3/2/15

The Non-Crucified Non-Saviors of the World by Dewayne Bryant, M.A.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=973

The Non-Crucified Non-Saviors of the World

by Dewayne Bryant, M.A.

Today the church finds itself bombarded with all kinds of criticism. One of these is the notion that Christianity owes its origins to pagan religions. One particularly troubling issue for some Christians is the massive amount of misinformation circulating on the Internet concerning the various “crucified saviors” of the world. Jesus is claimed to be no different than dozens of other saviors who were crucified for the sins of mankind, and later resurrected. If this were true, then Jesus would be merely a Johnny-come-lately to the religious scene, no different and no more authoritative than Zeus, Odin, or Thor.
The nineteenth century was the seedbed of comparative religion, which sought to analyze and discover the connections between various world religions. Critics in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were guilty of glossing over important differences for the sake of making connections between different religious traditions, including Christianity. Usually these connections were highly dubious in nature, and no real scholar uses this approach today. While it can be shown that some ancient pagan religions migrated, developed, and influenced others over time, Christianity is a different matter altogether.
Critics today—who almost universally have no training in ancient religion, philosophy, or languages—can be quite adamant that Christianity plagiarized ancient mythology when constructing the Bible and its supposed mythological traditions about Jesus. This idea is found in documentaries such as Bill Maher’s Religulous, Brian Flemming’s The God Who Wasn’t There, Peter Joseph’s Zeitgeist, the Movie, as well as in publications such as those by Dorothy M. Murdock’s The Sons of GodThe Christ Conspiracy, and Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection. All of these promote the idea of the “mythic Christ.”
Where did the idea of the mythic Christ originate? Much of it began in the writings of two amateur Egyptologists named Godfrey Higgins (1772-1833) and Gerald Massey (1829-1907). Both wrote extensively on the idea of the mythic Christ. They claimed one parallel after another between the Bible and pagan mythology, making it appear as if the biblical writers borrowed stories wholesale from ancient tales. Almost all scholars today recognize that this approach is fundamentally flawed. For nearly all of the supposed parallels these two men discovered, scholars today say without hesitation that no genetic connection exists between the Bible and the myths these two men examined.
Neither Higgins nor Massey was a scholar or academician, and both were self-taught religious enthusiasts (this generally holds true for all proponents of the Christ myth theory). More importantly, neither is remembered in the history of scholarship today. Writers such as Dorothy Murdock—a vocal proponent of the Christ myth theory—laments that these supposed intellectual titans have been forgotten. She heaps effusive praise upon Massey in particular (2009, pp. 13-26), calling him a “pioneer.” In truth, neither one of them had any ideas worth remembering. They are virtually unknown in modern Egyptology.
The work of Higgins and Massey was picked up and continued most famously by Kersey Graves, who authored the book The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors (1919). This woefully outdated book is still standard reading for militant atheists. Unfortunately, Graves’ fans do not appear to realize that his book was based on the work of our two error-prone amateurs. To make matters worse, Graves did not appear to consult the original myths himself. It appears that he may have even falsified some of his work. In all of the cases of his “crucified saviors,” unlike Jesus, none were actually crucified, and none of them died salvific deaths, that is in behalf of the salvation of others. Indeed, some of them never died.
The chart below gives the names of the gods that Graves and others traditionally claim were crucified saviors. The problems become apparent rather quickly:
Adonis
Adonis dies when he is gored by a bull on a hunting trip.
Attis
In a moment of madness, Attis commits suicide by emasculating himself.
Baal
The text is unclear, but it appears Baal is slain in personal battle with Mot, the Canaanite god of death. 
Bacchus
Bacchus is the Roman equivalent of Dionysus, whose body is almost completely devoured by the Titans, who leave only his heart.
Balder
In the Norse myths, Balder is invincible to all known objects, except for mistletoe. One of the gods’ pastimes is throwing objects at Balder, who cannot be harmed. Loki crafts a magical spear from this plant and tricks the god Hodur into throwing it at Balder, killing him.
Beddru
Supposedly a Japanese figure. Either Graves had a bad source, or he simply invented the name, as no figure with this name exists in Far Eastern literature. It may be that he meant to say “Beddou,” who is a Japanese figure some have equated with the Buddha. Regardless, there is no record of the crucifixion of this individual, if he even existed in any of the literature.
Devatat
This is uncertain, but appears to be the name of the Buddha in some places in the Far East. The literature states that the Buddha died at 80 of a natural illness, though some say he was poisoned. Either way, he never died on a cross, and Buddhism has no need of a personal savior, anyway.
Dionysus
The Greek god of wine and the grapevine had a tough childhood. When an infant, the Titans devour his body, leaving only his heart behind. He is later reborn.
Hercules
Hercules dies when he is burned alive on a funeral pyre. 
Hermes
Hermes never dies in the Greek myths.
Horus
Horus never dies in the Egyptian myths.
Krishna
Krishna is mortally wounded when a hunter accidentally shoots him in the heel with an arrow.
Mithras
Mithras does not die in the Persian myths.
Orpheus
In one account, Orpheus is torn apart by Maenads, the female followers of Dionysus, for failing to honor their master. In other accounts he either commits suicide or is struck by one of Zeus’ lightning bolts.
Osiris
Osiris is killed when his brother Seth drowns him in the Nile. Seth later recovers the body and dismembers it.
Tammuz
Originally called Dumuzi by the Sumerians, Tammuz is taken to the underworld when his lover, Inanna, is given a deal where she can be released if she finds a substitute. She is enraged that Tammuz is not mourning her death, so she chooses him to take her place in the realm of the dead. There is no mention of crucifixion.
