What do all mythic heroes other than Jesus Christ have in common? -- There's NO EVIDENCE for their alleged miracles.
(continued)
. . . people who actually knew about the similarities (such as early christian apologist Justin Martyr) offered insane rationalizations . . .
No, there's no "rationalization" of anything. The "similarities" you're obsessing on are trivial and pointless, which is why you won't give any real example of such a "similarity" to make the comparison and cite the ancient source for the pagan myth which you claim is similar. You've offered nothing of any substance to demonstrate any such "similarities" but just repeat these clichés about the "similarities" of the "Jesus myths" to the pagan myths. But it's all clichés, no examples, no substance, because in every case there is no real "similarity," or any supposed "similarity" is so trivial as to be laughable.
The question is whether the Jesus events happened or not, and you don't answer this merely by showing some superficial "similarity" to something earlier. You need to stop pretending that you can disprove some event(s) with nothing more than a cliché about something being "similar" to something earlier, as if that somehow indicates whether those events really happened.
You are ashamed to really provide your Justin Martyr example seriously, by quoting the text, because there's nothing in it to make any serious point about the supposed "similarity" of the Jesus events to the pagan myths.
. . . such as "The devil got people to make these stories up hundreds of years before Jesus was born so folks would think Jesus was just another "me-too" hero god."
Poking fun at Justin Martyr is all you have to offer. Basically you're just calling him a fool and then pretending that somehow proves the Christ miracles must be fiction. This Justin Martyr text proves nothing but only serves for laughs. Did the Christ miracles really happen? Or were they "made up" just like the pagan myths were "made up"? You can't address that but can only giggle and chortel at Justin Martyr, like a child hiding and giggling at an ugly man passing by?
Though you merely dismiss Justin as a fool and ignore anything serious in his quote, it might help to look at it seriously rather than trust your paraphrase above, which you improperly put in quote marks:
The First Apology CHAPTER LIV -- ORIGIN OF HEATHEN MYTHOLOGY.
But those who hand down the myths which the poets have made, adduce no proof to the youths who learn them; and we proceed to demonstrate that they have been uttered by the influence of the wicked demons, to deceive and lead astray the human race.
After you're done chuckling at Justin's demons, which are not the topic, you might note that his legitimate point here is that there is no "proof" or evidence for the pagan myths. These were created artificially. As opposed to the "Jesus myths" for which there is evidence.
For having heard it proclaimed through the prophets that the Christ was to come, and that the ungodly among men were to be punished by fire, they put forward many to be called sons of Jupiter, under the impression that they would be able to produce in men the idea that the things which were said with regard to Christ were mere marvellous tales, like the things which were said by the poets.
"poets" being the storytellers or originators of the pagan myths.
This is his legitimate point -- the "Jesus myths" are real events that did happen -- not just marvellous tales -- they are real events for which there is evidence, whereas the pagan myths did not really happen but were invented by the poets.
And these things were said both among the Greeks and among all nations where they [the demons] heard the prophets foretelling that Christ would specially be believed in;
Again his legitimate point: "specially believed in" meaning the case of Christ is different -- this time what is believed is real and believed seriously -- whereas the pagan myths were not truly believed, or the apparent belief was not real or intended seriously.
but that in hearing what was said by the prophets they did not accurately understand it, but imitated what was said of our Christ, like men who are in error, we will make plain. The prophet Moses, then, was, as we have already said, older than all writers; and by him, as we have also said before, it was thus predicted: "There shall not fail a prince from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until He come for whom it is reserved; and He shall be the desire of the Gentiles, binding His foal to the vine, washing His robe in the blood of the grape."
This prophecy of Christ, or the one coming, is based mainly on Justin's interpretation of Hebrew prophecies/scriptures. One can question this interpretation but at the same time appreciate his basic point, that the Christ events are real historical facts, while the pagan myths are fiction.
The devils, accordingly, when they heard these prophetic words, said that Bacchus was the son of Jupiter, and gave out that he was the discoverer of the vine, and they number wine [or, the ass] among his mysteries; and they taught that, having been torn in pieces, he ascended into heaven.
