Jesus A "Copycat Savior"?

[Piebald]

Moderator Notice

Multiple/posts back-to-back responses to a single poster is not allowed.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

If anyone has any concerns, feel completely free to Private Message Me

[wienerdog]

I have to agree with what Socrates said earlier. Parallels to the life of Jesus should certainly put us on our guard that something fishy (joke) might be going on, but ultimately the truth or falsity of any proposed historical personage or series of events is determined by the historical evidence. If there were mythological parallels to Abraham Lincoln, it wouldn't mean that therefore the events of his life never actually happened. All it could mean is that the accounts of his life were affected by non-historical influences. But theoretically, historical investigation could determine whether this was the case or whether the events actually happened.

By the way, does it only count as significant if the event in question is miraculous? There are plenty of myths regarding battles and sea voyages, but we don't reject historical claims of similar events occurring just because myths have them too.

[jpholding]

05-17-2003 @ 10:03 PM post located here
Joseph Alward:
Josephus showed in his Antiquities of the Jews with his comment that Jesus was the "so-called" Christ that he was not loathe to show his contempt for Jesus and Christianity. So, if he had known that people were saying more about Jesus than merely that he was the Christ, he surely would have shown contempt for those other beliefs, too.

Lost that. How does "so-called" indicate contempt? It is the same verbiage also used by Matthew. The term CAN be derogatory but it is not always.

If Josephus had known that some people thought that Jesus was the virgin born, water walking, dead-raising, resurrected son of the Almighty God, he almost certainly would have gone to the effort to ridicule those beliefs.

If your assumption is based on the above, then your foundation is questionable; but even so, I don't see this at all.

1) Can you point to an area where Josephus ridicules the beliefs of others he disagrees with?

2) Can you also explain why contempt is not equitably shown by not mentioning such persons or beliefs at all?

The fact that Josephus did not ridicule these stories is strong evidence that there were no stories to ridicule, for they had not yet been created in his time.

That would be a hard row to hoe, Doc, since even liberals agree that these stories were around by AD 93 when Josephus wrote, and had been a while.

[jpholding]

[i]Yesterday @ 01:12 AM
Given that nothing in this topic has been serious enough to reply to, making jokes is about the only thing left to do until your side actually presents an argument.

In short, you don't have enough knowledge in this area to know an argument when you see it.


But alright, let's have your evidence that alleged miracles involving claims of honor were a target of the James Randis running around the ancient world with nothing better to do than refuting bizarre superstitions.

Spin doctoring as usual. I gave you the evidence, but you don't understand it, though I gove you credit for asking. So let's try again:

1) Any claim to be able to do miracles, WAS a claim of personal honor.
2) Honor was perceived as a limited commodity in the ancient world. Any honor you took, took from someone else's honor.
3) Thus when a Jesus did or said something that gave him honor, others would AUTOMATICALLY seek to challenge that stake to honor, especially those whose honor was most affected (here, the religious establishment, who also happened to have all the power, money, and education needed to investigate and refute such claims -- see John 9 as a good example).

ancient world that were successfully debunked. I remember that Lucian wrote of the scam artist Peregrinus, but his exposedidn't really have much of an effect on the credulous followers, so it wouldn't count as a debunking.

Peregrinis didn't have much of a demand for belief ratio, now, did he? What am I begging silence over re Mithra? The record on him is considered complete enough for conclusions.

(A) someone would care about finding naturalistic explanations for Christian claims, as opposed to attributing them to demonic activity or some such, (B) the people capable of doing so would know of Christian claims in the time frame in which they remained falsifiable, and (C) they actually tried to debunk the religion but failed. Good luck on the last one in particular.

The social evidence is all the evidence that is needed to establish this. That you do not recognize it is your difficulty and not mine; but John 9 would be a good example.

Do these honor claims extend to miraculous phenomena? If they do, I'm sure you can produce some miraculous claims that were successfully debunked.

Yes, they would extend especially to the miraculous. In terms of debunking, most such claimants debunked themselves -- like the failed revolutionaries recorded by Josephus.

