- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
Before accepting that Jesus Christ was a reworking of Greek mythology or pagan beliefs, it’s worth examining each specific instance (and noting that such a conclusion ignores all the evidence for Christ’s crucifixion and Resurrection.
Here’s an examination of one claim from the website, gotquestions.org
“Question: "Is the account of Jesus taken from the story of Serapis Christus?"
Answer: Some people claim that the accounts of Jesus as recorded in the New Testament are simply recycled myths borrowed from pagan folklore, such as the myth of Serapis (or Sarapis), whom some label Serapis Christus. Other mythological characters sometimes associated with the story of Christ include Osiris, Dionysus, Adonis, Attis, and Mithras. The allegation is that the myths of Serapis Christus et al. follow essentially the same story as the New Testament’s narrative of Jesus Christ, “proving” the New Testament writers borrowed qualities from pre-existing deities and applied them to Christ—or “proving” that Jesus never existed. Bible-believing Christians reject such claims.
The origin of Serapis worship is rooted in political expediency. Ptolemy I Soter, one of the generals who took over the Greek Empire after Alexander’s death, ruled Egypt from 323 BC to 282 BC. Wanting to unite the Egyptian and Greek segments of the populace under his rule, Ptolemy created a new deity that combined elements of Egyptian and Greek culture. He started with Osiris, the Egyptian god of the underworld, and added the worship of Apis, the sacred Egyptian bull. Ptolemy then Hellenized the appearance of his new Osiris-Apis god—the Greeks wanted their gods to look like people, without animal heads. The result was Serapis, a god with long hair and a full beard who was the god of the afterlife, healing, and fertility. The cult of the composite god Serapis was never that popular in Egypt itself, but it later spread to other parts of the Roman Empire, where Serapis was also known as the patron god of sailors, the sun god, and even a replacement for Zeus, the chief god.
Those who attempt to manufacture a link between Serapis worship and Christianity base their claims on these assertions:
– Serapis looks like Jesus. Of course, no one knows what Jesus looked like, but the fact that Jesus probably had a beard (see Isaiah 50:6), combined with the fact that images of Serapis show him with a beard, is enough for some to confuse the two. Using this logic, we could say that King Henry VIII was simply an invention of people retelling the myth of the Norse god Odin—since both Henry and Odin have beards.
– Serapis healed like Jesus. The Bible records many instances of Jesus’ healing ministry (e.g., Luke 5:17–26), and these miracles were witnessed by scores of people. There is nothing mythological about eyewitness accounts.
– Serapis was an immortal god of the underworld, just like Jesus. To be more exact, Serapis was supposedly a god (Osiris) whose incarnation after death was a bull (Apis), according to the convoluted blending of Ptolemaic and Egyptian mythology. Jesus died for the sins of humanity (something Osiris never did) and was raised (as Himself, not as life-force within a bull) for our justification (Romans 4:25). “Seasonal resurrections” that correspond to the crop cycle have nothing to do with the sacrificial death, resurrection, and ascension of the Lord Jesus. In fact, the Osiris myth does not really contain a resurrection at all: Osiris never comes back to life but simply continues an existence in the underworld. Nothing in all of ancient literature parallels the Bible’s record of the resurrection of Christ.
– Serapis was called “the Good Shepherd,” and so is Jesus. The problem is, no ancient literature exists in which Serapis is ever called “Good Shepherd.”
– Serapis was also called Christus or Chrestus, which corresponds to Jesus’ title of “Christ.” Given the wide acceptance of the Serapis cult in the Greek and Roman world, it should not be surprising that the cultists would call their god the “chosen one.” But we should note that the term Christ (or the Hebrew form, Mashiach) predates the origin of Serapis by hundreds of years (see Daniel 9:25 and Isaiah 61:1).
– The Emperor Hadrian wrote that worshipers of Serapis called themselves Christians. The letter identifying Christians with Serapis-worshipers was supposedly written in AD 134, but the document from which the letter comes, the Historia Augusta has been shown to be a forgery dating to AD 395. Hadrian did not write the letter, and the whole argument is a sham.
No, the account of Jesus was not borrowed from the story of Serapis. Nor did the Gospel writers borrow from the myths of Mithras, Attis, or others. Jesus was a real, historical person, and the four Gospels relate factual information about what He said and did.
