Krishna, Horus and other mythical Gods

[auteur55]

Does anyone know why the Christ story of a resurrection, virgin birth, healings and walking on water has parallels to many mythical God stories?

Horus - Sun God of Egypt, born on December 25th of the virgin Isis-Meri. Had 12 disciples he traveled about with, performing miracles such as healing the sick and walking on water. After being betrayed by Typhon, Horus was crucified, buried for 3 days, and resurrected

Attis, of Phyrigia, born of the virgin Nana on December 25th, crucified, placed in a tomb and after 3 days, was resurrected.

Krishna, of India, born of the virgin Devaki with a star in the east signaling his coming, performed miracles with his disciples, and upon his death was resurrected

Dionysus of Greece, born of a virgin on December 25th, was a traveling teacher who performed miracles such as turning water into wine

Mithra, of Persia, born of a virgin on December 25th, he had 12 disciples and performed miracles, and upon his death was buried for 3 days and thus

Many would argue that this proves the Christ story is not original and was created. At least that is what my friends are arguing.

Any thoughts?

[Tarski]

Does anyone know why the Christ story of a resurrection, virgin birth, healings and walking on water has parallels to many mythical God stories?

Horus - Sun God of Egypt, born on December 25th of the virgin Isis-Meri. Had 12 disciples he traveled about with, performing miracles such as healing the sick and walking on water. After being betrayed by Typhon, Horus was crucified, buried for 3 days, and resurrected

Attis, of Phyrigia, born of the virgin Nana on December 25th, crucified, placed in a tomb and after 3 days, was resurrected.

Krishna, of India, born of the virgin Devaki with a star in the east signaling his coming, performed miracles with his disciples, and upon his death was resurrected

Dionysus of Greece, born of a virgin on December 25th, was a traveling teacher who performed miracles such as turning water into wine

Mithra, of Persia, born of a virgin on December 25th, he had 12 disciples and performed miracles, and upon his death was buried for 3 days and thus

Many would argue that this proves the Christ story is not original and was created. At least that is what my friends are arguing.

Any thoughts?

They have a point but never fear, there is are apologetic answers ready and waiting. Maher may have over stated the case regarding Horus. You will be told that this invalidates the whole thing. It doesn't.

For a more considered and more accurate take on parallels, watch:

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Robe...4&ct=title#

[Bill Hamblin]

They have a point but never fear, there is are apologetic answers ready and waiting. Maher may have over stated the case regarding Horus. You will be told that this invalidates the whole thing. It doesn't.

For a more considered and more accurate take on parallels, watch:

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Robe...4&ct=title#

Gasp! Not more Robert Price!

[Tarski]

Gasp! Not more Robert Price!

Just for your benefit! (I was waiting for this. LOL)

[Bill Hamblin]

Does anyone know why the Christ story of a resurrection, virgin birth, healings and walking on water has parallels to many mythical God stories?

Horus - Sun God of Egypt, born on December 25th of the virgin Isis-Meri. Had 12 disciples he traveled about with, performing miracles such as healing the sick and walking on water. After being betrayed by Typhon, Horus was crucified, buried for 3 days, and resurrected

Attis, of Phyrigia, born of the virgin Nana on December 25th, crucified, placed in a tomb and after 3 days, was resurrected.

Krishna, of India, born of the virgin Devaki with a star in the east signaling his coming, performed miracles with his disciples, and upon his death was resurrected

Dionysus of Greece, born of a virgin on December 25th, was a traveling teacher who performed miracles such as turning water into wine

Mithra, of Persia, born of a virgin on December 25th, he had 12 disciples and performed miracles, and upon his death was buried for 3 days and thus

Many would argue that this proves the Christ story is not original and was created. At least that is what my friends are arguing.

Any thoughts?

The first thing you need to do is ask your friends for actual primary sources, with their dates, for each of these specific claims, rather than a stock unsourced atheist list.

http://www.geocities.com/inquisitive79/godmen.html#attis

You'll find, over and over again in these cases, the actual primary data is misrepresented, if not invented.

