Hmmm... was Henry Ford right? Is history bunk?

Nomad

I still think that the Christian Virgin Birth can be compared to other miraculous conceptions. Mithra being born from a rock certainly qualifies as such a conception, and is not much more absurd that some spook waving his magic wand over Mary's belly.

And as to the story of Heracles and the snakes, Hera had discovered that Zeus was having another one of his love affairs, and decided to kill the offspring that resulted by sending two snakes after them. However, the baby Heracles calmly picked them up in each hand and strangled them.

This is another version of the "dangerous child" myth, a child whom the authorities try to kill as potentially dangerous to them. Consider the story of Romulus and Remus. Or Perseus. Or Oedipus. Or Moses. Or King Herod and the baby boys in Matthew. Or Krishna. A curious twist is the story of the Buddha, whose father pampered him in hopes of keeping him from becoming a religious prophet.

According to an oracle, little baby Oedipus would grow up and kill his father and marry his mother, and his parents tried to keep that from happening by abandoning him in the wilderness. But Oedipus survived, grew up, and did all those things without realizing what he had done. But when he finally did, he put his eyes out in shame.

Perseus's grandfather had likewise discover that if his daughter Danae had a son, that son would someday kill him. So he shut Danae up in a dungeon. Which did not keep Zeus from turning himself into a shower of gold and pouring himself onto her lap and making her pregnant with Perseus. When he was born, he and Danae were put in a trunk and set adrift in the ocean. But he survived and eventually killed his grandfather by accident.

A certain king did not want a certain Rhea Silvia to have children, so he made her a Vestal Virgin. But the god Mars noticed her napping on a riverbank, and one thing led to another, and she became pregnant with Romulus and Remus. When she had those children, she put them in a basket which she put into a nearby river. A wolf discovered those kids and raised them, and Romulus eventually overthrew that king and founded Rome. His brother Remus was less fortunate; he got into an argument with Romulus about how he got the short end of the stick, and Romulus killed him.

lpetrich: I still think that the Christian Virgin Birth can be compared to other miraculous conceptions. Mithra being born from a rock certainly qualifies as such a conception, and is not much more absurd that some spook waving his magic wand over Mary's belly.

SWL: LOL, if you want to compare them in the sense that both are absurd given your naturalistic worldview, I have no objection there - especially since there are no good arguments for naturalism. But if you want to claim borrowing - like I said - there are plenty of miraculous births already within Judaism.

lpetrich: And as to the story of Heracles and the snakes, Hera had discovered that Zeus was having another one of his love affairs, and decided to kill the offspring that resulted by sending two snakes after them. However, the baby Heracles calmly picked them up in each hand and strangled them.

This is another version of the "dangerous child" myth, a child whom the authorities try to kill as potentially dangerous to them. Consider the story of Romulus and Remus. Or Perseus. Or Oedipus. Or Moses. Or King Herod and the baby boys in Matthew. Or Krishna. A curious twist is the story of the Buddha, whose father pampered him in hopes of keeping him from becoming a religious prophet.

SWL: And since we have a Jewish precedent in Moses (which is by far the best parallel) there is no reason to assert pagan borrowing at all. But really - I don't accept any of your summary statements on mythology as legitimate. I've seen so much reprehensible deception coming from the skeptical camp on these issues, I demand actual quotation from the primary sources and the dates of those primary sources.

lpetrich: According to an oracle, little baby Oedipus would grow up and kill his father and marry his mother, and his parents tried to keep that from happening by abandoning him in the wilderness. But Oedipus survived, grew up, and did all those things without realizing what he had done. But when he finally did, he put his eyes out in shame.

SWL: Primary source and date of earliest manuscript please. But regardless, this has nothing to do with Jesus.

lpetrich: Perseus's grandfather had likewise discover that if his daughter Danae had a son, that son would someday kill him. So he shut Danae up in a dungeon. Which did not keep Zeus from turning himself into a shower of gold and pouring himself onto her lap and making her pregnant with Perseus. When he was born, he and Danae were put in a trunk and set adrift in the ocean. But he survived and eventually killed his grandfather by accident.

SWL: Primary source and date? This too has nothing to do with Jesus though.

lpetrich: A certain king did not want a certain Rhea Silvia to have children, so he made her a Vestal Virgin. But the god Mars noticed her napping on a riverbank, and one thing led to another, and she became pregnant with Romulus and Remus.

SWL: Right, another instance of divine fornication. Woopty-doo...

lpetrich: When she had those children, she put them in a basket which she put into a nearby river. A wolf discovered those kids and raised them, and Romulus eventually overthrew that king and founded Rome. His brother Remus was less fortunate; he got into an argument with Romulus about how he got the short end of the stick, and Romulus killed him.

SWL: Primary source and date please...If it doesn't predate Exodus, its not relevant.

SecWebLurker

Oh, be nice.

I'd wager you probably picked up the "its just a common skeptical lie" bullshit from some Christian internet bunk-peddler.

Its the same shit. You just admitted that Gods did have sex with women, your just bitching about the details and I've already explained why the Biblical God would not literally fuck a virgin woman (sexophobic Judaic culture).
What Biblical tradition of "miraculous births" are you talking about? I certainly don't know of many (nor do you probably - more rehashing of Christian apologist B.S.? Looks like it).

If you want an example of a woman giving birth to a diety, please read, um, uhh...what was that book again? Oh yeah; virtually any fucking in depth book on Old World mythology!
I am not necassarily arguing for "virgin conception" so the point is not very relevant - I am speaking of mortal conception of a diety.

There is a difference - Jesus is not some "metaphorical" Son of God, he is described as, literally; the Son of God, and yes, such son/s of God/s are rampant in pagan mythology, as you have apparently already admitted.

To a certain degree; though the 'Son of God' concept, the rampant miracles/fantastic acts, the life of virtue and troublesome honorable actions as opposed to a life of ease, the betrayal, and the ascension into Heaven (in some relevant form or another), are quite a bit more similar to Hercules.

No shit shirlock.
Why are you so bitchy? Is it that time of the month again?
The quotes are taken from the Encyclopedia Mythica and the 1988 World Book Encyclopedia, both on the subject of Hercules. Since you refrained from giving full quotations in a past thread with me when I asked wether or not they were out of context, I don't see why I should refrain from returning the same attitude.

See above. Hell, just watch the show and you could find some of this shit out probably.
True, though part of the temptation of Jesus was to live a life of ease ("I could give you all these cities" or something like that, is what Satan said). Furthermore the temptation of Christ was an event happening to a single person, not a group of people, and it happened before he did any fantastic actions (just like with Hercules).
But the myth is about being taken into Heaven near or soon after death, just like Hercules, not mere respect as a martyred saint as you suggest would happen.
Shut the fuck up, read a goddamn encyclopedia, figure out what the fuck your talking about, THEN come back here and attempt to honestly say "its garbage".
Already gave them for Hercules. I suppose you will ignore them again, so why the fuck should I discuss further such deities?
We are not talking about just anybody, we are talking about dieties, and furthermore the similarities between great religious figures in general are all the more effective an argumen that he is a ripoff of other stories (you would expect a founder of a new religion to actually prove his powers to important people, to found churches, to write things himself and instruct others to write them, none of which Jesus did).
Of course - Jesus was a Jew, from Jewish culture, followed by and had writings about him made by Jews.
Lol! "not that it will matter". Of course it won't, you'll just ignore it, just like you (in your state of Christian-induced idiocy) ignore the rest of reality. Again, look at the story of Hercules. If you do not see any significant similarities, then why don't you just get the fuck out of this debate right now, as your beyond any hope of being reasoned with.
Pretty stupid comparison. These were angels, who take on human form all the time, not God, who just speaks from the clouds and such. More importantly, these angels were clearly not respected a great deal, since according to Hebrew mythology, God apparently sent a flood to kill them all.
I hardly see how any significant number of births were "miraculous", though you are correct about the angels.
Can you take your customer's dick out of your mouth, refrain from replacing it with your crackpipe, put on some decent clothes (as opposed to the mini-skirt and stuffed bra you have on now), and actually give people a reason to take you seriously before you start bitching and whining like you are now and have done all too frequently in the past?
Yeah, I mean soooo many of them keep saying so all the time.
Are you picking up the sarcasm?

[This message has been edited by Cute Little Baby (edited May 26, 2001).]

SecWebLurker:
You're probably the most ignorant skeptic on this board, CLB.

CLB: Oh, be nice.

SWL: I'm just being honest.

CLB: No, this is just a common skeptical lie. You probably picked it up reading Acharya S or some other internet bunk-peddler.

CLB: I'd wager you probably picked up the "its just a common skeptical lie" bullshit from some Christian internet bunk-peddler.

SWL: Not really - I picked it up from actually looking into the claims of the copycat thesis people and reading scholarly works on the subject.

