countjulian

That actually just betrays your ignorance. The actual Greek term used to describe the miracles of Jesus is literaly "Great Deeds(erga)"

how about you actually read primary sources (like the ones I posted above) instead of cheap summaries. And exactly how close does a parrallel have to be for you people? Does the son of god need to be named Jesus? Does the death have to by crucifixion? Between 2 theives? Do 3 marries have to roll away the tombstone? When a son of god dies in agonies and ascends to heaven, why must we not note the similiarities?

whitewater55

Check out the Krishna myth - the parallels are astounding, "God/man", virgin birth, taught righteousness and forgiveness of transgressions, performed healing miracles, died on a tree, 5 wounds (feet, hands and breast), resurrection, redemption and so on. Worth a look. Predates xianity by centuries, known to the Greeks through conquests of Alexander.
Interesting stuff, here.

richard2

Okay, I did. Wikipedia disagrees with what you say about Krishna:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krishna

No mention of a virgin birth (his mother had like 7 children before Krishna), no crucifixion, no wounds, no redemption, etc...

jjramsey

The Greek word used to describe Jesus' miracles is beside the point. The activities of Jesus and the activities of Hercules are different in kind, and calling them both "great deeds" doesn't change that.

Close enough that it cannot be explained away in a similar way as the parallels between a vague prophecy and an event.

youngalexander

Manfred Clauss in The Roman Cult of Mithras : The God and His Mysteries does indeed give a more accurate view of the 'parallels' with Christianity. However, he does not dismiss them as lightly as has been suggested, and they remain considerable as his ch.14 "Mythras and Christ" indicates. However;
To talk of parallels and even 'borrowings' is to miss the point. We are dealing with a common milieu of Graeco-oriental culture from which a whole pantheon of gods and immortals arose. It is not that Christianity has this or that direct parallel to any given god or historical/mythical person. Rather it is that Jesus fits the mythic Hero pattern better than most of the gods for whom there are supposed parallels.

Rank, Raglan & Dundes point this out In Quest of the Hero

Charles H Talbert in What Is a Gospel: The Genre of the Canonical Gospels says He goes on to conclude that the gospels were Talbert gives a detailed analysis of the 'myth of the immortals' in ch.2 "Mythical Structure-1". Ch.3 "Mythical Structure-2" similarly for the descending-ascending myth in the ANE.

If Talbert is correct in this analysis it follows that there will be various degrees of similarity between the biographies of Christianity and those of the surrounding Mediterranean culture in which it arose. The details will be different in each case, Christianity being very much informed by Judaism, but the essential forms will be highly similar.

Steven Avery

Ironically, this misinformation is still peddled in skeptic and mythicist and other circles daily. Look at this article that has been up on the web, by Farrell Till, probably for 5-10 years, confusing people daily, and no note or change is ever made saying "the basic claim here is false".

http://www.infidels.org/library/maga.../3front94.html
Farrell Till in Skeptical Review discusses
"Hare Jesus: Christianity's Hindu Heritage" by Stephen Van Eck
"Besides Krishna, there were many other virgin-born pagan saviors"

With such blatant misinformation being peddled, no wonder folks are confused.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

jjramsey

Considering that the OP is entitled "Jesus the Copycat Savior?", talking of borrowing is very much on point. The goal is to say that Jesus didn't exist but was derived from pagan myth, and to make that case, the parallels have to be strong enough to indicate derivation.

countjulian

No, not really. I'm fairly sure that Julius Caesar existed, even though I believe that his post-mortem cult drew heavily from the Apollo cult and Greaco-Roman religion in general. Just so, I am also fairly sure Jesus existed, but I also realize that his post-mortem cult drew heavily from the Heracles cult, the Aesclepius cult, the Dionysus cult, etc.

Just because some unscrupulous persons such as Freke & Gandy and Murdock appropriate the burrowing thesis to support absurd ends does not mean that the whole theory is not valid.

jjramsey

I read that book myself, and from what I can remember, he certainly does not affirm the "parallels" that circulate on the Internet.

"Drawing heavily" is still derivation, and the parallels I see are too vague to make a case for derivation from the cults that you mentioned.

This link is about prophecy fulfillment, but much of it applies to finding pagan-Christian parallels, esp. the bits about keeping it vague and the law of large numbers:

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

Noggin

I disagree, jjramsey.

The Jesus story could be false, it could be true. No one really knows. All of my life as a Mormon, I believed ... or should say, I never even thought to question the validity claim of Jesus as my Lord and Savior. That is the bubble I grew up in. It should not surprise you that there are many common myths (creation, flood, elite and favored people of god, savior etc) across many cultures that all share common themes.

These are born out of our human inability to make sense of existential problems such as Who am I? Where did I come from? Where am I going?

Why can't the story be linear such as this:

A tribal prehistoric man sees his friend die, ponders where his life force went to and why his body rots away to bones. Over time spent pontificating, he comes up with a simple plan that a great spirit is behind it all. He shares this concept with others who get caught up in the significance. Faith is born. And religious dogma soon follows.

Men are found doing good and bad things. Religion is implemented to push the societal agenda forward. That agenda consists of the concept that it is better to compel men to do more good things than bad. The concept of displeasing the spirits or gods is invented. This is augmented when man figures out a way for them to reconcile ultimately with the great spirit who controls all order. The story is augmented to have their God coming down to live with humans, who then shows them the master plan, and even suffers a death for us and now man is on the hook. Man owes this god everything because this god came down and paid for us with his life.

It is not that far fetched. It is a myth that is pleasing to a barely developed brain. Over the millenia, it evolved to where it is now.

The kicker is that once the basic concept germinated, it took root in many minds and spread into different cultures who then personalized it. It is not far fetched that cross pollination occurred resulting in a hybrid accounting of the myths.

That seems to be more in line with what really happened.

Conclusion:

There are enough basic parallels to suggest this is how it did happen.

What are your thoughts? Do you take the bible literally then? Are you saying that Jesus really lived and his life was suspiciously copied prior to his life's work... how? Did the devil inspire the other similar myths to confuse us in our day?

Noggin