Just because an event bears some similarities to a prior, fictional account does not mean that the later event never occurred. Fourteen years before the Titanic sank, novelist Morgan Robertson wrote of a massive ocean liner called the Titan that sank in the North Atlantic after striking an iceberg—in the novel, the Titan did not have enough lifeboats on board for all of the passengers. The fictional Titan and the real Titanic also had similar sizes, speeds, and propulsion systems. That’s a far more extensive agreement than any pagan “source material” has with the real Jesus. Yet no one can reasonably argue that what we know about the Titanic is just an adaptation of Robertson’s book. Eyewitness accounts and good evidence prevent us from claiming that the Titanic is mythical, even if there was a similar fictional story already in circulation when the Titanic sank. Connections between Jesus and mythical characters from His time period are far less direct. We can be confident that the biblical Jesus wasn’t cobbled together from prior pagan beliefs. The historical and archaeological evidence against such theories is strong.”
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
Originally posted by @romans1009What do you make of the similarities between Jesus and these mythologies around Horus? (Egyptian deity).
Do you know what the purpose was behind mingling of the divine and humanity in Greek mythology? Did it have a purpose?
'Was conceived by a virgin mother named Meri, and had a stepfather named Seb (Joseph)
Was born in a cave, his birth announced by an angel, heralded by a star and attended by shepherds
Attended a special rite of passage at the age of twelve and there is no data on the child from the age of 12 to 30
Was baptized in a river at the age of 30, and his baptizer was later beheaded
Had 12 disciples
Performed miracles, exorcized demons, raised someone from the dead, walked on water
Was called “Iusa”, the “ever-becoming son” and the “Holy Child”
Delivered a “Sermon on the Mount”, and his followers recounted his sayings
Was transfigured on the Mount
Was crucified between two thieves, buried for three days in a tomb, and was resurrected
Called “Way”, “the Truth the Light”, “Messiah”, “God’s Anointed Son”, “Son of Man”, “Good Shepherd”, “Lamb of God”, “Word made flesh”, “Word of Truth”, “the KRST” or “Anointed One”
Was “the Fisher” and was associated with the Fish, Lamb and Lion.
Came to fulfill the Law, and was supposed to reign one thousand years.'
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
Originally posted by @sonshipHave shown the parallel with Horus. (A better example than Hercules).
Wrong?
Thankyou for the education. Robin Hood a demigod.
Fine.
I did have a mix of characters - historical and otherwise.
But the point remains that Jesus occupies a class of human beings of which there seems to be only one member.
Now, I have to go for the rest of the morning. But you could tell me where you find Hercules saying such things as ...[text shortened]... ll outlast the physical universe itself.
Show me parallel sayings from the mouth of Hercules.
See above.
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeFrom gotquestions.org
What do you make of the similarities between Jesus and these mythologies around Horus? (Egyptian deity).
'Was conceived by a virgin mother named Meri, and had a stepfather named Seb (Joseph)
Was born in a cave, his birth announced by an angel, heralded by a star and attended by shepherds
Attended a special rite of passage at the age of twelve ...[text shortened]... he Fish, Lamb and Lion.
Came to fulfill the Law, and was supposed to reign one thousand years.'
Question: "Is Jesus a myth? Is Jesus just a copy of the pagan gods of other ancient religions?"
Answer: There are a number of people claiming that the accounts of Jesus as recorded in the New Testament are simply myths borrowed from pagan folklore, such as the stories of Osiris, Dionysus, Adonis, Attis, and Mithras. The claim is that these myths are essentially the same story as the New Testament’s narrative of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. As Dan Brown claims in The Da Vinci Code, “Nothing in Christianity is original.”
To discover the truth about the claim that the Gospel writers borrowed from mythology, it is important to (1) unearth the history behind the assertions, (2) examine the actual portrayals of the false gods being compared to Christ, (3) expose any logical fallacies being made, and (4) look at why the New Testament Gospels are trustworthy depictions of the true and historical Jesus Christ.
The claim that Jesus was a myth or an exaggeration originated in the writings of liberal German theologians in the nineteenth century. They essentially said that Jesus was nothing more than a copy of popular dying-and-rising fertility gods in various places—Tammuz in Mesopotamia, Adonis in Syria, Attis in Asia Minor, and Horus in Egypt. Of note is the fact that none of the books containing these theories were taken seriously by the academics of the day. The assertion that Jesus was a recycled Tammuz, for example, was investigated by contemporary scholars and determined to be completely baseless. It has only been recently that these assertions have been resurrected, primarily due to the rise of the Internet and the mass distribution of information from unaccountable sources.