So is Bacchus obviously the inspiration for the story of Jesus ascending to heaven? Is this quote the proof?
Where is there an account or text, from early sources, saying what Bacchus did? How do we know that the story of Bacchus ascending into heaven was not really plagiarized from the gospel account of Jesus ascending? We need something earlier than Justin.
Google Search seems to almost be a BARRIER to finding anything, because all it gives are modern-day interpretations, reviewing the Bacchus myth, telling the story, or parts of it; and many websites say that Bacchus did this or that. But they never give any original text for the Bacchus myth. They cite Euripides and others, but never quote the text.
Here's 2 websites that connect the water-into-wine story to Bacchus. They give only 20th- and 21st-century sources, but one of these offers Diodorus as the original source, but they don't quote the text:
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/zeitgeist-challenge-6.html
http://www.crystalinks.com/bacchus.html
Actually it doesn't really matter whether Jesus in fact turned water into wine. The only question is whether the healing miracles really happened. I.e., did he really have this kind of power? But also it would be interesting to find the origin of this repeated claim that Bacchus is the source of the water-into-wine miracle. No one seems to want to quote any source text for this.
It's quite possible that additional symbolic myths might have been added to the original accounts of Jesus doing the healing acts. That's even to be expected. The virgin birth could easily be such an addition, decades later. Or the water-into-wine.
But it is strange that no one can give a reliable early text for any of the pagan parallel miracles to Christ. Why is that? Why do they continue to give us only later interpretations of the original myth, but never any quotes from the period when those myths were circulating BEFORE their adoption by the Christian writers?
There should be at least a few parallels, i.e., something
appearing to be similar in some way. Surely there are stories of someone going up into the sky. It's not clear that Romulus did. Livy only says he got enclosed by a cloud and vanished. I had thought that Romulus went "up" or "ascended," but the text only says he vanished in a fog or mist of some kind. Also Enoch did not go up, but "was no longer here, for God took him." Actually Elijah is the only one who went "up" to heaven. So where's the story of Bacchus going "up" or "ascending"?
So, I have not seen ONE PAGAN PARALLEL yet to any of the Jesus miracles, to be found in the early text. I will try to find the Diodorus account and see if Bacchus really "ascended" or really "turned water into wine." Why is it so difficult to find these pagan parallels? Other things are not so difficult to find.
And even if there are a few "parallels" or "similarities" of some kind, what point is proved by it? Of course there'll be something, but it is really surprising how few serious "similarities" there are and how many of the examples offered turn out to be phony. And also surprising is the refusal to ever give a source text for the pagan parallels. It's laughable that the only text offered is this Justin Martyr quote.
So, the irony is that even if some real "parallel" or "similarity" turns up, finally, after all the searching and dead ends and false alarms and phony examples are waded through, it proves nothing, because the Jesus events still could have really happened -- events for which we have evidence, unlike the pagan miracle legends -- and there is no causal connection between earlier pagan "parallels" and the Jesus events.
And yet, if serious "parallels" could be shown it would be a strong argument of relevance about the historicity of the miracles. For some myths you can show a causal connection between an earlier and later one, like the connection of that Sinbad myth to the Odysseus myth I cited earlier. But so far no one in this message board has been able to offer any serious pagan "parallel" or "similarity" to the Jesus miracles. Nor cite any website that offers one. Only 20th- and 21st-century interpretations of Horus and Bacchus and Perseus and Mithras and so on.
Can anyone come up with a source text which shows a serious "similarity" of the "Jesus myth" to the pagan myths? The conspicuous refusal to offer any is illustrated in this website:
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/zeitgeist-challenge-6.html
The bottom line is that neither "ZEITGEIST," Part 1, nor its sources "just made anything up."
(The "anything" just made up refers to claims about the pagan parallels, such as to Bacchus and Mithras etc.)
