Introduction
| Why
Tektonics are kicking my butt | "Borrowings"
|
Why
Christ can't shake off Krishna: he has tar on him | Conclusion
| References
IntroductionThis article looks at the inability of Christian
Apologetics to accept that their teachings are in all probability based on
a hazy amalgam of mythology and history - rather than literal historical
events. Actually all this article does is vaguely whine and appeal to no credible sources. In doing so, they repeat the errors they complain of when sceptics
discount Christian stories solely because of inconsistencies in the Bible
texts (as opposed to looking at external evidence). As if PEST would know. Now watch PEST trip on himself:
Why Tektonics are kicking my buttJ. P. Holding of
Tektonics provides "A Multi-Essay Examination" Confronting the
Copycat Thesis. He begins:
"In spite of having been pronounced dead even by
intelligent skeptics, the thesis that Judaism and Christianity consist
merely of stolen pagan myths and ideas continues to be promulgated by
the uncritical and accepted by the gullible." [h1]
This is a blatant misrepresentation of the argument. It is? No, it isn't. This is exactly the argument made by the likes of Acharya S and many others. I'm not talking to the people PEST next cites, so how can I be "misrepresenting" anything? This is a blatant sign of lack of knowledge of available literature. As
ReligiousTolerance observes Yeah, the real experts with no credentials:
"There are many dozens of events in the gospels that are
very similar, or identical, to incidents which appeared centuries
before, in the stories of Pagan hero/saviors. These "godmen" were
worshiped by the priesthood and laity of Mediterranean and Middle East
religions. This linkage was known by many early Christian writers. They
attributed the parallels to Satan. They figured that the devil had
influenced the creation of Pagan religions in the centuries before
Jesus' birth." Vague and unsubstantiated. "Similar to", how? Will we actually get some specifics, like I offered? Don't hold your breath too long:[rt]
Although Holding and Tektonics are skilled at
pointing out the differences between Christian teachings and pagan myths -
and the often unsupported claims made in popular works on the subject If that's so, then how can I be "misrepresenting" anyone's view? -
they refuse to accept any evidence that Christianity was influenced
by pagan mythology. I refuse to accept any invalid evidence, which is all I have found so far, and as usual PEST refuses to engage much in the way of specifics, at best .01%.
Their argument is that because no one pagan
myth is exactly the same as any particular element of Christianity, then
the two cannot be related, or come from a common source or theme. Not only not "exactly," but so far from exact that comparisons are made by stretching and straining. Meanwhile, about those specifics…. This is
as ludicrous as arguing that the four Gospel accounts of the Resurrection
could not refer to the same events because of differences in their
narratives. An asinine comparison. This is comparing differences in narrative reportage with differences in conceptual presentation. (On that point, see my article The
Resurrection on Trial). Which, shall also suffer at our hands.
Tektonics position is well
demonstrated in the their review of
Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy's The Jesus Mysteries [tj],
where they take the authors to task for omitting a "vital" quotation from
the second century First Apology of Justin (LV), after he had listed
numerous similarities between "Christ" and numerous other mythological
heroes It is vital, quote marks notwithstanding:
"But in no instance, not even in any of those called sons
of Jupiter, did they imitate the being crucified; for it was not
understood by them, all the things said of it having been put
symbolically." [j1]
Christianity has, in fact, one other vital claim to
differentiate it from the pagan myths, as recognised by Celsus 1,800 years
ago:
"Are these distinctive happenings unique to the
Christians - and if so, how are they unique? Or are ours to be accounted
myths and theirs believed? What reasons do the Christians give for the
distinctiveness of their beliefs? In truth there is nothing at all
unusual about what the Christians believe, except that they believe it
to the exclusion of more comprehensive truths about God." [jm]
Examples of "Borrowing"Holding quotes an unnamed classical
scholar "G" as writing Unnamed, but with enough credentials in the field to make PEST's head spin:
"Points of contact between Christianity and other
religions are damaging to Christianity's truth claims only if actual
borrowings can be proven - not if the parallel features have simply
sprung from the same psychological source common to all humans - that
is, from the innate religious instinct which Christians regard as a gift
of God... I cannot think of a single case in which Christianity can be
shown to have borrowed a core doctrine from another religion" [tg]
"G" does not seem to be much of a scholar. PEST has a lot of nerve. The parallels
between Christianity and other mythologies are evident, and are accepted
even by such mainstream works as the Oxford Companion To The Bible I remarked some time ago that PEST replied to issues of copying in the NT with citations of copying with respect to the OLD Testament! In spite of this, that is what PEST still does!
