Tuesday, October 08, 2024

Jesus Christ copy cat savior ? Dionysian Mysteries

Dionysian Mysteries

1) Dionysus was not born of a virgin.

The Greek god Dionysus is said to be the god of wine, actually he began as a fertility god in Phrygia and in Macedonia, Thrace, and other outlying regions. The origin of the cult is probably in Asia. (Charles Seltman, The Twelve Olympians, New York: Thomas Y. Corwell Company, 1960.)

"In the myths about Dionysus the most important is the tale of his birth. His mother was Semele...in fact she was an earth goddess...the usual form of the story is that Zeus loved Semele and consorted with her...." (Ibid, 171). Hera, of course was jealous and tricked the girl into asking Zeus to show himself to her in his true from. She was fried by his thunderbolts which cannot help but constantly shoot from his true form, but Zeus was able to save the child that she carried. I can find no authority who says that Dionysus mother was a virgin. But this is one of the tricky ones, she may have known no mortal man, but she was not the product of virginal conception. She was also not mortal herself, so the idea of her having a Virginal conception is out of the question, because whatever she did would be supernatural anyway, and we don't' know what gods she dated before Zeus.

2) Dionysus not laid in a manger.

There is one very tiny aspect of a manger-like thing in the Dionysus myth, and it is not very central. A flower basket which could double as a crib was used as one of many fertility symbols. In fact there is no real manger connection at all. Near the end of the 5th century BC the Greek Euripides wrote a play, The Bacchae, one of the major sources of Dionysian mysteries. I've seen skeptics claim that he was laid in a manger at his birth. But he was not, he was laid in Zeus's thigh until he came to term and there is no manger scene at all (Stelman,171).

3) Title "Son of god" Other similarities.

Euripides does refer to Dionysus as "son of god." But that is just profanatory. In mythology gods were like people, they were born, they had parents, and they lived in families. Why? Probably because people do. The phrase "son of god" and the general concept may be "influenced" by paganism in a general sense (see above) but the specific notion of Jesus' incarnation is totally different. Jesus is the incarnation of the divine logos, the second person of the Trinity, God incarnate. He is the incarnation of the rational that created the universe; not a mythological demigod, the offspring of a god and mortal. Besides that, the term "Son of God" in Judaism of Jesus' day was understood as a Euphemism for the Messiah.

4) Dionysus Dying and Rising.

In some stories Dionysus is torn apart by the Titans. In other stories it is Hera's orders that he be torn apart. But he was torn apart, not crucified. Moreover, since he was not an historical figure he was not a flesh and blood man. He did not really die, and his resurrection is not really bodily. His dying and rising are an echo of the death of plant life and fertility in winter and his rising is the rising of the plants in the Spring. "He was the vine which is always pruned as nothing else which bears its fruit; every branch cut away, only the bare stock left, through the winter a dead thing to look at...he was always brought back to life..." (Edith Hamilton, Mythology, Mentor edition, original copywriter 1940, pp. 61-62). Hamilton says that his rising did offer hope of new life, the immortality of the soul. "He was the assurance that death does not end all."

But this is very different from the historical claims of Christ's resurrection. Dionysus did not have an historical existence, no empty tomb, no flesh and blood body seen and felt by witnesses afterward. He is merely the archetype suggested by seasons, the human wish for a rejuvenation and the circularity of nature.

"In Christianity everything is made to turn on a dated experience of a historical Person; it can be seen from I Cor. XV. 3 that the statement of the story early assumed the form of a statement in a Creed. There is nothing in the parallel cases which points to any attempt to give such a basis of historical evidence to belief" A. D. Nock (Early Gentile Christianity and Its Hellenistic Background", 1964, p. 107).

5) Not a savior

Moreover, the followers of Dionysus did not gain their sense of eternal life from Dionysus himself, nor form his death, but from their own drunken ecstasy in the "Béchamel." (Yamauchi, in "Easter: Myth, Hallucination or History," and c.f. M. Nilsson, The Dionysiac Mysteries of the Hellenistic and Roman Age, 1957).

His death was not an atonement and his resurrection has not even the semblance of an historical, much less history making aspect. But perhaps it was a dress rehearsal.

6) Moreover, he was not crucified as Till claims but instead was torn apart by the Titans.



22 comments:

im-skeptical said...

You're not going to find another god who matches Jesus in all respects. What you will find, if you're looking, is plenty of other gods who were like Jesus in some respect. And it does appear that Christianity borrowed from these traditions - one feature from this god, another feature from that god, and so on - to make up their own god.

Daniel said...

I found a pretty good article to read this https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_relatives_bauckham.html

Anonymous said...

What do you think of this article it's pretty good https://historyforatheists.com/2018/02/jesus-mythicism-2-james-the-brother-of-the-lord/

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Skep: "im-skeptical said...
You're not going to find another god who matches Jesus in all respects. What you will find, if you're looking, is plenty of other gods who were like Jesus in some respect. And it does appear that Christianity borrowed from these traditions - one feature from this god, another feature from that god, and so on - to make up their own god.

8:10 AM The argument I am answering says Jesus was intentionally copied after these other gods. Some similarities are no big deal. That does not imply copying. "Browing" would be a better term. The name EL from God was used because at some point way back they had that term from pervious cultural influences. That doesn't mean they worship other gods. It doesn't mean they actually purposefully copied,"

Daniel said...

