continued response to thingsweneverdid, Aug 2 2022, #812
(continued from previous Wall of Text)
virgin births, resurrections, etc.
The Apis bull (who had a virgin birth which I showed in my last post) was combined with . . .
What is the significance of virgin births, or magical birth stories? Miracle pregnancies are not miracle acts by someone, such as the Gospel accounts report Jesus miracle acts happening in public and witnessed by onlookers and therefore having significance as possible evidence of a real event. Why the obsession on the virgin-birth miracles? These are not what the Jesus miracle acts are about. Why does it matter whether the mother of Jesus had sex?
And yet the Jesus virgin-birth story is further evidence that Jesus did the reported miracle acts -- a kind of psychological evidence:
How does one become virgin-born? Consider who the reported virgin-born heroes were -- Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Caesar Augustus, and others. All famous powerful figures who became worshiped as gods because of their great accomplishments or at least their vast power over millions of subjects. This is why they became worshiped as virgin-born divine beings. Name a nobody in history who became a virgin-born myth figure -- someone not a famous or powerful celebrity in his time, or at least widely recognized as distinguished and popular over a long remarkable career.
So you have to ask: Why did anyone assign a virgin-birth tale to Jesus? This cannot be explained unless he did something which made him stand out as important, like all the other virgin-born heroes. And yet no one can say what he did that distinguished him from anyone else. Or rather, they can't identify anything important he did unless it was the miracle healing acts and the Resurrection. If he really did these miracle acts, this explains why someone wanted to put him into the "virgin-born" category. Except for this, there is no explanation why he was considered so important to have been virgin-born.
No one ever gives an answer to this. Everyone just assumes that the Jesus person must have been very important -- that's a given -- so a religion somehow formed with its superstitions and beliefs to be debunked and believers to be ridiculed, etc. -- and yet no one ever backs up to the beginning of it and asks the simple question: What made Jesus so important that anyone wanted to worship him, form a religion about him, assign him a virgin-birth, and so on? This question is always met with crickets only, and no serious attempt at an answer. All other important persons in history can be explained as to what makes them important. But not in this case. In this case, the obvious answer right there in the historical evidence -- that he demonstrated miracle power in acts he performed -- is politically incorrect, and so the debunkers have to change the subject or sneak away in silence whenever this question comes up.
Where and when did it reportedly happen?
according to the written record of the time?
. . . was combined with Osiris (a savior deity that experiences and conquers death) to create Sarapis.
There is no written account reporting a historical human person Osiris conquering death or doing other miracles. There might have been a historical figure Osiris, also Isis, Horus, etc., but no written accounts about them resurrecting back to life or conquering death, such as we have 1st-century accounts reporting the death and resurrection of the historical person Jesus at around 30 AD. Just because there's poetry about Osiris written 500 or 1000 years later doesn't mean there's any written record of the event, like there is for known historical events, like Jesus in the 1st century.
Interestingly, Sarapis also became combined with Asclepius (who was known for miraculous healings) . . .
He was? Not as a person in history reported in the written record of the time he lived, such as we have a written record of the Jesus miracle healings in 1st-century writings.
The only evidence of "miraculous healings" by Asclepius are a few exceptional reports in inscriptions at the Asclepius temple 1000+ years later than the historical Asclepius lived (if he lived as a real person). So he is known for miraculous healings only in the sense that Christ today and other healers in religious tradition are known for healings which worshipers attribute to them from their personal religious experience rather than objective evidence reported in written accounts describing the event. Asclepius was an established recognized healing god worshiped at the temples, just as most cultures have some healing-god tradition, including religious centers to gather at and do ceremonies with praying and rituals, often performed by their priesthood institution.
Are these gods (Serapis, Asclepius, etc., or even Christ today in religious events) really "known for miraculous healings"? It's more accurate to say they're known for their religious rituals and praying and worshiping their god(s), and whenever a worshiper recovers from an illness, their god is given credit for making it happen. Actual "miraculous healings" or reported miracles are very rare, and even nonexistent, and the claims often originate from fabrication or deception of some kind. (There might be rare cases of a real cure which is unexplainable -- one case out of 100 or 1000 etc., baffling to medical experts.)
