Search

Thursday, April 16, 2015

Attis and Jesus - Five Claims Refuted

As I am going through and editing my book I feel that my rebuttal of these "Jesus-myth" theories is not enough, so I will post some rebuttals here. I may decided to remove that entire section from the book and make a more extensive booklet out of it and put more refuted contradictions in my original book. Regardless, here are some claims about Attis refuted. This replaces my planned post for tomorrow, "Is Jesus a Pagan Myth? - Part Five."

Attis 
Claim: Attis was considered to be a shepherd, Jesus was called "Good Shepherd," so Jesus was borrowed from this. 
Refutation: Jesus was not an actually shepherd, but using imagery already established in the scriptures (e.g., Psalm 23) he compared himself to a shepherd over his followers. Why was such imagery so applicable? Because shepherding was not an uncommon occupation, which is why the worshipers of Attis pictured him as a shepherd. 

Claim: Jesus account of hanging from a stake comes from Attis dying under a pine tree. 
Refutation: Jesus died the standard method of execution during the time of the Roman Empire. As for Attis he did not hang upon a stake neither was he impaled upon a tree. The two accounts of his death go like this: Either he died by a boar like Adonis or he castrated himself under a pine tree and died. The later might explain why many of his worshippesrs castrated themselves. 

Claim: Attis was born of a virgin, Nana, [through immaculate conception.] Jesus' story came from this. 
Refutation: The story is a bit more complicated that this. Zeus, in a kind of sexual frenzy drops his "seed" on Mt. Agdus. According to the 2nd Century (AD) writer Pausanias it was unwittingly that Zeus did this. In any event a two-gendered being was formed called "Agdistis. Either Liber or Dionysus caused Agdistis to sleep. One of them tied Agdistis's foot to his male genitalia with a rope and startled him. Agdistis castrated him self and the blood fertilized the earth at that spot and an almond tree began to grow. In time Nana, the daughter of the river-god gathered some almonds into her bosom and it disappeared. Attis was then conceived, or some say he was directly born of the almond. So Nana was a virgin, from the accounts I could find, yet this differs on so many different levels from Jesus' conception. Clearly if the gospel writers did not steal from this account. 

Claim: Attis's worshipers had a communion of bread and wine like Jesus and his followers. 
Refutation: Even skeptics (e.g., Freke and Gandy) acknowledge, "What they ate and drank from these sacred instruments is not recorded." Yet they some how know that it was "most likely . . . bread and wine." Despite the fact that wine was forbidden during festivals of Attis. Besides bread and wine were common, but so were milk and meat. 

Claim: Attis was reserected and ascended to the most high on the third day, Jesus just copied this. 
Refutation: Attis was never resurrected and after his love died (in case a nymph another or a fiancé) he goes off and castrates himself under the pine tree. In one case, Agdistis, asks Zeus to resurrect him. Instead Zeus makes sure his body does not decompose, and lets his hair grow and one finger moves. Jesus on the other hand did ascend to the true Most High as it says in the Psalms.

Wednesday, April 15, 2015

Krishna and Jesus - Six Claims Refuted

I have been editing this section of my book and wanted to look at more "similarities" between Jesus and Krishna. A certain source I found that they made these baseless false name accusations:

Assertion: Chrisna was called Zeus Chrisna (I haven't found proof he ever was). 
Refutation: I haven't found proof of that, so I must conclude that it is an attempt to sound like Jesus Christ. 

Assertion: Jesus is either derived from or chosen because of the name Zeus. 
Refutation: Zeus is both spelled differently and has a different meaning than Jesus. (Ζευς; shine or sky vs. Ιησους; Jehovah is Salvation). 

Assertion: The title of Christ comes from Chrinsa 
Refutation: Krishna looks completely from Christ and means "dark" as opposed to Christ which means "anointed." 

Assertion: Krishna's "mother" is Maia and Jesus' mother is Mary.  
Refutation: However Maia means "illusion," but Mary means "bitter." Also unless his mother is not Maia.

Also this interesting ones word for word from a skeptic.