[Bill Hamblin]

The first thing to note is that the Bible does not say that Jesus was born on 25 December. The association of this date with the birth of Jesus is quite late in Christian tradition.

So the alleged parallels in that regard (which need evidence) are absolutely meaningless, even if true.

[Tarski]

The first thing you need to do is ask your friends for actual primary sources, with their dates, for each of these specific claims, rather than a stock unsourced atheist list. You'll find, over and over again in these cases, the actual primary data is misrepresented, if not invented.

OK, now I must agree with Bill. Go really check it out. Don't depend on all the apologetic responses or the atheist web sites.

However, I have a feeling that Bill wants you to trust him rather than really check it out.

For most members, it is enough just to know that some educated Mormon professor (a Nibley or a Hamblin or a Peterson) has already checked it all out and still maintains belief. No need for you to actually get into it (Not! Go for it!).

[Daniel Peterson]

That's right, Tarski. I don't want my students to read things. I don't want them to do research for their papers. I merely want them to regurgitate my lectures.

You need to get some sleep.

[Tarski]

You need to get some sleep.

OK but you first! LOL

[e=mc2]

OK, now I must agree with Bill. Go really check it out. Don't depend on all the apologetic responses or the atheist web sites.

However, I have a feeling that Bill wants you to trust him rather than really check it out.

For most members, it is enough just to know that some educated Mormon professor (a Nibley or a Hamblin or a Peterson) has already checked it all out and still maintain belief. No need for you to actually get into it (Not! Go for it!).

LOL!. I agree with Peterson on this, you need some sleep mi amigo. I would chime in as a distant second level in Mormon scholarship, I also don't want ANYONE who watchs my videos on You Tube to go to the sources, that's why I go to great lengths to make sure I tell them what I am reading from. That is why I also tell them in multitudinous vids that they MUST go check out these books themselves, and don't take my word for it. Hence I also give publishing date, page I read from, etc. I really am hoping they don't do so and just believe me........ this kind of argument is truly simply silly. And I am being charitable saying it that way.

[Bill Hamblin]

That's right, Tarski. I don't want my students to read things. I don't want them to do research for their papers. I merely want them to regurgitate my lectures.

You need to get some sleep.

I certainly don't want my students to do research on their own. If they do I'll have to grade their papers! Gag!!! I'd much prefer they don't hand in a paper at all and simply and flunk. Much, much easier for me.

[Daniel Peterson]

I certainly don't want my students to do research on their own. If they do I'll have to grade their papers! Gag!!! I'd much prefer they don't hand in a paper at all and simply and flunk. Much, much easier for me.

You took the words right out of my mouth. I thought I was within three papers of finishing the grading of my Middle East Studies (Arabic) 495 seminar, and then I realized that there are potentially seven more papers (one is a certainty) sitting in the box by my office door. Gag! To my shame, I'm inwardly hoping that six members of the class have decided to take unofficial withdrawals. I'm not sure I can take any more.

[Ron Beron]

Does anyone know why the Christ story of a resurrection, virgin birth, healings and walking on water has parallels to many mythical God stories?

Horus - Sun God of Egypt, born on December 25th of the virgin Isis-Meri. Had 12 disciples he traveled about with, performing miracles such as healing the sick and walking on water. After being betrayed by Typhon, Horus was crucified, buried for 3 days, and resurrected

Attis, of Phyrigia, born of the virgin Nana on December 25th, crucified, placed in a tomb and after 3 days, was resurrected.

Krishna, of India, born of the virgin Devaki with a star in the east signaling his coming, performed miracles with his disciples, and upon his death was resurrected

Dionysus of Greece, born of a virgin on December 25th, was a traveling teacher who performed miracles such as turning water into wine

Mithra, of Persia, born of a virgin on December 25th, he had 12 disciples and performed miracles, and upon his death was buried for 3 days and thus

Many would argue that this proves the Christ story is not original and was created. At least that is what my friends are arguing.

