the power of his music. Now, I suppose in some ways one could attempt to say that Orpheus used music, Jesus used his voice, therefore both use sound. To me, however, this seems to be a little bit of a desperate stretch. I would not make that paralelle if I was hearing either story for the first time. Another difference in their powers over nature is quite obvious. First, Jesus' power cannot be taken away or tied to any single source. His powers came directly from God, the creator of nature. By contrast, the article itself gives its own theory as to where Orpheus' power comes from:

 

"The power of Orpheus’ music most likely has roots in the Pythagorean belief that the universe was made up of vibrations, as in a musical chord: different frequencies produced different states of matter, different colors, etc." Far from a belief that the universe is made of vibrations, the Bible specifically says that all things hold together through Christ, without whom nothing was made that has been made. In other words, Christ's power was based entirely on himself, whereas Orpheus' was based on an erroneous belief that all things held together through sound. Taking anything from Jesus (assuming he even allows you to take it from him) will not stop his powers, but damaging or removing Orpheus' divine instrument would.

 

Another problem is that Christ's power works on all things, even demons. By contrast, Orpheus' death occurred when he failed to honor Dionysus, and his followers cast stones at him that he failed to block with his music (though other versions say he rejected female followers, who became disgruntled and tore him apart). Whatever the case, Jesus' power is, by far, superior, and very very different.

 

Heaven and Hell

 

According to the article, the Christian distinction between Heaven and Hell is also based on Orphism. Quoting Jan Bremmer, the article says "It is in the fifth century, then, in Orphic-Pythagorean milieus that the contours of the later Christian distinction between heaven and hell first become visible". Now, I've seen claims that Hell isn't in the Old Testament before, but at no point did I ever expect to hear someone claim that it didn't exist in the New Testament either. The truth is, a distinction between Heaven and Hell is quite clearly found in both testaments, most noteably being in Revelation. Jesus preached more about Hell than he did about Heaven, and these teachings were clearly recorded in the Bible. How, then, could anyone possibly claim that such teachings originated in the fifth century?

 

Miraculous talking head

 

While I attempt to remain respectful in my articles, I do struggle desperately not to laugh at this one. It is so obviously deceptive that anyone who knows the Bible just could not resist tearing it down. According to the article, Orpheus' head continued uttering teachings after he was murdered. "Strikingly, Christianity has its own version of a miraculous talking head: Herod’s stepdaughter, to whom the name Salome was later attributed, is said in Matthew 14:8 and Mark 6:25 to have asked him for John the Baptist’s head on a platter, and the presentation of his severed head often appears in art."

 

Ladies and gentlemen, I think I'm going to die. The deceit in this atrocity is just so mind-blowing, I am going to choke on my own laughter. Now, I am going to stop and give the author a little credit for this one. In the article, they do say that there is one legend in which the Knights Templar had the head of John the Baptist, and frequently worshipped it, but that this would actually be presented as evidence that Orphism influenced Christianity is still unforgivable.

 

First, it is worth noting that the Knights Templar were not Christians. The author should have known this by the fact that they, themselves, noted that the knights allegedly worshipped the head! Anyone, Christian or otherwise, should be able to spot the problem here. In Christianity, God and God alone is worth of worship. Even angels will stop anyone from trying to worship them and command their worshippers to instead worship God, and in one story where Paul and Barnabus are mistaken for Hermes and Zeus, they also refuse the worship (Acts 14:8-18). In other words, the very nature of Christianity means that to worship anything other than God, even the head of a prophet, is not Christian. It is very much anti-Christian. The fact that the author does not know this basic fact immediately disqualifies them as an authority of any kind on Christianity.

 

In actual Christianity, the head of John the baptist never talks. It is clear that when John is dead, he is dead. And yes, the daughter of Herodius did request John's head on a platter, but not as a prophetic meeting, but because Herodius bore a personal grudge against John, and she wanted him dead. Since the author clearly knows where to find the reference in the Bible (and I have linked the full passages in the quote, also here), they have absolutely no excuse for not picking up the Bible and reading the full story. In Christianity, there is absolutely no mention of a talking head.

 

The good shepherd

 

Outside of copycat theorist sites, I cannot find any reference to Orpheus being called the good shepherd.

 

Conclusion

 

Orpheus' story bears little to no resemblance to Jesus was so ever. Contrary to claims that Jesus' power over nature is rooted in Orpheus' divine music, this is a stretch at best, and Orpheus was not called the "good shepherd". The embarassing claim that Christianity's concept of Heaven and Hell is a 5th century adaptation of Orphian myth is easily refuted by the very existence of the Bible, which is freely available to anyone capable of aquiring a book, and it has been translated into a plethora of languages. Even more embarassing is the claim that Christianity features a talking head, which leaves us to wander, as skeptical arguments often do, if copycat theorists believe their readers to be somewhat unintelligent, and incapable of verifying their claims. Thankfully, if this is the attitude they actually have, they are very wrong. We do have the ability to verify their claims. Having examined Orphism and comparing it to real Christianity, as described in the Bible, I consider this claim to be completely false. Orphism had no influence on Christianity.