Thanks Robin (and everyone else who contributed) for pointing out these differences.
If we generalize enough, ALL stories ever told are similar: there are characters, they do things, different things happen 
So perhaps we should flip the argument on itâs head and list things that make the story of Christ completely unique and also unlikely to have been made up by people at the time?
Thanks Marta!! Are you starting a NEW post here? That is: what makes the story of Christ completely unique and unlikely to have been made up by people at that time? Let me know â another fun idea!!
Terry has a fun oneââprove that Satan does not existâ âwell, OK, not so âfunâ.
Yes Robin, I have just started a new thread on this topic âwhat makes Christ unique?â so if anyone has ideas, please head over there! @ARus sorry for âstealingâ your thread lol
This has caught my eye on the Bible Vs Scientism thread (from @Bill_II )
And even though itâs a one-to-one correspondence of 24-hour days in this case, it is still evidence that âdaysâ can be metaphorical.
Been researching the tomb story. Came across this statement:
Justin Martyr, Origen, Celsus, Tertullian, Minucius Felix, and Arnobius admit that the earlyChristians patterned Jesus resurrection tale after theRoman imperial and Greek heroic, mythographic tradition.27 The earliest of these, JustinMartyr, Samaritan born in the first century and writing in the mid-second century, confesses:
FN 27: 7 Justin, 1Apol 21; Origen, Gels. 3.22-31; Tertullian, Apol 21.20-23; Minucius Felix, Oct. 21.9-10; Arnobius, Adv. Gentes 6.1.41.
While Origen allows that the resurrection narratives fall under the stated convention, he wants to see the various Greek and Roman accounts as reflecting demonic activity, that is, as counterfeits. Origen also attempts to distinguish the NT accounts by claiming Jesusâ effectual theological superiority. Since Jesus has impacted so many by his piety, his translation must be thereby proven legitimate.
Source: Markâs Empty Tomb and Other Translation Fables in Classical Antiquity Author(s): RICHARD C. MILLER Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 129, No. 4 (WINTER 2010), pp. 759-776
It seems while we modern Christians are quick to reject the parallels between Jesus and paganism, some ancient Christians used them apologetically.
Vinnie
I donât quite get it. If the resurrection story is patterned on earlier myths, how can it be true? You canât pattern real events on other stories, they just happen.
Itâs one thing to say: âResurrection stories arenât new; Grimmâs Fairy Tales are full of them.â Itâs another thing to say: âResurrection stories arenât new; medical records are full of them.â Whatâs the probability that the early Christians were suggesting that Jesusâ resurrection was just another fairy tale. And technically, Jesusâ resurrection wasnât even like Near-Death-Experience accounts either. How many post-NDE folks has anyone heard of who hung around for almost two months and then âascended into heavenâ?
I donât believe they were. You wouldnât be happy to be publicly eaten by a lion over a fairly tale, or would you?
I would say it wasnât an NDE at all, as thereâs no possibility of surviving crucifixion (although Iâve heard it suggested). Nothing "near"about it, it was death, full stop.
Not likely. I donât even like it when cats lick me.
I agree: full stop."
If every detail of Jesusâs life, death and resurrection was patterned off of Pagan elements then I would find it all suspect but that is not the case. That a story is told in the conventions of the time doesnât make it false. There are all but iron clad historical reasons for thinking Jesus was buried and his earliest followers thought he appeared to them. This other stuff doesnât really compare. We have contemporary primary data for that. If Jesus was believed to have risen from the dead its only logical he would be painted in light of the OT by Jews and become the product of Pagan symbolism by Gentiles. Shared literary allusions do not indicate this did not occur as Christians would explain what actually happened in this fashion if it did. So its largely a wash. We all have a worldview and background assumptions that we interpret things through. Ancient pagans and Jews were no different.
There are, however, some cases where it looks like events are clearly just patterned wholesale off the Old Testament. Matthewâs infancy narrative is one example. There are so many close parallels to Moses/Exodus and so many historical questions one easily doubts historicity of many of the details there.
But early followers of Jesus were eager to find him in the Scriptures any way they could. Sometimes they stretched material, sometimes they created material and sometimes historical details made them make obvious connections. Historicity or ahistoricity has to be argued on a case by case basis regardless.
I think we only have confidence in the death of 3 apostles early on. The idea that Christians everywhere were being systematically persecuted is false. As a matter of fact, there is zero evidence the followers of Jesus were hunted down early on. Acts shows them in Jerusalem openly preaching and doing xyz. If Rome considered them a threat they would have been in hiding or in heaven. Yes there was persecution but sometimes apologetical zeal over-states it. Believing in a crucified messiah is enough evidence the apostles were convinced. We donât need to invent extra persecutions or uncritically side with late legends about the apostles of think every Christian risked being fed to lions by accepting Jesus.
Vinnie
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
âLet your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.â -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.