This leads us to the next area of investigation—do the mythological gods of antiquity really mirror the person of Jesus Christ? As an example, the Zeitgeist movie makes these claims about the Egyptian god Horus:
• He was born on December 25 of a virgin: Isis Mary
• A star in the East proclaimed his arrival
• Three kings came to adore the newborn “savior”
• He became a child prodigy teacher at age 12
• At age 30 he was “baptized” and began a “ministry”
• Horus had twelve “disciples”
• Horus was betrayed
• He was crucified
• He was buried for three days
• He was resurrected after three days
However, when the actual writings about Horus are competently examined, this is what we find:
• Horus was born to Isis; there is no mention in history of her being called “Mary.” Moreover, “Mary” is our Anglicized form of her real name, Miryam or Miriam. “Mary” was not even used in the original texts of Scripture.
• Isis was not a virgin; she was the widow of Osiris and conceived Horus with Osiris.
• Horus was born during month of Khoiak (Oct/Nov), not December 25. Further, there is no mention in the Bible as to Christ’s actual birth date.
• There is no record of three kings visiting Horus at his birth. The Bible never states the actual number of magi that came to see Christ.
• Horus is not a “savior” in any way; he did not die for anyone.
• There are no accounts of Horus being a teacher at the age of 12.
• Horus was not “baptized.” The only account of Horus that involves water is one story where Horus is torn to pieces, with Isis requesting the crocodile god to fish him out of the water.
• Horus did not have a “ministry.”
• Horus did not have 12 disciples. According to the Horus accounts, Horus had four demigods that followed him, and there are some indications of 16 human followers and an unknown number of blacksmiths that went into battle with him.
• There is no account of Horus being betrayed by a friend.
• Horus did not die by crucifixion. There are various accounts of Horus’ death, but none of them involve crucifixion.
• There is no account of Horus being buried for three days.
• Horus was not resurrected. There is no account of Horus coming out of the grave with the body he went in with. Some accounts have Horus/Osiris being brought back to life by Isis and then becoming the lord of the underworld.
When compared side by side, Jesus and Horus bear little, if any, resemblance to one another.
Jesus is also compared to Mithras by those claiming that Jesus Christ is a myth. All the above descriptions of Horus are applied to Mithras (e.g., born of a virgin, being crucified, rising in three days, etc.). But what does the Mithras myth actually say?
• He was born out of a solid rock, not from any woman.
• He battled first with the sun and then with a primeval bull, thought to be the first act of creation. Mithras killed the bull, which then became the ground of life for the human race.
• Mithras’s birth was celebrated on December 25, along with winter solstice.
• There is no mention of his being a great teacher.
• There is no mention of Mithras having 12 disciples. The idea that Mithras had 12 disciples may have come from a mural in which Mithras is surrounded by the twelve signs of the zodiac.
• Mithras had no bodily resurrection. Rather, when Mithras completed his earthly mission, he was taken to paradise in a chariot, alive and well. The early Christian writer Tertullian did write about Mithraic cultists re-enacting resurrection scenes, but this occurred well after New Testament times, so if any copycatting was done, it was Mithraism copying Christianity.
More examples can be given of Krishna, Attis, Dionysus, and other mythological gods, but the result is the same. In the end, the historical Jesus portrayed in the Bible is unique. The alleged similarities of Jesus’ story to pagan myths are greatly exaggerated. Further, while tales of Horus, Mithras, and others pre-date Christianity, there is very little historical record of the pre-Christian beliefs of those religions. The vast majority of the earliest writings of these religions date from the third and fourth centuries A.D. To assume that the pre-Christian beliefs of these religions (of which there is no record) were identical to their post-Christian beliefs is naive. It is more logical to attribute any similarities between these religions and Christianity to the religions’ copying Christian teaching about Jesus.
This leads us to the next area to examine: the logical fallacies committed by those claiming that Christianity borrowed from pagan mystery religions. We’ll consider two fallacies in particular: the fallacy of the false cause and the terminological fallacy.
If one thing precedes another, some conclude that the first thing must have caused the second. This is the fallacy of the false cause. A rooster may crow before the sunrise every morning, but that does not mean the rooster causes the sun to rise. Even if pre-Christian accounts of mythological gods closely resembled Christ (and they do not), it does not mean they caused the Gospel writers to invent a false Jesus. Making such a claim is akin to saying the TV series Star Trek caused the NASA Space Shuttle program.
