Krishna, Horus and other mythical Gods

[Bill Hamblin]

Still no engagement of the fact that none of the Atheopologists' alleged parallels between Attis and Jesus hold any water? Just an unsubstantiated claim that the "parallels are really there." They are? Really?

[LifeOnaPlate]

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

Actually no. You're wrong about that as well.

[Ambrose]

I am glad for Mr. Bill Hamblin and his posts on this matter, and I should only like to chime in with the "if there truly were an example of importance", in echo of Mr. Fuller.

Without falling into syncretism, I find no trouble in prior religions sharing or using symbols of the Christian faith. Rather, I find it a reinforcement of that one Christian faith.

27 The desire for God is written in the human heart . . .

28 In many ways, throughout history down to the present day, men have given expression to their quest for God in their religious beliefs and behaviour: in their prayers, sacrifices, rituals, meditations, and so forth. These forms of religious expression, despite the ambiguities they often bring with them, are so universal that one may well call man a religious being:

"From one ancestor (God) made all nations to inhabit the whole earth, and he allotted the times of their existence and the boundaries of the places where they would live, so that they would search for God and perhaps grope for him and find him - though indeed he is not far from each one of us. For "in him we live and move and have our being."

Homo religious, even homo indifferens, has written in his nature the desire for Christ, so much so that shadows of this One Faith will of course spring up in his quest for God, just as they will continue to spring up until the completion (perfection) of the Universe.

[Jason]

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

So what is the strongest evidence against the idea that the parellels between myth and the story of Jesus are survivals of Adam's knowledge of the gospel - borrowings from the original to make the manufactured seem more real or resonate more with their audience?

[Mike Reed]

I have no interest in debating this topic (nor the time)... but to help move this discussion along... I will just quickly point out that Justin Martyr conceded the existence of parallels, but defended Christianity by attributing them to the power and knowledge of the Devil.

Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho

Chapter LXVII.â??Trypho compares Jesus with Perseus; and would prefer [to say] that He was elected [to be Christ] on account of observance of the law. Justin speaks of the law as formerly.

And Trypho answered, â??The Scripture has not, â??Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,â?? but, â??Behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son,â?? and so on, as you quoted. But the whole prophecy refers to Hezekiah, and it is proved that it was fulfilled in him, according to the terms of this prophecy. Moreover, in the fables of those who are called Greeks, it is written that Perseus was begotten of Danae, who was a virgin; he who was called among them Zeus having descended on her in the form of a golden shower. And you ought to feel ashamed when you make assertions similar to theirs, and rather [should] say that this Jesus was born man of men. And if you prove from the Scriptures that He is the Christ, and that on account of having led a life conformed to the law, and perfect, He deserved the honour of being elected to be Christ, [it is well]; but do not venture to tell monstrous phenomena, lest you be convicted of talking foolishly like the Greeks.â?

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iv.lxvii.html

Chapter LXIX.â??The devil, since he emulates the truth, has invented fables about Bacchus, Hercules, and

[Tarski]

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?

Whose claims are you talking about? Mine?

Quote me.

Quote my claims.

Otherwise I will assume you are taunting Bill Maher or someone else not here.

I have already said that a good place to find out about supposed parallels is from the lectures and books of Robert M. Price. Even there, I am sure the are errors and subjective judgments. Even there I advise skepticism as always. There are always errors since scholars are never perfect. (But which ones is he wrong about??)

Also, the coinage "atheopologists" is inappropriate since there is no requirement among atheists (or agnostics or skeptics) that they accept all or any of these parallels or hypotheses about a mythical Christ.

They don't do much for me personally, but my limited investigation tells me there are lots and lots of parallels but they are scattered and usually general and not specific (gods, half gods or heroes born of virgins, dying and rising gods or heroes, heroes born of a god, sons of gods, born of a special day like Dec 25 (or winter solstice) etc.) There is enough to make some Christian apologists conclude that these various religions are a Satanic counterfeit of the true Christianity and that the parallels are somehow a trick of Satan. Or, some say they are perversions of a Christianity existing since Adam. One should decide what the apologetic claim even is.

