Jesus and Comparative Mythology

[JJ59]

Hi, I’m starting this thread because there was an interesting dicussion started in another thread that was somewhat off-topic.

first of all comparative mythology speaks of “mythic universals.” No one can say with absolute certainty what happened, we can only talk in terms of practical likelihood.

Here’s an example:

*Aspects of the Gospel stories of Jesus have parallels with life-death-rebirth gods in the widespread mystery religions prevalent in the Hellenistic culture amongst which Christianity is assumed to be born. Closely related to this are mythemes of sacral kingship and “theophagy”, the eating of the body of a fertility god, traced by Walter Burkert to a neolithic fertility rite surrounding a god who needs to die and rise again in order to feed the community, sublimated in the Christian eucharist.

Several prominent early Christians, like Irenaeus and Justin Martyr, actually acknowledged the existence of many parallels, complaining that the earlier religions had copied Christian religion and practices, predicted in Hebrew sacred texts, before Jesus was even born, as some form of diabolically inspired pre-cognitive mockery.*

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ_in_comparative_mythology

Just this small excerpt cites a renown professor and author, William Burket (and the scholarly community does not reject comparative mythology, which I assume you’re associating with the Jesus myth theory. Comparative mythology is not the same as the Jesus myth theory).

OK, well let’s see if you’re right?

Here’s the entire dialog by Justin Martyr, entitled “Origin of Heathen mythology”

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.ii.liv.html

Happy reading.

Sure:

A life-death-rebirth deity, also known as a “dying-and-rising” or “resurrection” deity, is a god who is born, suffers death (or an eclipse or other death-like experience), passes a phase in the underworld among the dead, and is subsequently reborn, in either a literal or symbolic sense. Male examples include Osiris, Tammuz, Jesus, Zalmoxis, Baldr, Dionysus, and Odin. Female deities who passed into the kingdom of death and returned include Inanna (also known as Ishtar, whose cult dates to 4000 BCE) and Persephone (the central figure of the Eleusinian Mysteries, whose cult may date to 1700 BCE as the unnamed goddess worshiped in Crete).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-death-rebirth_deity

*The gentile cultures, religions and mythologies during the time of Christian beginnings around the first century CE were filled with stories of divine incarnation. For example in the Greek myth, Perseus was born of the virgin Danae. Danae was conceived by the God Zeus who took the form of a shower of gold. [6] In another Greek myth Dionysius was born of the virgin Semele. Semele was impregnated by Zeus with a bolt of lightning . . .

The popular culture also ascribed to many famous men miraculous, divine and, sometimes, even virgin birth. [8] Thus the emperor Augustus, the reigning sovereign during the time of Jesus, was reputedly miraculously begotten when a snake descended upon his mother in the temple of Apollo. [9] So too, Romulus, the legendary founder of Rome, was born of a vestal virgin. [10]*

geocities.com/paulntobin/virgin.html?20094#6

There’s numerous other parallels, for instance concerning the old testament:

In many cases, the flood leaves only one survivor or group of survivors. For example, both the Hebrew Bible and the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh tell of a global flood that wiped out humanity and of a man who saved the Earth’s species by taking them aboard a boat.

**The Epic of Gilgamesh is one the earliest known works of literary writings. Scholars believe it originated as a series of Sumerian legends and poems. It is within the broader grouping of Mesopotamian mythology (from today’s Iraq, where the Hebrew biblical narrative begins).

The only fair way to look at your list is to go through thes deities one at a time. So let’s start with the Egyptian Deity Osiris. You say, in quoting Wikipedia, that Osiris is a god who, a god who “is born, suffers death (or an eclipse or other death-like experience), passes a phase in the underworld among the dead, and is subsequently reborn, in either a literal or symbolic sense.”

(i) is born
What parellel this has with Jesus I’m not quite sure. Yes, Jesus was born, but why is that so special?