Any thoughts?

Interesting parallels, but like all generalizations there are mistakes...

• Dionysus... the god or one many mortals which held the name of the Greek god of wine? A little too general. If the god then you have a problem because his mother, while human was definitely not a virgin.
  
• Mithra...Yes, indeed he was ostensibly born on December 25th and the Christians countered the same for Jesus. Where's the problem. Born of virgin? Nope! He was born from a rock! Finally, any Roman stories regarding the supernatural beginnings of Mithras were founded centuries after Jesus' birth and death.
  
• Attis...Wow! You should read about this character. In any case, any resurrection was certainly arboreal since he was resurrected as a tree. Hardly similar.
  
• Krishna...born not 12/25 but in July and again not a mention of resurrection, but ascension. Like many mythological deities Krishna has been assimilated into and borrowed from other deities within Hinduism.
  
• Horus...Aside from James Frazer' Golden Bough there isn't any evidene of a virginal birth of Horus. He had not 12 but 4 disciples, and as for his being resurrected not hardly since he never really died. He is immortal.
  

Parallels exist simply because one group of adherents seek to bulk up the character of their unique god by borrowing from the qualities of others. Be careful of atheists bearing gifts.

[Tarski]

I certainly don't want my students to do research on their own. If they do I'll have to grade their papers! Gag!!! I'd much prefer they don't hand in a paper at all and simply and flunk. Much, much easier for me.

Aren't you three just like a peas in a pod?

Kerry. I will put you right in the list with Nibley too. OK?

When it comes to classes, I bet you do want them to read (what you want them to read). I am sure you have recomended reading lists.

On the other hand, apologetics isn't quite the same as your teaching and normal academics in respective fields is it? Souls are in the balance and there is milk to be served!

No?

[Tarski]

Parallels exist simply because one group of adherents seek to bulk up the character of their unique god by borrowing from the qualities of others.

and this applies to the God Jesus too. (Why not?)

[Daniel Peterson]

On the other hand, apologetics isn't quite the same as your teaching and normal academics in respective fields is it? Souls are in the balance and there is milk to be served!

No?

No, Tarski. No.

I don't write columns and reviews and book notes trying to encourage people to read things because, inwardly, I don't want people to read things.

What rot.

[Bill Hamblin]

No, Tarski. No.

I don't write columns and reviews and book notes trying to encourage people to read things because, inwardly, I don't want people to read things.

What rot.

I'm so glad I'm not responding to Tarski any more. Such a liberating feeling. I don't have to engage his attempts at fantasy mind-reading of my real motives.

The amazing thing, Dan, is that he can make any claim he wants about our true beliefs and goals, without presenting a single piece of evidence. It's kind of an atheistic gnosis.

[Tarski]

It's kind of an atheistic gnosis.

Your gnosis is cool though, right?

Insulting by comparing with religion. LOL

[Ron Beron]

and this applies to the God Jesus too. (Why not?)

Why should it apply to Jesus? His resurrection was unique and non-transferable (at least to other gods). That is the hallmark of Christianity. His birth on December 25 is not scriptural nor a matter of revelation, but simply a convenience offered up by the early church leaders. Whether is mother was a virgin or young maiden again is of little import in the grand scheme of things. What is important and probably what, my dear Tarski you will not realize is that what is important is what Jesus said about himself and future prophets have intoned about Him. That requires faith not speculation. You might want to check out a nifty website that dispels many of these myths.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa.htm

It's kind of an atheistic gnosis.

It must be getting late because I read "atheistic goose". Oh well, that is probably more fitting. A lot of honking.

[Bill Hamblin]

I decided to do a little research into Attis of Phyrigia, just to see how well our Atheopologists do on the accuracy and honesty scale. So, the list provided above makes four testable claims about Attiis of Phyrgia:

1- born of the virgin Nana

2- born on December 25th,

3- crucified

4- placed in a tomb and after 3 days, was resurrected.