Let us stipulate that Maher gives some of the inaccurate sensationalized versions (going all the way back to Kersey Graves). Now, here is what we really care about: Are there or are there not pagan parallels and ancient literary parallels of the form "born to a virgin", "resurrecting gods or heroes", "hero/god said to be a son of a god or greater god" and so on?

Are some of the parallels really there? If they are then isn't the suspicion of origins you wish to avoid raised anyway?

This is just a question.

Don't go back to assuming that I myself am making claims or that this is a band wagon for all atheists.

[Bill Hamblin]

Somebody needs to remind Tarski that I'm not debating him any more.

The repeated claim that "there are parallels" is fundamentally substantiveless without proper cultural and chronological contextualization of each alleged parallel. I believe I have demonstrated that there are no parallels substantive parallels between Attis and Jesus. This particular atheopologetic claim thus is demonstrably false. No atheopologist here seems wiling to engage this fact. Instead we get their standard technique: diversion.

[Mike Reed]

Somebody needs to remind Tarski that I'm not debating him any more.

The repeated claim that "there are parallels" is fundamentally substantiveless without proper cultural and chronological contextualization of each alleged parallel. I believe I have demonstrated that there are no parallels substantive parallels between Attis and Jesus. This particular atheopologetic claim thus is demonstrably false. No atheopologist here seems wiling to engage this fact. Instead we get their standard technique: diversion.

How about the parallels that Justin concedes?

[Tarski]

Somebody needs to remind Tarski that I'm not debating him any more.

The repeated claim that "there are parallels" is fundamentally substantiveless without proper cultural and chronological contextualization of each alleged parallel. I believe I have demonstrated that there are no parallels substantive parallels between Attis and Jesus. This particular atheopologetic claim thus is demonstrably false. No atheopologist here seems wiling to engage this fact. Instead we get their standard technique: diversion.

Oh OK. I ask him straight out if there are parallels and now he isn't debating me. No debating? Does this include drive by insults?

Look, I don't need a debate--but why not just answer the question?

By the way, I am begining to see that a substantive parallel to you may mean a nearly identical story (being a god born of a virgin is not parallel apparently).

I think the real point that the serious promoters of the parallels idea want to get accross is that many of the main elements of the Christ story already existed in other myths and religions and in contemporary literature. They were available for incorporation. Not that any one myth incorporates all or most of the elements (contra Maher who does seem wish to create that impression)

They were available for incorporation.

Is this false? Again, I only ask. This bandwagon is one I am watching not riding.

Parallels or not?

[Bill Hamblin]

How about the parallels that Justin concedes?

First, I didn't say there were no parallels. I said there are no parallels between Attis and Jesus, which is one of the claims made by the atheopologists at the beginning of this thread. Why do the atheopologists refuse to admit this clear and simple fact?

Second, I said that each alleged parallel needs to be examined individually, and properly contextualized in its culture and time. (For example, does any scholar really think that the writers of the gospels were influenced by the Krishna mythos?)

Third, as I've said over and over and over and over, parallels in and of themselves are meaningless. They need to be analyzed according to the methodology set forth by Johnathan Z Smith.

Fourth, why do those atheopologists who summarily dismiss parallels between ancient ideas and the thought of JS suddenly lose all intellectual rigor when dealing with parallels they think undermine Jesus? One cannot be hyperskeptical with one set of data, and hypercritical with another.

PS Somebody needs to tell Tarski I stopped arguing with him several days ago. Life is short. I'd rather play with my granddaughter.

Arguing you is noisome beyond belief. So you are permanently on my "do not respond" list.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...mp;p=1208640601

[Mike Reed]

Hey Bill.

The Attis parallels listed by "atheopologist" seem to have derived from the analysis provided by James Frazer (ever heard of him? ) in The Golden Bough. Here is a link:

http://books.google.com/books?id=4bT3ACjkRasC&pg=PA357

[Bill Hamblin]

Hey Bill.