(ii) suffers death
Yes, Osiris suffered death. But it is in no way like that of Jesus. To quote Chritian Apologist J.P. Holding: *“There was a big party, at which Set had a coffin brought in and encouraged everyone, including 72 participants in the scheme and one queen of Ethiopia, to lay down for a fit. Finally it came O[siris]'s turn, and he was persuaded to lay down in the coffin. Once O was inside, Set nailed the coffin shut and threw it in the river; O suffocated.” *
Frankly, I can’t see early Christians looking at that and from there coming up with the Passion narrative-- it’s absurd.

(iii) passes a phase in the underworld among the dead
This claim is unique. I could not find any skeptics using it. If you could please share with me where the specific claim originates from, that would be awesome.

 

[JJ59]

(iv) and is subsequently reborn, in either a literal or symbolic sense
In Jewish terms, “resurrection” was defined as coming back in a glorified body, something Osiris did not do. Again, I quote Tektonics:
“Perhaps the only pagan god for whom there is a resurrection is the Egyptian Osiris. Close examination of this story shows that it is very different from Christ’s resurrection. Osiris did not rise; he ruled in the abode of the dead. As biblical scholar, Roland de Vaux, wrote, “What is meant of Osiris being ‘raised to life?’ Simply that, thanks to the ministrations of Isis, he is able to lead a life beyond the tomb which is an almost perfect replica of earthly existence. But he will never again come among the living and will reign only over the dead.… This revived god is in reality a ‘mummy’ god.”… No, the mummified Osiris was hardly an inspiration for the resurrected Christ…As Yamauchi observes, “Ordinary men aspired to identification with Osiris as one who had triumphed over death.” But it is a mistake to equate the Egyptian view of the afterlife with the biblical doctrine of resurrection. To achieve immortality the Egyptian had to meet three conditions: First, his body had to be preserved by mummification. Second, nourishment was provided by the actual offering of daily bread and beer. Third, magical spells were interred with him. His body did not rise from the dead; rather elements of his personality-his Ba and Ka-continued to hover over his body. “The Resurrection of Jesus Christ: Myth, Hoax, or History?” David J. MacLeod, in The Emmaus Journal, V7 #2, Winter 98, p169”

All quotes were taken from tektonics.org/copycat/osy.html

God bless,

 

[FCEGM]

JJ - these articles address the claims of yankee quite fully:

bringyou.to/apologetics/HORUS.htm

bringyou.to/apologetics/JesusEvidenceCrucifiedSaviors.htm

bringyou.to/apologetics/ShatteringChristMyth.htm

 

[AntiTheist]

The only fair way to look at your list is to go through thes deities one at a time.

Well, obviously there are going to be differences between myths – big differences, in most cases.

The point, as I understand it, is that in general the ideas of magical birth, death, and resurrection are extremely common in world mythology, in a variety of forms. The fact that the Jesus story fits into the pattern might lead one to suspect that it’s a myth like any other.

Christians have long been aware of this problem – and the typical response, at one time, had been to suggest that these pagan stories were meant to prefigure the coming of Christ. [Milton, in Paradise Lost, goes as far to suggest that the gods of pagan mythology were demons who – knowingly, unknowingly? – modeled their myths on Christ’s sacrifice]

Of course, that’s special pleading. Voltaire was probably the one who first made popular the argument that it’s the other way around: that the myth of Christ draws on those other myths (consciously or unconsciously…see Joseph Campbell’s work for the notion that myths come from the Unconscious mind).

There’s really not much to discuss here. I don’t think that this is a very good argument against Christianity because believers will always use special pleading to claim that their myth is the special one. A better argument against Christianity is that there’s no evidence for any of these myths, Christian or otherwise.

 

[yankee_doodle]

AntiTheist, excellent points & for the most part I fully agree. It is not a decisive argument. Comparative mythology only points to certain redundant “themes” in mythology, and we can draw conclusions from there (albeit we don’t have the evidence to make a decisive argument either way). Moreover, I agree lack of evidence is a better argument, but Christians have formed rebuttals to that approach as well; and although I believe most of those arguments reduce to the absurd, they remain persuasive among Christians (so I do think there’s utility in other arguments, such as comparative mythology).

