Justin Martyr "ANALOGIES TO THE HISTORY OF CHRIST. And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; Aesculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus. For what shall I say of Ariadne, and those who, like her, have been declared to be set among the stars? And what of the emperors who die among yourselves, whom you deem worthy of deification, and in whose behalf you produce some one who swears he has seen the burning Caesar rise to heaven from the funeral pyre?"

(snip)

"As to the objection of our Jesus’s being crucified, I say, that suffering was common to all the aforementioned sons of Jove [Jupiter] . . . As to his being born of a virgin, you have your Perseus to balance that. As to his curing the lame, and the paralytic, and such as were cripples from birth, this is little more than what you say of your Aesculapius."

(snip)

"It having reached the Devil’s ears that the prophets had foretold the coming of Christ, the Son of God, he set the heathen Poets to bring forward a great many who should be called the sons of Jove. The Devil laying his scheme in this, to get men to imagine that the true history of Christ was of the same characters the prodigious fables related of the sons of Jove."

(snip)

"Be well assured, then, Trypho, that I am established in the knowledge of and faith in the Scriptures by those counterfeits which he who is called the devil is said to have performed among the Greeks; just as some were wrought by the Magi in Egypt, and others by the false prophets in Elijah’s days. For when they tell that Bacchus, son of Jupiter, was begotten by [Jupiter’s] intercourse with Semele, and that he was the discoverer of the vine; and when they relate, that being torn in pieces, and having died, he rose again, and ascended to heaven; and when they introduce wine into his mysteries, do I not perceive that [the devil] has imitated the prophecy announced by the patriarch Jacob, and recorded by Moses? And when they tell that Hercules was strong, and travelled over all the world, and was begotten by Jove of Alcmene, and ascended to heaven when he died, do I not perceive that the Scripture which speaks of Christ, "strong as a giant to run his race," has been in like manner imitated? And when he [the devil] brings forward Aesculapius as the raiser of the dead and healer of all diseases, may I not say that in this matter likewise he has imitated the prophecies about Christ? . . . And when I hear, Trypho, that Perseus was begotten of a virgin, I understand that the deceiving serpent counterfeited also this."

It would be somewhat helpful if you provided some direct citations so readers could place these quotes in context. Justin Martyr was responding to mythic parallels, but he is doing it in two separate ways in the quotes you've supplied. In one, he is arguing that certain portions of the life of Christ should not seem foolish to pagans since they have parallels in their own stories. In the other, he is, of course, placing some responsibility on the devil.

I myself have no problem with archetypal parallels. In fact, I'd say they're quite obvious. But it's silly to search for specifics in parallels, when you do, you almost always come up empty-handed. So-called "virgin births" are usually not such according to the Christain understanding, but rather demigods arising from divine-human copulation, etc. To say that the early Christain writers consciously mimicked myths about Horus or Mithras is difficult when you take it out of the world of raw archetypal patterns and into the world of concrete specifics. Also, how does one deal with the fact that many of these archetypes are found among Native Americans, with whom the early writers had no possible contact. One might propose an ur-myth, from which all world mythology evolved, but this idea falls apart given the fact, I believe (and my numbers may be off here) that North America began to be inhabited 70,000 years ago, and all of the world myths can probably not be traced back more that 10,000 years.

I think, and here's where I'm getting specualtive, that God hardwired these archetypal patters into the human subconscious (or collective subconscious, what have you) as a sort of natural ingrained foreshadow of the life of Christ to come.

Originally posted by romepunk

It would be somewhat helpful if you provided some direct citations so readers could place these quotes in context. Justin Martyr was responding to mythic parallels, but he is doing it in two separate ways in the quotes you've supplied. In one, he is arguing that certain portions of the life of Christ should not seem foolish to pagans since they have parallels in their own stories. In the other, he is, of course, placing some responsibility on the devil.

