Life of JC and Parallels in IE. Myth

[mojobadshah]

I've managed to find the following parallels between the events in JC's life and the events in Zoroaster's life.

Both Zoroaster and Jesus

1.) Their mother's received apparitions before their births
2.) They were both immaculately conceived
3.) A luminary was associated with both their births
4.) Wisemen were guided by this luminary to them
5.) There were attempts to assassinate them
6.) They both had siblings
7.) They were known for arguing with elders at an early age
8.) Zoroaster converts his cousin Maidyo-Mah and conversely John converts his cousin Jesus
9.) They both have an intervention at a river with the Holy Spirit at the age of 30
10.) They both commune with God and angels in a mountain
11.) They're both tempted by the Devil and are offered rulership
12.) They both preach away from home
13.) They both cure diseases and exorcise demons
14.) They both restore a blind man's sight
15.) They both walk on water
16.) They both control the weather
17.) Holymen put both of them to the test
18.) They're both martyred
19.) the three days of resurrection may have a correlation to the 3 days it takes a soul to make it's ascent to heaven in Zoroastrianism

A lot of the Zoroastrian parallels were written long after the NT was attested, but according to Mary Boyce a lot of the ideas mentioned in the Bundahishin the Zoroastrian Creation were actually a lot more ancient than when they were written down. I'm not exactly sure how she knows that, but my contention is that if there were enough of these ideas present in other IE. myth that she's probably right. So if anyone can think of concepts that appear in non-Zoroastrian IE. myth that runs parallel to the aforesaid list I'd be interested to hear what you got to say.

 

[Thomas]

1.) Their mother's received apparitions before their births

So did Buddha's ... so have many others ...

2.) They were both immaculately conceived

False

18.) They're both martyred

False. One version has him slain by a wizard, another has him killed in battle. In both he is well into old age ...

A lot of the Zoroastrian parallels were written long after the NT was attested...

Quite ... as with Amergin and Mithraism, it was common to graft details of the Christian Revelation onto pre-existing religions as a means of undermining Christianity. The correspondences are so superficial that they do not withtsand close investigation, and many of the claims here are utterly false.

Zoroaster claims to be nothing more than a prophet, Jesus claimed to be nothing less than God.

+++

Both Jesus and I:

1.) Their mother's received apparitions before their births
My mum prayed before my birth, having lost two children before me. She believes her prayer was answered.
2.) They were both immaculately conceived
Not in my case.
3.) A luminary was associated with both their births
Astrology does that ...
4.) Wisemen were guided by this luminary to them
My mum was told, by someone who's life was accompanied by well testified phenomena, that she had children for a purpose.
5.) There were attempts to assassinate them
every time I get on my bike ...
6.) They both had siblings
Yep
7.) They were known for arguing with elders at an early age
Yep
8.) Zoroaster converts his cousin Maidyo-Mah and conversely John converts his cousin Jesus
Nope
9.) They both have an intervention at a river with the Holy Spirit at the age of 30
I can claim an 'intervention' and the 'river' was Platonism
10.) They both commune with God and angels in a mountain
Yep
11.) They're both tempted by the Devil and are offered rulership
Yep
12.) They both preach away from home
Yep
13.) They both cure diseases and exorcise demons
Yep — medicine in the first instance.
14.) They both restore a blind man's sight
Yep, metaphorically speaking.
15.) They both walk on water
Nope
16.) They both control the weather
Nope
17.) Holymen put both of them to the test
Yep
18.) They're both martyred
Hope not ... (Zoroaster wasn't, anyway)
19.) the three days of resurrection may have a correlation to the 3 days it takes a soul to make it's ascent to heaven in Zoroastrianism[/quote]
Unlikely ...

So, I think I'm actually more like Jesus than Zoroaster ...

God bless,

Thomas

 

[mojobadshah]

O... M... G! That was totally not what I asked.

 

[bob x]

You are repudiating the actual Zoroastrianism, in favor of a newly-invented version into which bits and pieces of Christianity are copied.

 

[radarmark]

Yep, seems a lot like a strange "let's go find the real roots" version (kinda like Millerism is to Christianity).

 

[wil]

O... M... G! That was totally not what I asked.

I saw no question mark. You did inquire as to the comparisons...but they are not alone...

Bible God Jesus vs. Pagan Osiris vs. Persian Mithra - Topix

I saw somewhere a chart of all the man/G!d, virgin births there were a number of them on the chart, each with vaying agreeances.

 

[radarmark]

A lot of the Zoroastrian parallels were written long after the NT was attested, but "according to Mary Boyce a lot of the ideas mentioned in the Bundahishin the Zoroastrian Creation were actually a lot more ancient than when they were written down. I'm not exactly sure how she knows that, but my contention is that if there were enough of these ideas present in other IE. myth that she's probably right. So if anyone can think of concepts that appear in non-Zoroastrian IE. myth that runs parallel to the aforesaid list I'd be interested to hear what you got to say."