[jimbo]

Mr "Holding,"

Are you actually trying to argue that people back in ancient times ran around critically examining every outrageous claim that was made and quickly discovered which ones were false and which ones were true through rigorous, critical examination? Are you trying to claim that people back then were somehow less superstitious than people today and did not believe in falsehoods?

3) Thus when a Jesus did or said something that gave him honor, others would AUTOMATICALLY seek to challenge that stake to honor, especially those whose honor was most affected (here, the religious establishment, who also happened to have all the power, money, and education needed to investigate and refute such claims -- see John 9 as a good example).

No contemporary historian makes any mention of Jesus. By all appearances, no one knew about him when he was alive-if he was ever alive. The stories about Jesus came out long after he was supposed to have died. People who heard these stories and became Christians probably did not and could not do rigorous critical examination of the claims about him.

Hank

[WinAce]

Today @ 01:35 PM post located here
jpholding:

1) Any claim to be able to do miracles, WAS a claim of personal honor.

OK. Were "miracles" only those from God, or did even sorcery and parlor tricks qualify as the type that claimed honor?

Thus when a Jesus did or said something that gave him honor, others would AUTOMATICALLY seek to challenge that stake to honor, especially those whose honor was most affected

That would explain the crucifixion quite handily.

(here, the religious establishment, who also happened to have all the power, money, and education needed to investigate and refute such claims -

1. What form did "refutations" of miracle claims in that time take? Attribution to demons, sorcery or parlor tricks instead of God, naturalistic explanations...?
2. How easy would it be to refute some of the claims circulated by Christians by finding naturalistic explanations?
3. How wide would those refutations circulate? Would the Pharisees get together and disseminate polemic against every startup cult throughout Judea, and carefully police outbreaks of it wherever they occured such as the World Health Organization does?

see John 9 as a good example).

Is there any reason to accept the latter part of John 9 as a real account, as opposed to a later embellishment intended to reassure the reader that the faith healing was legitimate? As far as I recall from your writings, you're not even averse to John being written after the sacking of Jerusalem, which would have made verifying a faith healing years before rather difficult.

Peregrinis didn't have much of a demand for belief ratio, now, did he?

So miracle claims weren't always a claim of honor that the establishment would seek to refute? ;)

What am I begging silence over re Mithra? The record on him is considered complete enough for conclusions.

I was under the impression that we had little to no sources on Mithraism aside from artwork and inscriptions. Have written doctrines of the cult been discovered in the past several years?

But regardless, I've taken the liberty of starting a new, as yet unreplied to thread, Ancient Miracle Claims that were Debunked?.

The replies to that topic will likely affect how I and others view the claim that the stories involving Jesus would be refuted by anyone if they weren't true.

Do these honor claims extend to miraculous phenomena? If they do, I'm sure you can produce some miraculous claims that were successfully debunked.

Yes, they would extend especially to the miraculous. In terms of debunking, most such claimants debunked themselves -- like the failed revolutionaries recorded by Josephus.

I haven't read the entire tome of Josephus' writings, but I don't recall him debunking anyone's miracle claims. He did, however, point out how they got themselves killed and/or were partly responsible for deteriorating relations with the Romans.

So would getting yourself killed be considered a "debunking" in its own right?

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD
"The fact that Josephus did not ridicule these stories is strong evidence that there were no stories to ridicule, for they had not yet been created in his time. ”

JP HOLDING
That would be a hard row to hoe, Doc, since even liberals agree that these stories were around by AD 93 when Josephus wrote, and had been a while.

JOE ALWARD
All right, assume that the stories were extant in Josephus' time. Recall that you suggested that Josephus dared not anger Domitian by furthering the notion that Jesus--not Vespasian--was the prophesied messiah. Now, if it's true that the Jesus miracle stories were well-known at that time, if would have been foolish for Josephus to have said no more about Jesus than that he was the "so-called" Christ. Everyone was claiming Jesus was the messiah, not Vespasian, and Josephus says nothing to counter those claims? It seems quite implausible.