Nor do these claims rely simply on the "opinions" of modern scholars or those of the past couple of centuries. When the subject is actually studied to find out where these contentions come from, ancient authors spring into view, provided the view is clear of the bigoted and biased detritus of people shoring up the faith at any cost, including by censoring very important religious history.
I.e., the source text for the pagan parallels is gone due to "censoring very important religious history."
In the final analysis, the clamor for "primary sources" serves to remind us of the appalling destruction of ancient cultures, largely perpetrated by those whose spiritual heirs are now attempting to cover up this crime against humanity with their fallacious "challenges" in books, videos and on websites.
The "challenges" refer to some kind of "wager" from a publication,
Christian Tradtion, demanding "primary sources" for the claims of
Zeitgeist about Christian origins.
When will this crime be acknowledged and dealt with justly? How about the many millions of Pagans—our ancestors—who were viciously abused, tortured, raped and murdered by carriers of religious dementia created by the Bible? Where is their justice? Will we allow their legacy to be destroyed and buried again, just as soon as it has finally been unearthed through such liberating media as the internet and films like "ZEITGEIST?"
Rather than quote any text showing such a pagan "similarity," this web page seems to say that all the evidence in the literature was systematically destroyed by demented Bible-thumping crusaders at the time, who ran around everywhere torturing and murdering pagans and confiscating the evidence, so that today the spiritual heirs of those crusaders, in their books, videos, and websites, can issue challenges to today's Jesus-debunkers to produce the evidence of their claims, but which they can't because it was all destroyed by their predecessors.
This seems to be the best anyone can offer in response to a request for an example of "pagan parallels" to Jesus in the early literature. We have to rely only on 20th- and 21st-century interpretations from sources like this website, and some YouTube debunker videos in which a slick promoter assures us that it's all based on Horus and Perseus and Osiris and Mithras -- just take our word for it.
This failure to give any serious example is a good indication that there is none to offer. Only silly stuff like -- Oh, but didn't you know Mithras was born on December 25?
And because in the prophecy of Moses it had not been expressly intimated whether He who was to come was the Son of God, and whether He would, riding on the foal, remain on earth or ascend into heaven, and because the name of "foal" could mean either the foal of an ass or the foal of a horse, they, not knowing whether He who was foretold would bring the foal of an ass or of a horse as the sign of His coming, nor whether He was the Son of God, as we said above, or of man, gave out that Bellerophon, a man born of man, himself ascended to heaven on his horse Pegasus.
Does this quote prove that the Christ miracles are derived from Bellerophon riding his horse?
But websites on this say that Bellerophon does NOT ascend to heaven, according to the myth. Doesn't this suggest that we cannot rely on Justin for the pagan myths?
If you're going to get serious, you have to get earlier sources, before the gospels were written, to show what the legends were, not Justin's version of them written in the 2nd century AD. But really, you should be ashamed to be offering this kind of example to prove your slogan about the "Jesus myth" being "inspired" by the pagan myths.
What becomes clear as we read the rest of this excerpt is that Justin never really says there is any "similarity" of the Jesus events to the pagan myths, or even
imply such a similarity. We can identify what Justin's meaning is, or his point, without needing to assume any similarity between the Jesus miracles and the pagan myths.
Even if he seems to imply a "similarity," this is not the point, and he is not assuming any such "similarity" to the pagan myths. All he's saying is that "demons" inspired the pagan myths after they learned of the prophecies of the future Christ. So you can poke fun at Justin for his demons, but your cackling at Justin does not prove there is any "similarity" of the Jesus events to the pagan myths.
And when they heard it said by the other prophet Isaiah, that He should be born of a virgin, and by His own means ascend into heaven, they pretended that Perseus was spoken of.
What point is shown by dragging out one more miracle birth legend, out of the hundreds, or maybe even thousands we know exist in all the myths and legends? It doesn't really matter whether Jesus was virgin-born, but if he was, you don't erase it by parading before us all these fictional examples.
The real miracles of Jesus are the healing acts and his resurrection. For these we have evidence, from multiple documents near to the time of the events.