FOr example, Brown's highly respected work on the Birth of Jesus:

"Among the parallels offered for the virginal conception of Jesus have been the conceptions of figures in world religions (the Buddha, Krishna, and the son of Zoroaster), in Greco-Roman mythology (Perseus, Romulus), in Egyptian and Classical History (the Pharaohs, Alexander, Augustus), and among famous philosophers or religious thinkers (Plato, Apollonius of Tyana), to name only a few.
"Are any of these divinely engendered births really parallel to the non-sexual virginal conception of Jesus described in the NT, where Mary is not impregnated by a male deity or element, but the child is begotten through the creative power of the Holy Spirit? These "parallels" consistently involve a type of hieros gamos (note: "holy seed" or "divine semen") where a divine male, in human or other form, impregnates a woman, either through normal sexual intercourse or through some substitute form of penetration. In short, there is no clear example of virginal conception in world or pagan religions that plausibly could have given first-century Jewish Christians the idea of the virginal conception of Jesus."[The Birth of the Messiah, by Raymond E. Brown, Doubleday: 1993: 522-523]

Or History-of-religions scholar David Adams Leeming (Encyclopedia of Religion, "Virgin Birth"):

"A virgin is someone who has not experienced sexual intercourse, and a virgin birth, or parthenogenesis (Gr., parthenos, "virgin"; genesis, "birth"), is one in which a virgin gives birth. According to this definition, the story of the birth of Jesus is a virgin birth story whereas the birth of the Buddha and of Orphic Dionysos are not. Technically what is at issue is the loss or the preservation of virginity during the process of conception. The Virgin Mary was simply "found with child of the Holy Ghost" before she was married and before she had "known" a man. So, too, did the preexistent Buddha enter the womb of his mother, but since she was already a married woman, there is no reason to suppose she was a virgin at the time. In the Orphic story of Dionysos, Zeus came to Persephone in the form of a serpent and impregnated her, so that the maiden's virginity was technically lost."

New Testament Historian Ben Witherington III summarizes the problem well:

"Any comparison of Matthew 1-2 and Luke 1-2 to pagan divine birth stories leads to the conclusion that the Gospel stories cannot be explained simply on the basis of such comparisons….For what we find in Matthew and Luke is not the story of …a divine being descending to earth and, in the guise of a man, mating with a human woman, but rather the story of miraculous conception without the aid of any man, divine or otherwise. As such, this story is without precedent either in Jewish or pagan literature."[Ben Witherington III, "Birth of Jesus," in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1992), 70]


SWL: 1. Show me a VIRGINAL CONCEPTION where a virginal woman is found with child - not an instance of a god having sex with a woman - something that was hardly out of the ordinary in pagan myths just because of their very ontology.

CLB: Its the same shit. You just admitted that Gods did have sex with women, your just bitching about the details and I've already explained why the Biblical God would not literally fuck a virgin woman (sexophobic Judaic culture).

SWL: The bottom line is that God is not having sex with anyone - there is no genealogical link through a divine seed - Christ is the Son PRIOR to His incarnation. Once we lose all the details of the parallel all we are left with is a plain old miraculous birth. But, too bad for the copycat folks, we've got miraculous births IN Judaism already -

Isaac himself was the result of a miraculous birth, and an intervention in the normal natural cycle. This was the start of the Jewish people. So it's not too off-the-wall to imagine that if, after all, a messiah figure was to be born, that he, too, might be marked out with some sort of special birth.

"There is here a double miracle, not only over infertility but over age as well."[Crossan, John D., "Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography"(San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994) p. 6.]

"Another example, but only over infertility, is that of the prophet Samuel's parents in 1 Samuel 1-2, where God hears the prayer and promise of Hannah and grants her and Elkanah a son. In both cases, of course, the son born of such divine intervention is thereby destined for greatness. It was through Isaac that the Jews would become the children of Abraham, and it was through Samuel that they would receive the monarchy in which David would be the ideal king."[Crossan, John D., "Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography"(San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994) p. 6.]

And there are also hints of something special about the birth of the Messiah in the rabbinics:

“It is not without hesitation, that we make reference to Jewish allusions to the miraculous birth of the Saviour. Yet there are two expressions, which convey the idea, if not of superhuman origin, yet of some great mystery attaching to His birth. The first occurs in connection with the birth of Seth. 'Rabbi Tanchuma said, in the name of Rabbi Samuel: Eve had respect [had regard, looked forward] to that Seed which is to come from another place. And who is this? This is Messiah the King.' [Ber. R. 23, ed Warsh p. 45 b] The second appears in the narrative of the crime of Lot's daughters: [Gen. 19:32] 'It is not written "that we may preserve a son from our father," but "seed from our father." This is that seed which is coming from another place. And who is this? This is the King Messiah.' [Ber. R. 51 ed. Warsh. p. 95 a][35]”
[Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (MacDonald Publishing Co., 1883)]

“Even more distinct are the statements in the so-called 'Book of Enoch.' Critics are substantially agreed, that the oldest part of it [ch. i.- xxxvi. and lxxii.-cv. dates from between 150 and 130 B.C….Not to speak, therefore, of such peculiar designations of the Messiah as 'the Woman's Son,' [lxii. 5.] 'the Son of Man, [For ex. xlviii. 2: lxii. 7; lxix 29.] 'the Elect,' and 'the Just One,' we mark that the Messiah is expressly designed in the oldest portion as 'the Son of God' ('I and My Son'). [cv. 2.]” [Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (MacDonald Publishing Co., 1883)]

So there is just no reason to go outside of Judaism for miraculous births. No reason at all.

SWL: Show me that this instance is close enough to the Gospel accounts that we should assume borrowing from this pagan source as opposed to the Biblical tradition of miraculous births.

CLB: What Biblical tradition of "miraculous births" are you talking about? I certainly don't know of many (nor do you probably - more rehashing of Christian apologist B.S.? Looks like it).

SWL: See above.

3. Make sure you give the DATE of the pagan writing that this alleged virginal conception occurs in, give me the direct quote from the primary source (i.e. - the actual pagan writing - not some mention in a laughable non-scholarly work like a book by Acharya S. or Freke & Gandy).

CLB: I am not necassarily arguing for "virgin conception" so the point is not very relevant - I am speaking of mortal conception of a diety.

SWL: Which is entirely irrelevant. Jesus was the Son of God long before his incarnation/birth. And even in the OT/Rabbinics/Pseudepigrapha we read of pre-existence/incarnation -

“But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.”(Micah 5:2)

"From the beginning the Son of Man was hidden, And the Most High has preserved him
In the presence of His might, And revealed him to the elect."(1 Enoch 62:7)

Rabbi Eleazar has this to say about the eternity of the Messiah:

“Beginning with the LXX. rendering of Genesis 49:10, and especially of Numbers 24:7, 17, we gather, that the Kingdom of the Messiah was higher than any that is earthly, and destined to subdue them all. But the rendering of Psalm 72:5, 7; Psalm 110:3; and especially of Isaiah 9, carries us much farther. They convey the idea, that the existence of this Messiah was regarded as premundane (before the moon, [Ps. 72.] before the morning-star [Ps. 110.]), and eternal, [Ps. 72.] and His Person and dignity as superior to that of men and Angels: 'the Angel of the Great Council,' [Is. 9:6(2).] probably 'the Angel of the Face',a view fully confirmed by the rendering of the Targum.”
[Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (MacDonald Publishing Co., 1883)]

In Isaiah, we read:

“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.” (Isaiah 9:6-7)

Edersheim writes concerning this passage in Isaiah: "Is. 9:6 is expressly applied to the Messiah in the Targum, and there is a very curious comment in Debarim R. 1 (ed. Warsh., p. 4 a) in connection with a Haggadic discussion of Gen. 43:14, which, however fanciful, makes a Messianic application of this passage, also in Bemidbar R. 11."

As Qumran scholar John Collins states, in "Messianism in the Maccabean Period", in Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era, Neusner, Green, Frerichs (eds.), Cambridge: 1987, p. 101: "The notion of a transcendent savior figure under God is perhaps the most significant development in Jewish messianism (broadly defined) in the second century B.C.E."

Elsewhere Collins states: "The notion of a messiah who was in some sense divine had its roots in Judaism, in the interpretation of such passages as Psalm 2 and Daniel 7 in an apocalyptic context."
[ The Scepter and the Star--The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature, John J. Collins, Doubleday: 1995.:168-169]

Even the Jewish scholar Jacob Neusner gives a telling description of what the 'older' traditions of a divine/superhuman Messiah were (in "Mishnah and Messiah", Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era, Neusner, Green, Frerichs (eds.), Cambridge: 1987. :275): "We focus upon how the system laid out in the Mishnah takes up and disposes of those critical issues of teleology worked out through messianic eschatology in other, earlier versions of Judaism (emphasis mine). These earlier systems resorted to the myth of the Messiah as savior and redeemer of Israel, a supernatural figure engaged in political-historical tasks as king of the Jews, even a God-man facing the crucial historical questions of Israel's life and resolving them: the Christ as king of the world, of the ages, of death itself."

