Parallel Accounts of Jesus

[Ryan Plott]

I recently watched the movie Religulous with a group of friends. In the movie, Bill Maher essentially goes to every major world religion(Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) and some minor(Scientology, Mormonism) and in regards to Christianity asks some really great questions about faith, Scripture and theology since he spends the majority of his film dissecting Christian belief and practice. I'd recommend the film if he was actually looking for answers and dialogue, but you get the idea through the movie that he's just trying to make people look stupid and be sacrilegious. There's some objectionable material also which is pretty tasteless in its function.

In the movie he makes mention of the parallel accounts of his day between the life of Jesus and the life of Mithra (who was born of a virgin) and Horus(who, according to Maher is a carbon-copy of the major events that take place in Jesus' life) and posits the idea that the account of Jesus was taken from these stories and fit into it's own copycat religion.

Since I'm nowhere close to a religious library and can't really research this for myself, I figured I'd pose the question to those on Naznet who might have looked into this subject.

What would be a legitimate response to the claim that Bill Maher and others make as to whether the account of Jesus is fictional or not? I'm not going to deny that there's cultural conditioning within the text but saying it's all made up is a conclusion that I have a very gut-deep reaction against.

My initial thought would be that it is some kind of missional statement, promoting Jesus as Messiah and Christ while making connecting points of entry for those in other religions of the day to find Christianity legitimate. Also, since the NT authors heavily quote the OT in support of the events in the life of Jesus it would be demonstration that while these other religions have partial claims of what divinity is(virgin birth, miracles, resurrection from the dead) only in the OT are these signs expected and then brought into fulfillment in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.

That initial thought could be way off. I'd welcome any thoughts or ideas.

[Benjamin Burch]

I recently watched the movie Religulous with a group of friends. In the movie, Bill Maher essentially goes to every major world religion(Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) and some minor(Scientology, Mormonism) and in regards to Christianity asks some really great questions about faith, Scripture and theology since he spends the majority of his film dissecting Christian belief and practice. I'd recommend the film if he was actually looking for answers and dialogue, but you get the idea through the movie that he's just trying to make people look stupid and be sacrilegious. There's some objectionable material also which is pretty tasteless in its function.

In the movie he makes mention of the parallel accounts of his day between the life of Jesus and the life of Mithra (who was born of a virgin) and Horus(who, according to Maher is a carbon-copy of the major events that take place in Jesus' life) and posits the idea that the account of Jesus was taken from these stories and fit into it's own copycat religion.

Since I'm nowhere close to a religious library and can't really research this for myself, I figured I'd pose the question to those on Naznet who might have looked into this subject.

What would be a legitimate response to the claim that Bill Maher and others make as to whether the account of Jesus is fictional or not? I'm not going to deny that there's cultural conditioning within the text but saying it's all made up is a conclusion that I have a very gut-deep reaction against.

My initial thought would be that it is some kind of missional statement, promoting Jesus as Messiah and Christ while making connecting points of entry for those in other religions of the day to find Christianity legitimate. Also, since the NT authors heavily quote the OT in support of the events in the life of Jesus it would be demonstration that while these other religions have partial claims of what divinity is(virgin birth, miracles, resurrection from the dead) only in the OT are these signs expected and then brought into fulfillment in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.

That initial thought could be way off. I'd welcome any thoughts or ideas.

My problem is that there are so many theories out there to choose from. Which one is best?

Jesus is Titus Falvian....

Jesus is modeled after Homer's Illiad and Odyssey

Jesus is taken from Mythra

Jesus is taken from Horus

Jesus is taken from Dionysis....

Where do we start?

This is my initial struggle with this whole line of thinking. Anyways, I'll respond more in a bit.

[Rich Schmidt]

FYI, it's Mithras, not Mithra. Two different people/gods/whatever (I think).

See the Wikipedia link for the Mithraic Mysteries.

[Billie Goodson]

There are many stories that have similar events such as those found in the life of Jesus as recounted in the synoptic gospels. The fact that other stories exist with similar elements does nothing to disprove the account of the life of Jesus which is offered by testimony of three witnesses (known as Matthew, Mark (widely believed to be the account of Peter), and Luke. (CORRECTED PER RICH'S STATEEMENT)

There was once a great ship that was designed to be unsinkable. This ship was a passenger liner that would carry the social elite of the day and would set speed records during voyages. The ship struck an iceberg during it's maiden voyage and sunk. In the catastrophe, nearly 1/3 of the passenger's lost their life. This is the fictional account of the Titan, written by Morgan Robertson in 1898. Since the events of the book about the Titan so closely mirror the story of the Titanic, should we be led to believe that the Titanic in fact did not happen?

Robertson's book, "The Wreck of the Titan" was never published. Each time it was rejected by editor's, they told him the same thing. The story was unbelievable. Surely the events he wrote of could not possibly happen to an unsinkable ship. Robertson penned his book in 1898 -- fully 14 years before the "other story".

