Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Kapyong · 02-25-2006, 12:17 AM

Greetings,

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

Then she's not a virgin mother, unless you want to interpret "virgin" so broadly as to make it meaningless.

Well, you have a point, that was badly worded;
but we don't really know how Zeus impregnated her, do we?
Perhaps it was a shower of golden sparks that left her pregnant,
and yet still virgio intacto.
Mary was supposedly both mother and virgin after divine impregnation, why couldn't Electra be ?
(Arnobius could be deliberately putting distance between Mary and Electra.)

Nonetheless,
the similarity is still clear - mortal woman, especially known for being a virgin, becomes pregnant by the divine - it's the same story; even if there are differences.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

You really have only two points of contact here: the name "Iasion" sounding similar to "Iesous" and the number seven. "Seven" is a "stock" number, that is, it is frequently reused, so it's a dubious point of contact. "Virgin" is not a serious point of contact, as that is the expected state of unmarried daughters and Electra ceased to be virgin after Zeus had his way with her. Also, Zeus had his choice of far more than the seven sisters of Pleiades, which again makes this a weak parallel.

And being son-of-god.
But yes, laundry lists of similarities are weak arguments, I make no particular claims about Jesus being based specifically on Iasius, just discussing the similarities because I was asked. The OT clearly forms the major ingredient in the NT, with perhaps these other myths providing some leaven.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

This is a classic example of stretching Christian language to describe completely foreign things. Here you are paralleling rituals divulged to a few and meant to be secret with ethical instruction meant for wide distribution.

Matthew 13:10,11 "And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given."

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

Again, stretching Christian language to describe completely foreign things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

I really liked "5. He died tragically".

5 & 6 go together, should be 1 point really :
* Died and rose to 'heaven'

Sure,
many figures "died tragically",
but how many were
son-of-god, born from mortal woman (known for being a virgin), said to have instructed mysteries, and rose to heaven afterwards?

Yes, it's a small list of similarities amongst some differences. But all the sons-of-god stories are different - and yet often show similar themes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

Offhand, it looks like the fate of Iasion varies somewhat across myths, and at most, his fate looks more similar to Hercules, whose spirit rose to Olympus, than to the purported fate of Jesus, who got to rise in the middle of history instead of at the end in the general resurrection.

Well, Diodorus didn't think so - he has Iasius in the circle of the Gods BEFORE the family moved to Phrygia, long ago.
Nor Ovid - who has Iasius getting old before his time.
Seems pretty clear he rose to heaven right in the middle of their history, not at the end.

Iasion

jjramsey · 02-25-2006, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iasion

Seems pretty clear he rose to heaven right in the middle of their history, not at the end.

I did not make myself clear. My point was that Jesus' purported bodily rising was a foretaste of the general resurrection at the end of the world. This isn't the same thing as the spirits of Iasion and Herc going to Olympus or Heaven, without any expectation that there would be an apocalyptic end to history. Basically, you are using the ambiguity in the term "rise" to cover both a soul rising to heaven and a body rising from the ground.

Roger Pearse · 02-25-2006, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

I really liked "5. He died tragically". That is elastic enough to encompass everything from Abe Lincoln to pagan mythos to Mozart and Alexander the Great and a huge swath of folks. And if "he died tragically" didn't work, it could be replaced with "he died painfully" or "he died unjustly" or "he died peacefully". There must be a latin term for this type of category-mining.

It's a good example of the general method of argument -- draw terms loosely in order to argue that things are parallel and then argue parallel proves connection. The logic involves repeated fallacies, of course, which is why it is never quite laid out that way. But I don't know what the technical term for this kind of false argument -- the one by creating category confusion -- is.

There used to be an atheism FAQ that included something on various types of logical fallacy. Perhaps it is in this?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

jjramsey · 02-25-2006, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

It's a good example of the general method of argument -- draw terms loosely in order to argue that things are parallel and then argue parallel proves connection. The logic involves repeated fallacies, of course, which is why it is never quite laid out that way. But I don't know what the technical term for this kind of false argument -- the one by creating category confusion -- is.

There used to be an atheism FAQ that included something on various types of logical fallacy. Perhaps it is in this?