So, being the intrepid historian that I am, I did an extraordinary thing; I looked at the primary sources. Imagine my shock and surprise, when, after careful examination, none of these claims can be found in the primary sources I examined. Here are the sources I examined, which contain the major narratives of Attis:

1- Pausanius, Guide, 7.17.5

2- Ovid, Fasti, 4.221-224

3- Diodorus, History, 3.58.4-59.1

1- Pausanius, Guide, 7.17.5 (2nd century AD)

Birth by Nana the virgin = version 1: Attis is the son of Kalaos the Phrygian

version 2: Attis is the son of Agdistis who is castrated by the gods; his genitals are buried and become an almond tree, with the almond his seed; an almond drops in Nanaâ??s lap and she becomes pregnant with Attis (I guess this could pass for a miraculous virgin birth)

Birthday = not given

Crucified = version 1, killed by a boar; version 2, went mad, castrated himself, bled to death

Placed in tomb and resurrect after 3 days = but obtained a blessing that his body, though dead, would never decay (alas, not quite resurrection that); version two: was buried in Mt. Agdistis

2- Ovid, Fasti, 4.221-224 (early 1st century)

Birth by Nana the virgin = nothing

Birthday = nothing

Crucified = castrated himself

Placed in tomb and resurrect after 3 days = changed into a fir tree

3- Diodorus, History, 3.58.4-59.1

Birth by Nana the virgin? = no ancestry given (Herodotus 1.34-35 says heâ??s the son of Kroisos = Kalaos)

Birthday? = not mentioned

Crucified? = put to death for seducing Cybele, no means described

Placed in tomb and resurrect after 3 days? = â??cast his body forth to lie unburiedâ?; later they try to find the body, but it is rotted away.

Another tale has his death occur when his is castrated by the king of Phrygia for refusing his advances; he is taken to the temple to be healed, but dies. No resurrection mentioned

To summarize the four claims

1- Birth by Nana the virgin? = most mention a human father or no ancestry; one of story of several mention pregnancy by an almond from a tree grown from the castrated buried genitals of a god. (Sounds just like the Christmas story to me.)

Birthday on Sept 25? = not mentioned by any source

Crucified? = not mentioned by any source

Placed in tomb and resurrect after 3 days? = not mentioned by any source

In other words, not a single Atheopologist claim about Attis can be verified in the standard sources I surveyed. There are probably some other sources that I am unaware of. I invite our Atheopologists to provide primary evidence to back their claims.

But, on the other hand, please, please, all you Atheopologists, whatever you do, donâ??t look up these sources for yourself. It would upset your tender minds and shatter your fragile faithlessness to learn that the Atheopologists are wrong on every single issue. But if you dare to go beyond your sheltered life, most of the sources can be found here:

http://www.theoi.com/Phrygios/Attis.html

[volgadon]

And as they have been proven wrong, the only logical course for them is to come and be baptised into the church.....

[Ron Beron]

I decided to do a little research into Attis of Phyrigia, just to see how well our Atheopologists do on the accuracy and honesty scale. So, the list provided above makes four testable claims about Attiis of Phyrgia:

1- born of the virgin Nana

2- born on December 25th,

3- crucified

4- placed in a tomb and after 3 days, was resurrected.

So, being the intrepid historian that I am, I did an extraordinary thing; I looked at the primary sources. Imagine my shock and surprise, when, after careful examination, none of these claims can be found in the primary sources I examined. Here are the sources I examined, which contain the major narratives of Attis:

1- Pausanius, Guide, 7.17.5

2- Ovid, Fasti, 4.221-224

3- Diodorus, History, 3.58.4-59.1

1- Pausanius, Guide, 7.17.5 (2nd century AD)

Birth by Nana the virgin = version 1: Attis is the son of Kalaos the Phrygian

version 2: Attis is the son of Agdistis who is castrated by the gods; his genitals are buried and become an almond tree, with the almond his seed; an almond drops in Nana's lap and she becomes pregnant with Attis (I guess this could pass for a miraculous virgin birth)