If, as you say, Josephus had reason to worry that giving credence to the Jesus stories would cost him part of his anatomy, then surely he would not have remained silent about the stories if they were in wide circulation. Saying virtually nothing would have amounted to Josephus damning himself by his faint criticism of Jesus, and indicting himself as a Christian supporter. How hard could it have been for Josephus to label as false the claims of the ones who would have Jesus be the messiah, rather than Domitian's father? The fact that he was silent shows that those stories were known only to a few, perhaps only to the ones who created them.

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD
"The fact that Josephus did not ridicule these stories is strong evidence that there were no stories to ridicule, for they had not yet been created in his time. ”

JP HOLDING
That would be a hard row to hoe, Doc, since even liberals agree that these stories were around by AD 93 when Josephus wrote, and had been a while.

JOE ALWARD
All right, assume that the stories were extant in Josephus' time. If these were in general circulation, then they represented a direct threat to the notion that Domitian's father, Vespasian, was the prophesied messiah. For Josephus to do no more to defend Domitian's father than to say that Jesus was the "so-called" Christ, which you indicate may not even have been a criticism, would have been tantamount to damning himself with his faint, or nonexistent, criticism of Jesus. If Josephus was worried, as you indicated, that Domitian might take part of his anatomy if he gave credence to the Jesus stories, would Josephus have remained virtually silent about the stories? Would not Josephus at least have said the stories about Jesus were false? Is the answer clearly not yes, assuming the stories actually were in circulation at that time? Thus, the fact that Josephus said nothing is strong evidence that the stories were not in circulation, and evidently were known only to the few who created them.

[jpholding]

In rides Bud, after a week of studying the Miller cans for clues,

First, Holding and Miller committ the "no true scottsman" fallacy in their insistence that very specific and precise parallels must be established.

No, Bud merely reads lists of logical fallacies online and tries to mention them whenever possible as a cheap way to impress the gullible.

Are the concepts "blood atonement", "human sacrifce", "coming back to life" too general to prove borrowing? I don't think so.

They are. What Bud thinks amounts to a hill of beans.

Holding already admitted Christianity derived from Judaism. So Christianity's doctrine of sacrifice to appease a god is a case of proven borrowing.

Uh, yeah... everyone agrees that there is a theological and historical continuity between Judaism and Christianity. Even the NT says as much as it appeals to the OT for verification. And the Christian movement seemed to consider itself a sect of Judaism (as did the Jews, and the Romans) for a signficant period.

Worse, sacrificing to appease the gods occured long before Christianity, so we have to ask ourselves why does Christianity follow suit?

Because if God or gods do exist, it makes sense that it's a good idea to do what they want you to do, and that if you offend it or them, you need to fix it?

Placating the gods through sacrifice was what everybody believed back then, and Christianity simply saw the blue-light special sale and hopped in while the gettin' was good.

Wow, look at that bald assertion. Looks like Mr. Clean on a bad hair day.So which is it, Bud? Did it come from Judaism, or from "everybody," or -- was it just a commonsense idea to have under an any-theistic paradigm?

men who died and came back to life were a dime a dozen before Jesus existed.

If you generalize that badly, they're a dime a dozen today. Just watch Boris Karloff movies, or Michael Jackson's Thriller. This proves, what?

The mere fact that they didn't come back to life in the exact way Jesus is alleged to have came back to life, doesnt' disguise the fact that this Christian belief is a derived parallel from earlier dying and rising gods.

Actually, as even religion specialists agree (like Smith, quoted by Miller, who I doubt you know better than), it makes a big difference in showing that it is not a "derived" parallel but a forced one, accomplished as you have by appealing to a lowest-common-denominator description. You may as well say beer is no different than Sprite because they both come in a can and are beverages. At your level of sobriety you may NOT know a difference.

Your car's hubcaps, radio and color aren't the same as for my car, so obviously the two cars cannot possibly be from the same manufacturer.