The Attis parallels listed by "atheopologist" seem to have derived from the analysis provided by James Frazer (ever heard of him? ) in The Golden Bough. Here is a link:

http://books.google.com/books?id=4bT3ACjkRasC&pg=PA357

Yea, I know. So? His work is over a century old and has been superseded by modern scholarship. Read his account and see if you really think the story of Jesus derives from the Attis mythos.

And read the thread. I asked for primary sources for each of the four points. I analyzed all the sources to which I had access. None of the claims of the atheopologists are found in the primary sources I have access to. If you've got others, provide them.

[Mike Reed]

First, I didn't say there were no parallels. I said there are no parallels between Attis and Jesus, which is one of the claims made by the atheopologists at the beginning of this thread.

Understood.

Why do the atheopologists refuse to admit this clear and simple fact?

What atheopologists are you refering to?

[Bill Hamblin]

What atheopologists are you refering to?

Any of them reading this thread.

[Mike Reed]

Yea, I know. So? His work is over a century old and has been superseded by modern scholarship. Read the thread. I asked for primary sources for each of the four points. I analyzed all the sources to which I had access. None of the claims of the atheopologists are found in the primary sources I have access to. If you've got others, provide them.

Yes. I know that Frazer is dated. I pointed this out so people here could know where the list of parallels was taken from. Unfortunately, I don't have time to search for primary sources on this topic now. So for the moment, I reserve any judgment on the matter. Good luck finding somone (other than Tarski) willing to engage you.

You may want to ease up a bit on the confrontational tone, though.

[Tarski]

Yea, I know. So? His work is over a century old and has been superseded by modern scholarship. Read his account and see if you really think the story of Jesus derives from the Attis mythos.

You fundamentally miss the point, It is not that the Jesus story derives wholly from any one myth. It is that there is an abundance of similar themes available.

The Attis thing only provides a god that was born of a virgin and came back from death in some form but it is not the only reason this idea would have been floating around. In the process by which new myths arise, people appropriate things already available especially if these occur a lot.

The claim is not that the Jesus myth is just flat out copied from another myth. Peoples and cultures want their gods and god stories to have similar mythic features but also to be different and better. I don't claim (of course) that this happens as the conscious act of a single individual.

Why is this not almost inevitable?

[Ambrose]

Bill, I hate to be a bother, but would you be happy enough to address the claims made on behalf of Horus and Jesus as you have done with Attis?

[Bill Hamblin]

You may want to ease up a bit on the confrontational tone, though.

My tone is happy and cheerful.

Bill, I hate to be a bother, but would you be happy enough to address the claims made on behalf of Horus and Jesus as you have done with Attis?

Maybe. But I have lots more interesting things to do.

[Mike Reed]

My tone is happy and cheerful.

LOL! Ok.

[Bill Hamblin]

Another crucial issue that the atheopologists can't seem to grip is the difference between claims of pagan influence on NT texts themselves, and pagan influence on or syncretism with later, post NT Christian interpretations of the NT or Church belief and practice. For a clear analysis of these issues, the dates of the texts and developments must be carefully contextualized. A crucial methodological flaw of most of these atheopologists is that, if they establish a link between a pagan and Christian idea, they attempt to conflate the late Christian syncretism with the original NT.

The classic fallacious example of this, the claims that various deities on the list in the OP were supposedly "born" on Dec 25 is absolutely irrelevant to claimed influences on NT texts, since the NT no where makes any such claim about a Dec 25 birth of Jesus. The connection seems to have come when Imperial Christians after Constantine syncretized the festival of Christ's birth with the festival of Sol Invinctus (the Invincible Sun) associated with the Solstice. But this occurred a quarter millennium after the completion of the NT, and has nothing to do with the origins and sources of the NT narratives.

Another example is the supposed connection between Mithras and Christ. Note that "the earliest secruely dated evidence for the cult of Mithras [in the Roman Empire] does not stem from Italy, but the provinces. ... The inscription is thus probably to be dated before about [AD] 90." M. Clauss, The Roman Cult of Mithras (Routledge, 2001), p 21) (There was an earlier cult of Mithras in Comagenne and Anatolia, as well as in Iran, but these had little influence on the Roman world until the 2nd century. See Clauss.) In other words, whether Mithras-Christian syncretism occurred in the Roman world after AD 100; it couldn't have before, since the movement did not exist or was in its infancy with little influence.