I myself have no problem with archetypal parallels. In fact, I'd say they're quite obvious. But it's silly to search for specifics in parallels, when you do, you almost always come up empty-handed. So-called "virgin births" are usually not such according to the Christain understanding, but rather demigods arising from divine-human copulation, etc. To say that the early Christain writers consciously mimicked myths about Horus or Mithras is difficult when you take it out of the world of raw archetypal patterns and into the world of concrete specifics. Also, how does one deal with the fact that many of these archetypes are found among Native Americans, with whom the early writers had no possible contact. One might propose an ur-myth, from which all world mythology evolved, but this idea falls apart given the fact, I believe (and my numbers may be off here) that North America began to be inhabited 70,000 years ago, and all of the world myths can probably not be traced back more that 10,000 years.

I think, and here's where I'm getting specualtive, that God hardwired these archetypal patters into the human subconscious (or collective subconscious, what have you) as a sort of natural ingrained foreshadow of the life of Christ to come.

Sadly, you are being much to sensible for this thread at this point. Pearls to you...

Originally posted by Minnesota

Not to have the respect of JP Holding is like......like......well.... excuse me people while go I slit my wrists.

No need to bother; you'd foul THAT up to and most likely slit some poor innocnent nearby instead. Like the time you tried to blow your brains out....and missed....

Needless to say, this only amplifies that Minny is a coward who won't debate specifics...most likely, because he's been pulling all his arguments direct off of some half-wit skeptical site like "positiveatheism.org" or some such nonsense, which provides no depth beyond what was read in some 19th century freethinker pamphlet.

As for LGM -- he set his own rep in the yellowbelly section ages ago, when he refused to debate me on Gospel authorship. His evasion of Jezz' point amplifies the point. This crowd always evades to another issue when they can't get out of the trap set for them, which is always what happens when you take Thomas Paine as a source over David Ulansey.

It's interesting how challenges to put up or shut up are spun out into "dominance issues" or "ego". Yes, I admit it: I have a desire to crush the ignorant who take life from others. I guess the police have "dominance issues" too...as do firefighters, editorialists, and journalists....and we should always accuse them of such to reassure us that we aren't deficient in the intellect and knowledge department after all...

....which is much easier to do than actually answering any arguments made, of course.

I am just as happy with Minny hiding behind his own skirts, as it
happens. The amount of work I need to do is about the same.

"No need to bother; you'd foul THAT up to and most likely slit some poor innocnent nearby instead. Like the time you tried to blow your brains out....and missed....

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

I am just as happy with Minny hiding behind his own skirts, as it happens. The amount of work I need to do is about the same. "

Your so easy, Jp

Your so easy, Jp

Any chance of you learning some basic grammar? Try:

"YOU'RE so easy..."

Maybe we should debate that...may be easier for you than Mithra or Dionysius.

Danger: flame wars occurring in this area.

Moderated By: Faramir

Hey guys, read the sign on the door. This is Apologetics 301 not the locker room. I appreciate clever retort as much as the next guy, but in here clever retorts (or attempts at clever retorts) better be accompanied by substantive arguments (or at least an attempt at a substantive argument). This thread is quickly deteriorating. Shame on you guys. Don’t you make me move this thread. ***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.

Faramir,

Well HE started it. Abetted by his co-conspirator, the brilliant Dee Dee.

I am completely innocent


But of course, you're right . JP has been reduced to picking on spelling oversights, so it's high time we put an end to the nonsense .


You are truly a fair and wise moderator
May you prosper and be blessed with many rug rats.


Yours in abject groveling,

Minn.

What can I say? There's no quality of debate to be had from the North Star State.

Ciao.

Originally posted by Minnesota

Saviour-gods mutilated throughout antiquity


TOM HARPUR Toronto Star

One of the big questions nobody has asked about Mel Gibson's The Passion Of The Christ is this: If the crucifixion was a historic event and so central to the Christian Gospel, why is it that there is no evidence whatever of a man on a cross in Christian art and monuments for almost seven centuries?

Not until 692 CE, in the reign of Emperor Justinian II, was it decreed that henceforth instead of a lamb (the zodiacal sign of Aries) fixed on the cross, the figure of Jesus be placed there instead. Another question: How is it that the earliest known figure of any man on a cross comes from about 300 BCE and that "person" is not Jesus but Orpheus, a mythical Greek sun-god?

