PTET

Hi GakuseiDon

Thanks for your comments.

However, I think you are missing my point. Saying that Christianity has "parallels" with other religions is not the same as accusing it of direct borrowing.

I do not claim that Christ was modelled on or borrowed from Mithra or Zoroaster. (On the other hand, it seems that Zoroastrianism did have an impact on Judaism during the "exile").

The point is that these stories address common themes. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that these stories are mythic in character.

That, of course, doesn't by itself mean that they are not true.

However, insisting that other mythic stories can only be "damaging to the truth of Christianity" if there is "proven borrowing" prevents a false dichotomy, since it excludes the possibility that "Christianity" is based on re-cast mythical themes without there having been any actual direct borrowing.

Looking at the story of Christ, it seems reasonable to conclude that we have the story of a real individual that has been told in a version of events which has the characteristics of a myth...

E.g. even if we accept that Jesus was a real live person, we do not have to accept anything "miraculous" attributed to him without adequate corroborating evidence.

I hope that helps :-)

PTET



PTET answers Tektonics

GakuseiDon

Fair enough, but my point is that you need to establish that those parallels exist in the first place. For example, some claim that Krishna was born of a virgin at Christmas (I know you don't) - but as that parallel doesn't exist in the first place, it can't really be used further on.

Yes, I agree.

Again, I agree.

Yes, but that would be true regardless of how unique Christianity is, one way or the other.

I think what you are talking about is "archetypes", which is an interesting topic in itself.

I have no problems with discussions about archetypes, but my point is that it is important to establish that the parallels exist before drawing any meaning from them.

PTET

GakuseiDon: I have no problems with discussions about archetypes, but my point is that it is important to establish that the parallels exist before drawing any meaning from them.

Well, the parallels clearly exist. We have the same archetypes appearing in mythologies all over the world. As I say in my page on Justin Martyr and elsewhere, this was recognised from the earliest days of Christianity.

Do you not agree that they give reason to doubt the particular miraculous stories associated with Christianity?

PTET



PTET answers Tektonics

GakuseiDon

Certainly, the parallels exist. There are parallels between, say, the deaths of Lincoln and Kennedy. What conclusions should we draw out of that?

Just saying that there are parallels doesn't mean much. Why shouldn't there be parallels?

No, the sheer fact that there are parallels doesn't. You would need to show why the parallels are meaningful.

The parallels between Lincoln and Kennedy are addressed by the excellent Urban Legends site, snopes: http://www.snopes.com/history/american/linckenn.htmPerhaps we should look at some specific examples of miracles. Let's look at Jesus healing people (you can choose another if you like). What parallels are there in other myths, and why are they meaningful?

PTET

An excellent example. Any number of other religious leaders are or have been supposed to be able to effect healings. None of these claims have ever been verified scientifically. Is it not reasonable to conclude that "healing powers" are a characteristic expected of religious leaders? And that it is therefore reasonable to expect that stories would be told about Jesus effecting healings? And that there is therefore good reason to doubt the "healing" miracles attributed to Jesus?

PTET

Amaleq13

According to Vermes, miraculous displays were typical of Jewish prophets. It was expected of a "son of God" to establish the authority of his teachings/prophecies by demonstrating such power. Also, the appearance of the Messiah was expected to be accompanied by healings and miracles. For anyone to be taken seriously as the Messiah, these OT expectations would have to be fulfilled. Or at least be claimed to have been fulfilled.

GakuseiDon

I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that Jesus didn't actually heal anyone, just that these stories grew around him as he was a religious leader? Or that Jesus performed healings (in the vein of Benny Hinn), but that, as Benny Hinn's miracles can be put down to the psychological state of the recipient, so can Jesus's?

I think you can see the difference: the first option says that Jesus (assuming He existed) never performed healings; the second says that Jesus COULD have performed healings, just not miraculous ones.

Editted to add: If miraculous healings could be shown to be possible, wouldn't that make the parallel with other religions irrelevant? That is, your use of parallels already assumes that the parallels are either unhistorical or non-miraculous events.

Also, you seem to have missed my questions on the Krishna-Christ parallels, and the Kennedy-Lincoln parallels. I'm interested in your thoughts on those.

PTET

I am saying that any one of the possible explanations you list is preferable, in the absence of positive evidence miraculous evidence either by Jesus himself or by anyone else, to the proposal that Jesus really did perform miraculous healings.

Both explanations are better, in the absence of actual evidence of the miraculous, than the one proposed by the Gospels.


It would not make arguments of parallels irrelevant at all. It would still give no grounds, in the absence of specific evidence linking these miracles to "Jesus", to conclude that Jesus's reported healings were real.


Just because parallels exist, it does not mean that they are linked ;> The difference is, my friend, that you expect me to believe that the miracles attributed to Jesus are true, while those attributed to any other religion are not.

PTET

Vorkosigan

These do not apply. The "parallels" between the OT and the NT do not work like the Lincoln-Kennedy parallels, which are between two historical incidents. Often when we see an OT-NT parallel, it is between a literary event in the OT and a "historical one" in the NT. For example, Psalm 21, a literary creation, winds through the Passion Narrative.

Second, many parts of the NT show obvious dependence on creation from the OT, for example, where Matthew gets Zechariah mixed up when he puts Jesus on two animals entering Jerusalem.

Third, the OT is often cited in the NT parallel.

Fourth, the NT events fit into larger structures that are obviously constructed, for example, the fivefold miracle structure in Mark.

For these reasons, the OT and NT cannot be said to be "parallel." Instead, the NT must be viewed as created out of the OT.

Vorkosigan

GakuseiDon

Then, if miraculous healings are a priori considered impossible, then why worry about parallels? Haven't you already ruled out miracles as impossible? Of what use are parallels, then?

It seems to me that, if you want to use parallels, you need to start with the premise that miracle healings MAY be possible. In which case, you can ask, "If Jesus's miracle healings are true, then why not those other healing myths true? Alternatively, if those other healing myths are false, why not Jesus's?"

The problem is that I don't know of any Christian doctrine that says that miracle healings outside Christianity have never occured. So there is no need at all for an "either-or" situation. As you yourself show Justin Martyr pointing out, a Christian could believe that a non-Christian holy man could perform miracles, either through the actions of God or the Devil.

I think your use of parallels fails, as either being irrelevent or a strawman. Perhaps just leaving it at "there is no scientific evidence for miracles" is a stronger and more rational position.

Actually, no I don't. I'm hoping you see your argument as (my apologies) badly thought out. Remember, in the OP you asked for criticism/comments!

In my eyes, you've fallen into the same trap that creationists fall into: a willingness to accept evidence from uncritical sources to support your beliefs, i.e. selecting the 'facts' to fit the theory, not the theory to fit the facts. Maybe that's a bit unfair, but I'm hoping you prove me wrong!

BTW, your website still says that Krishna's mother was a virgin called "Maia". This isn't true. His mother was called Devaki, and he was her 8th son, so she definitely wasn't a virgin when he was born. (Even the religioustolerence website says this).