Birthday = not given

Crucified = version 1, killed by a boar; version 2, went mad, castrated himself, bled to death

Placed in tomb and resurrect after 3 days = but obtained a blessing that his body, though dead, would never decay (alas, not quite resurrection that); version two: was buried in Mt. Agdistis

2- Ovid, Fasti, 4.221-224 (early 1st century)

Birth by Nana the virgin = nothing

Birthday = nothing

Crucified = castrated himself

Placed in tomb and resurrect after 3 days = changed into a fir tree

3- Diodorus, History, 3.58.4-59.1

Birth by Nana the virgin? = no ancestry given (Herodotus 1.34-35 says he's the son of Kroisos = Kalaos)

Birthday? = not mentioned

Crucified? = put to death for seducing Cybele, no means described

Placed in tomb and resurrect after 3 days? = "cast his body forth to lie unburied"; later they try to find the body, but it is rotted away.

Another tale has his death occur when his is castrated by the king of Phrygia for refusing his advances; he is taken to the temple to be healed, but dies. No resurrection mentioned

To summarize the four claims

1- Birth by Nana the virgin? = most mention a human father or no ancestry; one of story of several mention pregnancy by an almond from a tree grown from the castrated buried genitals of a god. (Sounds just like the Christmas story to me.)

Birthday on Sept 25? = not mentioned by any source

Crucified? = not mentioned by any source

Placed in tomb and resurrect after 3 days? = not mentioned by any source

In other words, not a single Atheopologist claim about Attis can be verified in the standard sources I surveyed. There are probably some other sources that I am unaware of. I invite our Atheopologists to provide primary evidence to back their claims.

But, on the other hand, please, please, all you Atheopologists, whatever you do, don't look up these sources for yourself. It would upset your tender minds and shatter your fragile faithlessness to learn that the Atheopologists are wrong on every single issue. But if you dare to go beyond your sheltered life, most of the sources can be found here:

http://www.theoi.com/Phrygios/Attis.html

But, Prof. Hamblin, there is always a chance those primary records got it wrong and the interpreters got it right. Right??

[Bill Hamblin]

I'm shocked. No one is stepping forward to defend the atheopologists? No claims that atheopologists are still smarter than believers even though they can't get basic facts right? No claims that believers are simply being pedantic by asking that there be some semblance of evidence for atheopologist claims?

[JLFuller]

Does anyone know why the Christ story of a resurrection, virgin birth, healings and walking on water has parallels to many mythical God stories?

Horus - Sun God of Egypt, born on December 25th of the virgin Isis-Meri. Had 12 disciples he traveled about with, performing miracles such as healing the sick and walking on water. After being betrayed by Typhon, Horus was crucified, buried for 3 days, and resurrected

Attis, of Phyrigia, born of the virgin Nana on December 25th, crucified, placed in a tomb and after 3 days, was resurrected.

Krishna, of India, born of the virgin Devaki with a star in the east signaling his coming, performed miracles with his disciples, and upon his death was resurrected

Dionysus of Greece, born of a virgin on December 25th, was a traveling teacher who performed miracles such as turning water into wine

Mithra, of Persia, born of a virgin on December 25th, he had 12 disciples and performed miracles, and upon his death was buried for 3 days and thus

Many would argue that this proves the Christ story is not original and was created. At least that is what my friends are arguing.

Any thoughts?

I know Bill and DCP are the big boys we all genuflect too, and rightfully so, but for the more pedestrian among us doesn't it make more sense to just say these other traditions are the remnants of the first religion?

[Tarski]

I know Bill and DCP are the big boys we all genuflect too, and rightfully so, but for the more pedestrian among us doesn't it make more sense to just say these other traditions are the remnants of the first religion?

Nice move (but not original). Wasn't that C.S Lewis' move?

In anycase I like it, no I love it, because we at least get the admission that the parallels are really there! LOL

You know it is trouble when both moves, essential opposite tacks, are tried by the apologist side.

1) It's not true.

2) Yes it is true but it somehow proves our point anyway!