebrate, they just slapped Jesus on to the existing festival. Christmas is another one, the Bible even states that shepherds were watching their flocks by night, which didn’t happen in winter in that part of the world then, nor does it happen in winter in that part of the world now. Shepherds then and now watch over their flocks by night in the springtime. The birth of Jesus occurs in winter against the actual text of the Bible but perfectly in line with various pagan winter festivals, with a huge amount of how we celebrate Christmas cribbed from Teutonic and Norse traditions. Even the life story of Jesus was likely based on the story of Mithras, which was in turn likely based on the story of Horus. This might have been done deliberately to make Christianity more palatable to Romans, or just developed organically as Christianity was gaining acceptance into Rome.

> Easter being the most famous example. As far as Easter goes, the pagan celebration of Eostre, goddess of springtime and renewal was held in spring with baby animals, eggs, and fresh grass.

Eostre was invented by Bede, there is literally zero evidence besides his passing mention of her anywhere else, it is fantasy layered atop folk etymology. It is actually hilarious that people believe a supposed Germanic goddess gave rise to Easter since we know it has been celebrated since the 2nd-century in the Eastern Mediterranean by the original Judeo-Christians, that the date it was to be celebrated on was a whole controversy that took a couple of hundred years to set in stone, and traces its name in most languages to the Hebrew word for the Passover (Pesach) because the ressurection coincided with it.

> A more modern theory, though, is that the word "Easter" originated from a mistaken interpretation of the early Latin-speaking Christians' designation of Easter week as hebdomada alba, or "the week of albs," because of the white robes worn by baptismal candidates during that time. Although in this context "alba" serves as the feminine form of "albus," meaning "white," some thought it was the word "alba" meaning "dawn."

> Old High German speakers took the word "alba" to mean "dawn" and started referring to the holiday as "eostarun," which meant "dawn" in their language. "Eostarun" eventually evolved into the contemporary German word for Easter, "Ostern," and then the English "Easter."

> The birth of Jesus occurs in winter against the actual text of the Bible but perfectly in line with various pagan winter festivals, with a huge amount of how we celebrate Christmas cribbed from Teutonic and Norse traditions.

Pls do tell what Christmas traditions are "cribbed from Teutonic and Norse traditions", because as a "Norse", all our Christmas traditions are post-Chrsitianisation, even post 17th-century.

> Even the life story of Jesus was likely based on the story of Mithras, which was in turn likely based on the story of Horus. This might have been done deliberately to make Christianity more palatable to Romans, or just developed organically as Christianity was gaining acceptance into Rome.

Curious now, what about a full-grown man born from stone is similar to Jesus?

Fair enough, I’ll dig deeper into the history of Easter and Eostre although a quick Wikipedia search indicates that in 1958, over 150 inscriptions from the second century CE devoted to the female goddess Austriahenae, so a lot of the “Bede invented her” stuff has been losing ground steadily over that 60 years or so, also the study of early Indo-European languages points to such a goddess existing among pre-Christian Germanic folk. I also do feel that it’s worth noting that Easter, the holiday/festival/religious rite, is celebrated in two distinctly different manners, there’s the religious way and the non-religious way. In the US, If you’re not fairly devout or actually attending an explicitly religious event (service, church picnic, etc) you don’t see much Jesus depicted, but you do see a lot of depictions of eggs, green grass, baby animals, and fruit flavors, all of which symbolize spring, not torment as a vehicle for redemption or suffering for the sins of others. You can stretch to make a decent case for a resurrection theme, but that’s still not all that plausible. Grass, baby creatures, eggs, and the rest of the common themes don’t represent Jesus’ resurrection (meaning dying, returning from the dead, shedding his mortality, and ascending to godhood), they represent renewal and new life (new life being the argument that seems most reasonable for tying the holiday to Jesus). Jesus doesn’t get renewed or reborn, he’s still Jesus in a different state, he explicitly goes back to spend some time with his apostles, he’s not a brand new person or a reincarnation). Unless we posit that most early Christians thought that animals and plants died and came back to life every year, which seems pretty unlikely based on how many birth and sowing parables are used in the Bible.