That gives you three so far (Thomas, Osiris and Mithra).

 

[Etu Malku]

Jesus/Yeshua has much in common with the Egyptian gods Horus and Osiris.
I think it's obvious that the hero myth stories were once again redefined to fit the latest savior.

 

[radarmark]

Gee, EM, should we add "Michael Valentine Smith" to the list?

Pax et amore omnia vincunt!

 

[Etu Malku]

Gee, EM, should we add "Michael Valentine Smith" to the list?

Pax et amore omnia vincunt!

Nice . . . well, yes I think we should!

 

[bob x]

I saw no question mark. You did inquire as to the comparisons...but they are not alone...

Bible God Jesus vs. Pagan Osiris vs. Persian Mithra - Topix

This is all sheer invention with no resemblance whatsoever to any actual stories ever actually told about Osiris or Mithra. There seems to be quite a cottage industry spreading this kind of rubbish.

 

[mojobadshah]

So, I think I'm actually more like Jesus than Zoroaster

Well Jesus was a Jew and his message wasn't intended for you unless you're a Jew. I on the other hand, like Zoroaster, am an Aryan (Indo-European). As a matter of fact most people in the world are Aryan (Indo-European) including the Jews. The top 2 lingua francas of the world, English and Spanish are Aryan (Indo-European) languages. Over half the world speaks one Aryan (Indo-European) language or another. Zoroaster's message unlike that of Jesus was not exclusionary of everyone but the Jews. His message was a universal one, and the only reason you are pro-Jesus today is because Constantine needed an anti-Aryan (Irano-Afghan) ally and the Nestorian Christians were the buffer between the Romans and the Aryans (Irano-Afghans).

You are repudiating the actual Zoroastrianism, in favor of a newly-invented version into which bits and pieces of Christianity are copied.

Greco-Roman versions of the NT date from the end of the 1st century to the 3rd century, but what about the Aramaic versions in Nestorian Christianity?

 

[radarmark]

The Peshitta (Syriac Bible) is a quite fascinating document. Comparing the Syriac and Latin Vulgates show that the Syriac was most likely a translation from the Greek, not from the Aramaic. The big difference is the non-inclusion of Revelation, the Catholic Epistles and the Antilegomera (sp?), in other words the original Antiocene NT was about half the size of what we call the NT. On the other hand, the OT in the Peshitta looks not to be a translation from the Greek but the Hebrew.

Regardless, Jesus is open and free to all, yes he taught the Jews because he was born a Jew and lived in a Jewish region. Like Zoroaster, being an proto-Iranian taught to proto-Iranians because he lived in a proto-Iranian region.

I would point out that AS THEY EXIST TODAY Chrisitanity is evangelical (anyone can be one), whereas Zoroastrians are not (at least the Parsees, who represent the bulk of the remaining Zoroastrians).

Furthermore, it seems to me that the populations of China, Japan, Indonesia, Nigeria, plus the non-European folks in Russia, the USA, Brazil, and Russia are a pretty clear majority (and that does not include the rest of sub-Saharan Africa or the Americas or Asia). How do you get a majority of Aryans again?

Mandarin pretty much swamps Spanish or French. How is it again that Those are the top two languages? Is it because a lot of non-Aryans (africans and latin americans) speak them? Note, Latin Americans are (in terms of genetics and blood typing) not Indo-European (nor are the bulk of the traditional "Indian" population).


If over hald the world speaks one Indo-European language or another it is merely because of the happenstance of history (or our agressive imperialism).

Pax et amore omnia vincunt!

 

[Etu Malku]

This is all sheer invention with no resemblance whatsoever to any actual stories ever actually told about Osiris or Mithra. There seems to be quite a cottage industry spreading this kind of rubbish.

You might want to read Joseph Campbell's "Hero with a Thousand Faces". The Egyptian comparisons are adequate, as well as described in The Pyramid Texts, Book of Coming Forth by Day, and Coffin Texts.

Egyptologist E. A. Wallis Budge: "The Egyptians of every period in which they are known to us believed that Osiris was of divine origin, that he suffered death and mutilation at the hands of the powers of evil, that after a great struggle with these powers he rose again, that he became henceforth the king of the underworld and judge of the dead, and that because he had conquered death the righteous also might conquer death...In Osiris the Christian Egyptians found the prototype of Christ, and in the pictures and statues of Isis suckling her son Horus, they perceived the prototypes of the Virgin Mary and her child."