Nice try, but every car has a manufacturer's sticker on it or a symbol. No parallel.

too numerous and too striking are subjective judgements (would 6 parallels be "numerous"? I think so.)

What you mean is, you have neither the discipline nor the knowledge to make such a judgment objectively yourself, so you pretend that it is too obscure and difficult to decide objectively -- and your backup is conspicuously short on actual practical examples.

By Holding's and Miller's logic, the monster gods of the Romans and Greeks must have developed without influence from one to the other, because the monster gods aren't exactly alike. if Holding think's it's stupid to say the Romans didn't have a god named Zeus, therefore the Roman gods were not derived from other concepts pre-dating them

The problem with that, Bud, is that we have clear literary evidence that the Greeks and Romans identified Jupiter and Zeus with each other. In other words, testimony YOU lack for the case of Jesus. As for the rest, this talk of "monster gods" is vague claptrap. What likenesses are you talking about specifically?

Justin Martyr thought the parallels between Jesus and the earlier pagans were so striking that he was forced to use the time-dishonored and flimsy excuse that the devil introduced such concepts before Jesus' birth, so later generations would note the parallels and say Jesus was nothing unique...

Uh, no, sorry, Bud, that isn't what that first quote says. Did you miss our discussion on this? The critics, like you, criticized Christianity on general grounds; Justin in turn points out general similarities -- not evidence of derivation. And not even your quotes from 23 on are used to explain derivation -- they are used to explain the general similarities, but not derivation. Funny thing, too --

Chapter LXX.-So Also the Mysteries of Mithras are Distorted from the Prophecies of Daniel and Isaiah.
"Moreover, these Scriptures are equally explicit in saying, that those who are reputed to know the writings of the Scriptures, and who hear the prophecies, have no understanding. And when I hear, Trypho," said I, "that Perseus was begotten of a virgin, I understand that the deceiving serpent counterfeited also this."

This roundly disagrees with consensus in Mithraic scholarship about Mithraic origins -- and you want us to take it at face value? Try another sucker punch with an actual sucker. Mithraic scholarship knows of no rite of baptism in Mithraism, or of belief in resurrection, or of a crown, until possibly WELL AFTER Christianity. News flash: Tertullian accuses Mithraism of imitation AFTER THE FACT.

Coming back to life after one has died, regardless of how it was accomplished, is a common theme of ancient near-east religions. But why do theological parallels exist at all? Clearly, the later relgions are just plagurizing (sic) from the earlier ones.

Clearly, defeating death was something a god was expected to do, real or imagined. Common sense.

You will naturally insist that "numerous" means not less than 50 different parallels, requiring more parallels than even the skeptics admit to, so you can then show how Christianity "wasn't a copy" from the pagan religions.

Six of quality may be fine, but you'll never come up with that many in any case. What I'd like for you to do is get into some actual figures who you think are parallels, but your only specifics so far are dismal failures (notably Mithra -- whose parallels you are ignorant about: "....especially pre-Christian Mithra followers breaking bread representative of Mithra's body, and his putting a mark on their foreheads." Hmm, sorry. According to Mithraic scholars, the closest thing that Mithraism had to a bread-breaking was the taking of staples (bread, water, wine and meat) by the Mithraic initiates, which was perhaps a celebreation of the meal that Mithra had with the sun deity after slaying the bull -- the bread was not identified with Mithra himself, and the meal of the initiates is usually seen as no more than a general fellowship meal of the sort that was practiced by groups all over the Roman world -- from religious groups to funereal societies. As for the mark on the head, see above, plus let's not forget:

Ezek. 9:4 And the LORD said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof.

...which is darned well pre-Mithraism. Your ignorance and resulting "surprise" doesn't rub off on informed persons.



Let's get down to specifics on Mithra. I look forward to mopping the floor with you on this, since my paper on Mithraism is regarded as one of my best.

[jpholding]

Hail Jimbo, Master of Gas and Space!