[oc].
To pick selected examples:
- The "Genesis" account of creation: First written in around 800 BCE,
it contains elements similar to the Babylonian Enuma Elish, which
is thought to date from 1,500 BCE - and to the even older Sumerian
Creation myths of c.2500 BCE. The parallels between the Judaism and the
much older Sumerian and Babylonian cultures can leave no reasonable
doubt that the "Genesis" account is based at least in part from it's
much older ancestors We addressed that nonsense here, but in the meantime, what does this have to do with the NT?[oc].
- "Noah's Flood": Similar to the much older Epic of Gilgamesh
[gm],
related to Judaism as with the Genesis account. Ditto. What does this have to do with contact between Christianity and other religions? As an aside, the Biblical account is clearly superior to the Epic and more original, as for example the Epic's boat is not shaped like a proper barge, but like a Borg cube!
- "The Exodus":
Similar to the older Egyptian story of Sinuhe. Like heck it is. See here. With no archaeological
evidence to support it, the only reasonable conclusions is that "Exodus"
is based, at least in part on the older Egyptian myths. There is plenty of evidence to support it, if you look in the right place. On this we refer to David Rohl's works.[gm]
- "Jesus Christ": The story contains elements found in the mythologies
of almost every culture - a god-man who is killed but reborn, who will
return at a future date to offer liberation. Vague nonsense, but at least this time germane to the NT and Christianity. I looked at several candidates - all lost, or were later than Christianity.
By Tektonics
logic, there would be no reason to doubt the "truth" of any of the stories
of Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroastarianism or any number of other
religious beliefs - since it would be impossible to "prove" any
relationship with other mythologies. What "logic" PEST conceives of me offering here, I have no idea. In any event, truth claims have little or nothing to do with relationships.
Moreover, without firm proof
of that the Christian "Life of Christ" actually occurred as claimed, there
is no reason to accept it as "true" while rejecting Old Testament accounts
as "mythology". Firm proof we have, but don't expect PEST to do more than sound bite to the contrary. Try for example this.
Why Christ can't shake off KrishnaThe Hindu mythologies of
Kirshna, dating to c. 1,500 CE, Common Era, 1500 years after Christ? Yep. PEST is a careful guy. I'll assume he means BCE. show remarkable similarities with
Christianity. (The issue is, unfortunately, often clouded by unsupported
claims that Krishna was "crucified" or that he was born on 25th December).
[jm].
Like Jesus, Krishna was called both God and the Son of God; he was
sent to heaven in the form of a man; he was the saviour and the second
person of a trinity; his mother was a virgin (called "Maia"); and he died
and was resurrected The PEST's source for this? Not Hindu scholarship, but religioustolerance.org! I'll put it straight: the claims are simply bogus or irrelevant. Jesus was not "sent to heaven in the form of a man" but born on earth as one. There is no idea in Hinduism like the Trinity, which involves a hypostatic relationship. He did not "resurrect" in any sense of the word, according to the Jewish definition. I'd check more deeply, but the source PEST cites blows its credibility, because it gets all of this from - guess who - Kersey Graves, a notorious liar so inaccurate that even the Secular Web posts a warning about him, and also uses as sources junk from Acharya S and hobbyist websites. That's a really reliable bunch of guys.[rk].
Tektonics would have one believe that either Jesus was
Krishna, or nothing. That made sense when I read it years ago. It still doesn't. They fail, at every turn, to consider the possibility
that Christian teaching is likely to be, as studies of comparative
mythologies show, a mixture of common themes and historical events, made
culturally acceptable to the group at which they are aimed. That's because the data and evidence shows that no such possibility exists, and PEST has yet to answer that point, or any details offered in our essays.
In
fact, by discussing the similarities between around twenty mythological
events and Christian teaching [h1],
Holding and Tektonics only push their argument to an ever more
ludicrous position. More vague claptrap. How this is done is neither described nor justified. It's just PEST's "yeah, I say so!"
ConclusionIn short, Tektonics continue the unbroken
tradition of two millennia of Christian thought in refusing to allow
their beliefs to be treated in the same way as any others. Excuse me? Since I have not addressed copycat claims about "others" how can this be said? Their
arguments can be summed up as follows: "Only we had the crucifixion;
and only our stories are true". The former is true. The latter is not said anywhere as a result, but is proven via other arguments. That may persuade "uncritical
and... gullible" believers, but it cannot persuade anyone else. Especially cowards who refuse to address any of our arguments in detail. Thank you.
|