The similarities of earlier GodMan/Heroes with Jesus is unmistakable. The whole concept of how myth is created and propagated alone explains the How's and Why's Jesus would have been 'Annointed' with such Divine attributes.

I'll agree that many of these comparisons have gotten out of hand and are just out right lies.

 

[Amergin]

Well Jesus was a Jew and his message wasn't intended for you unless you're a Jew. I on the other hand, like Zoroaster, am an Aryan (Indo-European). As a matter of fact most people in the world are Aryan (Indo-European) including the Jews. The top 2 lingua francas of the world, English and Spanish are Aryan (Indo-European) languages. Over half the world speaks one Aryan (Indo-European) language or another. Zoroaster's message unlike that of Jesus was not exclusionary of everyone but the Jews. His message was a universal one, and the only reason you are pro-Jesus today is because Constantine needed an anti-Aryan (Irano-Afghan) ally and the Nestorian Christians were the buffer between the Romans and the Aryans (Irano-Afghans).

I am not sure but I tend to agree with you, mostly.

Greco-Roman versions of the NT date from the end of the 1st century to the 3rd century, but what about the Aramaic versions in Nestorian Christianity?

Christianity really had nothing to do with Jesus at all. Only his name was used in the manufacture of a brand new God, Christ and an Indo-European Style Trinity. Most Indo-European religions had a Father God, a Son of that God, and a Messenger God or in some cases a Goddess.

Jesus preached Judaism and reform of the abuses of the rich and corrupt Judean Principality of Rome. His gospels do not fit well with modern Christianity. They are moral appeals to a better form of Judaism. Jesus never claimed to be a god. His first century followers including the Gospel writers did not see him as a god.

The drift to Indo-European basis of the Jesus Cult took time. Jesus was not a god in the Gospels or the first century. Pagan converts to the moral message of Jesus felt the need to reinforce that message by considering Jesus a god. The earliest real Christianity was of Jesus as a son of god but not the Father God. Jesus was subordinate as is shown in the Gospels. He was considered a subordinate God by followers of Paul of Tarsus and later preached by Bishop Arius. It was the first Christianity.

Over time many adaptations and versions were invented by so-called Church Fathers. There were Maronites, Marcionites, Thomasites, Nestorians, Monophysitists, and Athanasian Trinitarians. Arianism made the first and most successful attempt. They actually converted all of the German barbarian kingdoms north of the Empire and at least one Emperor was Arian.

The triumph of North African Trinitarianism came when St. Helena converted to Trinitarianism. She made it happen. Her son was the great soldier Emperor Flavius Valerius Constantinus. Constantine hallucinated or saw a flash of light in the sky which was described as a sun but with rays of light went in the four primary directions taking the rough shape of a cross.

This cross with the solar centre was already a Celtic Pagan symbol for hundreds of years. Constantine felt it was an omen of victory. It blended the symbol of his Roman Religion, the Cult of Sol Invictus. Sol Invictus often was painted with rays of light going left, right, up, and down. The custom of putting a model or mannequin representing Jesus was put on that cross.

Constantine may have had a political motive. In the prior century the Empire nearly fell apart with internal wars and external threats. He needed to unify the Empire. His solution was to merge the Religions into a classical Indo-European Cult centred on Jesus who was made to resemble Mithras, Helios, Lugh, Lieu, Baldur, (not Zoroaster). Constantine made those comparisons in this merger. Jesus was fully deified (which to him, a Jew, was Blasphemy.)

I think that Indo-Iranian-Kushite-Saka-Tocharians (the Eastern branches of Indo-European was less influential than the Western Indo-European Trinitarian Cults (Druidic Celtic, Gaulish, Hispanic, Teutonic, Roman, Illyrian, and Greek.)

The newly formed embryonic Christianity of Athanasius gradually lost its initial lure for converts when it sided with wealth, power, control of the people, the elimination of any religious rivals. It resorted to massive persecutions beginning under Theodosius II (Pagans, Arians, Manichaeans, Donatists, Nestorians, Monophysites, Marcionites, Gnostics, etc.) Thus ended the early phase of Christian conversions after the merger of Druidism with Celtic Christianity. From then onward Christian conversion was almost entirely by the sword.

Amergin

 

[Etu Malku]

Christianity really had nothing to do with Jesus at all.

My wife is a firm believer of this as well, and this is something I can understand even if I personally don't follow the philosophy. Thank you for stating it this way Amergin!

 

[bob x]

Constantine needed an anti-Aryan (Irano-Afghan) ally and the Nestorian Christians were the buffer between the Romans and the Aryans (Irano-Afghans).

Since Nestorius was generations later than Constantine, "Nestorians" could hardly have been part of his calculations.

Greco-Roman versions of the NT date from the end of the 1st century to the 3rd century, but what about the Aramaic versions in Nestorian Christianity?