More significantly, why were there so many crucified or otherwise mutilated saviour-gods in antiquity? One has only to think of the cutting to pieces of the later resurrected Osiris, or of Horus, or Dionysus, or Prometheus, or many more similarly tortured hero-divinities. Scholar Kersey Graves once wrote a book titled The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviours. Seminary didn't tell me that.

Surely the question must arise in minds that are accustomed to thinking and not just to accepting every story presented by state, religion, or the media at its surface value: Could there be some deeper meaning to this whole dying-rising god myth that pops up everywhere in the ancient world? Was Mel Gibson's greatest error not the ubiquitous and ever-so-carefully filmed gore in his two-hour sermon but the fact that he took absolutely literally something that can only be properly understood in the context of what crucifixion symbolism is all about?


MORE

Okay I know I'm probably repeating what has already been said but I have to say this or bust.....


SCHOLAR???? KERSEY GRAVES ....TOM HARPER IS DUMB BUT CHEESEWHIZ I NEVER REALIZED HE WAS THAT DUMB....

Thank you.

Originally posted by Minnesota

Faramir,

Well HE started it. Abetted by his co-conspirator, the brilliant Dee Dee.

I am completely innocent


But of course, you're right . JP has been reduced to picking on spelling oversights, so it's high time we put an end to the nonsense .


You are truly a fair and wise moderator
May you prosper and be blessed with many rug rats. .gif" border="0" alt="" title="" class="inlineimg" /> .gif" border="0" alt="" title="" class="inlineimg" /> .gif" border="0" alt="" title="" class="inlineimg" /> .gif" border="0" alt="" title="" class="inlineimg" /> .gif" border="0" alt="" title="" class="inlineimg" /> .gif" border="0" alt="" title="" class="inlineimg" /> .gif" border="0" alt="" title="" class="inlineimg" /> .gif" border="0" alt="" title="" class="inlineimg" />


Yours in abject groveling,

Minn.

Hey Minn !!

How come you never grovel like that when you say stupid, offensive things to me?



goody

Originally posted by goodygoody

Hey Minn !!

How come you never grovel like that when you say stupid, offensive things to me?



goody

Foist of all, I would never insult you by saying stupid, offensive things to you. Secondly, I only grovel in front of moderators, and then only when I think it might pay off in the future (one never knows). But, hey, become a moderator and I might consider a grovel of sorts.

Pearls from me too, Romepunk, for injecting some thoughtfulness into the thread. We probably don't agree on everything, but I think that tracing the similarities back to universal archetypes is a more likely appraach than crediting them to a conspiracy in the smoke-filled back rooms of Rome to cobble together an appeal to all the world's religions.

I also think that trying to get too specific about these parallels is straining at gnats and swallowing whole flying monkeys. Many atheist critics are just as literalist as any Christian fundamentalist, and in my opinion distort the stories that they DON'T believe in just as much as fundamentalists distort the stories that they DO believe in. Both miss the meaning, while locking in on minutiae.

There are many creation stories, for instance, but few in which creation is deliberate, and God then says, "It is good." There are many incarnation-of-the-god stories, but the message of the Gospel story is that flesh is NOT inherently wicked, because God Himself can stroll around in flesh, and refrain from sin. There are many death-of-the-god stories, but few in which the god consciously chooses to suffer and surrender His life in order to prove His love for His creation and open the way for acceptance of His forgiveness, for a reconciled relationship. There are resurrection-of-the-god stories, but Jesus is not John Barleycorn or Tammuz. Jesus is not a Sun-God or a vegetation god; Jesus does is not born, dies, comes back to life, repeatedly and repeatedly neverending.

Both skeptics and the devout, methinks, would benefit by thinking more about what the story MEANS.

Originally posted by romepunk

It would be somewhat helpful if you provided some direct citations so readers could place these quotes in context.