So we see that this notion too is entirely grounded IN Judaism (there are many more texts we could examine - particularly Daniel 7 and interpretations of it). Now, even though your claims are completely undercut, I still have no reason to even BELIEVE your claims as regards pagan sources until I see dates and quotes from primary sources.

SWL: Given the fact that the greek gods had kids with mortals all the time, this isn't surprising. But in the Gospels we don't see Jesus becomign God's son by virtue of His having been born to Mary as he is pre-existent, so there's no genealogical link through a 'divine seed', and the title "Son of God" is just a very Jewish title anyway - related to David in Psalm 2, related to angelic beings, and interpreted Messianically even at Qumran.

CLB: There is a difference - Jesus is not some "metaphorical" Son of God, he is described as, literally; the Son of God, and yes, such son/s of God/s are rampant in pagan mythology, as you have apparently already admitted.

SWL: Its a completely different notion. 'Son of God' is first and foremost a very Jewish title, but you are right to say that in Jesus' case it is not metaphorical but is descriptive of his unique relationship with the Father. That relationship is NOT by virtue of Him having been born to Mary but His relationship with the Father from eternity, so there is no parallel with pagan gods having sex with women who give birth to their sons by virtue of a 'divine seed'.

CLB: He was almost the victim of Herra's forces trying to murder him when he was a baby. He survived though, by killing the snake or whatever was sent to kill him (Just like Jesus was nearly killed by Herod's forces when he was a baby, but survived. Different ways, same concept).

SWL: The Jesus story parallels that of Moses much closer.

CLB: To a certain degree; though the 'Son of God' concept,

SWL: The Jewish messiah was expected to be the 'Son of God' as we know from Qumran so again - a very Jewish notion entirely unrelated to pagan sons of god.

CLB: the rampant miracles/fantastic acts,

SWL: All within the framework of Jewish religion, so that's irrelevant.

CLB: the life of virtue and troublesome honorable actions as opposed to a life of ease, the betrayal, and the ascension into Heaven (in some relevant form or another), are quite a bit more similar to Hercules.

SWL: You just don't have any idea as to what you're talking about. Ascension? Have you ever READ the OT?! Stop wasting my time, man. Betrayal? A clear parallel with the story of David:

“David had been betrayed, not just by by his son, who launched his revolt by exchanging a kiss with David (2 Sam 14:33), but by Ahithophel, who had been one of David’s counselors but had become a co-conspirator with Absalom (2Sam 15:12, 31). Ahithophel was to David what Judas was to Jesus."[Robert W. Funk and the Jesus Seminar, "The Acts of Jesus" (HarperSanFrancisco, 1998) p. 150-51.]

But, since you haven't given quotation from the primary sources on Hercules and the dates on those sources, I have no reason to even take your claims concerning him seriously.

SWL: I'm going to request that in giving us summaries of pagan stories, you quote that actual literature. I don't trust your accounts in the least.

CLB: Why are you so bitchy? Is it that time of the month again?
The quotes are taken from the Encyclopedia Mythica and the 1988 World Book Encyclopedia, both on the subject of Hercules. Since you refrained from giving full quotations in a past thread with me when I asked wether or not they were out of context, I don't see why I should refrain from returning the same attitude.

SWL: I'm not bitchy - I'm just tired of arguing with people who haven't even READ the primary texts. When are these stories dated to? From now on, QUOTE from the "Encyclopedia Mythica" directly please and give me the dates on the earliest texts with these stories. Without that, all your blather is irrelevant.

CLB: He then grew up, was fucked with by the bad diety (Herra), then had a vision which allowed him to either live a tempting life of ease among the Gods (or something like that) or else be virtuous and honorable by living a life of hardship but good deeds. Hercules chose the latter (just like Jesus was fucked with by Satan, who temped him to live the easy life, but instead chose the positive, honorable, though much more difficult route). Hercules then went on to do tons of fantastic shit,(like Jesus did miracles) was betrayed by somebody,(like Jesus was betrayed by Judas) and, while dying (or shortly after he died, I cannot recall which), was taken into Heaven and immortalized (just like Jesus).

SWL: I need all the primary sources on this stuff for Hercules and the dates.

CLB: See above.

SWL: Sorry, without the dates its entirely irrelevant. You haven't given them. (Besides that, there's nothing there even slightly indicative of borrowing on the part of Christianity as we've seen).

CLB: Hell, just watch the show and you could find some of this shit out probably.

SWL: Right, this is the extent of your research.

SWL: As far as the temptation goes, the typology resonates better with the Israelites in the wilderness-
Forty years/days in wilderness (Exod 16:35; Q 4:2)

Temptation by hunger (Exod 16:2-8; Q 4:2-3)

Temptation to put God to the test (Exod 17:13; Q 4:9-12)

Temptation to idolatry (Exodus 32; Q 4:5-8)

CLB: True, though part of the temptation of Jesus was to live a life of ease ("I could give you all these cities" or something like that, is what Satan said).

SWL: No, it was to be exalted and rule now as opposed to later, after having suffered and atoned, and being given everythign anyway by the Father. Jesus is just sticking with God's plan for him. Nothing indicative of borrowing in the least.

CLB: Furthermore the temptation of Christ was an event happening to a single person, not a group of people, and it happened before he did any fantastic actions (just like with Hercules).

SWL: Knock-knock on that hollow head of your's. You don't understand Jewish typology at all. It matters not whether or not its a 'single person'. Much of Jesus' actions intentionally parallel that of the nation of Israel. Israel is called God's Son in Exodus 4:22. Both Israel and the Messiah are referred to as the "seed" of Abraham (Genesis 13:15-16, made to apply to Messiah in Galatians 3:16). Israel found its roots in Isaac. Both Jesus' and Isaac's births were miraculous, as Sarah was well past the normal age for child-bearing. Both were called out of Egypt (Hosea 11:1). Jesus' going out to the wilderness to be baptized in the Jordan echoes Israel's passage through the Reed Sea during the Exodus (see 1 Cor. 10:6) and the 40 years Israel wandered in the desert are analogous to the 40 days of temptation of Christ in the wilderness. Both were despised and rejected (Isaiah 53), etc. Jesus' sacrifice on the cross is portrayed as typological of the Passover, etc. It matters not whether individual people are at issue...Jewish typology saw all of the history of God's dealing with the Israelites as having prophetic import for the present/future.

SWL: Death or Hercules and post-death survival means absolutely nothing - as even the death of Jesus, had he not resurrected - would have entailed a type of post-death survival in 2nd Temple Judaism.

CLB: But the myth is about being taken into Heaven near or soon after death, just like Hercules, not mere respect as a martyred saint as you suggest would happen.

SWL: Sorry, Jesus died first. But ascension is entirely Jewish. See Elijah's ascension in the OT for example.

CLB: Thats enough for now, suffice to say though that Hercules bears more than a passing resemblance to Jesus.

SWL: Its garbage...

CLB: Shut the fuck up, read a goddamn encyclopedia, figure out what the fuck your talking about, THEN come back here and attempt to honestly say "its garbage".

SWL: I've got my own Encyclopedia of Mythology right here in my bedroom.

Your posts are garbage man. An Encyclopedia WON'T help you unless it gives you the dates on the actual sources where the info. comes from. DO YOU EVEN KNOW what a primary source IS? Get the source where this info. is FIRST given on Hercules and get me the date. Otherwise your nonsense is about as relevant as drawing comparisons between Ronald McDonald and Jesus.

Get it yet? I don't want to hear about Osiris from Britannica. I want to hear about him from an Egyptian text which can be dated from before Christ. And if you need to use Britannica, I want the date on the TEXT their getting their info. from?

Soaking in yet?

CLB: Second, Jesus resembled other dieties to a significant degree. That does not mean his story was copied word-for-word from all other religious texts, or that he didn't have some interestingly unique features. Overall, though, the son of a divinity, born of a mortal woman, growing up to either do miracles or make significant teachings, only to die and end up going to some happy place in the sky, is the overall concept of the Jesus story, and is quite similar to a number of other, older mythologies popular in and before Jesus' time.

SWL: Again, we need primary sources and dates.

CLB: Already gave them for Hercules.

SWL: Yeah, some encyclopedias and a TV show right, Einstein? Hahahhahahah! Try again using your brain this time.

CLB: I suppose you will ignore them again, so why the fuck should I discuss further such deities?

SWL: The problem is that you don't know what a primary source is. Try again now that you have a clue...(not that your parallels are relevant)

SWL: But that a person considered important was born to a woman ('we've already discussed the 'Son of God' issue), did great things, died and went to heaven is how pretty-much any story about any great person would be told in that time-period. That's the most vague meaningless outline imaginable.

CLB: We are not talking about just anybody, we are talking about dieties, and furthermore the similarities between great religious figures in general are all the more effective an argumen that he is a ripoff of other stories (you would expect a founder of a new religion to actually prove his powers to important people, to found churches, to write things himself and instruct others to write them, none of which Jesus did).

