Justin Martyr equates Christian beliefs with pagan beliefs

[YahWhat]

Justin Martyr 1st Apology ch. 21 -
And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.

ch. 22 -
If we declare that he was born of a virgin, you should consider this something in common with Perseus. When we say that he healed the lame, the paralytic, and those born blind, and raised the dead, we seem to be talking about things like those said to have been done by Asclepius.

Is it just me or do we have a second century Christian who was immersed in Greco-Roman culture saying that the beliefs of Jesus' virgin birth, his resurrection and ascension were "no different" than what the pagans believed about their gods and heroes? Well, since he was in prime position to know these things I think we should take him at his word don't you? Contrary to what apologists claim, I think this is good evidence that these concepts were borrowed and shared in the ancient world. They obviously were not unique to Jesus.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 1 by YahWhat]

I think we need to distinguish here between general similarities and specific similarities. I think there are general similarities, but if these concepts were simply being borrowed and Christianity just a copycat religion, I would expect greater specific similarities. Justin Martyr seems to me to be talking on a general level of similarities, because his point is to show that Christians are not a crazy cult eating flesh and all the stuff they are being accused of and persecuted for. He is emphasizing some general similarities, but also goes to talk about the differences.

[YahWhat]

While I agree that the exact details and circumstances of the stories are different, Martyr unequivocally states the concepts of a virgin birth, resurrection and ascending to heaven were no different than what the pagans believed about their gods. Is it just pure coincidence that these same things end up being said about Jesus?

[Divine Insight]

While I agree that the exact details and circumstances of the stories are different, Martyr unequivocally states the concepts of a virgin birth, resurrection and ascending to heaven were no different than what the pagans believed about their gods. Is it just pure coincidence that these same things end up being said about Jesus?

I personally see no reason to believe that this is anything other than a continuation of basic cultural myths.

The main question, for me personally, is to ask why the one and only "real" creator of the universe would choose to use precisely the same sort of methods that mankind had been making up for centuries as totally false myths?

Which makes more sense? That an actual God would decide to use the same methods dreamed up by men? Or that the Christian rumors/myths of Jesus were simply a continuation of how people were thinking at that period of history, and in that specific geographic region of the world?

For me personally it makes no sense that an omnipotent creator God would create a demigod "Son" or "incarnation of himself" by impregnating a virgin woman, for the specific purpose of being crucified by a few nasty humans. And then to hold that crucifixion over the heads of everyone as the centerfold of a religion that proclaims that anyone refusing to believe such an outrageous story deserves to be damned to hell.

When I think of it this way I can only ask how anyone can take this religion seriously?

Decent people deserved to be damned to hell if they don't believe an extremely outrageous story that is a cookie-cutter-copy of previous God myths that everyone shrugs off as being silly and obviously false?

I make no apologies when I say that if these other ancient religious myths can be easily shrugged off as being silly and obviously false, then there is no rational reason why Christianity shouldn't be shrugged off just as quickly.

The stories are not only problematic in self-contradictory ways from Genesis to Revelation, but they are also extremely absurd and clearly immoral in many places all throughout the entire canon of stories.

And the proof is in the pudding. A decent person will be condemned to hell if they simply reject these stories as nonsense, yet an extremely horrible person will be granted total amnesty for all of their horrific crimes if they merely accept Jesus as their savior. And that's supposed to represent "Supreme Justice"?

Think about it. It doesn't even add up.

One thing for certain, if the religion is true it represents the furthest thing from justice.

[ttruscott]

While I agree that the exact details and circumstances of the stories are different, Martyr unequivocally states the concepts of a virgin birth, resurrection and ascending to heaven were no different than what the pagans believed about their gods. Is it just pure coincidence that these same things end up being said about Jesus?

IF it is as I contend that before the creation of the physical universe we knew the nature of the consequences of becoming evil in HIS eyes, it is no great leap to assume we knew the concepts of the salvation story of the sinful elect before we were born as human and the Satanic demons made their false copies of Christ's story before HE came to live on earth.

After all, it is written that Jacob and Esau were trying to kill each other, trying to crush each other to pieces, in the womb to be the first born and to gain the rights of primogeniture, so it is biblically obvious people come from the spirit world knowing things in their future and can immediately start trying to achieve their goals.

[1213]

...Contrary to what apologists claim, I think this is good evidence that these concepts were borrowed and shared in the ancient world. They obviously were not unique to Jesus.

Same could be said about any person. The important thing in Jesus is what he said. After all, his words are what can make a difference.