Assertion: "The birthplace of Chrisna was Mathura. If you remember your Bible you will know that this is similar to Maturea, between Nazareth and Egypt." 
Refutation: Mathura may have been Krishna's birthplace, but I have never found any place called "Maturea" inside or out of the Bible. Aside from unclear references by mythers. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, as you will remember and if you remember your Bible you will know that this is completely unrelated to some made up place called Maturea.

Assertion: "[Chrisna] was born on December 25th (that is the Indian month of Savarana) at midnight." 
Refutation: Some say that Krishna was born in December, but most do not. Jesus, some say, was also born in December, but earlier times had traditions for almost every month of the year. Neither Hinduism or Christian texts say when either were born. Also the Indian month of Shraavan (what I assume is meant by "Savarana") falls in July to August.

Is Jesus a Pagan Myth? - Part Four

Is Jesus the Messiah or a Myth Inspired by Pagan Myths? 

Most atheists do not deny the existence of Jesus, only the fact that he was anything more than a man. Some however allege that he was a myth. Not just a myth, but a stolen myth from various pagan sources. However how do their claims stand up? By examining five such pagan figures we can see that Jesus was not borrowed from these sources.


Mithra 
Mithra (not the Persian Mitra) was a Roman religion. According to skeptics Jesus is derived in part from Mithra. They say that both were attended by shepherds with Mithra claiming that first. However the earliest relief of Mithra's birth indicates that he was born from rock. This undermines the claim that Jesus virgin birth claim came from Mithra, but it is true that Mithra was attended by what appears to be shepherds. However, this relief dates from the 4th century AD. 
Mithra, according to mythers, had twelve disciples. However there is no source that shows twelve disciples. If mythers refer to the zodiac that surrounds Mithra in some reliefs as disciples I guess you could say Mithra had twelve disciples, but it is more likely that they just represent twelve constellations. 
Some claim that Mithra also was a savior from sin, but there is no proof of that at all. While he did sacrifice a bull (something some mythers try to merge into one account of Mithra getting sacrificed) there is no mention of salvation from sins. However starting in Genesis, in some psalms and in Isaiah and Daniel the concept from a Messiah redeeming mankind from sin is mentioned, which if Jesus was not actually the Messiah is where Jesus got those claims from - not Mithra! However there is a similarity. But not much of one. Mithra is a mediator like Jesus. Only Jesus is a mediator between God and man, but Mithra between good and evil.

Monday, April 13, 2015

Is Jesus a Pagan Myth? - Part Three

Is Jesus the Messiah or a Myth Inspired by Pagan Myths? 

Most atheists do not deny the existence of Jesus, only the fact that he was anything more than a man. Some however allege that he was a myth. Not just a myth, but a stolen myth from various pagan sources. However how do their claims stand up? By examining five such pagan figures we can see that Jesus was not borrowed from these sources.

Zoroaster 
An Aryan (or Iranian) prophet in about the 6th century BC. Because he predates Jesus many assume that any simmilairites between the two indicate that the gospel writers stole from Zoroaster's account. They claim, and rightly so, that Zoroaster was tempted by an evil spirt. Vendidad Fargard 19:6 states, "Again to him said the maker of the evil world, Angra Mainyu: 'Do not destroy my creatures, O holy Zarathustra [Zoroaster]! Thou art the son of Pourushaspa; by thy mother I was invoked. Renounce the good religion of the worshippers of Mazda, and thou shalt gain such a  boon as Vadhaghna gained, the ruler of the nations." 
However similar this story might be is irrelevant. This is a post-Christian work, which though it might contain earlier traditions in no way is solid evidence that Christians borrowed from this source. Perhaps, using mythers' logic, Zoroastrianism was borrowed from Christ! However it is perfectly possible that the Zoroastrian account was not inspired by the earlier Christian account. 
Jesus according to Christian thought is the "seed" or "offspring" prophecized at Genesis 3:15. Skeptics ignoring that Genesis predates the 6th century also ignore the true meaning of Zarathustra and say that it means "seed of the woman." However his Persian name means possibly "[owner of] golden camel." There is no stealing from Zoroaster on this account. 
Jesus, to say it again, died for mankind's sin, but Zoroaster did not. He, according to some, died on an alter at the age of 77. In any regard there is no similarities that indicate either had to borrow from the other and certainly none that indicates that Jesus was derived in part from Zoroaster.