Here is a list of 14 points alleged about Dionysus that supposed match Jesus.. I found a great document on the internet, refuting the 14 points at http://www.kingdavid8.com/Copycat/JesusDionysus.html
If Zeus took human form and had sexual intercourse with Semele, Semele was not a virgin. Jesus was not conceived the way Dionysus was. Apparently Dionysus was not born December 25 and neither was Jesus. I found out that Dionysus was born twice because when Semele died when she saw Zeus in all his glory, Zeus sewed Dionysus into his thigh and Dionysus emerged fully grown. How is that anything like Jesus?
1. Dionysus was born of a virgin on December 25th and, as the Holy Child, was placed in a manger.
Dionyus was always celebrated on January 6th. Also, his mother, Semele, was impregnated sexually by Zeus. He was never referred to as the "Holy Child" or placed in a manger in any version of the story.
2. His birth was announced with a heavenly display and celestial music.
I can find no reference to either, and there is no "celestial music" in the Jesus story.
Where are people finding these? I couldn't find it either
3. He was a traveling teacher who performed miracles.
This is true. However, this phrase loses any similarities with Jesus when we deal with the specifics of what Dionysus did. Jesus traveled in a limited area, while Dionysus supposedly traveled to most of the known world (including Greece, Persia and Arabia). Jesus' miracles were healings and such - all positive miracles. Dionysus' miracles were judgments against those who defied him.
It's interesting to me that while Jesus came to heal and to save, Dionysus didn't seem to help others. When people defied Jesus, he reasoned with them and tried to help them.
4. He "rode in a triumphal procession on an ass" and "is often pictured astride a donkey, which carries him to meet his passion" a scene re-enacted with crowds "shout[ing] the praises of Dionysus and wav[ing] bundles of branches."
This claim mixes two things, one semi-valid, one invalid. Dionysus was dipicted riding a donkey while a crowd waved ivy branches - the typical homecoming for any royal figure. The crowd welcoming Jesus to Jerusalem were imitating this sort of homecoming, though using the traditional palm branches of Israel. So while this could be called a sort of imitation, it's an imitation committed by the people in the story itself, not by any writer. The latter quotes come from the book "The Jesus Mysteries" by Freke and Gandy. Their only reference is to a depiction of a scene from Orphic eschatology which, oddly, has nothing to do with Dionysus.
5. He was a sacred king killed and eaten in a eucharistic ritual for fecundity and purification.
There exists an unofficial story (that is, not part of the general understanding of the Dionysus story) in which he is, as an infant, attacked by Titans who eat everything but his heart. Zeus destroys the Titans, and restores Dionysus from the remaining heart. Who would call the Jesus story a 'copycat' of that story? Taking this 'similarity' apart, yes, Dionysus was killed. His actual body was eaten, but since Jesus' body was not (the eating of Jesus' body is a metaphorical thing), this is not a comparison. Also, Dionysus wasn't eaten in any sort of ritual for fecundity or purification. In fact, the eating of Dionysus is clearly a bad thing (unlike the eating of Jesus' body) and is punished by death. Also, he wasn't a sacred king. The king was Zeus, not Dionysus.
6. Dionysus rose from the dead on March 25th.
Nowhere is the date of March 25th given in any Dionysus story. The date of his "resurrection" after his murder by the Titans is given as November 8th (and as shown in the above answer, this story is hardly similar to the story of Jesus' resurrection and is an unofficial story anyways). There is an ancient reference to Dionysus being "a god who renews himself and returns every year rejuvenated", but this doesn't involve death. Besides that, Jesus didn't rise from the dead on March 25th either. While an exact date is not given, most scholars believe that His crucifixion happened no earlier than March 28th, making His resurrection no earlier than March 30th.
7. He was the God of the Vine, and turned water into wine.
Dionysus was indeed "the God of the Vine". However, Jesus wasn't.
The earliest possible reference to Dionysus turning water into wine was by Achilles Tatius in the Greek Romance, "The Adventures of Leucippe and Clitophon" which was written in the 2nd century A.D. It mentions a Tyranian myth about Dionysus introducing wine to the world, with Dionysus calling it "the water of summer" and saying "This is the water, this is the spring". It's not clear whether this a real Tyranian myth being mentioned here (in which case it may be pre-Christian) or just something Tatius was inventing for the purposes of this story. Either way, Dionysus is not actually turning water into wine, but simply calling the wine a type of water. And we cannot reliably date this myth to any earlier than the second century A.D.