Thor
Thor dies in Ragnarok, the final battle that will end the world, when he is bitten by a giant serpent.
Zoroaster
According to one ancient source, Zoroaster was murdered while at an altar.
Upon even a cursory inspection, it becomes clear that none of the so-called “crucified saviors” were actually crucified. Indeed, none of them are saviors, dying for the sins of humanity. Self-sacrifice was not involved. Instead, many did not die at all, or died an accidental death, or were murdered. Worse yet, none of them resurrected from a tomb. A few of the divine figures on the list were revived (or deified), but in a different manner than the Christian concept of resurrection. In short, this list consists purely of non-crucified non-saviors. Why are these connections made if they never truly existed? In short, it is due to careless research and preconceived biases that are immune to evidence.
While the idea of the pagan or mythic Christ draws from a variety of ancient mythologies, it is heavily influenced by Egyptian mythology, perhaps because the early proponents of this theory worked primarily with myths from Egypt. They also made connections based on preposterously thin evidence. Some examples of the typical connections include the following from Gerald Massey’s book Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ:
  • Jesus’ casting of a group of demons  calling themselves “Legion” into a group of pigs, which is equated with a story in which Horus turns someone into a pig (1996, pp. 62-63).
  • Jesus and Horus are each claimed to have had two mothers—two Marys for Jesus, and the goddesses Isis and Nephthys for Horus (p. 118).
  • Herod the Great, despite being a well-known figure to historians, is equated with Herrut, the Typhonian Serpent (p. 95).
In their book Unmasking the Pagan Christ, Porter and Bedard summarize Massey’s position this way:
[H]is conclusions rely on exaggerations and forced parallels that too often used later interpretations o the Gospels, rather than the primary texts themselves. To make matters worse, Massey cites numerous parallels without any indication of the original references in the Egyptian texts. Massey also begins the practice…of describing Egyptian myths with biblical language in an attempt to find a causal link (Porter and Bedard 2006, p. 30).
If the idea of a “crucified savior” had been as common as the critics allege, then it would not have been included among the criticisms leveled against the early Christians. The apostle Paul stated that the cross was a stumbling block to the Greeks (1 Corinthians 1:23), which would have been quite strange if the Greeks recognized any of the so-called “crucified saviors” mentioned by Graves and others. Justin Martyr admitted that preaching a crucified Christ appeared to be madness: “[The opponents of the church] say that our madness lies in the fact that we put a crucified man in second place to the unchangeable and eternal God, the creator of the world” (Apology I, 13.4). If everyone had crucified gods, then they would not have criticized the Christians for having one, too.
The picture that quickly emerges when looking at the original sources is one of exceedingly poor research on the part of the critics. It is one thing to make an honest mistake, but their litany of errors is academically unacceptable. At times, even other skeptics and atheists chide their fellow unbelievers for their careless work. Writing a review of Zeitgeist, the Movie in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer, leading skeptic Tim Callahan is highly critical of the “sloppy assumptions” in the documentary, concluding, “Zeitgeist is The Da Vinci Code on steroids” (Callahan, 2009, p. 67).
Some of this sloppy work includes failing to cite sources properly. Graves was not the only one guilty of failing to cite his sources or inventing material out of whole cloth. Of the pseudo-scholars in the 19thand early 20th century who promoted the Christy myth theory, apologist J.P. Holding says,
Kersey Graves…assures the reader that he has before him plenty of original documentation for his claims of crucifixion parallels, but…doesn’t have room to include any. And this is the rule, not the exception. Lundy, Higgins, Inman, Graves, Doane, etc., they all claim they have read or heard this or that, but none of them can site [sic]a single source document (Holding, 2008, p. 376, italics in orig.).
Because of its manifold problems, the idea of the mythic Christ is difficult even for many atheists to swallow. On the anti-Christian Web site Infidels.org, historian and atheist Richard Carrier lists ten major problems with Graves’ work, the last of which is that “Graves’ scholarship is obsolete, having been vastly improved upon by new methods, materials, discoveries, and textual criticism in the century since he worked” (Carrier, 2003). Scholars see Graves’ work as worthless. Critics find it absolutely indispensible, perhaps because there are no scholarly treatments that agree with their presuppositions.
The Christ myth theory has not been answered by many scholars, simply because they choose not to waste their time debunking fringe theories. Experts are usually preoccupied with teaching and research, with a few of them engaged in archaeology and other academic pursuits as well. This leaves little time for answering the preposterous claims of the “Christ mythers.” (In personal e-mails to three leading New Testament scholars, each noted that the Christ myth theory holds no place of respect in modern scholarship. Ben Witherington III of Asbury Theological Seminary said, “[T]his whole discussion is considered beyond the pale and beyond belief, even with liberals.” When asked whether the paucity of scholarly material on the pagan Christ was because scholars do not waste their time on “crackpot theories,” Darrell Bock of Dallas Theological Seminary said, “I think you have got the reason you cannot find stuff.” Thomas Schreiner of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary confessed, “I do not know anything about this issue…. I am tempted to think it is the lunatic fringe.” The issue is so intellectually bankrupt that liberal scholarship does not endorse it, and other scholars may not even be familiar with it).
Critics will always “discover” parallels between Christianity and pagan religions in the attempt to make believers look foolish. Ironically, this quest only demonstrates their own academic shortcomings. Time and time again Christianity demonstrates its uniqueness among the world religions. It is the hallmark of truth for a world in desperate need of history’s one and only crucified Savior.  

