In Response

This post is in response to comments left on the "Miracles" post. Because of its length, it would not fit in the comments section, which is where I would have liked to reply to these comments. There is a first comment and response left by "Bino" for those of you who would like to start from the beginning; this response from me is a reply to his second and third comments. His comments are in italics; my replies are in normal Times font.

Well, if the very first thing you do is assert that there is no connection, then you're pretty much guaranteed to end up concluding the same thing.


Alexander the Great's father was a great god in the sky, his mother was a mortal woman. The divinity of his father was seen as a sign of his greatness.


Romulus' father was a great god in the sky, his mother was a mortal woman. The divinity of his father was seen as a sign of his greatness.

Scipio Africanus' father was a great god in the sky, his mother was a mortal woman. The divinity of his father was seen as a sign of his greatness.

The Emperor Augustus' father was a great god in the sky, his mother was a mortal woman. The divinity of his father was seen as a sign of his greatness.

Jesus' father was a great god in the sky, his mother was a mortal woman. The divinity of his father was seen as a sign of his greatness.

Shall we accept that you have no answer to explain the similarity between Jesus' divine birth and all these other ancient divine births?

I was not attempting to explain, or deny, the similarity between Jesus’ divine birth and the other ancient divine births. My point was that similarities with other stories which are false does not necessarily make all such stories false. Again, Jesus’ story (and every other one for that matter) deserves to be judged by its own merits, not judged based on the falsehood of others.

If 10 people come up to a total stranger one at a time and claim to be “Bino Bolumai” and the stranger, becoming more skeptical each time, finds the claims not to be true, does it follow that if you, the real “Bino Bolumai” come up to the stranger and claim to be you that it can’t be true because similar claims were found to be false?

Obviously it does not. Your claim deserves to be judged on a case by case basis and the other 10 false claims do nothing on their own to disqualify your claim.

Alexander was a historical person.
Romulus was a historical person.
Augustus was a historical person.
Scipio was a historical person.

Yes, these were historical men. I was comparing the historicalness of Jesus to the mythological figures you mentioned in your post. But let’s deal with the historical men you also mentioned.

Alexander was aware he was promoting a myth when he claimed to be born of deity. Atheist Christopher Hitchens writes, “Alexander himself was not above using myth for propaganda purposes. He claimed descent from Achilles, the hero of Troy, and from Zeus himself. He took the work of Homer with him wherever he went. He wanted to be acknowledged as Pharaoh in Egypt—the loftiest of all aspirations in those days—and also to be recognized as a god by those who worshipped the Olympian pantheon.” (http://slate.msn.com/id/2110188/) Conversely, Jesus believed (whether we believe or not) that His claims to deity were true.

It is only a minority of scholars who believe Romulus was a historical figure. The majority believe he is only a mythological figure.

Augustus was eager to expand his power into the religious realm, and in Rome, where emperors were routinely worshipped among their pantheon of gods, it was easy for him to claim, and be accepted as deity. As in Alexander’s case, Augustus used a claim of deity for his own purposes to gain more power. Also, as we are seeing from these few examples, it was very common for emperors to be worshipped as gods and to be referred to as the sons of gods.

Scipio was said to be the son of Jupiter who had appeared in his mother’s bed in the form of a snake. The historian Polybius believes, however, that Scipio was as manipulative as Alexander and Augustus in letting claims of his deity spread.

While there are similarities between Jesus and these other historical men, there are also important differences. 1) Jesus was not trying to gain anything from his claims. He even discouraged others who wanted to say he was king of any earthly kingdom. He wasn’t after power. 2) While Alexander and Augustus (and maybe Scipio as well) used a claim to deity to manipulate, Jesus actually believed that he was the Son of God. 3) Most importantly, Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God was authenticated by God when He raised Jesus from the dead. (I know you’re unlikely to grant the resurrection is true, but the evidence for it is so strong that it will be incumbent upon you to find a better explanation and provide evidence for that as an explanation to the events after Jesus’ death.) Alexander, Augustus, Scipio, and Romulus – if he was indeed a historical figure – had nothing to verify their claims of deity.

How do you know they didn't?

How do I know that people who knew the stories going around about Jesus weren’t true didn’t call the apostles liars and show that their stories weren’t true? Because Christianity – or “The Way” as it was called in its earliest stages – started and spread in the very city that was filled with people who knew Jesus and were aware of his ministry. If you’re going to spread a lie, do you start where everyone knows it isn’t true? And would it catch on like the Christian message did in a city filled with people who could prove it false?