Other mythologizing -- fictional stories which may have been added -- are important only in this regard: You have to explain WHY this mythologizing took place, i.e., why was Jesus singled out to be made an object of such mythologizing? His healing miracles and resurrection are the best explanation.
Once it was clear that he had superhuman power, some found it necessary to provide an explanation for his power and to fill in more details of his origin and so on. That's the real significance of any myths that might have been added. You have to explain WHY these myths were added, or how the mythologizing got started in the first place, i.e., how the ORIGINAL myths got started. For all the pagan myths this can be explained, or likely explanations are obvious, whereas for the "Jesus myths" there is no explanation, because Jesus did nothing noteworthy to inspire the mythologizing, and the time span up to the first written reports is too short.
And when they knew what was said, as has been cited above, in the prophecies written aforetime, "Strong as a giant to run his course," they said that Hercules was strong, and had journeyed over the whole earth.
So, what is the connection here between Jesus and Hercules? Is this intended to show that Jesus "journeyed" or traveled a lot? How does this show any "similarity" between Jesus and Hercules? We can all have a good laugh at Justin for thinking this Psalm "Strong as a giant to run his course" connects Hercules to Christ somehow, but where is there any proof here that the "Jesus myth" derives from paganism?
And when, again, they learned that it had been foretold that He should heal every sickness, and raise the dead, they produced Aesculapius.
What is the "similarity" of the Asclepius healings to the Jesus healings? In fact, the only similarity is that alleged healings took place.
Justin gives no example of Asclepius healing anyone or any similarity to the case of Jesus. If you want to make the comparison, you need to find the original Asclepius stories, or at least one example, and present the original text (instead of just poking fun at Justin). These are inscriptions by people who had prayed and then claimed later that they had been healed. Usually they had prayed at an Asclepius temple or statue.
The dissimilarity of Jesus to modern faith-healers and to the pagan deity Asclepius
Many of the Asclepius worshipers were women who prayed to become pregnant, or who said they had been pregnant for a long time and wanted to deliver. After sleeping at the Asclepius temple overnight, the next day their prayer had been answered -- some of them did deliver during the night, or they became impregnated somehow.
Let's assume there were no real cures at these Asclepius events. The patients/victims believed in the healing miracle just as many worshipers at faith-healing rallies today claim to have been cured, but in reality there is some delusion or fantasy. What explains their belief if no real cure happened?
There's always a
belief in a healing religious tradition going back over many centuries. The charisma of the healer connects to the tradition, usually the Christ miracle healing tradition, or in some cases another religious belief, and that well-established tradition gives them the psychological assurance that the cure happens if they pray and try hard to believe, and they become convinced. And they count only the "hits" while ignoring the "misses."
This explains most of the faith-healing beliefs of today. And it was similar with the Asclepius healings 2000+ years ago. I.e., the long-standing centuries-old religious tradition already believed in was a necessary part of the process that convinces the worshiper. Asclepius was a
centuries-old healing god with thousands of worshipers throughout the Roman world and a well-established reputation. These healings cannot be the result of some instant-miracle healing fad, but a reputed healer-god and tradition with widespread reputation.
We can identify the well-established religious tradition that makes possible the healing anecdotes in today's faith-healers and also in the case of the pagan god Asclepius. But we cannot identify any such established tradition in the case of Jesus, who appeared suddenly outside any reputed healing tradition and healed persons who either did not have any previous contact with him or had learned of him only recently. The ones healed were not typically his disciples or worshipers.
So it's incorrect to compare Jesus to common faith-healers or to the pagan god Asclepius. For these it's easy to explain how the worshipers believe in the healing events even if no real cure happens, i.e., because of the mythologizing process taking place, where the worshipers and would-be healer are involved with a long-standing religious healing tradition going back over many centuries, which explains the unquestioning faith of the believer seeking to be healed and also of the onlookers.
But this description does not fit the case of the Jesus miracle healings, which were not part of a faith-healing religious tradition dating back to centuries earlier.
(to be continued)