Are you actually trying to argue that people back in ancient times ran around critically examining every outrageous claim that was made and quickly discovered which ones were false and which ones were true through rigorous, critical examination?

Are you trying to say that they didn't have a rigid honor and shame code that caused them to carefully check and investigate claims of honor?

Are you trying to claim that people back then were somehow less superstitious than people today and did not believe in falsehoods?

Careful how you play that card, "Jimbo" Rook -- you'd better be sure that whatever you want to post in return is something they COULD check.

No contemporary historian makes any mention of Jesus.

I'm still waiting for you to explain why they have to have been "contemporary" to be qualified. You never will, because all you do is parrot Thomas Paine like a good little slave.

The stories about Jesus came out long after he was supposed to have died.

Nope, they were around in writing within 20-30 years, and orally before that. Of course you haven't a word to say since you didn't accept any denate challenges from me on the dates of the Gospels. Given the feathering Bud is getting, that was a wise choice on your part.

People who heard these stories and became Christians probably did not and could not do rigorous critical examination of the claims about him.

Then they would not have converted. Period.

[jimbo]

Mr. "Holding,"

I'm still waiting for you to explain why they have to have been "contemporary" to be qualified. You never will, because all you do is parrot Thomas Paine like a good little slave.

That is not my point. My point is that no one who lived at the time seemed to notice that Jesus ever existed. That seems just a teensy bit odd, given what the NT says about his his preaching throughout the land and his various miracle-working exploits. But of course it is perfectly understandable if the stories about Jesus were simply made up at a later date.

It is kind of strange that what is supposed to have been the most important event in the history of the universe went unnoticed at the time that it happened.

Don't ya think?

Your Pal,

Jimbo

[jpholding]

Yo Ace,

OK. Were "miracles" only those from God, or did even sorcery and parlor tricks qualify as the type that claimed honor?

Yes, though of course in some settings you'd get shame rather than dishonor. A magician plying his trade in Judaea would be persecuted; but not so in Egypt. That would make sense of those who called Jesus a magician.

That would explain the crucifixion quite handily.

Correct.

1. What form did "refutations" of miracle claims in that time take? Attribution to demons, sorcery or parlor tricks instead of God, naturalistic explanations...?

Attribution to another source (like Beelzebub or sorcery, with Jesus) was a quick and easy one, but that worked best in a riposte-challenge setting, an initial encounter. If that failed (i.e., if people still followed the guy) then more detailed exams like John 9 would be likely.

2. How easy would it be to refute some of the claims circulated by Christians by finding naturalistic explanations?

Depends what is it, of course. You'd have to ask for each case: How can you refute a man born blind healed; how can you refute a claim of a rezzed body....heavy questioning and public threat of dishonor and withdrawl from supporting social networks was the most available means and maybe all that was available in some cases.

3. How wide would those refutations circulate? Would the Pharisees get together and disseminate polemic against every startup cult throughout Judea, and carefully police outbreaks of it wherever they occured such as the World Health Organization does?

Probably, if it got enough reach. We do see them in the reaches of Galilee after all nitpicking about grain picking.


Is there any reason to accept the latter part of John 9 as a real account, as opposed to a later embellishment intended to reassure the reader that the faith healing was legitimate?

None I can think of. Yes, I can live with a late date for John, but unless the scene represented at least a plausible conception, it would hardly serve any purpose. You might think of persons in former Communist countries who would know what it would be like to be in trouble with the authorities. Even as late as 80-90 there are people who would remember that.

So miracle claims weren't always a claim of honor that the establishment would seek to refute? ;)

If he wasn't also threatening someone else, it would not be much of a claim to honor. Maybe you can refresh me on what Perry was out for. It's been a while since I have read it.

I was under the impression that we had little to no sources on Mithraism aside from artwork and inscriptions. Have written doctrines of the cult been discovered in the past several years?

They've been pretty well figured out in spite of not having written material, actually. Have you seen Ulansey's Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries?

So would getting yourself killed be considered a "debunking" in its own right?