SWL: AAAAhahahah! What garbage! I don't care what YOU would expect Jesus to do. Yeah, Jesus should sit around writing all day instead of going from town to town in Israel and healing and teaching abroad - establishing a disciple circle in which he can pass on His teachings as He moves along. Pffffft. The bottom line is: You can make no case for borrowing.

SWL: I don't really even see any pre-existent pagan sons being sent down. Show me the literature (not that it will matter).

CLB: Lol! "not that it will matter". Of course it won't, you'll just ignore it, just like you (in your state of Christian-induced idiocy) ignore the rest of reality.

SWL: No dummy - it won't matter because any non-trivial parallels can be derived from Judaism itself.

CLB: Again, look at the story of Hercules. If you do not see any significant similarities, then why don't you just get the fuck out of this debate right now, as your beyond any hope of being reasoned with.

SWL: You haven't even GIVEN THE DATES ON THE SOURCES FOR HERCULES OR EVEN TOLD ME WHAT THE ***PRIMARY SOURCES*** ARE! LOL!! And the so-called "parallels" you have shown ARE CRAP. Puuuure crap.

Show me ONE SIGNIFICANT thing Hercules did, recorded in a text that PREDATES the Gospels, that is not ridiculously general, and CANNOT be derived from Judaism!

SWL: Right...Can you take that dunce-cap off, come out of the corner, and stop chewing on that eraser before you begin teaching class though?

<snip filthy troll vomit>

SWL: LOL, you seem to be a lot more familiar with the 'crackwhore' imagery than I am. Hahhahah! Dirtball...

Better luck next time...

SecWebLurker



[This message has been edited by SecWebLurker (edited May 27, 2001).]

SWL said
"Skeptics can't provide evidence for their copycat nonsense, therefore all history is nonsense."

No, just highly suspect.
e.g. all the Kennedy asassination 'proof'.
that was only 40 years ago.
The first in flight, Wright bros. or that German guy, what's his name.
Egypt, had or didn't have slaves from Canaan.

From Christianity Before Christ by John G. Jackson, American Atheist Press, PO Box 2117, Austin, TX 78768-2117, 1985, pp.
43-46

Various myths are shown to be forerunners of the Jesus myth.

Included is the Babylonian myth of Bel (Baal in Hebrew) deciphered from an ancient Babylonian tablet dating back to circa 2000 BC now in the British Museum and describing a passion play in which (1) Bel is taken prisoner; (2) Bel is tried in a great hall; (3) Bel is smitten; (4) Bel is led away to the Mount (a sacred grove on a hilltop); (5) with Bel are taken two malefactors, one of whom is released; (6) After Bel has gone to the Mount and is executed, the city breaks into tumult; (7) Bel's clothes are carried away; (8) Bel goes down into the Mount and
disappears from life; (9) weeping women seek Bel at the Tomb; (10) Bel is brought back to life.

See http://www.bobkwebsite.com/belmythvjesusmyth.html for a display of the parallels.

Keep in mind that the source of this parallel is a tablet from 2000 B.C. now on display in the British Museum, and, assuming this information is correct, only because I have not been to the British Museum and am not qualified to decipher the tablet, and am not qualified to carbon date anything, this artifact is now on display for all the world to see.

Actually the only "miraculous" one is that of Isaac, Samuel's is merely God making a barren woman able to bear children. Both people are also just mere humans, not God/s as Jesus was, and indeed you have not presented any instance in pre-Jesus Hebrew culture of a mortal woman giving birth to a God, though such tales are rampant in Pagan mythology.

Oh and BTW, just curious; if Enoch made a correct prophecy about Jesus, does that mean the other stuff he said is also true, like the existence of people who were 450 feet tall and killed lots of stuff?

SWL: Show me that this instance is close enough to the Gospel accounts that we should assume borrowing from this pagan source as opposed to the Biblical tradition of miraculous births.
No, it is not "entirely irrelevant", thats just another idiotic exageration that you are so fond of. Jesus existing before his birth does not refute the connection of a Son of God being born to a mortan woman - indeed it would be hard to find any specific referrence to such an event happening in the OT.

So you are going to pull this "Jesus was prophesied" shit on me? Fine.

Micah is not speaking of Jesus, you are just quoting him out of context to make it appear as such. Read the rest of the passage:
Micah 5:2-14
"But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Too little to be among the clans of Judah,
From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel.
His goings forth are from long ago,
From the days of eternity."
Therefore He will give them up until the time When she who is in labor has borne a child.
Then the remainder of His brethren
Will return to the sons of Israel.
And He will arise and shepherd His flock
In the strength of the LORD,
In the majesty of the name of the LORD His God.
And they will remain,
Because at that time He will be great
To the ends of the earth.
This One will be our peace."
This is quite contrary to the meek, pacifistic Jesus who did not "shepherd his flock" (the Hebrews) but ended up spreading his message to the entire non-Hebrew world, and who also brought no "peace" to Israel (indeed, Israel went through the worst war it had ever endured a mere few decades after Jesus' death).
No, they are not "undercut" - Jesus was still a "Son of God" born to a mortal woman, and this is concept is rampant in paganism, even if he did already exist before his birth.
I will quote primary sources, as for "dates", am I to assume you are bitchy enough to completely reject the source if it does not say specifically when the tradition began?
The 'Son of God' being born to a mortal woman is a pagan concept that has only the most flimsy and dubious support in the OT (or all of the significant aspects of Judaism, for that matter).
Actually, no its not - people such as Moses, Elijah and other prophets only performed occasional miracles when no other option was available. In contrast, Jesus tosses out miracles whenever he wants to, which is more in line with Pagan mythological and/or semi-mythological characters than with Hebrew ones.
Adress the issue at hand, please, and Yes Hercules did go to his respective mythological 'Heaven' shortly after death. 'Ascended' may be the wrong word, 'travelled' would probably be better. My bad. The similarity still stands, though. This is the point where you usually make yet another largely baseless and desperate exageration that "There is no similarity in any way whatsoever, your point is completely irrelevant, so ____(insert sarcastic comment here). Perhaps you should save time by cut/copy/pasting such B.S. from your previous posts? Just a suggestion.
Yes, there of course is a similarity, but consider the rest of the David story. Is David a miracle working (literal) son of God, who first went through a temptation, ended up performing miracles, being betrayed, dying and then going to Heaven? No. Is Hercules? Yes.
We already know Hercules was born of a God to a mortal woman, so that needs no explaining. As for the rest, they can be found under "Hercules", in the 1988 World Book Encyclopedia, in their respective pages:
"When Hercules was an infant, Hera sent two serpents to Kill him. however, Hercules strangled the snakes. As a young man, Hercules had a vision. In it, he was offered a choice of a life of ease, pleaser, and vice, or one of hardship danger, glory, and virtue. He chose the more difficult--but virtious--life."
Thats from page 200, in the third paragraph of the article on Hercules. It goes on to describe how he did this and that fantastic act (12 labors...12 apostles? Seems rather unlikely, but plausible nonetheless).

As for his betrayal and death:
"Some time after completing the 12 labors, Hercules married the princess Deianira. The centaur Nessus tried to rape Deianira, and Hercules shot him with a poisoned arrow. The dying centaur told Deianira to smear some of his blood on Hercule robe if she ever needed to win back his love. After Hercules fell in love with another princess, Iole, Deianira followed Nessus' advice. But the centraur's blood had been poisoned by Hercules' arrow. When Hercules put on the robe, it burned him so terribly he pleaded to be placed on a funeral pyre. His body was consumed by flames, and he was taken to Olympus, home of the Gods."
That is from page 201, the 5th paragraph on Hercules. It should be noted, though, that this encyclopedia got its info some 14 years ago (if you count when the research probably originally began), so its not precisely up to date, and since its an encyclopedia, it is more general and posessive of less specifics than other works. However, the overall message remains.

Further, the Encyclopedia Mythica indicates Nessus was formerly a friend of Hercules:
"When they were crossing the river Euenus in Aetolia, Heracles let the centaur carry his wife on his back. When Heracles saw Nessus' intentions, he shot him with an arrow."
That can be found here:
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/n/nessus.html
Note how the centaur beytrayed Hercules just like Judas did. True that a lot is quite different from the Jesus story, but since Jesus and his followers (some, at least) were real people, whilst Hercules and his contemporaries were entirely mythical, it is to be expected.

Thus we have a Son of God, born to a mortal woman, who survived an attempt to murder him as a child, grew up to do few fantastic feats until he was given a vision, which temped him with a life of ease, but which he ignored in favor of a life of virtue (but hardship), after which he subsequently did many fantastic things, was eventually betrayed by one of his former 'friends', ended up being killed because of said 'friend', and being taken up into 'Heaven' afterwards. Such is more than a passing resemblance to Jesus.