The terminological fallacy occurs when words are redefined to prove a point. For example, the Zeitgeist movie says that Horus “began his ministry,” but the word ministry is being redefined. Horus had no actual “ministry”—nothing like that of Christ’s ministry. Those claiming a link between Mithras and Jesus talk about the “baptism” that initiated prospects into the Mithras cult, but what was it actually? Mithraic priests would place initiates into a pit, suspend a bull over the pit, and slit the bull’s stomach, covering the initiates in blood and gore. Such a practice bears no resemblance whatsoever to Christian baptism—a person going under water (symbolizing the death of Christ) and then coming back out of the water (symbolizing Christ’s resurrection). But advocates of a mythological Jesus deceptively use the same term, “baptism,” to describe both rites in hopes of linking the two.
This brings us to the subject of the truthfulness of the New Testament. No other work of antiquity has more evidence to its historical veracity than the New Testament. The New Testament has more writers (nine), better writers, and earlier writers than any other existing document from that era. Further, history testifies that these writers went to their deaths claiming that Jesus had risen from the dead. While some may die for a lie they think is true, no person dies for a lie he knows to be false. Think about it—if you were threatened with crucifixion, as tradition says happened to the apostle Peter, and all you had to do to save your life was renounce a lie you had knowingly told, what would you do?
In addition, history has shown that it takes at least two generations to pass before myth can enter a historical account. That’s because, as long as there are eyewitnesses to an event, errors can be refuted and mythical embellishments can be exposed. All the Gospels of the New Testament were written during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses, with some of Paul’s Epistles being written as early as A.D. 50. Paul directly appeals to contemporary eyewitnesses to verify his testimony (1 Corinthians 15:6).
The New Testament attests to the fact that, in the first century, Jesus was not mistaken for any other god. When Paul preached in Athens, the elite thinkers of that city said, “‘He seems to be a proclaimer of strange deities,’—because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection. And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, ‘May we know what this new teaching is which you are proclaiming? For you are bringing some strange things to our ears; so we want to know what these things mean’” (Acts 17:18–20, NASB). Clearly, if Paul were simply rehashing stories of other gods, the Athenians would not have referred to his doctrine as a “new” and “strange” teaching. If dying-and-rising gods were plentiful in the first century, why, when the apostle Paul preached Jesus rising from the dead, did the Epicureans and Stoics not remark, “Ah, just like Horus and Mit...
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
(Continued from previous post.)
The New Testament attests to the fact that, in the first century, Jesus was not mistaken for any other god. When Paul preached in Athens, the elite thinkers of that city said, “‘He seems to be a proclaimer of strange deities,’—because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection. And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, ‘May we know what this new teaching is which you are proclaiming? For you are bringing some strange things to our ears; so we want to know what these things mean’” (Acts 17:18–20, NASB). Clearly, if Paul were simply rehashing stories of other gods, the Athenians would not have referred to his doctrine as a “new” and “strange” teaching. If dying-and-rising gods were plentiful in the first century, why, when the apostle Paul preached Jesus rising from the dead, did the Epicureans and Stoics not remark, “Ah, just like Horus and Mithras”?
In conclusion, the claim that Jesus is a copy of mythological gods originated with authors whose works have been discounted by academia, contain logical fallacies, and cannot compare to the New Testament Gospels, which have withstood nearly 2,000 years of intense scrutiny. The alleged parallels between Jesus and other gods disappear when the original myths are examined. The Jesus-is-a-myth theory relies on selective descriptions, redefined words, and false assumptions.
Jesus Christ is unique in history, with His voice rising above all false gods’ as He asks the question that ultimately determines a person’s eternal destiny: “Who do you say I am?” (Matthew 16:15).
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
Originally posted by @romans1009What 'evidence?'
I probably shouldn’t be posting in this thread because the claim that Jesus Christ is a reworking of Greek mythology or pagan beliefs totally ignores the evidence for Christ’s crucifixion and Resurrection and it’s this evidence that I find compelling.
Please share.
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeWe’ve been over this before.
What 'evidence?'
Please share.
To start, Google “15 Logical Reasons to Believe the Resurrection” as that briefly lists some of the evidence.
Then, if you’ve done that and shown your interest in the evidence is sincere, I’d be happy to discuss what’s listed there, amplify on it and add evidence that does not appear there.
But I’m certainly not going to spend time listing all the evidence (there is quite a lot and it has convinced experts in evaluating evidence such as Sir Lionel Luckhoo and others,) if you’re really not interested.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
Originally posted by @romans1009Perhaps we could discuss instead your understanding of the term 'evidence.' especially when you precede it with 'compelling'.