It wouldn't be helpful to Jimbo, though, because 1. He'd have to read Justin's work for himself instead of relying on a skeptic website for his souce, and 2. it would ruin his argument. Because he'd see that in addition to noting parallels, Justin also notes substantial differences. For example:

And neither do we honour with many sacrifices and garlands of flowers such deities as men have formed and set in shrines and called gods; since we see that these are soulless and dead, and have not the form of God... (First Apology, Chapter 9)

But in no instance, not even in any of those called sons of Jupiter, did they imitate the being crucified; for it was not understood by them, all the things said of it having been put symbolically. And this, as the prophet foretold, is the greatest symbol of His power and role; as is also proved by the things which fall under our observation. (First Apology, Chapter 55) In other words, the most important and defining symbol of Christianity was not mimicked by anything.

If you want to read Justin's First Apology for yourself, then you can find it here.

I think, and here's where I'm getting specualtive, that God hardwired these archetypal patters into the human subconscious (or collective subconscious, what have you) as a sort of natural ingrained foreshadow of the life of Christ to come.

Justin explains the similarities in a similar, but slightly more rigorous way to how you have done it:

But lest some should, without reason, and for the perversion of what we teach, maintain that we say that Christ was born one hundred and fifty years ago under Cyrenius, and subsequently, in the time of Pontius Pilate, taught what we say He taught; and should cry out against us as though all men who were born before Him were irresponsible-let us anticipate and solve the difficulty. We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and men like them; and among the barbarians, Abraham, and Ananias, and Azarias, and Misael, and Elias, and many others whose actions and names we now decline to recount, because we know it would be tedious. So that even they who lived before Christ, and lived without reason, were wicked and hostile to Christ, and slew those who lived reasonably. But who, through the power of the Word, according to the will of God the Father and Lord of all, He was born of a virgin as a man, and was named Jesus, and was crucified, and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, an intelligent man will be able to comprehend from what has been already so largely said. And we, since the proof of this subject is less needful now, will pass for the present to the proof of those things which are urgent. (First Apology, Ch 46 - The Word in the World before Christ)

Note that the word translated above as "reason" (and its derivitives like "reasonably") is actually "Logos" - the same Greek word that appears in the beginning of John's Gospel. For example, the sentence:

"So that even they who lived before Christ, and lived without reason, were wicked and hostile to Christ, and slew those who lived reasonably."

could actually be translated as:

"So that even they who lived before Christ, and lived without the Logos, were wicked and hostile to Christ, and slew those who lived with the Logos".

Just argues elsewhere that every true thing to be found in the culture or religion of another has come from God, through the revelation of the divine Logos and Spirit.

So basically, Justin's argument is "Of course there are parallels. This is to be expected, as God has revealed Himself to all people through his divine Logos. But you guys have distorted this revelation in some ways - here's the correct way to worship God."

This thread merits a better level of engagement, from both sides.

Kersey Graves lived from 1813 to 1883, and the book to which we are referring was published in 1875.

Sometimes a work of major significance becomes a lasting foundation to some academic discipline; but far more often the works of scholars become superseded with better work by others. The inadequacy of Kersey Graves' scholarship has been noted by many authorities. His work continues as a major reference now, not because it has lasting or ground breaking stature as brilliant scholarship, but because it took up a theme which had been neglected and reached some conclusions which are very palatable to -- dare I say it -- unsophisticated critics of Christianity.

I don't actually know anything about Kersey Graves. Trying to find out on the net drew a blank. If anyone knows any real information (rather than just lambasting his scholarship or praising his insight) about the man himself, let me know. I'd be interested.

On the basis of his writings, the term "scholar" is legitimately applied to Graves, even if we disagree with his very plain agenda and with his conclusions and methodology. His writings are not mere polemic, but they attempt (however well or badly) to draw on a large range of material and synthesize and defend a certain conclusion.