I think you have the fallacy of equvocation in mind:

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism...l#equivocation

Also, some of the ways that one fits prophecies to fact are also used to establish parallels, especially ambiguity (or equivocation) and the law of large numbers, which "says that with a large enough sample many odd coincidences are likely to happen." See the late WinAce's Prophecy for Dummies:

http://www.fstdt.com/winace/proph4dums/index.htm

Ted Hoffman · 02-26-2006, 06:16 AM

Thanks Iasion for those references.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

It's a good example of the general method of argument -- draw terms loosely in order to argue that things are parallel and then argue parallel proves connection...
Roger Pearse

This is just as bad as demanding that for a parallel to qualify as a parallel, it must be the exact replica with what it is being compared with. And that is the arguments apologists like JP Holding keep making tacitly.
The point is, the similarities between the Jesus story and the ones of Odyssey, Jason, Moses etc, belong to the same group: myth and folklore.
Whereas I agree that Osiris' resurrection was not the same as Jesus' resurrection, they both are examples of the same type of action. They have the same skeleton, even though their facial-features, attitudes and skin colours are different.
So, readers, dont be discouraged by the rhetoric of Pearse and jjramsey: they will take one weakness, amplify it and present it as representative of the entire approach, which is false and misleading. There is an argument to be made and it shall be made.
TH

jjramsey · 02-26-2006, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

This is just as bad as demanding that for a parallel to qualify as a parallel, it must be the exact replica with what it is being compared with.

Nonsense. What is demanded is that the parallels be close enough to not be readily explicable as the result of vagueness and the law of large numbers, period. I am demanding no more than I would demand of purported psychics and prophets. If to make parallels, one has to resort to similar tactics as theirs, that says that one is not dealing honestly with the evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

The point is, the similarities between the Jesus story and the ones of Odyssey, Jason, Moses etc, belong to the same group: myth and folklore.

To the extent that it is true at all, it is banally true in the sense that there are made-up supernatural events in the stories of all the people that you have mentioned. "Made-up supernatural events" is a big class of events, however.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Whereas I agree that Osiris' resurrection was not the same as Jesus' resurrection, they both are examples of the same type of action. They have the same skeleton, even though their facial-features, attitudes and skin colours are different.

No, they don't have the same skeleton. That's the problem with your whole idea. The similarities are superficial, while the underlying themes are totally different. Osiris is a dead god; he is resurrected long enough to have sex with Isis and then goes back to being a corpse again, and then his spirit reigns in the underworld in which it is trapped. If you want to see precursors to Jesus' resurrection, look, for example, in Jewish apocalyptic and 2 Maccabees.

Mjollnir · 02-26-2006, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziffel

Dumb subject line but I'm not exactly sure how to phrase it. I was told last year, that the Jesus story line in the bible was almost exactly the same as another 'savior' type fellow, who lived several hundred years before Christ. IIRC, his name started with an M, but I'm not positive.

The similarities went something like:

both claimed savior, both born of a virgin, both were given as a sacrificial lamb, and so on.

Can anyone help me on this one?

The similarities are quite inescapable.

Roger Pearse · 02-27-2006, 05:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Quote:

It's a good example of the general method of argument -- draw terms loosely in order to argue that things are parallel and then argue parallel proves connection...

This is just as bad as demanding that for a parallel to qualify as a parallel, it must be the exact replica with what it is being compared with..

Atlantis cultists argue that the existence of pyramids in Egypt and pyramids in Mexico proves that Atlantis existed. What is wrong with their argument?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Spanky · 02-27-2006, 05:53 AM

I thought this was interesting. . .
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraism

Quote:

Similarities to Christianity
According to Martin A. Larson, in The Story of Christian Origins (1977), Mithraism and Christianity derived from the same sources, originally from the savior cult of Osiris: a rarely discussed view among Mithraic and Christian scholars but which accounts for the similarities without assuming a Christian deriviation from Mithraism. He also believes that the Essenes were Jewish Pythagoreans, whose members not only gave birth to Christianity as Essenes, but were directly influenced by Zoroastrian doctrine as Pythagoreans. Mithraism, an established but exclusive sect devoted to social justice, was assimilated by state-sponsored Christianity before being disposed of in name.

“The resemblances between the two churches were so striking as to impress even the minds of antiquity” (Cumont, 193). Like Origen (an early Christian apologist), Mithraism held that all souls pre-existed in the ethereal regions with God, and inhabited a body upon birth. Similar to Pythagorean, Essene, and Pauline theology, life then becomes the great struggle between good and evil, spirit and body, ending in judgment, with the elect being saved. “They both admitted to the existence of a heaven inhabited by beautiful ones…and a hell peopled by demons situate in the bowels of earth” (Cumont 191).

Both religions purified themselves through baptism, and each participated in an outwardly similar type of sacrament, bread and wine. Both the birth of Mithra and the birth of Christ have been celebrated on December 25th, although nowhere does the Bible claim that Christ was born on this day. Both Mithra and Christ were supposedly visited by shepherds and Magi. Both Mithraism and Christianity considered Sunday their holy day. Many have noted that the title of Pope (father) is found in Mithraic doctrine and seemingly prohibited in Christian doctrine. The words Peter (rock) and mass (sacrament) have original significance in Mithraism.