The apologists JJ59 point to essentially say because there were differences in the particulars of these stories – comparative mythology is an invalid approach. However, that is in my view fallacious reasoning. Furthermore, historians and mythology experts engaged in comparative mythology generally do not advance concepts like the Christ myth or copy-cat theories.

However, at the end of the day these stories had to come from somewhere. You either believe the supernatural elements of Christianity are untrue, you say you don’t know whether they’re true or not, or you’re a Christian. As an atheist I do not believe the supernatural claims made by the New Testament (or old testament, or for that matter any other religious text). Therefore, in my view either these stories were created from scratch, or certain elements of these mythological themes (notwithstanding the stories themselves are different in their particulars, in some cases much different) were borrowed by the New Testament authors.

These stories don’t need to be exactly the same, and in fact even though they vary from each other significantly my point remains valid … since the only thing I say is it’s reasonable to assume these earlier myths influenced the New Testament authors in some way (given there is a clear pattern in these mythological themes).

Justin Martyr, as a prominent example (see link here, Justin Martyr: “Origin of Heathen mythology”) apparently attributed much more credence to these parallels than even I do. They seemed to be so similar – instead of the most logical approach, which would be to say something like it’s absurd to assert a copy cat type theory when the similarities are only loose (and indeed they can’t fairly be described as parallels at all) if these parallels were indeed invalid, he chose a much different approach.

Several prominent early Christians, like Irenaeus and Justin Martyr, actually acknowledged the existence of many parallels, complaining that the earlier religions had copied Christian religion and practices, predicted in Hebrew sacred texts, before Jesus was even born, as some form of diabolically inspired pre-cognitive mockery.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ_in_comparative_mythology

On its face Martyr’s argument seems like a stretch (and that’s putting it mildly). Assuming an invisible devil didn’t travel back in time to invent mythology (which is an assumption I make) this theory stands on the proposition that the Greeks based their mythology on Old Testament typology (for instance the Septuagint, which some scholars believe contain an inaccurate translation of verses from Isaiah predicting the virgin birth of a messiah figure). I think any credible review of ancient Greek history will tell us this proposition is outside the range of reasonable historical possibility.

So, not only did Justin Martyr tell us these parallels exist and are a valid objection to Christianity, his rebuttals were outside the range of reason.

For all the above reasons, I say it’s reasonable to conclude this mythology may have influenced the New Testament authors, since it seems most likely its authors would have been familiar with Hellenic mythology.

 

[KyivAndrew]

The point, as I understand it, is that in general the ideas of magical birth, death, and resurrection are extremely common in world mythology, in a variety of forms. The fact that the Jesus story fits into the pattern might lead one to suspect that it’s a myth like any other.

AntiT, can you name ONE specialist scholar of Jesus Christ and the New Testament from any renowned university in the entire WORLD who, after studying the New Testament and Jesus Christ, believes Jesus to have been merely myth? The answer is None among biblical scholars IMHO, even those who are most prone to liberal views and anti-Catholic and anti-Christian tendentiousness.

The best the most liberal theologian of Jesus, John Crossan, could come up with was to put a Marxist spin on Jesus. The fact that He existed is not disputed by scholars of the time, religious or not. The New Testament has been studied for imperfections or inconsistencies for ages now and it still stands just as before before the German schools of Biblical criticism had a run at it in the 19th Century. The German schools failed in deconstructing the Bible; it still stands.

I have read J. Campbell and watched his series on PBS with Bill Moyers. He certainly had his own personal biases with respect to the world’s religions, having crossed swords with Jewish believers at one point, and he seemed very partial to beliefs in an Impersonal god or Force behind Creation as propagated in Eastern religions.

Unlike most myths, Jesus Christ was a Real Historical Figure, and unlike most myths, He preached a particular Morality, (Sermon on the Mount, etc.). Most mythical figures were good and bad, sinful and impetuous, jealous, trivial. Christ in His sayings and deeds was anything but prosaic or trivial.