8. He was called "King of Kings" and "God of Gods."Anyone can see that Dionysus cannot in anyway match Jesus.
Nope. These would be odd titles to give Dionysus, his being the son of Zeus, who is the main God in the Greek religion. The titles would only fit Zeus himself, and even he was never referred to by either of these titles.
9. He was considered the "only Begotten Son," "Savior," "Redeemer," "Sin Bearer," "Anointed One," and the "Alpha and Omega", and "Lord God of God born"
Of these, Dionysus is only referred to as 'savior'. And in the context in which he is referred to 'savior', he is saving people from the wrath of Pentheus, not from sin or eternal damnation. So even this is hardly a comparison to Jesus.
10. He was identified with the Ram or Lamb.
In one version, he is born with horns on his head like that of a ram. That's the only mention of a ram in any Dionysus literature, and doesn't compare to Jesus' story at all.
11. His sacrificial title of "Dendrites" or "Young Man of the Tree" intimates he was hung on a tree or crucified.
This was no a 'sacrificial' title in any sense. He was simply called 'Young Man of the Tree'. How does that suggest he was hung on a tree or crucified?
12. At his trial, Dionysus is described by Freke and Gandy as "a quiet stranger with long hair and a beard who brings a new religion."
Dionysus was hardly quiet before King Pentheus, but engaged in quite a bit of dialogue with him. As for "long hair and a beard", most men wore both in those days. In fact, the Bible says nothing about Jesus having long hair or a beard. We only assume He did because they were common for middle-eastern Jews in those days.
13. He offers his followers the chance to be born again through the rites of baptism.
Nope. The followers of Dionysus never claimed to be 'born again' and their 'baptism' had to do with waving a fan above their heads, not submersing them in water.
14. His followers await his return as the judge during the Last Days.
This is not true of any version of the Dionysus story.
Sources
Dionysus - Wikipedia
Parallels between the stories of Jesus and Osiris-Dionysus
Aren’t there some striking parallels between the Jesus and Dionysus stories?
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sgEdjcBM5USD_XMTEANrY7LMugjS1sPc7vthaozf3KkqFGCRjx0e_Nox9RL-1PL5fC5aCcUblutrKeAoLDVLz2naNsaH1KMHgqBMQALALhnzy_9EEIQAhEDG872LJkiTbORqfi06lBOgxJ198_KMSt=s0-d)
When Osiris is said to bring his believers eternal life in Egyptian Heaven, contemplating the unutterable, indescribable glory of God, we understand that as a myth.
ReplyDeleteWhen the sacred rites of Demeter at Eleusis are described as bringing believers happiness in their eternal life, we understand that as a myth.
In fact, when ancient writers tell us that in general ancient people believed in eternal life, with the good going to the Elysian Fields and the not so good going to Hades, we understand that as a myth.
When Vespatian's spittle healed a blind man, we understand that as a myth.
When Apollonius of Tyana raised a girl from death, we understand that as a myth.
When the Pythia , the priestess at the Oracle at Delphi, in Greece, prophesied, and over and over again for a thousand years, the prophecies came true, we understand that as a myth.
When Dionysus turned water into wine, we understand that as a myth. When Dionysus believers are filled with atay, the Spirit of God, we understand that as a myth.
When Romulus is described as the Son of God, born of a virgin, we understand that as a myth.
When Alexander the Great is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal woman, we understand that as a myth.
When Augustus is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal , we understand that as a myth. woman
When Dionysus is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal woman, we understand that as a myth.
When Scipio Africanus is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal woman, we understand that as a myth.
So how come when Jesus is described as
the Son of God,
born of a mortal woman,
according to prophecy,
turning water into wine,
raising girls from the dead, and
healing blind men with his spittle,
and setting it up so His believers got eternal life in Heaven contemplating the unutterable, indescribable glory of God, and off to Hades—er, I mean Hell—for the bad folks...
how come that's not a myth?
Bino Bolumai
/ In Bino Veritas >
Did you not read.
ReplyDeleteDionysus did not turn water into wine (point 7)
Alexander the Great was born of a mortal woman..so was you.
I thank you for providing more examples to research. The problem is that we know that none of the examples you cite explicitly fit the Bible. For example the Bible is clear no man/woman can leave heaven or hell once they are there...except Jesus. In Greek mythology, hades and the Elysian fields might as well been a hotel with the number of folks entering and leaving.