The two tails are different, but the message the same, and yes, such similarities do present a strong case for borrowing, despite whatever foolish and quite frankly tiresome exagerations you will toss out in order to ignore this.
I would say "my fist upside that head of yours", but I suppose punching a mass of solid bone would not be a wise decision.
Nice dodge. I see you have looked over the entire OT to pull out any passage that seems similar to Jesus. While you are of course correct in noting the similarities in certain passages, so far you have yet to show any person in the OT who's life had major portions of it (not specific passages plagiarized from the NT, but landmark events and teachings) as similar to Jesus' life as that of Hercules.
So did Hercules, or at least was taken into Heaven when he was so near death that the difference between the two stories (Jesus and Hercules) is overall irrelevant.
[quoteBut ascension is entirely Jewish. See Elijah's ascension in the OT for example.[/quote]
Really? Thats interesting, because:
"On his funeral pyre, the dying Hercules ascended to Olympus, where he was granted immortality and lived among the gods."
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/h/hercules.html

Lol!

Soaking like the cum stains all over your clothes.
I await your response after reading the similarities and quoted sources now. I predict it will be more fact-dodging, picking in irrelevant specifics, and sweeping exagerations as has come to be so expected of you, but who knows, perhaps you will actually be man enough to admit your arguments are not the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Its a given that you are a total fucking idiot, but your bitchy attitude really needs to stop. I have this insatiable desire to drag you into a room and spend a half hour beating the shit out of you just for being such the prissy bitch that you are. Its never going to happen, and would be wrong, anyway, so please act like a man, not a bitch (even if you are one), and stop being so prissy.
"Yeah, Jesus should sit around writing all day instead of going from town to town in Israel and healing and teaching abroad - establishing a disciple circle in which he can pass on His teachings as He moves along."
Umm, yes, he should write down and firmly establish the doctrine that he wants instead of relying on second and thirdhand reports by mortal humans who claim no divine inspiration and all dissagree with each other. Shit, even the followers of Apollonius forged some writings that were supposedly made by him, its too bad for your sake that Christians couldn't do the same for Jesus - it sure would have made things more interesting and entertaining. You want something done right, do it yourself. Jesus wants his message preached, let him write it down with specific instructions on what to do - relying on the horribly unreliable "eyewitness" stories made by those vaguely and vainly attempting to remember what matters and what doesn't is not a wise thing to do, coupling them with epistles written by people who cared about almost none of Jesus' teachings, having these documents be circled around the Roman world for hundreds of years and subsequently edited, re-worked and interpolated over time, only to have Christians finally decide to write a holy book hundreds of years later, pick and choose what they want, ignore or supress the rest, put it into a confusing mess dubbed "The Word of God", and rely on it as a message from God to all of humanity is not such a good idea. I'd personally rather go for the absurdities in the Koran or Book of Mormon - at least they were written down by one person who was able to present his message without it being argued over among followers and reworked over hundreds of years.

Your a stupid-head!
Son/s of God born of mortal women, doing fantastic actions and eventually conquering death itself can be derived from Judaism? Interesting. I suppose thats why there is virtually no referrence to such in the OT?
I already have. By "predates the Gospels", I assume you will introduce some theory that the story of Hercules was written after and influenced by the Gospels? The absurdities never stop with you, do they?
I am amused by watching you get arrested for it on C.O.P.S.

[This message has been edited by Cute Little Baby (edited June 01, 2001).]

CLB: Actually the only "miraculous" one is that of Isaac, Samuel's is merely God making a barren woman able to bear children.

SWL: Right, and God making a woman who cannot have children, able to have children, is indeed a miracle.

CLB: Both people are also just mere humans, not God/s as Jesus was, and indeed you have not presented any instance in pre-Jesus Hebrew culture of a mortal woman giving birth to a God, though such tales are rampant in Pagan mythology.

SWL: You haven't shown one instance of such a tale in pagan mythology from the primary source w/date. And furthermore, Jesus is not 'a God'. He's God, the Son or the Son of God, but not by virtue of His being concieved by a God. He's that way from eternity. Completely different concept. And besides that, we've already seen with Isaiah 9 that this is already a part of Judaism. So oops.

CLB: No, it is not "entirely irrelevant", thats just another idiotic exageration that you are so fond of.

SWL: Yes, it is entirely irrelevant.

CLB: Jesus existing before his birth does not refute the connection of a Son of God being born to a mortan woman - indeed it would be hard to find any specific referrence to such an event happening in the OT.

SWL: See Isaiah 9 and as I've said, 'Son of God' is about a relationship between Jesus and God even PRE-INCARNATION, not the relation between Jesus and God prior to being concieved in the womb of Mary.

CLB: Micah is not speaking of Jesus, you are just quoting him out of context to make it appear as such.

This is quite contrary to the meek, pacifistic Jesus who did not "shepherd his flock" (the Hebrews) but ended up spreading his message to the entire non-Hebrew world, and who also brought no "peace" to Israel (indeed, Israel went through the worst war it had ever endured a mere few decades after Jesus' death).

SWL: Right, it is the Christian interpretation that, since the Messiah was rejected, that aspect is postponed and is often collapsed in the prophets. That is once again entirely irrelevant to my point which was that that passage was interpreted messianically by Jews. That's all I needed to make my point about pre-existence. So try again...

CLB: No, they are not "undercut" - Jesus was still a "Son of God" born to a mortal woman, and this is concept is rampant in paganism, even if he did already exist before his birth.

SWL: Its rampant in Judaism as well. David was a 'Son of God' born to a mortal woman. See Psalm 2. Oh, WHAT'S that you say? That meaning of 'Son of God' is entirely different? Yeah, SO is the one you're trying to line it up with in paganism. See above. Oops again.

CLB: I will quote primary sources, as for "dates", am I to assume you are bitchy enough to completely reject the source if it does not say specifically when the tradition began?

SWL: Hahahha...Like I said, w/o dates you might as well be claiming that the NT borrowed from Ronald McDonald.

CLB: The 'Son of God' being born to a mortal woman is a pagan concept that has only the most flimsy and dubious support in the OT (or all of the significant aspects of Judaism, for that matter).

SWL: Actually that's completely wrong. First, let's look at the 'Son of God' concept. In Proverbs, we read:

"Who has gone up to heaven and come down?
Who has gathered up the wind in the hollow of his hands? Who has wrapped up the waters in his cloak? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and the name of his son? Tell me if you know!" (Proverbs 30:4)

In 1 Chronicles, we read:

“And it shall come to pass, when thy days be expired that thou must go to be with thy fathers, that I will raise up thy seed after thee, which shall be of thy sons; and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build me an house, and I will stablish his throne for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son: and I will not take my mercy away from him, as I took it from him that was before thee: But I will settle him in mine house and in my kingdom for ever: and his throne shall be established for evermore.” (1 Chronicles 17:11-13)

“Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the LORD shall have them in derision. Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure. Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel. Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.” (Psalm 2: 1-12)

Oh, what's that you say? But I'm taking them out of context? It doesn't matter what your interpretation of them is. The fact is that they are interpreted messianically by Jews and I've got plenty of data to prove it.

Let's now take a look at explicit connections betw. the Messiah and the 'Son of God' concept in Jewish apocrypha:

2 Esdr 7.26-30: "For indeed the time will come, when the signs that I have foretold to you will come to pass, that the city that now is not seen shall appear, and the land that now is hidden shall be disclosed. Everyone who has been delivered from the evils that I have foretold shall see my wonders. For my son the Messiah shall be revealed with those who are with him, and those who remain shall rejoice four hundred years.."

2 Esdr 13.3: the vision--"As I kept looking the wind made something like the figure of a man come up out of the heart of the sea. And I saw that this man flew with the clouds of heaven" with the explanation in 13.25--"This is the interpretation of the vision: As for your seeing a man come up from the heart of the sea, this is he whom the Most High has been keeping for many ages, who will himself deliver his creation;" and in 13.32: "When these things take place and the signs occur that I showed you before, then my Son will be revealed, whom you saw as a man coming up from the sea."

2 Esdr 13.36-37: "But he shall stand on the top of Mount Zion. And Zion shall come and be made manifest to all people, prepared and built, as you saw the mountain carved out without hands. Then he, my Son, will reprove the assembled nations for their ungodliness..."

2 Esdr 13.52: "He said to me, 'Just as no one can explore or know what is in the depths of the sea, so no one on earth can see my Son or those who are with him, except in the time of his day."

2 Esdr 14.9: "for you shall be taken up from among humankind, and henceforth you shall live with my Son and with those who are like you, until the times are ended."

The Testament of Abraham has a man sitting on the throne of God:

"And between the two gates there stood a terrifying throne with the appearance of terrifying crystal, flashing like fire. And upon it sat a wondrous man, bright as the sun, like unto a son of God...And the wondrous man who sat on the throne was the one who judged and sentenced the souls..."[12.4ff]

4QAramaic Apocalypse (4Q246), col. II of the Dead Sea Scrolls reads: "He will be called the Son of God, and they will call him the son of the Most High...His kingdom will be an eternal kingdom...The earth will be in truth and all will make peace. The sword will cease in the earth, and all the cities will pay him homage. He is a great god among the gods... His kingdom will be an eternal kingdom..."

What about Jewish Pseudepigrapha?