I may be missing something and wonder AntiT if you can recommend any famous Biblical Scholar on the N.T. or Jesus who argues Christ as such never existed but was man-made myth?

 

[AntiTheist]

Let me add something here:

Therefore, in my view either these stories were created from scratch, or certain elements of these mythological themes …] were borrowed by the New Testament authors.

Yankee probably doesn’t mean to imply that Jesus wasn’t a real person or that the Gospels were conscious frauds and fabrications. I don’t think that that is the case, and I doubt that Yankee thinks that also. Rather, the Gospels appear to be legends based on what were probably real events, in the same way that the King Arthur legends are.

Let me explain.

It’s generally thought that the legends of King Arthur are based on actual people and events – and some scholars have tried to identify who the likely candidates are. But no one actually believes that the tales, as written, are literally true. They abound with magic and enchantments and things that are just not possible. It’s an example of real life being turned into legend.

Similarly, there are Roman histories that describe famous generals and leaders in magical terms, ascribing powers to them that are simply not possible. In ancient history, it wasn’t unusual to imbue accounts of real people with magic. It’s precisely what we would expect. But no one seriously believes the supernatural claims being made.

It’s likely that Jesus was an actual person (or perhaps several teachers who were later conflated into one) and that the stories of him – which were oral for at least a few generations before finally being written down – were embellished over time in the same way that stories of King Arthur and Roman generals were embellished.

If this is the case, it’s not surprising at all that the stories that got written down were imbued with magical elements; and it’s not surprising that those magical elements – since we’re dealing with a person worshipped as a god – resemble elements common in other man-god myths.

None of that is at all surprising.

[And before anyone says, “But people died for those stories!” let me point out that the number of people who strongly believe a story has nothing to do with whether it’s true or not. The Atheist Experience just did a great show a few weeks ago on the “die for a lie” silliness, and I’ll remind myself of some of the excellent points they made if anyone seriously wants to talk about it]

Oh, and one last point on differences in mythologies: Yankee says that the differences in myths don’t hurt the point he was trying to make – and indeed, I would say that the differences in myths strengthen his point.

If the stories of mythology were all precisely identical – i.e. if every society on earth, even those that were isolated and had no contact with each other, had the same exact myths and the same exact holy books – then that would be fairly compelling evidence that something supernatural was going on.

Instead, we see what we would expect to see in a completely natural world: people tell stories. These stories are all wildly different from each other, but when looked at broadly, they have similar themes, similar images, and a similar relationship to basic facts of human existence.

EDIT: While I was writing the above, Andrew wrote a post in which he says:

I may be missing something and wonder AntiT if you can recommend any famous Biblical Scholar on the N.T. or Jesus who argues Christ as such never existed but was man-made myth?

Obviously, I anticipated this very point and think I addressed it adequately in this very post.

Let me know if you need any clarification.

 

[KyivAndrew]

Let me add something here:Yankee probably doesn’t mean to imply that Jesus wasn’t a real person or that the Gospels were conscious frauds and fabrications. I don’t think that that is the case, and I doubt that Yankee thinks that also. Rather, the Gospels appear to be legends based on what were probably real events, in the same way that the King Arthur legends are.

Let me explain.

It’s generally thought that the legends of King Arthur are based on actual people and events – and some scholars have tried to identify who the likely candidates are. But no one actually believes that the tales, as written, are literally true. They abound with magic and enchantments and things that are just not possible. It’s an example of real life being turned into legend.

Similarly, there are Roman histories that describe famous generals and leaders in magical terms, ascribing powers to them that are simply not possible. In ancient history, it wasn’t unusual to imbue accounts of real people with magic. It’s precisely what we would expect. But no one seriously believes the supernatural claims being made.

It’s likely that Jesus was an actual person (or perhaps several teachers who were later conflated into one) and that the stories of him – which were oral for at least a few generations before finally being written down – were embellished over time in the same way that stories of King Arthur and Roman generals were embellished.