What about the Asclepius testimonials? You could say Asclepius was known for miracles just as St. Nicholas today is "known" for his miracles -- and the original St. Nicholas was a real historical person, as also the original Asclepius might have been a real person who became mythologized. The evidence that a worshiper got cured is similar to the evidence that Santa was observed crossing the sky with his reindeer on Christmas Eve -- those reports exist. But there is no serious evidence of these observed miracles today, nor any credible evidence about the original historical figure, if he existed.
But it's the inscriptions at the Asclepius temple which can be considered as real evidence of something witnessed (mostly in the 4th century BC), though unrelated to the original historical figure centuries earlier. Actually the famous inscriptions are mostly of NON-miracle acts, normal treatments of patients, like in a hospital. But prior to 300 BC there are a few spectacular miracle claims among the inscriptions, and these are serious evidence because they date near to the time the event(s) allegedly happened, and if the described event really happened, it defies our known science and is in the "miracle" category (but are a tiny percent of all the inscriptions).
These Asclepius miracle testimonials might be considered an exception to the rule that there were no reported miracle acts, through this historical period. But however seriously these are taken, as possible miracle recoveries of patients, they are basically in the same category as those of any other time, even today, of worshipers praying to the ancient healer deity and doing the traditional religious healing rituals prescribed in their ancient teaching authorities. Could a real "miracle" have happened which is not explained by science? It might be argued that such praying or other religious acts may have had a beneficial effect for a patient in some exceptional cases. Or instead the miracle cures might be hoaxes, or something imagined or hallucinated by the worshiper reporting it. Like some modern cases, it isn't possible to investigate enough to prove what really happened. But these doubtful cases, maybe baffling to the experts, are only a tiny percent of all the claimed "miracle" healings.
Historically there have been reported miracle recoveries which are unexplained and are attributed to Christ or God or gods. Even if 99% of these claims are fiction, the worshipers are still driven to continue believing, probably by 2 factors: 1) the 1-in-100 case where a
real miracle seems to have happened, and 2) the ancient tradition of a miracle deity or miracle-worker in past history, who is believed to have once performed such miracles. Is there at least some evidence in a few cases? In the case of Christ we do have the evidence from the time reporting the acts which were performed and seen by witnesses. But generally there is no such evidence within the miracle traditions, no evidence from history, from the written record of the time, reporting the miracles as historical events. Maybe there have been a few genuine miracle events, but there's no way to know. There are plenty of unexplained events where something baffling happened.
. . . and Dionysus (who was known for wine miracles).
There actually is no written account describing a wine miracle by Dionysus, other than tales or poetry many centuries later than he lived, if he lived. Even though the Jesus wine miracle is silly and unimportant, still it's about a particular person in history, at a particular time and place, which the Dionysus stories are not.
Except for Jesus at this wedding party in Galilee, there aren't really any reported water-to-wine miracles in literature about historical events, no wine miracles attributed to an historical person, or "divine being" human character such as Dionysus/Bacchus, though there are many websites quoting poetry about Dionysus and his wine miracles (i.e., eulogizing the ancient god, honoring the religious tradition of him). It's interesting that these sites usually begin with Jesus in the Bible, turning water into wine, as the lead-in to Dionysus the wine-god. Except for this Jesus water-to-wine miracle, almost no one would know of Dionysus the wine-god. This character is not reported as a historical person identified to a particular time and place in history, in written accounts near the time, telling of the divine character and his wine miracles.
Where did Dionysus do this? When? Who was present? When was the account written? These basic questions need to be answered if we're to take seriously claims about "divine being" humans doing these acts while being mythologized into a god. This is not an historical person, in the stories, but a figure like Santa Claus, who is presented in order to liven things up and make people happy.
Perhaps the Jesus wine story is fiction. And yet we're at least told when and where it happened, who was present. And we know our written account of it dates to some time around 90-100 AD, about 60 years after the reported event. So it's about real people at a real place, at a marriage party in Galilee, around 30 AD, reported in the written record like most other ancient history events (or alleged events), but unlike the events of Bacchus/Dionysus or Zeus or Apollo and Hercules, etc. which are not identified to a particular place and time in history. Why can't we have at least this much information about the supposed Dionysus wine miracle events? Why don't we have the information about when and where this person lived in history and did his famous acts?