Hey man I have a question this might be off topic but I've seen some atheist claim there's a similarity to the resurrection in real life it's called Tibetan monks rainbow bodies and it's been pushed by scholars like their house and will you ever write an article on that topic someday

JAB128 said...

That's weird. Also, the author of that link that Anonymous posted (from History for Atheists) has a weird take about the resurrection in the comments of this article:

History for Atheists: PZ Myers & the Mythicists

Here is Tim O'Neill's take about the Resurrection:

Quote"The resurrection story is also easy to explain. Modern sociological studies show that when a devoted group that has given up a lot to dedicate themselves to an expected outcome (the end of the world, UFOs coming to take them to the stars etc.) and this doesn’t happen, they don’t just say “Oh, okay – we were wrong. Let’s go home”. They find a new way to reinterpret the original expectation to accommodate its failure to eventuate. We see this all the time in apocalyptic sects, such as the Seventh Day Adventists, the Jehovah’s Witnesses and many others. In the case of the Jesus Sect they appear to have gone to Jerusalem expecting an apocalyptic triumph. Instead, Jesus was executed. So they had to reframe their expectation as simply delayed and still to come (something we see in those modern sects all the time) and decided he had, in some sense, “risen from the dead” in a pre-figurement of the general resurrection that was coming in the final apocalyptic coming of the Kingdom of God, which they still thought was coming very soon. I go into the details of this development here."Quote

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

""Tibetan monks rainbow bodies" Never heard of it have no idea what it is. can you tell me more about it?

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Here is Tim O'Neill's take about the Resurrection: Leon Festimger's cognitive dissonance, see the book "when prophesy fails," I considered that years ago whenI was first considering making a commitment to Christ. Been in that commitment since 1979.

JAB128 said...

Fernando Bermejo-Rubio, who wrote an article entitled The Process of Jesus Deification and Cognitive Dissonance Theory, said this about the book:

Quote"To start with, When Prophecy Fails has been faulted on methodological grounds. The original observed phenomenon was not an uncontaminated series of events generated by a group in isolation. It was in fact mediated and studied by observers (social scientists and the press) and therefore subjected to interferences and distortions resulting from their presence. It has been remarked that often almost one-third of the membership of the group consisted of participant observers. More significantly, the social scientists themselves contributed to the events described. Furthermore, the media continually badgered the group to account for its commitment; thus, the increased proselytizing and affirmations of faith may have been influenced by media pressure. These conditions make it difficult to determine what might have happened if the group had been left on its own. A second problem is that the working hypothesis of the sociologists seems to have shaped, to a high degree, their perception of the events and the account given of the group, leading to an inaccurate report. That hypothesis involved identifying two phases, a period of secrecy in which the elect did not actively seek to gain followers or influence and, as a reaction to the disconfirmation of a prediction, a period of proselytizing. The portrayal of the group as merely based on a prediction, however, made Festinger and his colleagues overlook other dimensions (spiritual, moral, cultural) which might be crucial for the movement (Van Fossen 1988: 195)."Quote

Tim did an article on Quora about the evidence for the resurrection, and he mentions that book in the article:

Quora: What Evidence is there for Jesue Christ's Death, Burial, and Resurrection

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

When Prophesy fails is a fun read. It's not good social science research because the researchers not only contaminated their data, they stocked the cult with new people giving them the material they used for their theory. But the theory it launched, cognitive dissonance, was a resounding success. It is used today; it's used by the people you wanted me to read.

im-skeptical said...

Tim O'Neill's words should be taken with a grain of salt. He's not an actual historian, but he wants everyone to think he is. He says he has published articles, but not in any scholarly journals. He gets some things right, and some things wrong. He disagrees with PhD historians on some issues, but he'll never admit that he could be wrong.

Anonymous said...

Hey here's a good blog series I think you should read metacroc I think you should read this https://historyforatheists.com/jesus-mythicism/

Daniel said...

Hey I found a good series that pretty much debunks the dying of rising God's thing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Sq4XhtAnaKHA2RXM7UxzsQTVszSGo1NQ/view?usp=drivesdk

Daniel said...

I know who are you for rainbow bodies it was Dale Allison in his book Resurrection polemic in history

Daniel said...

Hey I do like Tim O'Neill will you ever make a response to him on the resurrection

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

put u[ a link to his stuff

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

I just read an article of a myther attacking Tim O'Neill from what they quoted of him I like him I don't know what I need to add to his work, This myther demonstrated their major tactic mostly whining because real historians don't agree. \

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

That is not any kind of proof that the authors of NT read and copied pagans.

JAB128 said...

I asked JP Holding what he thought of History for Atheists, and he highly recommends it. He said that he even communicated with him a few times, and that his material on Richard Carrier is great.

im-skeptical said...

News flash!!! Two fake historians take issue with an actual PhD scholar on the historicity of Jesus, and all the religionists eat it up.

JAB128 said...

This is why people like Stan and Martin had problems with you. You say ridiculous stuff. Those guys know way more about it than Carrier, who just says crap, like here:

William Lane Craig vs. Richard Carrier: Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?

Daniel said...

Hey here's another good blog I found https://davesblogs.home.blog/2021/05/12/historical-jesus/