REFERENCES

Callahan, Tim (2009), “Greatest Story Ever Garbled: A Critique of ‘The Greatest Story Ever Told’—Part I of the Internet Film Zeitgeist,” Skeptic, 15[1]:61-67.
Carrier, Richard (2003), “Kersey Graves and the World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors,” http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/graves.html.
Graves, Kersey (1919), The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors or Christianity Before Christ (New York: Peter Eckler Publishing), sixth edition.
Holding, James P. (2008), Shattering the Christ Myth: Did Jesus Not Exist? (Maitland, FL: Xulon Press).
Massey, Gerald (1996), Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ (Whitefish, MT: Kessenger).
Murdock, Dorothy M. (2009), Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection (Seattle, WA: Stellar House).
Porter, Stanley E. and Stephen J. Bedard (2006), Unmasking the Pagan Christ (Toronto, ON: Clements Publishing).

From Mark Copeland... The Case For Six Literal 24 Hour Days


                        "THE CASE FOR CREATION"

                 The Case For Six Literal 24 Hour Days

INTRODUCTION

1. I believe it fair to say that any casual, first-time reader of
   Genesis...
   a. Will conclude it teaches all things were created in six days
   b. That those days were six literal 24 hour days

2. The popularity of the theory of evolution has led many to...
   a. Discount any literal interpretation of Genesis 1
   b. Seek biblical support for a less literal understanding of the       days of creation

[On the other hand, there are good reasons to take the Genesis account at face value, for both biblical and scientific reasons.  From a biblical perspective, let's consider some...]