Obviously there are fictional elements added to the original Jesus person of history, at least in the later "gospels" about him which date to the 2nd and 3rd centuries. So in ALL the accounts reporting events as history, we can examine them to separate the fact from fiction, and we must rule out the poetry 1000 years later as any source for something dubious. We can't be sure exactly when the fictions first appeared, just as we can't be certain exactly when the original St. Nicholas began to be transformed into something miraculous. But we have the original person, in the written record, putting him into his time and place in history. Just because something fictional appears later does not erase the original historical person, anymore than later tales about Babe Ruth erase the original popular hero in history.
So if there was an original Bacchus, or Dionysus, miracle wine hero, let's have the written record about him, telling of his time and place in history and what he really did. Just as we have the written record of Jesus, in the 1st century, telling us what he did. And the evidence is that he did the miracle healing acts, and that he resurrected after he was killed --
reported in writings of the time, not centuries later. If he did not do those reported acts, then there is no explanation what he really did that caused anyone to think he was important. And if also a fiction wine miracle got added to the story, that does not negate the original person who must have done something important.
We know enough of St. Nicholas to know what made him special, as a real historical person, and which eventually led to the later miracle legend -- likewise Alexander the Great and many other persons of note who later became mythologized. Just as we know what made those characters important enough to be mythologized, why can't we also know what made Jesus important enough to be mythologized? There seems to be some rule forbidding us to ask this question. We have the written record of the time which gives the answer.
And we can conjecture that the real Bacchus/Dionysus -- the historical person (if he did exist) -- was likely a popular party-goer, and maybe in the wine business, giving away lots of free wine (but probably also making a hefty profit selling it), and promoting wine as his obsession, and showing up many times, at gatherings, with wine for all, to promote his product. Obviously loved widely for his generosity and contribution to celebration and good cheer -- he was a legend in his own time (possibly a real historical human) who later evolved into a miracle legend similar to our Santa Claus. But it's only speculation if we have no written accounts from his time, like we do have current written accounts about Jesus in the 1st century, and likewise about other historical figures who were important for reasons we can determine.
In the case of Bacchus/Dionysus it's false to say
It was common to appropriate miraculous aspects from deities and apply them to other divine beings.
This is false because
It was not common at all to do this. Nothing about Dionysus, e.g., was appropriated or applied to others. Even if you claim this was applied to Jesus, in John's Gospel, what was COMMON about this? Where's another example of this trait of Bacchus/Dionysus being applied to "other divine beings" or humans being made into gods? Why is Jesus the ONLY example of this that can be offered?
Or, what's another example of ANY divine trait being appropriated and applied to a human? If a later entity or human has a similar trait to an earlier one, does that mean the later one really did not have that trait but that this was simply
appropriated from the earlier one and then
applied to the later one?
So, for example, Mickey Mantle really did not hit home runs himself, but rather, it was Babe Ruth who did this (or is reputed to have done it), and then this trait of hitting home runs was only
appropriated from Babe Ruth and
applied to Mickey Mantle? Or, how about the later Charlemagne being similar to the earlier Julius Caesar, both of whom won battles, we're told -- are we to assume that Charlemagne did not really win battles, but only that this trait of winning battles was
appropriated from the earlier Julius Caesar and then
applied to Charlemagne?
How does that make any less sense than saying the Jesus Christ miracles were only
appropriated from the earlier Dionysus or the earlier Serapis or the earlier Elijah and then
applied to the later Jesus Christ? So by that logic anything claimed to have happened later but resembling something earlier did not really happen at all but is only a fictional product of the earlier happening. And so without the earlier one coming first, from which to borrow the "miracle" trait or event, the later historical character or event could not have happened? How much of history would we have to toss out if we applied this rule to all historical events and characters? maybe half? i.e., it must not have really happened because it resembles an earlier reported event or character?
(this Wall of Text to be continued)