Jesus is not a myth because of the evidence. Jesus was real. There is no evidence for most of the examples you cited. Alexander and Augustus were not myths but their births were embellished years after their birth. Jesus' birth is testified to within 70 years of his death - not a few centuries.
I will be responding to each of the myths you question and show that comparing them to Jesus makes as much since as comparing alchemy with cooking.
I think the point is that the life of Jesus, were it not for the prevailing dominance of Christianity in the centuries following his life, traditionally has been ascribed aspects we would, were it any other ancient figure, discuss as myth. I am not casting any aspersions on the religious truth of Christianity, I'm just making the point.
ReplyDeleteWhen one places the Bible (in this case the New Testament) under some scrutiny and investigates how and when it was formed, and how the stories in it came to be told, a certain pattern emerges: as the cult of Jesus Christ spread (and I use the word cult here in the sense any deity has a 'cult', as in, body of worship) followers tailored parts of the story to local traditions in order to help conversion. That in itself is a practice thousands of years old - Dionysus and his story as told in Euripides' 'Bacchae' is commonly thought to have originated euhemeristically as a means of explaining the easing of a foreign deity into the established Greek pantheon. Jesus' story, like any other, has its variations that have, unlike others, been stamped out of popular usage by the 'authority' of the Bible - there is unfortunately no such definitive authority on Greek religion, such was the nature of the belief. The passing resemblances to Dionysus' cult in Jesus' own (and yes I admit they are passing at best) probably owes more to the fact that Dionysus was such a predominant god in areas of Greek influence that by describing Jesus in a manner reminiscent of Dionysus, early Christians had greater success in spreading their gospel.
It is just one of many instances of tailoring the new religion to convert the old - another example would be the introduction of Christianity to countries believing in the Norse gods of Asgard - elements of their Ragnarok (their apocalypse) were compared to elements of Revelation and Genesis (Ragnarok ended with the rebirth of the world, leaving one man and woman; the explanation given to the Norse was that this new religion is somewhat the sequel to their own).
Again this does not disprove or prove anything in the Bible, though I think the Church would greatly benefit from tackling these facts (because they ARE facts, the realistic manner in which a religion is spread) head on, rather than trying to supress them, as has often been the case.
Anonymous, you said
ReplyDelete"I am not casting any aspersions on the religious truth of Christianity, I'm just making the point."
And you said the point is "the life of Jesus, were it not for the prevailing dominance of Christianity in the centuries following his life, traditionally has been ascribed aspects we would, were it any other ancient figure, discuss as myth."
Something can't be a myth and true simultaneously. If you are saying that the life of Jesus and/or the things the New Testament states about him is a myth than you are casting dispersion on the truth of Christianity. You can't have it both ways. You must pick one.
If you really look at the times when these "parallels" in Dionysus shows up you would see that the pagans borrowed from Christians - not the other way around and as for the rest of Dionysus' story - they don't really match what the Bible has been saying of Christ for 2000 years.
Yes it's true that the some Norse Mythology was harmonized with Christianity to ease conversion - but that does not mean Christianity was changed. The evidence is that - if anything wad changed - it was the Norse story. And you there is no such evidence when it comes to Dionysus.
ReplyDeleteDid you read my Thor posts: http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2011/06/gospel-according-to-thor-or-thor-vs.html
Well, I'd dispute your point that pagans borrowed from Christians - the cult of Dionysus is far older than that of Christ. Pagans had been discussing miracles similar to Jesus, immaculate conceptions and the concept of divine children for a good two millenia prior to Jesus' arrival.
ReplyDeleteYou've entirely side-stepped my point, which demonstrates a fundamental weakness in any Christian argument: a reluctance to demystify the Bible and to look it at objectively as a historical text. I don't think doing so would be in any way sacriligious - after all, unless you're reading the Bible in the original language, you're reading someone else's interpretation, surely?
First, we don't have any records of what the cult of Dionysus believed before Christianity showed up. Their cult was dying. Christianity was growing. Why would early Christians borrow ideas from a dying religion if they were trying to be more popular? You also can't deny that "immaculate conceptions" and "divine children" was understood quite a bit differently between Pagans and Judeo-Christians.
ReplyDeleteSecond, who say's I'm not looking in the Bible in an objective historical context? The whole post is from a historical context.
And third, today we have all the tools we need to look at the Bible in its original languages and check to see if the translations are correct - using multiple sources. We have no excuse.