I Enoch 105.2: "Until I and my son are united with them forever in the upright paths in their lifetime..."

Edershiem writes concerning this:

“Even more distinct are the statements in the so-called 'Book of Enoch.' Critics are substantially agreed, that the oldest part of it [ch. i.- xxxvi. and lxxii.-cv. dates from between 150 and 130 B.C….Not to speak, therefore, of such peculiar designations of the Messiah as 'the Woman's Son,' [lxii. 5.] 'the Son of Man, [For ex. xlviii. 2: lxii. 7; lxix 29.] 'the Elect,' and 'the Just One,' we mark that the Messiah is expressly designed in the oldest portion as [b]'the Son of God'[/b[ ('I and My Son'). [cv. 2.]” [Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (MacDonald Publishing Co., 1883)]

And John J. Collins writes: "But the notion that the messiah was Son of God in a special sense was rooted in Judaism, and so there was continuity between Judaism and Christianity in this respect, even though Christian belief eventually diverged quite radically from its Jewish sources." [ The Scepter and the Star--The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature, John J. Collins, Doubleday: 1995.:168-169]

Now that we see that the concept of Messiah as "Son of God" was so widespread, all we need point out is that the Messiah was also expected to be born in the lineage of David, which would entail human descent. Oooooooooooops. That'll do it folks.

CLB: the life of virtue and troublesome honorable actions as opposed to a life of ease, the betrayal, and the ascension into Heaven (in some relevant form or another), are quite a bit more similar to Hercules.

SWL: Not in the least. See Isaiah 53, which many scholars believe was indeed interpreted Messianically at Qumran and we know for a fact it was interpreted messianically in the oldest rabbinic commentaries. The betrayal has Jewish roots in David, and the ascension is all over the place in Judaism. Try again...

CLB: Adress the issue at hand, please, and Yes Hercules did go to his respective mythological 'Heaven' shortly after death.

SWL: Which means nothing. So did mostly everyone else.

CLB: 'Ascended' may be the wrong word, 'travelled' would probably be better. My bad. The similarity still stands, though.

SWL: Its entirely trivial and, in fact, Jesus' is much more similar to that in Judaism.

SWL: Betrayal? A clear parallel with the story of David:

“David had been betrayed, not just by by his son, who launched his revolt by exchanging a kiss with David (2 Sam 14:33), but by Ahithophel, who had been one of David’s counselors but had become a co-conspirator with Absalom (2Sam 15:12, 31). Ahithophel was to David what Judas was to Jesus."[Robert W. Funk and the Jesus Seminar, "The Acts of Jesus" (HarperSanFrancisco, 1998) p. 150-51.][/QUOTE]

CLB: Yes, there of course is a similarity, but consider the rest of the David story. Is David a miracle working (literal) son of God, who first went through a temptation, ended up performing miracles, being betrayed, dying and then going to Heaven? No. Is Hercules? Yes.

SWL: Firstly, it doesn't matter at all because for the aspect of the BETRAYAL, the parallels are overwhelmingly stronger for Jesus. All the other aspects of miracle-working, temptation, and ascension are also just entirely subsumed under Judaism. We could point out all the diff. with the Hercules story as well. Was Hercules soon to be rightful King like Jesus? Was Hercules teaching religious truths to His people? Was Hercules a savior of His people? Did Hercules atone for anyone's sins? Did Hercules speak of his own return? Did Hercules teach anyone in parables? Did Jesus perform feats of super-human strength or fight anyone? etc. etc. etc. BTW, Hercules didn't really work miracles. He was just a strong guy performign great feats in an entirely mythological setting. He didn't harness any divine power or control the elements in any supernatural way. He was just a strong dude doing mythological, not miraculous, things.

CLB: We already know Hercules was born of a God to a mortal woman, so that needs no explaining. As for the rest, they can be found under "Hercules", in the 1988 World Book Encyclopedia, in their respective pages:
"When Hercules was an infant, Hera sent two serpents to Kill him. however, Hercules strangled the snakes. As a young man, Hercules had a vision. In it, he was offered a choice of a life of ease, pleaser, and vice, or one of hardship danger, glory, and virtue. He chose the more difficult--but virtious--life."
Thats from page 200, in the third paragraph of the article on Hercules. It goes on to describe how he did this and that fantastic act (12 labors...12 apostles? Seems rather unlikely, but plausible nonetheless).

SWL: First, it means nothing until we see dates. Secondly, WOW, he had a vision and chose to endur hardships? That's just a common characteristic in all stories of all great men. Jesus' temptation is derived from that of the plight of Israel as we've seen. 12 labors = 12 apostles? Hahahah...have you no shame man? How do labors equal apostles???? They DON'T. Oh but but but its the number 12! Wow, there were also 12 tribes of Israel which most scholars think Jesus was signifying when he called 12 disciples - the restoration of the nation.

CLB: As for his betrayal and death:
"Some time after completing the 12 labors, Hercules married the princess Deianira. The centaur Nessus tried to rape Deianira, and Hercules shot him with a poisoned arrow. The dying centaur told Deianira to smear some of his blood on Hercule robe if she ever needed to win back his love. After Hercules fell in love with another princess, Iole, Deianira followed Nessus' advice. But the centraur's blood had been poisoned by Hercules' arrow. When Hercules put on the robe, it burned him so terribly he pleaded to be placed on a funeral pyre. His body was consumed by flames, and he was taken to Olympus, home of the Gods."
That is from page 201, the 5th paragraph on Hercules. It should be noted, though, that this encyclopedia got its info some 14 years ago (if you count when the research probably originally began), so its not precisely up to date, and since its an encyclopedia, it is more general and posessive of less specifics than other works. However, the overall message remains.

SWL: Right, it remains entirely irrelevant. IT doesn't parallel the story of Jesus at all. And without a date you might as well claim that the Gospels borrowed from The Matrix. Keanu is the 'chosen one'. He's destined to be the savior of the world. He's betrayed by that bald fat guy on-board the Nebuchadnezzar. He even dies but is miraculously revived. After this, he is bestowed with his true powers and we're left with a scene of him implying that he's now in charge of the world. See how easy it is to find parallels?

CLB: Further, the Encyclopedia Mythica indicates Nessus was formerly a friend of Hercules:
"When they were crossing the river Euenus in Aetolia, Heracles let the centaur carry his wife on his back. When Heracles saw Nessus' intentions, he shot him with an arrow."
That can be found here:
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/n/nessus.html
Note how the centaur beytrayed Hercules just like Judas did. True that a lot is quite different from the Jesus story, but since Jesus and his followers (some, at least) were real people, whilst Hercules and his contemporaries were entirely mythical, it is to be expected.

SWL: Problem is that the parallel with David is much better as we've discussed. And again, no dates, no dice.

CLB: Thus we have a Son of God,

SWL: Which we have all throughout the OT and Judaism - as we've seen.

CLB: born to a mortal woman,

SWL: as are most people including the expected Messiah of the Jews.

CLB: who survived an attempt to murder him as a child,

SWL: As did Moses.

CLB: grew up to do few fantastic feats

SWL: As does everyone great in ancient stories. As did Moses, Elijah, Elisha, etc.

CLB: until he was given a vision,

SWL: As were all the prophets in the OT.

CLB: after which he subsequently did many fantastic things,

SWL: Woopty-doo, as do all heroes of old.

CLB: was eventually betrayed by one of his former 'friends',

SWL: As was David.

CLB: ended up being killed because of said 'friend',

SWL: As was Keanu in the Matrix.

CLB: and being taken up into 'Heaven' afterwards.

SWL: As was Elijah, Enoch, etc.

CLB: Such is more than a passing resemblance to Jesus.

SWL: Such is entirely irrelevant.

CLB: The two tails are different, but the message the same,

SWL: Which is just a universal message - if you resist temptation now and do the right thing, you'll ultimately succeed. Again, entirely irrelevant.

CLB: and yes, such similarities do present a strong case for borrowing,

SWL: Not in the least.

CLB: Nice dodge. I see you have looked over the entire OT to pull out any passage that seems similar to Jesus.

SWL: No, these are just standardly recognized Jewish-Christian typologies. Read a book on typological thinking in Judaism.

CLB: While you are of course correct in noting the similarities in certain passages, so far you have yet to show any person in the OT who's life had major portions of it (not specific passages plagiarized from the NT, but landmark events and teachings) as similar to Jesus' life as that of Hercules.

SWL: I can take any one person and show that. Let's take David for instance -

"The story of Elizabeth and Zechariah in Luke 1.5-25, 39-45, 57-80 is without a doubt intended to take the reader's mind back to the story of Hannah and Elkanah in 1 Samuel 1.1-2.11. This time it is the father (Zechariah), not the mother (Hannah), who is in the Temple, and he is himself a priest, not merely appearing before one as Hannah does before Eli. But the story has not only the same shape (the couple whose longing for a child is taken up within the divine purpose) but also the same triumphant conclusion (Hannah's song is picked up by both Mary's and Zechariah's). And in both there is a longer purpose waiting to be uncovered, a purpose which encompasses the message of judgement and salvation for Israel.