Heck yeah. And Jesus would have been a failure, which is how Josephus and Tacitus did see him as non-believers.

[jpholding]

Hey Doc,

Domitian by furthering the notion that Jesus--not Vespasian--was the prophesied messiah.

Not exactly: that Vespy fulfilled some prophecies regarded as Messianic would be more the case, not that he WAS Messiah.

if would have been foolish for Josephus to have said no more about Jesus than that he was the "so-called" Christ.

You think so? I think the bare bones we have is what he would need to have to explain the movement's origins (by then reaching even into the Roman aristrocracy) -- I also think he would do well to report Jesus as a teacher, precisely in order to make it clear that he was not Messiah in his view. I think Joe walked a tightrope here, saying just not too much, not too little. just the right amount to explain the burgeoning Christian movement while not upsetting his patrons.

[jpholding]

That is not my point.

Yes it was. Now you're trying to back out of it. I know you too well to believe otherwise.

My point is that no one who lived at the time seemed to notice that Jesus ever existed.

I have asked others before, and probably you as well:

WHAT WRITER, WHOSE WORK IS NOW LEFT TO US, SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED JESUS, BUT DID NOT, and WHY?

How about an answer this time, Jim by the Brook? Don't just copy Remsberg's list -- I want full explanations. Just saying "it was amazing stuff" is not an explanation. The writer's work should be topical, and you should explain why any disbelief on their part would be overcome and compel them to report.

But of course it is perfectly understandable if the stories about Jesus were simply made up at a later date.

It's far more understandable if they heard the stories and didn't believe them or consider them worth their time. :dufus: Otherwise you are left explaining the origins of the movement -- which, I know you well enough to know, you can't, other than throwing out a few vague ideas about gullible people and superstition.

Don't ya think?

I do. More often that some present at any rate.

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD
it would have been foolish for Josephus to have said no more about Jesus than that he was the "so-called" Christ.

JP HOLDING
You think so? I think the bare bones we have is what he would need to have to explain the movement's origins (by then reaching even into the Roman aristocracy) -- I also think he would do well to report Jesus as a teacher, precisely in order to make it clear that he was not Messiah in his view. I think Joe walked a tightrope here, saying just not too much, not too little. just the right amount to explain the burgeoning Christian movement while not upsetting his patrons.

JOE ALWARD
I would think that if the Jesus miracle stories were extant in Josephus' and Domitian's time, each of them would have wished to explain that the Christian movement was burgeoning because people were believing false miracle stories about Jesus. If it is true that these stories were extant, then to ignore what everyone else allegedly was hearing about Jesus, and not to write propaganda against him, would seem to be very foolish, for silence on an issue everyone allegedly was talking about would be taken by the populace as a lack of an answer. Furthermore, in the honor-shame culture of that time, people of Domitian's stature are duty-bound to question honor claims as egregious as the ones being made on Jesus' behalf. The utter lack of silence of Josephus, Domitian's benefactor, speaks strongly against the notion that such claims were extant in Domitian's time.

Thus, I think we differ greatly on what would be the right amount for Josephus to say. If it is true that the miracle stories were widespread—and this is the point in dispute, and that the Christian movement was burgeoning in part because these stories were believed, do you not think that Domitian would have been quite upset with Josephus if the only thing he could find to say against Jesus was that he was the "so-called" Christ, which you noted wasn't even necessarily a criticism?

The situation you describe is one in which the miracle stories were extant, and the movement was burgeoning. Domitian would surely have been upset at this, and Josephus would have known it. Would Josephus not have known that he could curry favor with the emperor by speaking against Jesus and the movement? Of course, he would, in my opinion.

How could Josephus, who you imply was eager to please Domitian, not be clever enough to at least criticize Jesus in some manner? And, surely he would have known that not questioning the miracle stories just might be interpreted as his accepting them, which you've implied would cost him his life.

Given all of these considerations, how else do we understand Josephus' silence, other than that the miracle stories about Jesus were not extant at the time of Josephus, and therefore not in need of refutation?