It is the spirit who gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and are life.
John 6:63

"My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. If anyone desires to do his will, he will know about the teaching, whether it is from God, or if I am speaking from myself.
John 7:16-17

But interesting thing is, Jupiter may have originally been about the Bible God, but Romans called him with different name, as also Greeks did. However, the great difference between Bible God and Roman God is what they allegedly said.

[marco]

Is it just me or do we have a second century Christian who was immersed in Greco-Roman culture saying that the beliefs of Jesus' virgin birth, his resurrection and ascension were "no different" than what the pagans believed about their gods and heroes?

From the time of Alexander syncretism, the fusion of different pagan beliefs, took place successfully. Justin was brought up as a pagan and he liked Plato. His aim here is to try to offer some common ground between paganism and Christianity, still in its youth, 100 years or so after Christ. He is in a minority looking at the vast power and wealth of Roman religions and he's trying to show his beliefs are not outlandish.
When Christianity eventually became the state religion it was a wise step to incorporate the favourite festivals, not to honour pagan gods, but to make the transfer more palatable. A holiday for Jesus rather than Bacchus is still a holiday. Poor Justin didn't quite succeed; I believe he was tortured and beheaded for refusing to worship the Roman gods.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Justin Martyr 1st Apology ch. 21 -
And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.

ch. 22 -
If we declare that he was born of a virgin, you should consider this something in common with Perseus. When we say that he healed the lame, the paralytic, and those born blind, and raised the dead, we seem to be talking about things like those said to have been done by Asclepius.

Is it just me or do we have a second century Christian who was immersed in Greco-Roman culture saying that the beliefs of Jesus' virgin birth, his resurrection and ascension were "no different" than what the pagans believed about their gods and heroes? Well, since he was in prime position to know these things I think we should take him at his word don't you? Contrary to what apologists claim, I think this is good evidence that these concepts were borrowed and shared in the ancient world. They obviously were not unique to Jesus.

Historian Will Durant addressed this very question in his mighty "Story of Civilization"
series.


"Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. The Greek mind, dying, came to a transmigrated life in the theology and liturgy of the church; the Greek language having reigned for centuries over philosophy, became the vehicle of Christian literature and ritual;the Greek mysteries passed down into the impressive mystery of the mass. Other pagan cultures contributed to the syncretist result. From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity, the last judgement and a personal immortality of reward and punishment; from Egypt the adoration of the mother and child, and the mystic philosophy that made Neoplatonism and Gnosticism, and obscured the Christian creed; there too, Christian monasticism would find it's exemplars and it's source. From Phrygia came the worship of the Great Mother; from Syria the Resurrection drama of Adonis; from Thrace, perhaps, the cult of Dionysus, the dying and saving god. From Persia came millenarianism, the Darkness and the Light; already in the Fourth Gospel Christ is the `Light shining in the darkness and the darkness has never put it out.' The Mithraic ritual so closely resembled the eucharistic sacrifice of the Mass that Christian fathers charged the Devil with inventing these similarities to mislead frail minds. Christianity was the last great creation of the pagan world." (The Story of Civilization vol.3, "Caesar and Christ" by Will Durant, p.595).

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 1 by YahWhat]

I think we need to distinguish here between general similarities and specific similarities. I think there are general similarities, but if these concepts were simply being borrowed and Christianity just a copycat religion, I would expect greater specific similarities. Justin Martyr seems to me to be talking on a general level of similarities, because his point is to show that Christians are not a crazy cult eating flesh and all the stuff they are being accused of and persecuted for. He is emphasizing some general similarities, but also goes to talk about the differences.

Umm....

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

John 6:51New International Version (NIV)
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.�

Catholics think they are eating flesh and drinking blood at every mass. It's just 'special' because it tastes like bread and wine.

So, I would say the Christians are still 'crazy' as you have defined i.e. some of them do indeed partake in eating Jesus.

[Justin108]

While I agree that the exact details and circumstances of the stories are different, Martyr unequivocally states the concepts of a virgin birth, resurrection and ascending to heaven were no different than what the pagans believed about their gods. Is it just pure coincidence that these same things end up being said about Jesus?

IF it is as I contend that before the creation of the physical universe we knew the nature of the consequences of becoming evil in HIS eyes, it is no great leap to assume we knew the concepts of the salvation story of the sinful elect before we were born as human and the Satanic demons made their false copies of Christ's story before HE came to live on earth.

IF fake copies of the "true religion" exists and
IF these fake copies manage to trick people into believing them
THEN how can you be sure that the religion you believe in is not one such fake copy and that another religion is the correct one? What if Jesus is actually a false copy of the true messiah as preached by religion XYZ?