Finally Atheopologists generally refuse to recognize the possibility that the pagans copied Christian stories of incarnate god, miracles, and resurrection and placed them in their stories. That is, syncretism can flow both ways. Indeed, pagans, because they are inherently syncretistic, copy ideas from Christians more readily than exclusivistic Christians would copy from pagans.

For example atheopologists frequently state that there are lots of parallels between Jesus and the book Life of Apollonius of Tyana by Philostratus the Athenian (d c. AD 250) (Robert Price does this in the video the unmentionable one posted). There is only a minor problem with this theory; Apollonius lived a century after Jesus (d. about 100), and his biography was written between 217 and 238 AD, two centuries after Jesus, and over a century after his death. The Life of Apollonius could therefore obviously have not influenced the NT narratives in the slightest.

The atheopologist claims in these matters are suspect at a number of reasons, and should not be accepted without dated primary sources and proper contextualization and interpretation.

[Ron Beron]

From a strictly mythological POV the reader could check out The Failing Male God: Emasculation, Death and Other Accidents in the Ancient Mediterranean World. Casadio, Giovanni, Numen: International Review for the History of Religions; 2003, Vol. 50 Issue 3, p231-268, 38p. While it circumvents any Jesus parallels it does deal with the deeper psychological forces at play with the seeming Mediterranean parallels.

[roger_pearse]

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

It doesn't, actually, but since Christians are opposed to paganism, the suggestion is a convenient jeer. The argument is insinuated rather than argued -- that Christianity must be fake if any portion of its teaching can be found or paralled by any process of selection or omission from any earlier religion. Whether that argument will bear any examination seems doubtful, which of course is why it is insinuated.

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

None of this is correct. The Egyptian sun god was Ra. The remainder of the stuff is simple invention.

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

I saw Bill Hamblyn's excellent response -- to go to the primary sources and find out. Isn't it interesting that, although this post has circulated for years, that few do this?

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

Dionysius was the son of Semele, who was very definitely not a virgin. The idea that he was a "travelling teacher" is not found in ancient sources; he was the god of wine. Note how the last selection from his mythos is made purely to create a "parallel".

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

Every word of this is inaccurate. Mithras was not a Persian deity (that was Mitra); he was born from a rock; there is no ancient text that records any connection with Dec. 25; none that gives him with 12 disciples (this one comes from a depiction which shows Mithras surrounded by 12 symbols; the fool who saw this didn't realise that these were the Zodiac); and being a deity, did not die.

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

The logic of this seems a bit strained. How would this follow from what was given above?

Do they also think that pyramids in Egypt and pyramids in Mexico prove that aliens founded an Atlantis in between? Parallels must be non-trivial. Selecting odd statements won't do. Do we believe from this logic that no-one is ever born on Dec. 25 -- that all must be invented?

Any thoughts?

Yes: VERIFY YOUR FACTS. Don't allow arguments based on selection and omission of sources, never mind invention. Ask for references in primary sources for *everything*, and follow them up -- most are online. And make them make their arguments explicit.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[Lightbearer]

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?

To me rather than a liability it is an affirmation that the Gospel of Jesus Christ (as LDS believe) was first revealed to father Adam and that he taught it to all of his children. Some were faithful and others "believed it not" and still others borrowed ideas to form their own traditions. Over the years some of those teachings were mingled with the philosophies of men. And so to me that is why there are so many similar religious traditions around the world.

[Senator]

Forgive me for my little chime in. But isn't the use of 'parallel for proof' considered weak in the arena of higher criticism? I ask this because of a distinct recollection of a critique of Nibley's work and his numerous use of parallels. He was worthy of losing a knuckle for each time he purported a parallel, as I recall.

[roger_pearse]

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

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

I have placed the full text of these three here.