Miracles, portents and resurrection: not exclusive to Christianity

[Diagoras]

A rather interesting article here describes how the Roman world at the time of Jesus had a number of 'competing' gods, religions and cults.

A few highlights (all bolding mine for emphasis):

During the Roman period a new legend developed concerning Dionysus, one that offers intriguing parallels to Christianity. According to this legend, Dionysus was killed while battling the enemies of Zeus. His body was dismembered, but Zeus restored him to immortal life. Henceforth, according to the late first-century Greek philosopher Plutarch, Dionysus became a dying and rising god, and a symbol of ever-lasting life.

Roman historians such as Suetonius and Tacitus frequently reported the occurrence of miraculous omens or portents regarding the emperors, particularly at the beginning or end of their reigns. Because Rome placed its rulers at the summit of human society, it was believed that they served as mediators for the will of the gods on earth.

According to stories recorded by the Greek historians Dio Cassius and Tacitus, Vespasian worked several healing miracles, while visiting the shrine of Sarapis in Egypt.

With his miraculous cures, Asclepius quickly earned great fame. Motivated by compassion, he even succeeded in restoring the dead to life.

Isis was worshipped continuously for thousands of years, before achieving her greatest renown in the early Roman empire. During this final period, her cult presented one of the most formidable and enduring rivalries to early Christianity

With the advent of the reign of Augustus in 27 BCE, life in the provincial cities of the Greek East became far more stable and prosperous than it had been for a very long time. The relief of the subject peoples was immense, and a number of the cities issued decrees honoring the new emperor as the earthly appearance of a benevolent god: "Providence. . .by producing Augustus [has sent] us and our descendants a Savior, who has put an end to war and established all things. . . ."

For debate:

"The extraordinary claims made about Jesus were necessary to put Christianity on at least equal footing as any other religion of the time."

One final quote, from near the end of the article suggests why the 'cult of the emperors' would likely be viewed as a threat to Christianity:

Even more relevant to the rival message of the Christian gospels, however, was the gradual development of the relationship between the emperor and Zeus (Jupiter) himself, the sovereign ruler of the gods and the world.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Diagoras in post #1]

"The extraordinary claims made about Jesus were necessary to put Christianity on at least equal footing as any other religion of the time."

What do you mean by 'equal footing' here, exactly?

I've always found if interesting how religions seem an absorb local beliefs into their culture. My in-laws, for example, are Catholic South American. Their beliefs tend to be more....'supernatural' than American Catholics that I know. They believe more in spirits and magic and the like, more than their North American counterparts, for example, while still calling themselves christian.
The reason for the absorbing? I suppose (and maybe this is what you meant by 'equal footing') that religion XYZ absorbed the local beliefs and customs in an effort to grow their numbers, create more influence and, likely, gather more ca$h?

[Difflugia]

"The extraordinary claims made about Jesus were necessary to put Christianity on at least equal footing as any other religion of the time."

Bart Ehrman makes this exact point in How Jesus Became God:

Looking at the matter from a purely human and political point of view, there is little question about why the heir and adopted son Octavian wanted the Roman people to agree that Caesar was not only descended from a divine line, but had himself been made a divine being. If Julius Caesar was a god, what would that make his son? As New Testament scholar Michael Peppard has recently pointed out, to our knowledge only two people in the ancient world were actually called "Son of God." Other people were, to be sure, named after their divine fathers: son of Zeus, son of Apollo, and so on. But only two people known by name were also called "Son of God." One was the Roman emperorstarting with Octavian, or Caesar Augustusand the other was Jesus. This is probably not an accident. When Jesus came on the scene as a divine man, he and the emperor were in competition.

[1213]

...
"The extraordinary claims made about Jesus were necessary to put Christianity on at least equal footing as any other religion of the time."
...

Miracle claims can be made for anyone. I think it is kind of pointless for us, because, even if they would be true, what then, why would it matter at all? I think the teachings of Jesus is what makes him great. The other "miraclemen" don't seem to have had anything meaningful to say.

[Diagoras]

I suppose (and maybe this is what you meant by 'equal footing') that religion XYZ absorbed the local beliefs and customs in an effort to grow their numbers, create more influence and, likely, gather more ca$h?

Pretty much that, yes. I could also have said, "stood out" (i.e. noticed by more people), and Difflugia's quote bears this out quite nicely.

If Jews at the time before Jesus were familiar with other gods and 'heroes' performing miracles, dying and coming back to life, etc, then their religion would look rather unimpressive by comparison if it didn't claim some of those things for itself. The 'cult of the emperors' in a way made Jesus as Son of God more plausible, since the idea of a man descended from a god was being actively promulgated by the ruler.

There's an argument to be made that Christianity was becoming 'crowded out' and unlikely to attract more followers, unless its 'message' became more powerful than that of others around it. After the destruction of the temple, this would have become an urgent need to survive

[Miles]

For debate:

"The extraordinary claims made about Jesus were necessary to put Christianity on at least equal footing as any other religion of the time."

Absolutely. You don't bring a knife to a gun fight. If you're the new kid on the block you'd better outdo the establishment if you want to succeed. Your god had better be bigger and stronger, wiser and more cunning, tougher and scarier, and have something really big to offer for joining his side. And the best way of doing this is to make them scared of something, but then tell them how your god, and only your god, can save them from it. . . . . . . . I'm told that it's an almost infallible ploy.


.

[Diagoras]

Miracle claims can be made for anyone. I think it is kind of pointless for us, because, even if they would be true, what then, why would it matter at all? I think the teachings of Jesus is what makes him great. The other "miraclemen" don't seem to have had anything meaningful to say.