On the issue of Mithra, I once did a bit of study in looking at the myths and how they related to the assertions of Christianity in regards to Christ. It is a very loose handling of details about the myth to even begin to relate it to Christ. There was a thread on here before the crash (BC). I might somewhere have a copy of the work I did because it was in response to an atheist friend. If interested, I would be happy to send it to you if I find it.

[Rich Schmidt]

There are many stories that have similar events such as those found in the life of Jesus as recounted in the synoptic gospels. The fact that other stories exist with similar elements does nothing to disprove the account of the life of Jesus which is offered by testimony of three witnesses (known as Matthew, Mark, and Luke (widely believed to be the account of Peter as told by Luke).

I'm pretty sure it's Mark's gospel that's traditionally been linked with Peter, not Luke.

[Billie Goodson]

I'm pretty sure it's Mark's gospel that's traditionally been linked with Peter, not Luke.

You are correct. I corrected the original in hopes that confusion doesn't get introduced. Thanks!

[Shea Zellweger]

My problem is that there are so many theories out there to choose from. Which one is best?

Jesus is Titus Falvian....

Jesus is modeled after Homer's Illiad and Odyssey

Jesus is taken from Mythra

Jesus is taken from Horus

Jesus is taken from Dionysis....

Where do we start?

This is my initial struggle with this whole line of thinking. Anyways, I'll respond more in a bit.

And also, why does it matter? Some of the parallels have excellent reasons for existing- for example, the authors of the Gospels, and the early Christians, appear to have intentionally used language previously associated with other religious groups- it may come across as "copycat" to some, but given the intense persecution involved, I always get the feeling it's more "in your face" than anything else. There's also always going to be a certain amount of overlap when it comes to someone being parented by a God. We could take several of the children of Zeus and explain how Mary is similar to their mothers. We could examine the similarities between Jesus' claims about himself and those made by the Pharaohs. We could probably even travel to the subcontinent and look at the five Pandava brothers, among others, and conclude that the Jews stole the idea from them, despite their being little to no evidence that their cultures would have made that much contact at the time... and if that seems too plausible, we could journey even further to Japan, where the emperors believed they were the children of gods until 1946.

The same sort of exercise could be explored with virgin births, miracles, resurrections, messiahs, human sacrifice, and any number of other things, and then conclude that Jesus is just a hodgepodge of these various mythologies, predominantly whichever one we feel is most similar, but what's the point? If four people wrote biographies about me when I died, I'm pretty sure people would be able to look at my life and, if they so chose, decide that it was just a retelling of someone else's. People will see what they choose to see, and in the instance of Religulous, those involved were very intentional in not seeing God (or god, or gods).

[Ryan Scott]

As far as narratives go, I'm less concerned. If there's another religion out there with a deity who taught the kind of things Christ taught, I'd be interested in knowing about it. I've yet to find them.

[Ryan Plott]

This is my initial struggle with this whole line of thinking. Anyways, I'll respond more in a bit.

Look forward to it.

[Ryan Plott]

On the issue of Mithra, I once did a bit of study in looking at the myths and how they related to the assertions of Christianity in regards to Christ. It is a very loose handling of details about the myth to even begin to relate it to Christ. There was a thread on here before the crash (BC). I might somewhere have a copy of the work I did because it was in response to an atheist friend. If interested, I would be happy to send it to you if I find it.

I am interested, thanks.

[Ryan Plott]

As far as narratives go, I'm less concerned. If there's another religion out there with a deity who taught the kind of things Christ taught, I'd be interested in knowing about it. I've yet to find them.

I can see what you're getting at and I appreciate the idea. What Christ taught was revolutionary, with that I have no problem. He was the fulfillment of the Law and Prophets and is our model for what the OT teachers were trying to accomplish. So in a sense, there is another religion that does, they just don't accept the revelation that we do. I'm not sure if this is what you meant in your post, but I don't want to limit Christianity to a rational level with Christ's teachings and claim that as the primary criteria for following the truth claim of Christianity. The narrative matters, that's what Scripture is after all. If it's just the rational teachings we see as essential we become functioning gnostics with a Christian label. It has to be more than an exercise in intellect, it's a new way of being. I don't really think we can separate what Christ taught from what Christ did and still retain our unique truth claim on what it means to be human, who God is, and where and how God and humanity interact. If something like the resurrection is made up, Christianity is radically altered. That's why I feel this matters.




My concern is for those who see the questions those like Maher raise and are unable to respond and question their faith. What pastoral word do we have for them? That's what the heart of this conversation is for me and why I am concerned.

[Ryan Scott]

Absolutely the narrative matters, but we see time and again in the Old Testament a sort of re-appropriating popular narratives from other tribes to speak a unique truth about God. I believe Jesus Christ came to Earth, died, and was raised. Beyond that, the narrative functions as the context for the message; I'm less inclined to care about a Christian re-appropriation of some narrative elements in light of the unique message they convey.