Quick check, are you referring to modern Norse paganism and revivals? Im referencing to the northern Germanic/Norse winter celebratory festivals recorded by the Romans in the 1st-5th century CE. Such as: bringing evergreens into dwelling and community centers, putting bright things onto said evergreens as well as in their homes including the extensive use of small candle-type things, as well as the stories of Germanic/proto-Norse male deities/spirits who would travel amongst their peoples during the winter equinox to bring gifts and punishments to those who were deserving of one or the other. This was during the period when Rome was Christianizing (Christianity was the dominant religion in the Roman Empire by 350 CE, give or take a few year) but the Romans, by their own words at the time, weren’t bringing these traditions to the Germanic provinces, they were bringing them back to Rome as bits of non-Roman/non-Christian customs.

That would be the story of a human male born without a human father (or mother, to be fair) by divine power and destined to ascend to divinity, a god who’s cult used caves as isolated meeting spots just like the early cChristians. A religion in which priests could only be male, and the adherents of said religion recognized seven sacred sacramental practices? Did you mean that Mithras? Because there are a lot of definite parallels. A new story sharing a lot of, but not all of, the themes of an existing story is both completely plausible and extremely likely.

> over 150 inscriptions from the second century CE devoted to the female goddess Austriahenae

Sure, but when you search about those you learn that they 1) all came from a single settlement and there's no corroborative evidence elsewhere for worship of "Austriahenae", and 2) are dedications that form part of a wider Romano-Germanic pattern of dedications to unknown triumverates of female deities referred to as "Matronae X", "Mothers of X", not singular deities. These two things points to the probable fact that "Matronae X" were patron spirits of settlements and not gods in their own right; the fact that the name "Austriahenae" is probably not wholly Germanic and is partially derived from Celtic also speaks to the fact that it was a name associated with a specific settlement.

> but you do see a lot of depictions of eggs, green grass, baby animals, and fruit flavors, all of which symbolize spring, not torment as a vehicle for redemption or suffering for the sins of others.

The fact Easter has that aesthetic doesn't mean Easter is based on Pagan tradition.

> That would be the story of a human male born without a human father (or mother, to be fair) by divine power and destined to ascend to divinity

Mithras was not human....

> a god who’s cult used caves as isolated meeting spots just like the early cChristians.

And? Mithraics worshipped in underground chambers and caves because it was a mystery cult, Christians did it because they were a persecuted minority within a persecuted minority....

> and the adherents of said religion recognized seven sacred sacramental practices?

Coincidental. Actually, straight up misleading on your part - levels of initiatien and the number of sacraments is not the same....

You stated that there was no such deity, I provided evidence that there likely was, and your argument changed to “well that was only one place where they found these nearly 2000 year old inscriptions”, but that doesn’t speak to your original statement that there wasn’t a goddess associated with Easter. I feel like you’re attempting to shift away from the central question each time we reply to one another. Okay, I’ve got to ask now, what evidence, if any, would you actually accept on this subject? You appear to be responding to my “here’s some archeological evidence” with the counter “It’s not enough evidence”, so what would be enough for you? You can take some time to think about it if you’d like, but I won’t be responding to anything else you say or do until you answer this question. And also, if you ask for irrefutable definitive proof or something like that, I’m going to hold you to the same standard. Side note: I won’t accept “scholarship”from overtly pro-Christian sources, I’m asking you for evidence the same way you’re asking me, which means actual objective evidence.

1- Okay then, if I’m wrong, I’ll be cool with it, but your statements haven’t led me to any such conclusion. 2- Please provide some sort of explanation for you statement that Mithras wasn’t a human, I’m not accepting “No he wasn’t” as a valid answer. 3- You left off the part where I talked about old stories and myths informing new ones, so if you need everything to line up perfectly before you’ll consider it as possible, we’ll that’s not going to happen for anything that happened prior to about 1300 CE in Europe, and can’t happen for most of European history until the 1600s. 4- Christianity was also a mystery cult at that time, one of the theories on its rise in popularity was that the Christians didn’t charge an admission fee or the like, unlike most other mystery cults at the time. 5- As for your statements that the seven sacraments were just a coincidence, you’re stating that two religions being practiced in the same place at the same time (place meaning not just Rome but also the Roman underground caves and public works, time meaning the 1st century CE) independently had similarities going on but that there was no crossover or common source for any of the commonalities, so that’s a claim that needs some backup. TL;DR, I won’t mind being wrong, but I won’t accept that I’m wrong just because you say “that’s not true” or “you’re wrong”, you need to convince the same way I’m trying to convince you, by demonstrating reasons and facts that the other would or could find compelling.

