This link might be somewhat related. I recently learned about other (BCE) religious figures whose stories bear an uncanny resemblance to Jesus' story as presented in the 4 gospels.
This link might be somewhat related. I recently learned about other (BCE) religious figures whose stories bear an uncanny resemblance to Jesus' story as presented in the 4 gospels.
Coincidence?
I don't recall if it was in a class or seminar or publication or whatever but, when I was in The Way, these similarities were explained away as being counterfeits, meant to dilute the importance of the "real" events. A trick of the devil, as it were. Yep. Our version of the truth is the only genuine version. All the others are fakes, designed to lead you away from accepting the genuine...
This link might be somewhat related. I recently learned about other (BCE) religious figures whose stories bear an uncanny resemblance to Jesus' story as presented in the 4 gospels.
Coincidence?
I don't recall if it was in a class or seminar or publication or whatever but, when I was in The Way, these similarities were explained away as being counterfeits, meant to dilute the importance of the "real" events. A trick of the devil, as it were. Yep. Our version of the truth is the only genuine version. All the others are fakes, designed to lead you away from accepting the genuine...
I went through a few of those "Great Courses" a few years back on comparative religion and as is said in Ecclesiastes: There is nothing new under the sun.
Since this is a Bart Ehrman thread, his view on similarities between Jesus and previous figures is the priority for this discussion (which I humbly suggest belongs in the Questioning Faith subforum in Doctrinal).
Without going into too much boring detail, Ehrman's position is that the similarities between Jesus and the earlier figures are overstated. I am inclined to believe him for two reasons, both having to do with bias. Bart Ehrman is a self-described agnostic. He no longer believes in the Biblical God. Therefore, he has no vested interest in the Bible being true, or in the stories about Jesus being based on an actual historical figure. If the evidence led him to believe Jesus was a mash-up of earlier messianic figures, there's nothing in his belief system to stop him from pursuing and adopting that belief. He doesn't. That tells me, at the very least, that he is being sincere in his belief that the similarities are overstated.
The second reason has nothing to do with Bart Ehrman directly, but with a historian who disagrees with him about the historicity of Jesus. Richard Carrier is probably the most academically qualified and prominent of those who refer to themselves as Jesus Mythicists. These are people who believe Jesus never existed, or at least that if there was a historical character, he has been so overwhelmed by legend and exaggeration that he might as well not have existed. For them, the gospels are literally historical fiction, much the same as Mel Gibson's movie The Patriot was entirely fictional, despite its verifiable historical settings and despite the fact that the main character is indeed based on someone who existed in real life. So many liberties were taken with the historical character that we rightly say the movie character never existed.
So Richard Carrier is a full-on mythicist. He thinks the Jesus of the Bible is a complete work of fiction. And even Carrier believes the similarities between Jesus and previous figures are overblown. Now, BIAS would lead both these scholars to accept and adopt the position that the similarities are significant. In fact, predictably, Carrier accepts more of the similarities than Ehrman. But they agree that as a whole, the similarities are overstated.
I recognize that I am appealing to authority here, and none of this guarantees that either of these men are correct. But when a dentist tells me what's wrong with my teeth, and shows me the evidence, I'm inclined to accept his expertise and believe him. Unless I were inclined to investigate the historical record on my own, I feel I am on safer ground relying on experts -- especially when those experts are adopting a position that runs contrary to what you would expect them to find given their biases.
Note: I am suggesting that the similarities are overstated and overblown, not non-existent. It's like comparing Wierwille to Jim Jones. Yeah, there are similarities. But the differences!
We used Ehrman's The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings as our text during the first semester of Literature and History of the New Testament. The Church of God Reformation Movement, Anderson, Indiana, came out of the Wesleyan Holiness Movement of the late 1800s, and never joined the fundamentalist camp. Some of the profs in the School of Theology believe in inerrancy, some do not. It is an issue where they have agreed to disagree on amicable terms, seeing fellowship in Christ as more important than doctrinal "purity".
Maybe THAT's where God got the idea from ?! lol...on a lighter note the 'other' religious deities and their respective religion were a bit more bizzare and shall we say...unblievable . If my memory serves me correctly, Krishna's skin was blue, buddhas feet were so blessed, everywhere he stepped a lotus flower appeared in full blossom etc... In many, many ways Jesus was an actual fulfilment and to a degree, extension of the old testament written in antiquity. That's not taking into account the whole 'speaking in tongues' thingy either (referred to by some here as vocalization) which I still not agree can be likened to the genuine s.i.t. experience. The above article is very interesting though I must say for a comparative study.
Recommended Posts
waysider
"I wish you could see it in the original. It's just....so-so."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Ehrman's analyses of New Testament texts are devastating to the inerrantist position.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
I presume that something was mis-typed here. What were you saying?