[Dennis Bratcher]

. . . I'm not sure if this is what you meant in your post, but I don't want to limit Christianity to a rational level with Christ's teachings and claim that as the primary criteria for following the truth claim of Christianity. The narrative matters, that's what Scripture is after all.

I don't have much time right now, so just a couple of quick thoughts.

I don't think that it is a matter of pitting historical narrative against a "rational level." Jesus' teachings were all "ideas" or principles. The "narrative" of the parables, for example, were only a vehicle for those truths.

I am not willing to concede that the narrative portions of Scripture (there is a tremendous amount that is not "narrative") are irrelevant or totally fictitious. Yet Scripture is not really about the narratives but rather about the truths about God and humanity and relationship that the narratives convey. The whole exodus story takes 14 chapters to tell. Yet, the important point is not the narrative, but the confession about God that it communicates: " We were Pharaoh's slaves in Egypt, but the LORD brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand" (Deut 6:21). It is certainly grounded in history, but Scripture as Scripture is not about that history but about God. That's why Mike Lodahl's book title, The Story of God, is significant.

If we make Scripture about the history, or the narrative, then there is little rebuttal against skeptics except to try to prove the history. We have been at that for 150 years now and have not succeeded well yet.

Gotta run. Perhaps more later.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Ryan Plott]

I don't have much time right now, so just a couple of quick thoughts.

I don't think that it is a matter of pitting historical narrative against a "rational level." Jesus' teachings were all "ideas" or principles. The "narrative" of the parables, for example, were only a vehicle for those truths. .

I would agree. That post in response to Ryan was due to me not clearly understanding what he was trying to convey. When I was saying narrative, I was thinking the story of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection as that is what the skeptics in "Religulous" were questioning, not necessarily the parables Jesus gave or other narrative elements such as Jesus casting out demons or walking on water.

I am not willing to concede that the narrative portions of Scripture (there is a tremendous amount that is not "narrative") are irrelevant or totally fictitious. Yet Scripture is not really about the narratives but rather about the truths about God and humanity and relationship that the narratives convey. The whole exodus story takes 14 chapters to tell. Yet, the important point is not the narrative, but the confession about God that it communicates: " We were Pharaoh's slaves in Egypt, but the LORD brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand" (Deut 6:21). It is certainly grounded in history, but Scripture as Scripture is not about that history but about God. That's why Mike Lodahl's book title, The Story of God, is significant.

If we make Scripture about the history, or the narrative, then there is little rebuttal against skeptics except to try to prove the history. We have been at that for 150 years now and have not succeeded well yet.

I understand this, and I agree. History and narrative are the tools that the Biblical authors used to communicate their faith. How would we communicate the idea that what is communicated is valid when the tools are not necessarily 100% true or accurate?

That's what I'm struggling to try to communicate to my friends. I can understand where they are getting caught up and why there is a disconnect between us. I certainly wouldn't pay money and put my family and friends in a vehicle made by tools of questionable origin and, if the analogy is allowed to cross over, I would see how they would question religious belief and practice since it's a decision a bit more important than having a well-made car.

If you've got anything more Dennis, I'd appreciate hearing it.

[Dennis Bratcher]

If you've got anything more Dennis, I'd appreciate hearing it.

I didn't want you to think I am ignoring this, but I'm tied up all weekend in ministry activities. I may have some time Monday to respond, if anyone is still interested.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Todd Erickson]

The problem with the statements about Mithras or Horus are that they are highlight comparisons. I.e., if it only matters that Jesus was born of a virgin and rose from the dead, then yes, he parallels Mithras and Horus. Maybe a bit of healing in there as well.

But everything else is different.

The problem, I think, is that Evangelicals have made the issue about highpoint, rather than the character of Jesus, so it's very easy to do comparisons to Horus and Mithras. But once you start getting into the meat of actually following Jesus, rather than argument lynchpoints, you lose your comparison.

[Rich Schmidt]

The problem with the statements about Mithras or Horus are that they are highlight comparisons. I.e., if it only matters that Jesus was born of a virgin and rose from the dead, then yes, he parallels Mithras and Horus. Maybe a bit of healing in there as well.

Well, maybe he does. But frankly the evidence for what was actually believed about Mithras and Horus around the time of Christ and the rise of Christianity is extremely shaky. There are lots of competing legends and stories about them, and they seemed to develop and change over time. That stands in sharp contrast to the stories about Jesus, which were established and written down very early -- within 100 years of his life and death.

I've read a few things online about the parallels, but they tend to lack good citations, and sometimes don't seem to fit the majority view. For example, it appears that the major Mithras "birth" story involves him being born from a rock, fully grown. I don't see much parallel between that and the birth of Jesus.

[Ryan Plott]

I didn't want you to think I am ignoring this, but I'm tied up all weekend in ministry activities. I may have some time Monday to respond, if anyone is still interested.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

No rush, whenever you get the time is fine with me.