Can you show me where anybody worships in a Temple to Caesar or King Arthur today (apart from pseudo-druids for the latter). As you have stated in your other threads, humans are rational. They can separate Truth from Fiction, as in the case of Christ from Caesar.

As to stories of Jesus “being finally written down at least a a few generations” after Christ, I think you are way off-base and most Biblical Scholars, religious or otherwise, who have studied the N.T. would say so. St. Paul’s letters, it is agreed by most, were written very shortly after Christ. First Thessalonians probably 41 A.D.; within a decade of Christ’s crucifixion in all likelihood. Of the Gospels, the latest dating usually goes around the Gospel of John for 90 A.D. as opposed to the synoptic Gospels, some of which can be dated from before the Jewish Revolt. These dates, as I said, are even accepted by people with anti-Christian views based upon textual, archaeological, etc. evidence. “Generations afterward” is a stretch IMHO.

 

[cantheist]

Zeitgeist, The Movie - Remastered / Final Edition

 

[yankee_doodle]

Actually KyivAndrew the King Arthur myth has some validity to it. Arthur may have been an actual person, and hero among native Britons (particularly the Welsh) since he’s believed to have led the Britons in a battle or series of battles against the Anglo-Saxons, which ultimately spared the native Britons and ancestors of the Romans who were left behind after the Romans pulled out of Britain – from being completely overrun by the Saxons.

With regard to First Thessalonians, the consensus is that it was written by around A.D 52 (not 41), approximately 2 decades after the alleged crucifixion of Christ (but that still conforms with your statement, “a few generations after Christ”). However, I’m really not sure how you think this helps validate its claims? It’s fully possible volumes of mythology could collect over the course of one or two decades (particularly in the Hellenic world, who already worshiped a panoply of major and minor gods, and where all sorts of bizarre superstitions were commonplace).

The critical distinction between myths like that of King Arthur and the myths concerning Jesus is a religion was formed around the myths of Jesus, and that religion was adopted by the Roman Empire as its official religion, eventually banning the practice of all competing religions (and of course during that period the Roman Empire ruled most of Europe and the Hellenic world).

Anyways …

 

[KyivAndrew]

Anyways …

Hey thanks for the kind response Yankee. It’s nice not to get too personally argumentative and I understand where you are coming from. You end with “anyways” and rightfully so, because I have to go eat now. Anyways, dinner

 

[yankee_doodle]

Hey thanks for the kind response Yankee. It’s nice not to get too personally argumentative and I understand where you are coming from. You end with “anyways” and rightfully so, because I have to go eat now. Anyways, dinner

yeah me too (the gym first though – then it’s chow time)

 

[AntiTheist]

Can you show me where anybody worships in a Temple to Caesar or King Arthur today (apart from pseudo-druids for the latter). As you have stated in your other threads, humans are rational.

So what are you arguing here? Because myth X is believed by people, that automatically makes myth X more true than myth Y?

The number of people who believe something don’t determine how true it is.

I could point to myths of other faiths still believed to this day – like Arjuna and Krishna in Hinduism. Their story was based on a real battle, but obviously I don’t believe that there’s a Krishna. Yet that story is still believed to this day by some.

“Generations afterward” is a stretch IMHO.

Whether the date is 42 or 51 or whatever isn’t the important part.

The point is that the story was oral legend for a while. It was subject to tellings, retellings, misrememberings, embellishments, etc. in exactly the same way that other legends based on real events are.

I’m sure we can all think of times in our own lives when people tell stories that wildly diverge from the way that other people remember things – and that’s just in a short period of time and dealing with events we don’t have strong beliefs about. Just image what could happen over the course of years when dealing with a charismatic figure who founded a religious cult.

 

[yankee_doodle]

So what are you arguing here? Because myth X is believed by people, that automatically makes myth X more true than myth Y?

The number of people who believe something don’t determine how true it is.

There’s even a logical fallacy named just for this type of argument: The Consensus gentium fallacy (the democratic fallacy is similar, but more broad in scope).