I have. I can't. Please help me see the differences:

Again, I am referring to the mythological tales. Here is part of the myth of Osiris, one of the myths mentioned in your first comment:

Set was very jealous of Osiris because he was more important than him. He decided to make an evil plan to kill him. He threw a party. At the party, there was a beautiful chest there. Set promised that whoever fit into the chest perfectly would get to keep it. Nobody knew that he had secretly made it the perfect size for Osiris. Everyone tried it but would not fit. When Osiris tried it, Set slammed it closed and nailed it shut. He threw it into the Nile to be swept away. Isis was heart broken and immediately set off to find him.


Meanwhile, the casket had been swept onto shore. A tree had grown op around it, enclosing it in its trunk. Then the tree had been cut down and was used as a pillar for the palace of King Byblos. Isis found this out and came there in disguise. Byblos saw her and begged her to take care of his child. Isis grew quite fond of the child and decided to make him immortal. So every night she would throw him onto magical fires to burn away all that was mortal about him. Then Isis would turn herself into a swallow and fly around the pillar weeping for her spouse. Unexpectedly one day Byblos came home and saw his child in the fires and blew them out. Isis became angry and told him that now his son could never become immortal. He apologized and asked what he could do to make it up to her. Isis asked for the pillar and he let her have it. She removed the casket and wept upon it. Then she brought it home and when no one was looking, she opened it up. She turned into a bird called a kite and flapped her mighty wings. The wind her beating wings created gave him the Breath of Life for one day. During this time, she conceived her son Horus from him. Then she concealed the casket among long reeds. She went away to secretly give birth to her son. (http://www.guardians.net/egypt/kids/myth_of_osiris_and_isis.htm)

I’m sure I don’t have to help you see the difference in this story and Jesus’ story. But to deal with the ones you’ve listed in your second comment, I would again point out that the falsity of the stories told by Tacitus and Josephus cannot lead to the conclusion that the stories told in the New Testament documents are false. They should be investigated independently, as should Tacitus and Josephus, despite their similarities, which I am not denying. Also, these stories came after Jesus’ miracles, so if anything, the stories you quoted regarding Vespasian are mimicking the stories of Jesus. (Perhaps because Christianity was flourishing?)

Josephus is reporting historical events that involved actual, flesh-and-blood people. Tacitus is reporting historical events that involved actual, flesh-and-blood people.

Once again, I had in mind mythology in the popular sense of the word – the fanciful stories of murder, intrigue, and disloyalty…but see above for my comment on the reports of Josephus and Tacitus.

You've devolved into mere assertion.

“Assertion” is a statement made emphatically as if no evidence were needed. I indicated in my response that there is very strong evidence for Jesus’ resurrection. I didn’t go through it all for the sake of space, but we could definitely get in to that topic if you’d like.

I ask because
Jesus healed the sick. Pagan Gods healed the sick.
Jesus walked on water. Pagan Gods walked on water.
Jesus turned water into wine. Pagan Gods turned water into wine.
Jesus calmed the storm. Pagan Gods calmed storms.
Jesus fulfilled prophecy. Pagan Gods fulfilled prophecy.
Jesus prophesied correctly. Pagan Gods prophesied correctly.
Jesus raised the dead. Pagan Gods raised the dead.
Jesus rose from the dead. Pagan Gods rose from the dead.
Jesus apostles performed miracles. Pagan Gods' apostles performed miracles.

Jesus’ miracles were most often set in historical contexts making it at least possible that they could be verified. I’m not sure which pagan stories you’re referring to here, but many are not set in any historical context that would allow them to be verified.

You said nothing in response to my other questions regarding your presuppositions. What proof do you have that Jesus didn’t in fact perform these miracles? Skepticism is not without responsibilities. We are asked to back up what we believe as Christians, we would ask the same of you. Back up your belief that these things didn’t happen.

Either you see the similarities or you don't. If you don't, please just say so.
If you do see the similarities, please tell me how you explain them.

I do see similarities and haven’t indicated otherwise. I just don’t believe similarity between several accounts is enough to prove all of them false out of hand simply because most are false. I also see significant differences which I listed above.