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Inerrantist
Fixed
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
You can't read Ehrman's critiques and ever see the bible the same again, or early Christians.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Ehrman is one of my heroes. Fearless. Speaks the truth without patronizing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
This link might be somewhat related. I recently learned about other (BCE) religious figures whose stories bear an uncanny resemblance to Jesus' story as presented in the 4 gospels.
Coincidence?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I don't recall if it was in a class or seminar or publication or whatever but, when I was in The Way, these similarities were explained away as being counterfeits, meant to dilute the importance of the "real" events. A trick of the devil, as it were. Yep. Our version of the truth is the only genuine version. All the others are fakes, designed to lead you away from accepting the genuine...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I don't recall if it was in a class or seminar or publication or whatever but, when I was in The Way, these similarities were explained away as being counterfeits, meant to dilute the importance of the "real" events. A trick of the devil, as it were. Yep. Our version of the truth is the only genuine version. All the others are fakes, designed to lead you away from accepting the genuine...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
I went through a few of those "Great Courses" a few years back on comparative religion and as is said in Ecclesiastes: There is nothing new under the sun.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Since this is a Bart Ehrman thread, his view on similarities between Jesus and previous figures is the priority for this discussion (which I humbly suggest belongs in the Questioning Faith subforum in Doctrinal).
Without going into too much boring detail, Ehrman's position is that the similarities between Jesus and the earlier figures are overstated. I am inclined to believe him for two reasons, both having to do with bias. Bart Ehrman is a self-described agnostic. He no longer believes in the Biblical God. Therefore, he has no vested interest in the Bible being true, or in the stories about Jesus being based on an actual historical figure. If the evidence led him to believe Jesus was a mash-up of earlier messianic figures, there's nothing in his belief system to stop him from pursuing and adopting that belief. He doesn't. That tells me, at the very least, that he is being sincere in his belief that the similarities are overstated.
The second reason has nothing to do with Bart Ehrman directly, but with a historian who disagrees with him about the historicity of Jesus. Richard Carrier is probably the most academically qualified and prominent of those who refer to themselves as Jesus Mythicists. These are people who believe Jesus never existed, or at least that if there was a historical character, he has been so overwhelmed by legend and exaggeration that he might as well not have existed. For them, the gospels are literally historical fiction, much the same as Mel Gibson's movie The Patriot was entirely fictional, despite its verifiable historical settings and despite the fact that the main character is indeed based on someone who existed in real life. So many liberties were taken with the historical character that we rightly say the movie character never existed.
So Richard Carrier is a full-on mythicist. He thinks the Jesus of the Bible is a complete work of fiction. And even Carrier believes the similarities between Jesus and previous figures are overblown. Now, BIAS would lead both these scholars to accept and adopt the position that the similarities are significant. In fact, predictably, Carrier accepts more of the similarities than Ehrman. But they agree that as a whole, the similarities are overstated.
I recognize that I am appealing to authority here, and none of this guarantees that either of these men are correct. But when a dentist tells me what's wrong with my teeth, and shows me the evidence, I'm inclined to accept his expertise and believe him. Unless I were inclined to investigate the historical record on my own, I feel I am on safer ground relying on experts -- especially when those experts are adopting a position that runs contrary to what you would expect them to find given their biases.
Note: I am suggesting that the similarities are overstated and overblown, not non-existent. It's like comparing Wierwille to Jim Jones. Yeah, there are similarities. But the differences!
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
We used Ehrman's The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings as our text during the first semester of Literature and History of the New Testament. The Church of God Reformation Movement, Anderson, Indiana, came out of the Wesleyan Holiness Movement of the late 1800s, and never joined the fundamentalist camp. Some of the profs in the School of Theology believe in inerrancy, some do not. It is an issue where they have agreed to disagree on amicable terms, seeing fellowship in Christ as more important than doctrinal "purity".
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
Raf - are you referring to the "red thread"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
No. I am referring to the similarities between Jesus and pagan figures.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
allan w.
Maybe THAT's where God got the idea from ?! lol...on a lighter note the 'other' religious deities and their respective religion were a bit more bizzare and shall we say...unblievable . If my memory serves me correctly, Krishna's skin was blue, buddhas feet were so blessed, everywhere he stepped a lotus flower appeared in full blossom etc... In many, many ways Jesus was an actual fulfilment and to a degree, extension of the old testament written in antiquity. That's not taking into account the whole 'speaking in tongues' thingy either (referred to by some here as vocalization) which I still not agree can be likened to the genuine s.i.t. experience. The above article is very interesting though I must say for a comparative study.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.