I. ARGUMENTS FOR SIX LITERAL 24 HOUR DAYS

   A. HEBREW LEXICONS AND DICTIONARIES...
      1. Lexicographers consistently cite the enumerated days of Genesis 1:1-31 as examples of a solar day 
         - Robert V. McCabe, A Defense Of Literal Days In The Creation Week
      2. The following examples were offered by McCabe (plus one that I found):
         a. The Dictionary Of Classical Hebrew - Clines
         b. A Hebrew And English Lexicon Of The Old Testament - Brown,Driver, Briggs
         c. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament
            - Baumgartner, Stamm
         d. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament - Saeboe
         e. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and
            Exegesis - Verhoef
         f. Dictionary Of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains:
            Hebrew (Old Testament) - Swanson
      -- These lexicons and dictionaries cite the days of creation as
         literal 24 hour days

   B. SEMANTIC CONSTRAINTS FOR SINGULAR USE OF "DAY"...
      1. "When yôm is used in the singular and is not part of a compound
         grammatical construction, it is consistently used in reference
         to a literal day of 24 hours or to the daytime portion of a
         literal day." - McCabe, ibid.
      2. "The extended, non-literal meanings of the term yôm are always
         found in connection with prepositions, prepositional phrases
         with a verb, compound constructions, formulas, technical
         expressions, genitive combinations, construct phrases, and the
         like. In other words, extended, non-literal meanings of this
         Hebrew term have special linguistic and contextual connections
         which indicate clearly that a non-literal meaning is intended.
         If such special linguistic connections are absent, the term yôm
         does not have an extended, non-literal meaning; it has its
         normal meaning of a literal day of 24-hours." - Gerhard F.
         Hasel, as quoted by McCabe
      -- The semantic use of the singular suggests a literal day

   C. NUMERIC QUALIFIERS AND "DAY"...
      1. "When each day of the creation week is summarized, the singular
         'day' is modified by a numerical qualifier, 'first day' (v.5),
         'second day (v.8), and sequentially continuing to the 'sixth
         day' (vv. 13, 19, 24,  31)." - McCabe, ibid.
      2. "When yôm is qualified by a number, it is almost invariably
         used in a literal sense." - ibid.
      -- The numeric qualifiers suggest a literal day

   D. SEQUENTIAL NUMBERING AND "DAY"...
      1. "The sequential use of the ordinal  numbers "first" through
         "sixth" for each day of the creation week, followed by the
         "seventh day" indicates a chronological progression of days."
         - E. J. Young, as referenced by McCabe
      2. "What seems of significance is the sequential emphasis of the
         numerals 1-7 without any break or temporal interruption. This
         seven-day schema, the schema of the week of six workdays
         followed by 'the seventh day' as rest day, interlinks the
         creation "days" as normal days in a consecutive and non-
         interrupted sequence." - Hasel, ibid.
      -- The sequential numbering suggests a literal day

   E. EVENING AND MORNING AS QUALIFIERS OF "DAY"...
      1. "So the evening and the morning were the ____ day." - Gen 1:5,8,13,19,23,31
      2. "Whether 'evening' and 'morning' are used together in a context
         with yôm (19 times beyond the 6 uses in Genesis 1) or they are
         used without yôm (38 times), they are used consistently in
         reference to literal days." - McCabe, ibid.
      -- The use of morning and evening suggest a literal day

   F. SEQUENCE OF EVENTS AND "DAY"...
      1. Problem one
         a. Fruit trees and seed-bearing plants were created on the third day - Gen 1:11-12
         b. Much vegetation requires insects for pollination
         c. Insects were not created until the sixth day - Gen 1:24-25
         d. It would be impossible for many plants to survive long
            periods without insects
         e. "A symbiotic relationship between plants and animals is
            coordinate with literal and successive days in Genesis 1,
            but this would not be the case if the days refer to extended
            periods." - McCabe, ibid.
      2. Problem two
         a. "If days are figurative and if there is any consistency in
            interpretation, then there must extended periods of light
            corresponding to 'morning' and of darkness corresponding to'evening.'" - ibid.
         b. "This would guarantee that both plant and animal life would
            be unable to survive." - ibid.
      -- The sequence of events suggest a literal day