Mithraism and early Christianity considered abstinence, celibacy, and self-control to be among their highest virtues. Both had similar beliefs about the world, destiny, heaven and hell, and the immortality of the soul. Their conceptions of the battles between good and evil were almost identical, including a great and final battle at the end of times. Christianity adopted the millennial epochs that were integral to Mithraism from Zoroastrianism. Mithraism's flood at the beginning of history was deemed necessary because what began in water would end in fire, according to Mithraic eschatology. Both religions believed in revelation as key to their doctrine, as do most religions. Both awaited the last judgment and resurrection of the dead. Christ and Mithra were both referred to directly as the "Logos" (Larson 184).

When inducted into the degree of Leo, he was purified with honey, and baptised, not with water, but with fire, as John the Baptist declared that his successor would baptise. After this second baptism, initiates were considered "participants," and they received the sacrament of bread and wine commemorating Mithra's banquet at the conclusion of his labors (Larson 190).

Although the cult of Mithra rivaled Christianity in Rome, they were among different social classes. Mithra was popular among soldiers and nobles after four centuries of growth. Mithraism had a disadvantage to Christian populism by barring women and emphasizing the elitist nature of the belief. Under emperors like Julian and Commodus, Mithra became the patron of Roman armies (Cumont 87). Christians referred to themselves as soldiers of Christ. They venerated Jesus in Mithraic sun-god fashion, calling him Light of the World or Son (Sun) of Righteousness. Christians also claimed their savior's death was marked by a solar eclipse. Sunday became the primary day of worship for Christians, despite observing the Jewish Sabbath for centuries.

Mithra’s birthday was adopted by Christians in the 4th century A.D. as the birth of Christ (J. Smith 146). Some claimed Mithra's mother was a mortal virgin. Others said Mithra had no mother, but was miraculously born of a female rock, or the petra genetix, conceived by God's lightning (de Riencourt 135). Mithra's birth was witnessed by shepherds and by Magi bearing gifts to his sacred birth-cave of the Rock (J. Smith 146). Mithra's image was buried in a rock tomb, a sacred cave that represented his Mother's womb. This was ritualistically removed each year, and he was said to live again. Mithra’s triumph and ascension to heaven were celebrated during the spring equinox, as during Easter, when the sun rises toward its apogee.

Mithra performed miracles of raising the dead, healing the sick, making the blind see, the lame walk, and casting out devils. As a Peter, son of the petra (rock), he carried the “keys” to the kingdom of heaven, as St. Peter is said to have the keys to the gates of Heaven (H. Smith 129). Before returning to heaven, Mithra had his Last Supper with his twelve disciples, who represented the twelve signs of the zodiac. In memory, his worshipers partook of a sacramental meal of bread marked with a cross (Hooke 89, Cumont 160). This was one of seven Mithraic sacraments, the models for the Christian seven sacraments (James 250). It was called mized and in Latin missa and in English mass.

Mithra's cave-temple on the Vatican Hill was seized by Christians in 376 A.D. (J. Smith 146). Christian bishops in Rome pre-empted even the Mithraic high priest's title of Pater Patrum, which became Papa, or Pope (H. Smith 252). Mithraism entered into many doctrines of Manichean Christianity and continued to influence its old rival for over a thousand years (Cumont, Oriental 154)). The Mithraic festival of Epiphany, marking the arrival of sun-priests or Magi at the Savior's birthplace, was adopted by the Christian church only as late as 813 A.D. (Brewster 55).

It is fairly probable that Christianity emphasized common features that attracted Mithra followers, perhaps the crucifix appealed to those Mithra followers who had crosses already branded on their foreheads. In art, the halo was a well-known depiction of Mithra, a true sun god, but which also depicts Christ in a similar way. However, differences such as star gazing were persecuted as heresy, although zodiac beliefs were too common by then to be removed. Trypho wrote that “Justin Martyr declared that in a certain cave near Bethlehem…Mary brought forth the Christ…those who presided over the mysteries of Mithras were stirred up by the devil to say that in a place called among them a cave, they were initiated by them” (LXXVIII). Tertullian demonized Mithraism as a perverted truth planted by the devil.

Also Roger said

Quote:

Always ask for evidence. If Mithras was unknown in 50 AD, what do you think? If the evidence is only dated to the pagan revival of Julian (for example), again, what do you think?

I would say that jesus was also unknown around this time. I say the two myths grew together.

Roger Pearse · 02-27-2006, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spanky

I thought this was interesting. . .
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraism

Also Roger said "Ask for evidence."

If I were you, I would do just that with the nonsense in Wikipedia.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.