.

Can you grow up in Japan, then develop chop sticks independently? No, and that's not what "believing scholars" or any scholars say happened.

What they do say depends on what subject we're talking about. Explanations vary by topic and by particular religion. But it is more accurate to say that they argue against Christianity adapting "pagan ideas". It's better to say (again, in some cases) that Christianity adapted universal, practical ideas to suit what was unique about it.

We'll deal in those specifics as we go; for now, let's burn Pikachu's straw man as needed.

Can Pikachu even get the argument straight? Well, not a chance in heck. But obviously no one is going to claim that you need a document by a Christian saying, "Yeah, we borrowed that idea. Or we didn't."

In fact scholars have rigorous standards for deciding when borrowing happened. More shortly.

The Real Facts. Most of Pikachu's games are in fact games of terminological equivocation. He speaks of "Godmen," "salvation," "baptism," etc. as though it were possible to gather a mishmash of objects under these general categories and then scream, "Copycat!" The effort is analogous to pulling up a squid, a tuna, whale, and a shark, and saying, "See, they live in the ocean; they have fins they use for propulsion; they are all edible by humans -- obviously they are copies of each other." No one questions whether Christians or Jews knew about pagans and their rituals -- that's not the point.

The point rather, well, varies according to subject; but for the most part, it is only by cutting down to a "least common denominator" that one can claim that Christianity is not new, Christianity is not unique, Christianity is not discontinuous with mainstream Paganism. It's a dishonest, ignorant game, and that is exactly the game Pikachu plays. (It's what he plays with the "Dionysus on the cross" bit even more -- he uses this pic at least 4-5 times, each time claiming it predated Jesus by 200 years, when in fact Jesus predated this object by that amount of time -- even when scholars thought it was genuine, which they no longer do. Poor research? Just plain lies? Decide for yourself.

The Contexts
Pikachu is somewhat slippery when he speaks of the first Christians tak[ing] the ideas fundamental to their culture... and adapt[ing] them to the new religion. Taken at face value, I am saying the same thing; but I am not saying it as Pikachu does (a good example of why mere word correspondences aren't useful for comparisons). For example, Pikachu indicates that a "sacred meal" would be an idea "fundamental" to ancient culture. I say that the "fundamental" idea there is not the "sacred meal," but the more core "fundamental" of eating combined with fellowship. This universal paradigm was what, if anything we can say, Christianity "borrowed" from -- as did all the other religions. And no one, despite Pikachu's twisted misapprehension, thinks that the idea of the core fundamental came to Christians "independently". What scholars so say is that their "spin" on the real fundamental (i.e., eating and fellowship) was arrived at independently. There's a level of difference here.Here's the logic of each option.

So we can ignore Pikachu's "Choice 1" since he clearly doesn't "get" the argument. Chop suey   The mess that Pikachu makes of what scholars actually say is reminiscent of this fine Chinese dish. The picture to the right is reminiscent of most pagan copycat theorists.   Again, no one says that Christians were ignorant of i.e., baptism when they came up with their "version". What lies behind that is a more core fundamental of water as a purifier and excellent metaphor for cleanliness. The "universal solvent" and all that. What lies behind the soul surviving death is the practical consideration that 1) materialism as a position wasn't viable; 2) there has to be some answer to the question of what happens after death. No one needs to "borrow" anything from anybody to try to answer these questions at the most basic level.
Believing (and unbelieving) scholars do NOT believe the Christians came up with a lot of stuff "independently" in the way Pikachu claims. They do however have very rigorous tests for determining dependence.Let's look at some of these courtesy of the article linked above.
	Similarity of general motifs is not enough to "prove anything"; we must have "complex structures" (e.g., 'system of deities', 'narrative structure').
	Parallels must be 'striking' (i.e., unexpected, 'odd', difficult to account for).
	Some/many parallels/parallel motifs are superficial (i.e., identical on the surface), and 'prove nothing'.
	Parallels that can be used to support the possibility of influence need to be numerous.
	Parallels that can be used to support the possibility of influence need to be complex (i.e., with multiple parts and interrelationships).
	The details in alleged parallels must have the same "conceptual usage" reflected in them (e.g., they must be used with the same meaning).
	The similar ideas in alleged parallels must be 'central features' in the material--and not just isolated or peripheral elements.
	Details which are completely unexpected (to the point of being unexplainable apart from borrowing) are strong evidence for borrowing
	Details which are almost irrelevant to the new context, but which have function in the old context are strong evidence for borrowing

The fact is that each and every one of Pikachu's efforts fails on several or all of these counts. All that he cites relies on that which is superficial (such as the equivocation of terminology involves) or better explained by other evidence (i.e., universals of eating and fellowship). Which leads us to his Choice 2, which remember is not the same as our own. What Pikachu calls the " basic ideas of their culture" are actually not "basic ideas" at all but rather applications of basic ideas that each religion developed independently. That is what scholars really mean when they speak of "independence": Not that the ancients built a new religion out of old parts, but that they built a new religion out of universal need.

By this reckoning, Robert Price is just passing intellectual gas when he says that converts would have brought "motifs" with them into Christianity. How it would be "impossible" for them not to is not specified (after all, Judaism resisted such syncretism, especially after the lessons of Antiochus), but even so Price begs the question that the Christian "version" was not part of the original to begin with. But we'll deal with that when we get to specifics.