   G. SCRIPTURAL CONSIDERATIONS...
      1. In the Old Testament
         a. "There are two passages, dealing with regulations for the
            observance of the Sabbath that cogently reinforce a literal
            interpretation of the days in the creation week." - McCabe,ibid.
         b. "These passages are Exo 20:8-11 and Exo 31:14-17." - ibid.
         c. "According to these two texts, the references to the
            creation week are not analogous - man's rest is not simply
            like God's rest on the seventh day - instead, man is to
            imitate the divine Exemplar. Since God worked for six days
            and rested on the seventh, the nation of Israel must follow his example." - ibid.
      2. In the New Testament
         1. The origin of man and marriage was "from the beginning of the creation"
            a. Man was created male and female "from the beginning" - Mk 10:6; cf. Gen 1:27
            b. The institution of marriage soon followed - Mk 10:7-8;cf. Gen 2:20-24
            c. If it was ages after "the beginning of creation", this
               would not be true
         2. Death and corruption was a consequence of Adam's sin
            a. By man came death, in Adam all die - Gen 2:17; cf. 1Co 15:21-22
            b. By man's sin, the earth was cursed - Gen 3:17; cf. Ro 8:20-22
            c. If the "days" of Genesis 1 are long periods of time,
               death and corruption occurred long before Adam
      -- The scriptural considerations suggest the Genesis account should be taken literally

[Such are some of the Biblical or scriptural reasons for taking Genesis
1-2 at face value.  It is certainly not an exhaustive treatment of the
subject.  For more information, including resources that subscribe to a
literal view of the days of Creation from a scientific perspective, here are some...]

II. RESOURCES FOR SIX LITERAL 24 HOUR DAYS

   A. FROM A BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE...
      1. A Defense Of Literal Days In The Creation Week - Robert V.
         McCabe, Professor of Old Testament at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary
      2. Creation Days And Orthodox Jewish Tradition - Paul-James Griffiths
      3. A Summary Of Evidence For Literal 24-Hr Creation Days In
         Genesis 1 - Andrew S. Kulikovsky
      4. The Days Of Creation:  A Semantic Approach - James Stambaugh
      5. Studies About The Days Of Genesis 1 - David E. Pratte
      -- These resources argue that the case for six literal 24 hour
         days is biblically sound

   B. FROM A SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVE...
      1. Institute For Creation Research - Henry M. Morris, Duane Gish
      2. Answers In Genesis - Ken Ham
      3. The Creation Research Society
      4. Creation Ministries International
      5. Bible.ca's Scientific Evidence For Creation - Don Patton, Steve Rudd
      6. A List Of Over 175 Scientists - who accept the biblical account of Creation
      -- These resources argue that the case for six literal 24 hour
         days is scientifically sound

CONCLUSION

1. Before rejecting that God created all things in six literal 24 hours
   days, one should ask...
   a. Is it consistent in regards to Hebrew syntax as found in the Bible?
   b. Is it in harmony with the rest of the biblical record?
   -- For those who accept the Bible as the Word of God, such concerns
      should be paramount

2. One should also ask...
   a. Must we force our view of Genesis 1 to fit popular evolutionary thinking?
   b. Is it scientifically necessary to do so?
   -- Has the theory of evolution been proven as it relates to origins?

To help answer the latter questions, our next two lessons will focus on
problems with the theory of evolution...

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011

eXTReMe Tracker 

From Gary... The unbroken chain


Curious picture. Why would someone do this?  Frankly, I DO NOT KNOW.  Yet, there MUST be a good reason, for who would use such a heavy chain without forethought?  I would encourage anyone with an answer to proffer it, as I am at a loss to understand what is really going on here!!!  However, who says I need to understand everything? The early Christians certainly did not. Take this passage from Peter's second letter...

2 Peter, Chapter 3
15 Regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote to you;  16 as also in all of his letters, speaking in them of these things. In those, there are some things that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unsettled twist, as they also do to the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.  17 You therefore, beloved, knowing these things beforehand, beware, lest being carried away with the error of the wicked, you fall from your own steadfastness. 18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and forever. Amen. 

I wish the world was different, that deceit and trickery were unheard of and that everyone could somehow just "get along". Experience has taught me that this will never happen and once I get past this, I realize that I just need to be exactly what God wants me to be and that is that, period.

A second look at this picture makes me realize something else. This person did NOT WANT TO BE WITHOUT THEIR CRUTCH!!!  I guess we all need help in one way or another and we need to hold unto what works for us. Christians- hold unto Jesus!!! He makes the lame to walk and you won't need to worry about a crutch!!! And be thankful that HE will always be there and no one can break the bond (or perhaps, the chain) between you!!!!