Internet Infidels makes the book available on-line, as a historical document, along with this explicit disclaimer (emphasis as in the original):

Note: the scholarship of Kersey Graves has been questioned by numerous theists and nontheists alike; the inclusion of his The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors in the Secular Web's Historical Library does not constitute endorsement by Internet Infidels, Inc. This document was included for historical purposes; readers should be extremely cautious in trusting anything in this book.

Jimbo, in post #9, gave some extracts from Tertullian and Justin Martyr which deserve to be taken seriously; but it seems to me that the most serious engagements have been ignored in favour of mutual potshots at lowest common denominators.

The low grade of the thread at present is not merely because of dismissive comments that contribute nothing of value. It is also a consequence of the fact that more careful criticism has been ignored.

I have commented on the extract Jimbo provided from Tertullian, on the connections between Christianity and Mitharism. This is (IMO) the strongest case for close association between details of Christianity and a pagan religion, and it is emphasized by many authorities, including Graves. However, the flaw in this line of reasoning is dramatic and completely devastating. It is that on the basis of available historical and archaeological evidence, what limited influence existed was from Christianity to Mithraism, and not in the reverse. I present a case for this view in post #28 of the thread. Unfortunately, there has been no response.

Guacamole gave a rather fascinating post #39 with some very critical commentary on Graves' scholarship, taken from the Internet Infidels. This also refers to Justin Martyr somewhat in passing. I have seen no response.

Romepunk, in post #81, recognizes the important of actually looking at what Justin Martyr said and why. That there are parallels are plain; the question at issue is what does this really imply?

Justin Martyr, it seems to me, had his own agenda for wanting to draw out parallels. It appears he was involved in apologetics and evangelism to the pagan world. The nature of the parallels he uses fail, when you get to specific details, as suggestive that Christianity merely copied ideas and incorporated them into a new religion. It is plain (and indeed explicit in Paul's letters) that Christians emphasized aspects of their own revelation to resonate with the cultures they attempted to evangelize.

Cheers -- Sylas

Sylas, I found on article on Kersey Graves online at http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/roots/graves/ -- The only bographical data, however, is "All I know is that he was born in 1813 and that his home was Richmond, Indiana. In 1880, he was hitting the lecture circuit for the freethinkers of those days, and he died on September 4, 1883." The rest of the article is quotes from Graves' book and a discussion of it.

Tektonics.org, btw, has an excellent deconstruction of these "copycat Christ" hypotheses, at http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_04_02_04.html -- It's witty, even.

There are two other books by Kersey Graves in print:
Bible of Bibles: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg.../-/1564592952/
Biography of Satan: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg.../-/1564593290/

I agree that there is no point in not calling Graves a scholar. One may criticize his scholarship, obviously, but denying that he was a scholar is pointless.

I apologize for not responding to your deconstruction of the connection between Christianity and Mithraism, but I didn't have anything to add, I didn't have anything to disagree with, so there didn't seem to be any point.

Originally posted by sylas

It is plain (and indeed explicit in Paul's letters) that Christians emphasized aspects of their own revelation to resonate with the cultures they attempted to evangelize.

As Paul did at the Areopagus. Years ago, I read an account by a missionary couple to Africa. The tribe that they worked with had a tradition of a "Peace Child" -- to seal the treaty after a conflict, each tribe would send a child to be raised by the other tribe. As the missionary presented it to the tribe:
"God sent his Peace Child, and the people killed him." This was an image that hit home to those people. Some here may disagree with the theology of it, though. :)

Some purists scorn holidays that were adopted from pagan cultures, but this was a similar process: in order to evangelize, the church found something in the local culture that corresponded to the Gospel story, and used that, recasting it to carry a new message. This seems be, in fact, the source of a lot of the confusions that some cite as evidence that Christianity "borrowed" from paganism: the identification of Jesus's birth date with the winter solstice, for instance; or the resurrection with the spring solstice celebrations. The original story of the birth of Jesus was not derived from the winter solstice imagery; the winter solstice imagery was later adapted to fit the story of the birth of Jesus. The oiriginal story of the resurrection was not derived from spring solstice imagery; the spring solstice imagery was later adapted to fit the message of the resurrection.