*Example: "God exists because all cultures always have some concept of God."9 Since, at one time, all cultures and most people believed the world was flat and earth was the center of the universe, those concepts must have been true and some colossal event must have, in the meantime, turned the earth into a sphere, and downgraded her to a retrograde planet in a backwater galaxy.

(Note: In general, Consensus gentium considers only what most people believe or have always believed and is narrower in scope than the democratic fallacy which takes any majority belief, desire, or opinion, as a legitimate evidence of what is true.).*

theautonomist.com/aaphp/permanent/fallacies.php#consensus

 

[KyivAndrew]

I could point to myths of other faiths still believed to this day – like Arjuna and Krishna in Hinduism. Their story was based on a real battle, but obviously I don’t believe that there’s a Krishna. Yet that story is still believed to this day by some.

Whether the date is 42 or 51 or whatever isn’t the important part.

The point is that the story was oral legend for a while. It was subject to tellings, retellings, misrememberings, embellishments, etc. in exactly the same way that other legends based on real events are.

I’m sure we can all think of times in our own lives when people tell stories that wildly diverge from the way that other people remember things – and that’s just in a short period of time and dealing with events we don’t have strong beliefs about. Just image what could happen over the course of years when dealing with a charismatic figure who founded a religious cult.

On the dating of First Thessalonians to within years of Christ’s Crucifixion (41 A.D.) I used one of the world’s leading secular historians on Paul, E.P. Sanders and not wikipedia. books.google.com/books?as_isbn=0192876791

I think the alternative to believing Jesus true would quite likely have to be that Jesus’ followers were in on some great conspiracy. I find this unreasonable. First of all, there is the fact that we have 4 different Gospel writers basically giving the Same Basic Facts of Christ (the Resurrection, Crucifixion) and all 4 wrote for different audiences (Greek, Jewish,etc) and possibly from different places. Their testimony is the more remarkable in that unlike other “founders of myths” they openly proclaim their own personal weaknesses publicly in the Gospels, what N.T. scholars call an argument for Authenticity, given that most normal interested authors would normally put the best spin on themselves in order to add legitimacy to themselves as spokesmen. Peter’s betrayal of Christ is openly written and so too the other apostles running out of fear away from Christ.

The fact that in the Gospels, the first witnesses to the Resurrected Christ are women, which given all we know of the contemporary time in Judea suggests the testimony of women was much denigrated as opposed to men’s testimony, is important. Again another argument for authenticity given that if one was making a false story with the intent of it spreading why base such a remarkable event’s witness on women?

St. Paul is separate and he too affirms the Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Christ the Savior. He wrote Romans in about 53 A.D. to a community of Christians which came into existence before his arrival in Rome. Talk about the exact same message spreading quick in the ancient world when witnesses to Jesus were still alive.

The Gnostic gospels which contain unorthodox testimony and which is used against Christ by some are, in the opinion of most Biblical Scholars - religious and non - written much later than our 4 Canonical Gospels, probably at the earliest in the 2nd Century A.D. when Manicheaism worked on the fringes (which was quite easy because Christianity was a persecuted religion for its first 3 centuries of existence.)

On Hinduism’s myths, I think we have been through the differences between Christianity and Hinduism on other threads but, as to your claim for historic legitimacy, I believe Hinduism, unlike Christianity, cannot be molded into one overarching Monolithic Belief System. The history of Hinduism, if anything, witnesses its capability to adapt and adopt new gods or beliefs without much crisis normally.

I am glad you asked your questions and realize I am limited by space and my growing sleepiness from posting more, though I don’t think I could change your mind in any event.

 

[KyivAndrew]

So what are you arguing here? Because myth X is believed by people, that automatically makes myth X more true than myth Y?

The number of people who believe something don’t determine how true it is.

Of course I agree with the latter. What I was objecting to was the ridiculousness of conflating belief in myth “A” with belief in Jesus Christ. The fact that it is the biggest religion in the world proves nothing necessarily as to Truth in any event to a strict empiricist (though there are hundreds of millions in history who would argue from the personal that Christ saved their lives or families - again this is only proof to the individual believer).