Thanks for replying. It seems you are (so far) the only one arguing the contrary position.

I agree with your first statement about miracles. Im more unsure what you mean in your second sentence: "I think it is kind of pointless for us, " - can you explain further what point you wish to make here?

As for the teachings of Jesus making him great - can you see theres an argument that if all these extraordinary claims about him hadnt been made in the first place, then there would likely not have been much attention paid to his teachings?

And the other miraclemen? The debate here is not so much about the merits or fame of any others, but more about whether the followers of Jesus felt they had to make up claims about him - claims that were very similar to other gods and heroes of the time.

[1213]

...I agree with your first statement about miracles. Im more unsure what you mean in your second sentence: "I think it is kind of pointless for us, " - can you explain further what point you wish to make here?

If for example I would turn water to wine, some could think it is great miracle. But, without a purpose, it would not be anything else but more wine for some. Jesus did his miracles for those who were with him so that they would believe that he is speaking the truth.

Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me; or else believe me for the very works sake.
John 14:11

The other miracle men dont seem to have same reason behind their works.

...As for the teachings of Jesus making him great - can you see theres an argument that if all these extraordinary claims about him hadnt been made in the first place, then there would likely not have been much attention paid to his teachings?

It is possible that people would not have believed what he says, if he would not have done the miracles. But, I dont think miracles made him great, I think it was his teachings.

...The debate here is not so much about the merits or fame of any others, but more about whether the followers of Jesus felt they had to make up claims about him - claims that were very similar to other gods and heroes of the time.

It is interesting, if disciples of Jesus copied from others, why didnt they just follow the others? And why the others are nowadays quite meaningless? I think it is more probable that the others have copied from Jesus to make him look less than what he is.

[Diagoras]

[Replying to 1213 in post #8]

...I agree with your first statement about miracles. Im more unsure what you mean in your second sentence: "I think it is kind of pointless for us, " - can you explain further what point you wish to make here?

If for example I would turn water to wine, some could think it is great miracle. But, without a purpose, it would not be anything else but more wine for some. Jesus did his miracles for those who were with him so that they would believe that he is speaking the truth.

<snip>

The other miracle men dont seem to have same reason behind their works.

Isn't this last part an argument from ignorance though? Just because you can't see a reason for miracles being done doesn't mean that no reason exists.

And who are 'the other miracle men' that you are referring to? It's hard to counter any claim when you are not being specific.

Theres no reason to rule out the possibility that both the miracles claimed for Jesus, and the reasons for them werent invented to compete with similar miracles being claimed for other gods and men.

...As for the teachings of Jesus making him great - can you see theres an argument that if all these extraordinary claims about him hadnt been made in the first place, then there would likely not have been much attention paid to his teachings?

It is possible that people would not have believed what he says, if he would not have done the miracles. But, I dont think miracles made him great, I think it was his teachings.

I see. So this is just an opinion, not really an argument against the OP.

...The debate here is not so much about the merits or fame of any others, but more about whether the followers of Jesus felt they had to make up claims about him - claims that were very similar to other gods and heroes of the time.

It is interesting, if disciples of Jesus copied from others, why didnt they just follow the others?

What would make someone join a different culture and religion? I suspect that culture and religion were much more tightly bound together at that time not like today where many Westerners can easily decide to follow Islam or Buddhism, for example. So the answer to why early Christians didnt just become disciples of different gods is like saying, why didnt they decide to adopt the culture of Egypt (or wherever)?

And why the others are nowadays quite meaningless?

Its interesting to speculate on whether, if other religions had had a preacher like Paul, they might have spread as successfully as Christianity did. Its also interesting to compare some successful modern companies that only became successful by stealing ideas from other companies that have since disappeared.

I think it is more probable that the others have copied from Jesus to make him look less than what he is.

Youre going to have to back this rather wild claim up with something more than "I think". Have you got a specific example of a religion that has copied something that Jesus did? Can you show that the earlier evidence points to Jesus and only later evidence is present for the other religion?

In the case of Egyptian gods, many claims made about them predate the life of Jesus by some thousands of years, for example.
 

[1213]

Isn't this last part an argument from ignorance though? Just because you can't see a reason for miracles being done doesn't mean that no reason exists.

I am not all knowing, therefore most of my arguments are probably arguments of ignorance.

What would make someone join a different culture and religion? I suspect that culture and religion were much more tightly bound together at that time not like today where many Westerners can easily decide to follow Islam or Buddhism, for example. So the answer to why early Christians didnt just become disciples of different gods is like saying, why didnt they decide to adopt the culture of Egypt (or wherever)?

Yes, but if they didnt have religion before they "copied" it from others, they could have as well adopted for example the Egyptian religion, if it existed then. If they had religion before they "copied" it, I think your original argument fails instantly.

Youre going to have to back this rather wild claim up with something more than "I think". Have you got a specific example of a religion that has copied something that Jesus did? Can you show that the earlier evidence points to Jesus and only later evidence is present for the other religion?

The others seem to have only the works, not the teaching part. that is why I think they more probably copied. The one that is copied must have had something special why some people decided to copy it. After all, if world had many people with similar works as Jesus, why would Jesus be something meaningful, if he just has copied the same works that allegedly many were doing before him?

In the case of Egyptian gods, many claims made about them predate the life of Jesus by some thousands of years, for example.

The problem with that is, there is no good reason to believe that claim that could be just some modern claim to make Jesus look less than what he is.