"It is, first, a message of judgement. Samuel, Hannah's son, will announce to Eli that his days, and his son's days, are numbered, and that the ark of Israel's god will be taken away. John, Elizabeth's son, will declare divine judgement on Israel, a message which will be picked up by John's associate and successor, Jesus, in ever more explicit warnings against Jerusalem and the Temple. The story of David, which grows out of that of Samuel, is from the beginning a story of warning of the house of Saul; it is because Israel's god has decided to reject Saul that David is anointed in the first place. David's story progresses through his life as an outcast, leading a motley crew of followers in the Judaean wilderness, and reaches its initial climax at the moment when Saul and Jonathan are slain, and he, David, is anointed King over Israel. And one of his first acts is to go to Jerusalem to take the city as his capital. Jesus' story progresses through his wandering with his motley followers in Galilee and elsewhere, and reaches its initial climax when he comes to Jerusalem amid expectations that now at last Israel's god was to become king. This is a message of judgement for the existing regime.

"It is also a message of salvation. The highest moment in the story of Samuel is not his denunciation of Israel, but his anointing of young David. On that occasion, according to 1 Samuel 16.13, 'the spirit of YHWH came mightily upon David from that day forward'. This was the David of whose son Israel's god said, later in the narrative, that he would establish his kingdom for ever, and moreover that 'I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me' (2 Samuel 7.14). The highest moment in the story of John is not his prophetic warning of wrath to come, but his baptism of Jesus, the occasion when, according to Luke 3.22, 'the Holy Spirit descended upon [Jesus] in bodily form like a dove', and when a voice from heaven announced to him, in words full of Davidic overtones, 'You are my son, the beloved; with you I am well pleased.' Within the often-remarked artistry which enables Luke to draw a complete picture with a few strokes of his pen, he has said as clearly as he can that John the Baptist is playing Samuel to Jesus' David. And, with that, the Hellenistic and Roman kingdoms of the world, the world to which Luke's prologue so nobly addresses itself, receive notice that there is a new kingdom, a kingdom of Israel's god, and that the young man now anointed by his cousin in the Jordan is the king through whom it is to be set up.

"The story of salvation continues in parallel. David's anointing is followed, in the narrative of 1 Samuel, by his taking on Goliath single-handed, as the representative of Israel. Jesus' anointing is followed at once by his battle with Satan.[Goliath had taunted Israel for 40 days as Jesus was tempted in the wilderness for 40 days] David returns from his encounter to a rapturous popular welcome and the jealousy of Saul; Jesus returns from his encounter to make what is in effect a messianic proclamation in Nazareth, as a result of which he is rejected by his fellow-townsmen, though welcomed enthusiastically by others. David eventually leaves the court to wander as a hunted fugitive with his band of followers; Jesus spends much of Luke's gospel travelling with his band of followers, sometimes being warned about plots against his life."[N.T. Wright, "The New Testament and the People of God" (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992) p. 379-80.]

Furthermore, the account of David’s flight across the Kidron valley and up the Mount of Olives during the rebellion of Absalom, his son (2 Samuel 15-17), parallels the betrayal of Christ in great detail.

“David had been betrayed, not just by by his son, who launched his revolt by exchanging a kiss with David (2 Sam 14:33), but by Ahithophel, who had been one of David’s counselors but had become a co-conspirator with Absalom (2Sam 15:12, 31). Ahithophel was to David what Judas was to Jesus.

“When it became apparent that Absalom was about to attack Jerusalem, David fled across the Wadi Kidron with his company and ascended the Mount of Olives opposite (2 Sam 15:13-18, 23, 30). Jesus did the same on the night in which he, like David, was betrayed.

“As David climbs he Mount of Olives to the place where God is worshipped, his head is covered and he is barefoot; he weeps because of the tragedy that looms before him (2 Sam 15:30). When Hushai, a loyal friend, comes to David, his clothes are torn and he has dirt on his head (2 Sam 15:32). These are outward signs of prayer and repentance. Jesus, too, becomes apprehensive and full of anguish; he says he is so sad he could die (Mark 14:33-34). On the Mount of Olives he falls on the ground and prays (Mark 14:35).

“As David makes his exit from Jerusalem, Ittai the Gittite, a foreigner, follows him. David urges Ittai to return to Jerusalem. But Ittai refuses. Instead, he takes an oath that he will not forsake David (2 Sam 15:19-31). In similar fashion, as Jesus and his disciples leave the last meal together, after they had sung a hymn, Peter also takes an oath that he will not forsake his leader (Mark 14:27-31).

“In the presence of Abiathar and Zadok, the two ranking priests, David confesses that he may or may not find favor in God’s eyes; he is prepared to accept whatever destiny God has in mind for him (2 Sam 15:25-26). That is also the substance of Jesus’ prayer in the garden: “It’s not what I want, but what you want that matters” (Mark 14:36).

“Ahithophel, David’s betrayer, wants to go after David at night; if he overtakes him while he is weary, all the people will flee in panic. In making this proposal to Absalom, Ahithophel remarks: “You are only asking for the life of one man, which will bring peace to all the people” (2 Sam 17:1-3). Just as Jesus finishes his prayers, Judas arrives with a mob wielding swords and clubs (Mark 14:43). In the Gospel of John, Caiaphas remarks that it is prudent to let one person die for the whole nation (11:49-52).

“Ahithophel’s counsel was rejected by Absalom in favor of the counsel of Hushai, David’s loyal friend. Having lost face, Ahithophel returns home and hangs himself (2 Sam 17:5-19, 23).[just as Judas does in Matt. 27:3-10]”[Robert W. Funk and the Jesus Seminar, "The Acts of Jesus" (HarperSanFrancisco, 1998) p. 150-51.]

How about Moses?

In the complete analysis of the life of Moses and Jesus of Nazareth, we find an inexhaustible amount of elements and events that are parallel:

-Moses was born of Miriam, while Jesus was born of Mary, a cognate of the same name
-both were born in a period when Israel was under foreign rule
-both were marked by meekness and humility
-both played the roles of prophet, priest, lawgiver, teacher, and leader of men.
-both taught new truth from God and spoke with God face-to-face
-God spoke audibly from Heaven to both
-both confirmed this new teaching with miracles
-both spent their early years in Egypt, miraculously protected from those who sought thier lives as infants
-both were rejected by their families had trouble accepting thier roles at first, but helped later
-both were received by Gentiles after being rejected by Israel
-both considered wisest man of their day
-both confronted demonic powers and successfully subdued them
-Moses appointed 70 rulers over Israel/Jesus anointed 70 disciples to teach the nations
-Moses sent 12 spies to explore Canaan/Jesus sent 12 apostles to reach the world
-It is not stated that either experienced sickness
-neither of their bodies remained in a tomb.
-both fasted for forty days and faced spiritual crises on mountain tops
-both went up into high mountain tops to have communion with God, taking their closest followers with them
-after their mountaintop experiences, both of their faces shone with supernatural glory
-as Moses stretched his hand over the Red Sea to command it, Jesus quieted the waves of the Sea of Galilee
-both cured leprosy
-both provided supernatural sources of food through the power of God (manna from Heaven and provision of quail under Moses, and the miracle of the loaves and fishes under Jesus)
-ungrateful people rebelled against the leadership of both men.
-the generations that rebelled against them died in their lack of faith, both were 40 year generations
-both established and sealed with blood a new covenant between God and His people
-both died on a hill
-both of their places of burial were attended by angels
-Moses promised that another Prophet would come in Deuteronomy 18, who would be much like himself/Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit
-In the month of Nisan, on the 14th day, which was the Feast of Passover, both Moses and Jesus freed all who would trust them. Moses freed them from the slavery of Egypt, and Jesus freed them from the slavery of sin and the world.
-on the 17th day, the Feast of Firstfruits, Moses brought about the resurrection of the children of Israel as they passed through the Red Sea; on the anniversary of that day, Jesus became the "firstfruits" of resurrection as He arose from the dead.
-50 days after this on Pentecost, God gave Israel the Torah/50 days after Jesus' resurrection, God gave the Church the great gift of the Holy Spirit
-both appeared alive after their deaths

Moses gave up the pleasures and riches of Pharaoh’s court, and his high position there; and left Egypt, for the sake of his people, even as it is said of Jesus “Ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor.” , In this day, Jesus asks us to leave the comforts of this world, of which Egypt was a type, and follow his words, as Moses obeyed God, and found out who he, himself, really was. Would we have ever heard of Moses if he had retained his rank in the court of Egypt as the son of Pharaoh’s daughter?

Moses also took a bride amongst strange people, while Israel did not recognize their deliverer, even as Jesus chooses His bride from amongst the Gentiles.