I am arguing that Christ is not a myth, and is different from all other mythical founders of religions in that He was a Historical Figure and that He preached a unique Theodicy to be found in no other world religion or myth - the Cross. Christ cannot be divorced from the Cross, the Resurrection, and what he preached. You either say He was a Madman or that He was what He said He was. As C.S. Lewis pointed out there is no 3rd option.

It is this that I find unique about Him from other figures but as to Truth I made reference in another post to why there are reasonable historical grounds to believe in the Truth of Christ and His Message. The best “empirical” case for the historical truth of Christ’s Resurrection can be found at N.T. Wright’s website, a man who has dedicated more time to studying the veracity of the Scriptures than either you or I. Again this proves nothing but reading him on the Historicity of Jesus would help I believe. ntwrightpage.com/
And he is not a Catholic.

You are the one who brought up Campbell as an outside source and I am telling you Wright studied Christ more thoroughly than Campbell. I am sure as you have averred earlier, if I cannot make a logical equation with 100% proof of Christ as God, you will not believe, so You will not believe.

 

[Kaninchen]

I am arguing that Christ is not a myth, and is different from all other mythical founders of religions in that He was a Historical Figure and that He preached a unique Theodicy to be found in no other world religion or myth - the Cross. Christ cannot be divorced from the Cross, the Resurrection, and what he preached. You either say He was a Madman or that He was what He said He was. As C.S. Lewis pointed out there is no 3rd option.

Actually, what Lewis posed was a ‘trilemma’, ie God/Lunatic/Liar. He missed the fourth, ie ‘character in a pious fiction’.

 

[WellAndShallows]

Hello everyone.

I’m a first time poster and a long time reader of this site. I humbly offer this submission by my favorite writer of all times: G.K. Chesterton. It may be familiar to some of you, but I feel it has a profound relevance to the basic fundamental point of this discussion. Thank you.

“*Right in the middle of all these things stands up an enormous exception. It is quite unlike anything else. It is a thing final like the trump of doom, though it is also a piece of good news; or news that seems too good to be true. It is nothing less than the loud assertion that this mysterious maker of the world has visited his world in person. It declares that really and even recently, or right in the middle of historic times, there did walk into the world this original invisible being; about whom the thinkers make theories and the mythologists hand down myths; the Man Who Made the World. That such a higher personality exists behind all things had indeed always been implied by all the best thinkers, as well as by all the most beautiful legends. But nothing of this sort had ever been implied in any of them. It is simply false to say that the other sages and heroes had claimed to be that mysterious master and maker, of whom the world had dreamed and disputed. Not one of them had ever claimed to be anything of the sort. Not one of their sects or schools had ever claimed that they had claimed to be anything of the sort. The most that any religious prophet had said was that he was the true servant of such a being. The most that any visionary had ever said was that men might catch glimpses of the glory of that spiritual being; or much more often of lesser spiritual beings. The most that any primitive myth had ever suggested was that the Creator was present at the Creation. But that the Creator was present at scenes a little subsequent to the supper-parties of Horace, and talked with tax-collectors and government officials in the detailed daily life of the Roman Empire, and that this fact continued to be firmly asserted by the whole of that great civilization for more than a thousand years that is something utterly unlike anything else in nature. It is the one great startling statement that man has made since he spoke his first articulate word, instead of barking like a dog. Its unique character can be used as an argument against it as well as for it. It would be easy to concentrate on it as a case of isolated insanity; but it makes nothing but dust and nonsense of comparative religion. *”

• G.K.Chesterton: The Everlasting Man

worldinvisible.com/library/chesterton/everlasting/conclusion.htm

 

[WellAndShallows]

With all due respect to C.S. Lewis; I believe Chesterton was first to point out the possible “explanation” that Christ was a madman. In contrast to that theory Chesterton outlined the uniqueness of the First Century Galilean; it was not madness- it was the timelessness in His message that was inexplicably out-of-place in " the time of Tiberius ".