We’ve been over this before.
To start, Google “15 Logical Reasons to Believe the Resurrection” as that briefly lists some of the evidence.
Then, if you’ve done that and shown your interest in the evidence is sincere, I’d be happy to discuss what’s listed there, amplify on it and add evidence that does not appear there.
But I’m certainly not goin ...[text shortened]... in evaluating evidence such as Sir Lionel Luckhoo and others,) if you’re really not interested.
Edit: Have we been over it before?! Freudian slip?
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeMaybe it was with FMF; I thought it was with you. He (or you or someone else who asked for evidence) refused to Google the article I identified, which told me they really weren’t interested in the evidence and I therefore saw no reason to waste time.
Perhaps we could discuss instead your understanding of the term 'evidence.' especially when you precede it with 'compelling'.
Edit: Have we been over it before?! Freudian slip?
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke<<Perhaps we could discuss instead your understanding of the term 'evidence.' especially when you precede it with 'compelling'.>>
Perhaps we could discuss instead your understanding of the term 'evidence.' especially when you precede it with 'compelling'.
Edit: Have we been over it before?! Freudian slip?
I’m not the only one who finds the evidence compelling...
“Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853) was one of the founders of Harvard Law School. He authored the authoritative three-volume text, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence (1842), which is still considered "the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature of legal procedure."1 Greenleaf literally wrote the rules of evidence for the U.S. legal system. He was certainly a man who knew how to weigh the facts. He was an atheist until he accepted a challenge by his students to investigate the case for Christ's resurrection. After personally collecting and examining the evidence based on rules of evidence that he helped establish, Greenleaf became a Christian and wrote the classic, Testimony of the Evangelists.
Let [the Gospel's] testimony be sifted, as it were given in a court of justice on the side of the adverse party, the witness being subjected to a rigorous cross-examination. The result, it is confidently believed, will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability, and truth.
Sir Lionel Luckhoo (1914-1997) is considered one of the greatest lawyers in British history. He's recorded in the Guinness Book of World Records as the "World's Most Successful Advocate," with 245 consecutive murder acquittals. He was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II -- twice. Luckhoo declared:
I humbly add I have spent more than 42 years as a defense trial lawyer appearing in many parts of the world and am still in active practice. I have been fortunate to secure a number of successes in jury trials and I say unequivocally the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt.
Lee Strobel was a Yale-educated, award-winning journalist at the Chicago Tribune. As an atheist, he decided to compile a legal case against Jesus Christ and prove him to be a fraud by the weight of the evidence. As Legal Editor of the Tribune, Strobel's area of expertise was courtroom analysis. To make his case against Christ, Strobel cross-examined a number of Christian authorities, recognized experts in their own fields of study (including PhD's from such prestigious academic centers as Cambridge, Princeton, and Brandeis). He conducted his examination with no religious bias, other than his predisposition to atheism.
Remarkably, after compiling and critically examining the evidence for himself, Strobel became a Christian. Stunned by his findings, he organized the evidence into a book entitled, The Case for Christ, which won the Gold Medallion Book Award for excellence. Strobel asks one thing of each reader - remain unbiased in your examination of the evidence. In the end, judge the evidence for yourself, acting as the lone juror in the case for Christ.”
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
Originally posted by @romans1009So I have to read his book to ascertain why 'you' find the crucifixion and resurrection as compellingly evidenced? (Have you at least read his book? )
<<Perhaps we could discuss instead your understanding of the term 'evidence.' especially when you precede it with 'compelling'.>>
I’m not the only one who finds the evidence compelling...
“Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853) was one of the founders of Harvard Law School. He authored the authoritative three-volume text, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence (18 ...[text shortened]... . In the end, judge the evidence for yourself, acting as the lone juror in the case for Christ.”
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeI’ve read Strobel’s book (it’s not long) but had referenced the article accessible via Google as a starting point. The post you quoted was just to demonstrate that experts in evaluating evidence found the evidence for Christ’s Resurrection to be compelling.
So I have to read his book to ascertain why 'you' find the crucifixion and resurrection as compellingly evidenced? (Have you at least read his book? )
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
Originally posted by @romans1009BTW, I didn’t hear of Strobel’s book until after I had become convinced by the evidence and had accepted the great, magnificent and merciful Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour.
I’ve read Strobel’s book (it’s not long) but had referenced the article accessible via Google as a starting point. The post you quoted was just to demonstrate that experts in evaluating evidence found the evidence for Christ’s Resurrection to be compelling.