> You stated that there was no such deity, I provided evidence that there likely was, and your argument changed

You provided "evidence" for the fact that at a single Germano-Roman settlement there were dedications made to a "Matronae Austriahenae", dedications that fit into a pattern that is most likely to do with local patron spirits and not some "Goddess of Spring", evidence that isn't actually linked to the supposed deity of Eostre when modern phiological methods and historical knowledge is used to evaluate it.

> but that doesn’t speak to your original statement that there wasn’t a goddess associated with Easter.

Where did I say there wasn't? All I said was Eostre was invented by Bede and that Easter is Christian, which isn't diminished by your "evidence".

> You appear to be responding to my “here’s some archeological evidence” with the counter “It’s not enough evidence”, so what would be enough for you? You can take some time to think about it if you’d like, but I won’t be responding to anything else you say or do until you answer this question.

You said it yourself - you are reading all this off Wikipedia, if you want evidence that'll convince me I suggest you look beyond it and read deeper about whatever you want to present as evidence.

> Side note: I won’t accept “scholarship”from overtly pro-Christian sources, I’m asking you for evidence the same way you’re asking me, which means actual objective evidence.

And what is "pro-christian sources" supposed to mean in the contex of material and philiological evidence?

By pro-Christian, I mean sources that have a vested interest in the Christian churches being right. For instance, if you wanted to use a theologian as a source, if that person was or is also an active participant in the religion, then they really need to able to demonstrate evidence of objectivity or detachment. Otherwise, it’s just priests, pastors, etc. talking about how Christianity is right, when they’re already explicitly on the side of Christianity being right. That’s a lotlike someone employed by, and/or a big fan of, a sporting organization can and will give us an unbiased opinion about the history/significant events that directly affected said sporting organization. It can definitely be true, but it’s very unlikely that it is true, because the person providing the info is very likely biased towards thinking the organization that they’re an active part of is right and good. So yeah, if it’s coming from a professional Christian, their info about historical Christianity becomes suspect, because they have a vested interest in things related to Christian faith being right and correct.

> 2- Please provide some sort of explanation for you statement that Mithras wasn’t a human, I’m not accepting “No he wasn’t” as a valid answer.

Mithras was literally the incarnation of the light of the Sun, a living attribute of his father's power as the Sun. He slays the bull that becomes the moon, like the sun's rays slays the darkness of night.

> 3- You left off the part where I talked about old stories and myths informing new ones, so if you need everything to line up perfectly before you’ll consider it as possible, we’ll that’s not going to happen for anything that happened prior to about 1300 CE in Europe, and can’t happen for most of European history until the 1600s.

Worship of Christ is older than Roman Mithraism.

> 4- Christianity was also a mystery cult at that time, one of the theories on its rise in popularity was that the Christians didn’t charge an admission fee or the like, unlike most other mystery cults at the time.

Christianity was and is a proselytising religion, the mystery cults meanwhile were akin to Freemasonry in how only a limited number of initiates were allowed and how they were forbidden from sharing with outsiders wtf they were up to.

> 5- As for your statements that the seven sacraments were just a coincidence, you’re stating that two religions being practiced in the same place at the same time (place meaning not just Rome but also the Roman underground caves and public works, time meaning the 1st century CE) independently had similarities going on but that there was no crossover or common source for any of the commonalities, so that’s a claim that needs some backup.

The seven levels of initiatien in Mithraism corresponds to the number of planets, thereby the attributes of the levels; the number of Sacraments within the Chrstian Church varies, the definition of what a Sacrament is varies, but that there are seven was only pegged down within the Catholic Church in 1215, nearly 900-years after Mithraism started its decline. It is coincidental.

Christians were by no means a specifically persecuted minority. While it did happen, it was sporadic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Roman_Empire

This was definitely not of the order of requiring them to withdraw into caves.

Um... the Gautama Buddha was a historical person. Whether the (likely highly idealized) accounts of his life are representative of the man as he really was, I can't say, and whether he was truly enlightened I suppose depends on your beliefs, but he did live.

That said, all myths are based at least in part on other myths. It's unavoidable.

Buddha never existed. Buddhists can't even agree on what century he supposedly existed. There's more evidence for the historicity of figures like King Arthur or Moses, and both of those men are regarded as mythological.