"*Whatever else is true, it is emphatically not true that the ideas of Jesus of Nazareth were suitable to his time, but are no longer suitable to our time. Exactly how suitable they were to his time is perhaps suggested in the end of his story. The same truth might be stated in another way by saying that if the story be regarded as merely human and historical, it is extraordinary how very little there is in the recorded words of Christ that ties him at all to his own time. I do not mean the details of a period, which even a man of the period knows to be passing. I mean the fundamentals which even the wisest man often vaguely assumes to be eternal. For instance, Aristotle was perhaps the wisest and most wide-minded man who ever lived. He founded himself entirely upon fundamentals, which have been generally found to remain rational and solid through all social and historical changes. Still, he lived in a world in which it was thought as natural to have slaves as to have children. And therefore he did permit himself a serious recognition of a difference between slaves and free men. Christ as much as Aristotle lived in a world that took slavery for granted. He did not particularly denounce slavery. He started a movement that could exist in a world with slavery. But he started a movement that could exist in a world without slavery. He never used a phrase that made his philosophy depend even upon the very existence of the social order in which he lived. He spoke as one conscious that everything was ephemeral, including the things that Aristotle thought eternal. By that time the Roman Empire had come to be merely the orbis terrarum, another name for the world. But he never made his morality dependent on the existence of the Roman Empire or even on the existence of the world. ‘Heaven and earth shall pass away; but my words shall not pass away.’

The truth is that, when critics have spoken of the local limitations of the Galilean, it has always been a case of the local limitations of the critics. He did undoubtedly believe in certain things that one particular modern sect of materialists do not believe. But they were not things particularly peculiar to his time. It would be nearer the truth to say that the denial of them is quite peculiar to our time. Doubtless it would be nearer still to the truth to say merely that a certain solemn social importance, in the minority disbelieving them, is peculiar to our time. He believed, for instance, in evil spirits or in the psychic healing of bodily ills; but not because he was a Galilean born under Augustus. It is absurd to say that a man believed things because he was a Galilean under Augustus when be might have believed the same things if he had been an Egyptian under Tutankhamen or an Indian under Gengis Khan.*"

-G.K. Chesterton: The Everlasting Man

worldinvisible.com/library/chesterton/everlasting/part2c2.htm

 

[yankee_doodle]

I am arguing that Christ is not a myth, and is different from all other mythical founders of religions in that He was a Historical Figure and that He preached a unique Theodicy to be found in no other world religion or myth - the Cross. Christ cannot be divorced from the Cross, the Resurrection, and what he preached. You either say He was a Madman or that He was what He said He was. As C.S. Lewis pointed out there is no 3rd option.

Assuming Christ was a historical figure, he’s not unique in that characteristic among ancient mythological hero’s. Arthur (legend of King Arthur) may have been an actual person, and accomplished military leader of the native Britons. In “Against Celus” Origen tells us about myths concerning the virgin birth of Plato. We know Plato was a real person, yet we also know (practically speaking) Plato wasn’t the product of a virgin birth.

It is this that I find unique about Him from other figures but as to Truth I made reference in another post to why there are reasonable historical grounds to believe in the Truth of Christ and His Message. The best “empirical” case for the historical truth of Christ’s Resurrection can be found at N.T. Wright’s website, a man who has dedicated more time to studying the veracity of the Scriptures than either you or I. Again this proves nothing but reading him on the Historicity of Jesus would help I believe. ntwrightpage.com/
And he is not a Catholic.

Right, NT Wright is an Anglican clergyman. However, men like NT Wright start from the presumption that the bible is true, and their work involves validating Christianity (not debunking it).

We do have early manuscripts of the Pauline epistles and gospels, albeit they date from at least a century after the events they describe allegedly took place. We have some archeological evidence of early Christian churches and other artifacts. We have Josephus (whose work has been subjected to numerous interpolations by Christians), and we have a couple Roman historians who wrote a total of about three sentences mentioning Christianity.

There is no evidence adding credibility to claims of god-men rising from the dead, virgin births, and all the rest. It’s probably to some extent interpolations from earlier mythology.