Most importantly, it is as intercessor, that Moses so pre-eminently reminds us of Jesus Christ. When the Israelites were fighting against their enemies, Moses went up to the top of the hill, and sat there as the intercessor: “And it came to pass, when Moses held up his hand, that Israel prevailed; and when he let down his hand Amalek prevailed.” This seems typological of Him who has ascended to the Father, and been given “all power in Heaven and in Earth”. When beset by temptation, Moses prayed for his people, that their faith would not fail, even as Jesus prayed for Peter. Moses tells the Israelites in Deut. v. 5, “I stood between the Lord and you…to shew you the word of the Lord.” Thus he prefigured the “one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus”; the “Advocate with the Father”; the One who “ever liveth to make intercession” for us, who indeed stood in the breach when “He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities.”

"Now it came to pass on the next day that Moses said to the people, 'You have committed a great sin. So now I will go up to the LORD; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin.' Then Moses returned to the LORD and said, 'Oh, these people have committed a great sin, and have made for themselves a god of gold! Yet now, if You will forgive their sin--but if not, I pray, blot me out of Your book which You have written.' And the LORD said to Moses, 'Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book. (Exodus 32:30-33)"

In order that Israel might be saved from the wrath of God, Moses stood ready to offer his own life--to take the punishment of the people's sins on himself if God could find no other way to forgive them. He asked God that his life be an expiation for the sins of the people. As a priest he could have made grandiose offerings--thousands of lambs or bulls--but instead he simply offered his own life. By comparison, Jesus did the same; but also by contrast, Jesus gave His life.

Forty years of Moses' life were spent as a shepherd in the mountains and deserts of Midian, but he was also the shepherd of God’s people.

“You led your people like a flock by the hand of Moses and Aaron” (Psalm 77:20)

Jesus was known as the Good Shepherd.

"I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly. I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep…My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me’” (John 10:11, 27)

Or how about Joseph?

-His father sent him to find his brethren.
-He was a shepherd.
-He was destined one day to rule over the House of Jacob.
-His brethren hated him, out of envy.
-While he was still yet far from them, they conspired to kill him.
-They sold him to the gentiles, for the price of a slave.
-Though he had done no wrong, he was falsely accused and declared guilty.
-He was placed with two malefactors, one of whom was released to life, the other to death. (The one to whom he gave a message of life to was told: “…within 3 days, Pharoah will lift up your head and restore you to your post.” (Gen. 40:13) just as Jesus delivered a message of life to the thief on the cross, who would only truly be released from Abraham’s bosom, into heaven, after the 3 days Jesus would be dead.
-In due course he was exalted and set up at the right hand of the king.
-He was presented by the king with a bride.
-He gave bread to a perishing world.
-He became the instrument for the salvation of the gentiles.
-His brothers did not recognize him the first time they saw him; but he recognized them, and wept.
-He made provision for his brothers even though they did not recognize him, when they were in a strange land.
-His brothers recognized him the second time when he made himself known to them; and they repented before G-d.
-His brothers were troubled when they learned who he was, but he forgave them and wept in rejoicing at the reunion.
-He proclaimed that all he had suffered had been the will of G-d for him, and that he had been sent ahead of them to save them.
-He sent his brothers back to tell of all the glory which he had at the right hand of the king.

Joseph was rejected by his own brothers, and delivered over to the gentiles. There he is given the title, Zaphenah-Paneah, 'savior of the world'(Gen. 41:45). At the end of the story he is reunited with his family, and he tells them not to fear him, 'I am your brother' (Gen. 45: 4) as will be the case with Jesus.

Or how about Isaac?-

-Isaac's birth was foretold and promised by God.
-A lengthy interval passed between the time of the promise and the time of his birth.
-His mother did not understand how she could bear a son.
-His birth came about because God intervened to make it happen.
-He was named before he was born.('And you shall call his name. . . ')
-He was not born until the appointed time, the time which was set.
-He was his father's beloved son.
-His birth stirred up the jealousy of his brother.
-He did not rebel when he was to be sacrified, but trusted in the wisdom of his father.
-He had to carry the wood for his sacrifice.

Genesis Rabbah, the Jewish midrash, comments that Isaac with the wood on his back is like a condemned man, carrying his own cross! Cf. John 19.17: Carrying his own cross, he [Jesus] went out to the place of the Skull (which in Aramaic is called Golgotha). 18 Here they crucified him, and with him two others -- one on each side and Jesus in the middle.]

-He was prepared to be sacrificed in the mountains of Moriah (site of the later Temple and crucifixion).
-He was to be smitten by his own father.
-God showed that the only sacrifice which would be acceptable to Him would be one in which He Himself provided the sacrificial offering.
-His own received him back, as though from the dead. (Isaac is actually said to have died as a sacrifice for ISrael's sins and been brought back to life, just like Jesus in the Rabbinic writings)
-Abraham also travelled three days after God told him to sacrifice Isaac which is analogous to the 3 days Jesus was dead. The 3 day scenario seems not to fit at first. But if we look at it from Abraham’s perspective, who is analogous to God in this type, we see that it is quite accurate. Abraham experiences the greif of knowing that the fate of his son is to die for 3 days…He wanders, dealing with this grief…On the 3rd day, his son is spared, and it is as if he has been given new life. This grief could very well be analogous to the grief that God, the Father, experienced, while his Son was dead for 3 days.

It would be impossible for me to exhaust all the types. Read Ada R. Habershon's "A STudy of the Types".

We could go on and on and on, but we don't need to because I've already stomped you...

CLB: So did Hercules, or at least was taken into Heaven when he was so near death that the difference between the two stories (Jesus and Hercules) is overall irrelevant.

SWL: Ahahaha...trying to fudge a bit here? Did he die first or didn't he? (not that it will make the parallels any more relevant)

[quoteBut ascension is entirely Jewish. See Elijah's ascension in the OT for example.[/quote]
Really? Thats interesting, because:
"On his funeral pyre, the dying Hercules ascended to Olympus, where he was granted immortality and lived among the gods."
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/h/hercules.html

SWL: Yeah, so what? LOL, like I said - the ascension is entirely Jewish - I'm speaking of Jesus' ascension of course.

SWL: Yeah, some encyclopedias and a TV show right, Einstein? Hahahhahahah! Try again using your brain this time.[/QUOTE]

CLB: I await your response after reading the similarities and quoted sources now.

SWL: Still the same. Its pure garbage and you haven't given me the dates on the primary sources. You've given me Encyclopedia summaries just like we started with. Keep trying...

CLB: I predict it will be more fact-dodging, picking in irrelevant specifics, and sweeping exagerations as has come to be so expected of you, but who knows, perhaps you will actually be man enough to admit your arguments are not the greatest thing since sliced bread.

SWL: Perhaps you'll be honest enough to admit that they are.

CLB: Its a given that you are a total fucking idiot, but your bitchy attitude really needs to stop.

SWL: Sorry man, you just ain't the sharpest pencil in the box sometimes.

CLB: I have this insatiable desire to drag you into a room and spend a half hour beating the shit out of you just for being such the prissy bitch that you are.

SWL: Stop man. You're really frightening me.

CLB: Its never going to happen, and would be wrong, anyway, so please act like a man, not a bitch (even if you are one), and stop being so prissy.

SWL: Being prissy? HAHAHHAH! Your name is "Cute Little Baby"! Hahahah..I thought you were a chick for the longest time, not just from your name though...

CLB: Umm, yes, he should write down and firmly establish the doctrine that he wants instead of relying on second and thirdhand reports by mortal humans who claim no divine inspiration and all dissagree with each other.

SWL: Jesus was born into an oral culture. Sorry, they didn't have the printing press and stories just travelled by word of mouth back then and were considered more reliable for doing so. Don't like it? Too bad.

<snip rest of your stupidity>

CLB: Son/s of God born of mortal women, doing fantastic actions and eventually conquering death itself can be derived from Judaism? Interesting. I suppose thats why there is virtually no referrence to such in the OT?

SWL: LOL, see Isaiah 53 for suriving death. Miracles are done by OT prophets constantly. Get a clue.

CLB: I already have. By "predates the Gospels", I assume you will introduce some theory that the story of Hercules was written after and influenced by the Gospels? The absurdities never stop with you, do they?

SWL: Of COURSE there are late stories of Hercules! And if these sources your using DON'T predate the Gospels, then OF COURSE you have no case for borrowing and it is entirely plausible that the borrowign went the other way. So again - get the dates on every source you've used, Encyclopedia Brown.

Better luck next time...Sorry about the beating....

SecWebLurker

What is the difference if the details of Jesus' life were taken from the OT rather than pagan traditions? In both cases Jesus turns out mythical. Christians want to keep Jesus within the confines of Judaism at all costs, because the early Church demonized paganism so thoroughly that any pagan connection with Jesus would be embarrassing and incoherent. Mind you, the Catholic Church has also demonized the Jews over and over again. All non-Christians are necessarily in league with Satan, according to most Christians who ever lived. So what does it matter where the NT writers got their information for the details of Jesus' life? So long as their information came from authoritative texts rather than oral tradition stemming from historical events, mythicism becomes a plausible account of Christian origins.