5th century. And the Syriac Peshitta were used by all the Aramaic-speaking Christians, not just those of Nestorian theology.

I'll agree that many of these comparisons have gotten out of hand and are just out right lies.

The comparisons which you cite were reasonable; but wil's link was to the fabrications of Acharya S, which did not include one single true item.

Most Indo-European religions had a Father God, a Son of that God, and a Messenger God or in some cases a Goddess.

No, Indo-European religions had a huge number of deities, and never singled out a set of "three" as particularly important. If any of them was called a "Father" it was because he had a large number of children of both genders, never a singular son. Your "Messenger Gods" are fabrications.

 

[mojobadshah]

Since Nestorius was generations later than Constantine, "Nestorians" could hardly have been part of his calculations.

Well there had to be some sect of Christianity in Parthia because all the sources about Christianity in the Aryan (Irano-Aryan) zone imply that that's where all the Christians who had been persecuted under the Romans took exile, and that after Constantine converted to Judiasm the Parthians kicked them out for trying to undermine their religious heritage, Zoroastrianism.

No, Indo-European religions had a huge number of deities, and never singled out a set of "three" as particularly important. If any of them was called a "Father" it was because he had a large number of children of both genders, never a singular son. Your "Messenger Gods" are fabrications.

Ahura Mazda is regarded as the Father in Zoroastrianism. I don't think the OT refers to their god as Father, directly, but there is mention of the nation of Israel as their god's son.

Also here are some possible sources for the Jesus story from before the Christian era.

1.) apparitions before their births

a.) Astyages' dreamt about Cyrus's (a Zoroastrian) birth

Dream interpreters (e.g. Magi) tell Astyages of Cyrus's birth and how he will overthrow him and rule all of Asia

2.) They were both immaculately conceived

b. ) The Magi interpret Herod's dream about how Jesus will be born and will be king of the Jews

2. Perseus was born by parthenogenesis; Herodotus claims the Persians are descendants of Perseus through Persis; Persis was one of the initiatory levels in Roman Mithraism

Zoroastrian scholars imply that Vispa-tuarvairi was a "virgin mother" and tie this into the verse about Zoroaster's seed preserved by the Fravashis but I'm not totally convinced that we get all that here during the pre-Christian era.

142. We worship the Fravashi of the holy maid Vanghu-fedhri;
We worship the Fravashi of the holy maid Eredat-fedhri, who is called Vispa-taurvairi. She is Vispa-taurvairi (the all-destroying) because she will bring him forth, who will destroy the malice of Daevas and men, to withstand the evil done by the Jahi. - Frawardin Yasht - 30:142

5.) There were attempts to assassinate them

a.) Astyages tries to have Cyrus assassinated
b.) Herodotus tries to have Jesus assasinated

7.) They were known for arguing with elders at an early age

a. Cyrus debates with Astyages as a child in Xenophone
b. Jesus argues with the scribes

10.) They both commune with angels in a mountain

a. According to the Vendidad Zoroaster communes with Ahura Mazda and the angels - Fargard 19

b. Jesus communes with angels

11.) They're both tempted by the Devil and are offered rulership

Both Zoroaster and Jesus are tempted with rule of nations by the devil, speak of the usefulness of the word, and refuse to denounce God.

18.) The Crucifixion and martyerdom

a. Cyrus is killed in battle.

b. Zoroastrianism describes a sort of crucifixion in the Gathas where the believers are to undergo a sort of test/ miracle to prove who they are, and this test is also described in later Zoroastrian tradition.

What recompense thou wilt give to the two parties by thy red Fire, by the molten metal, give us a sign of it in our souls - even the bringing of ruin to the Liar, of blessing to the Righteous. - 51:9

But I also found this reference to the first crucifixion described in history of a Persian (Zoroastrian) kind of relevant

The Greeks were generally opposed to performing crucifixions.[45] However, in his Histories, ix.120–122, the Greek writer Herodotus describes the execution of a Persian general at the hands of Athenians in about 479 BC: "They nailed him to a plank and hung him up ... this Artayctes who suffered death by crucifixion."[46] The Commentary on Herodotus by How and Wells remarks: "They crucified him with hands and feet stretched out and nailed to cross-pieces; cf. vii.33. This barbarity, unusual on the part of Greeks, may be explained by the enormity of the outrage or by Athenian deference to local feeling."[47]

According to Herodotus, Artayctes' rule over the city-state of Sestos was a reign of terror. Originally, Sestos had been a Greek stronghold. Herodotus describes that when Artayctes was made governor of the city, he claimed all treasures present in the region, and desecrated many Greek places of worship. For example, Artayctes plundered the Sestos' cemetery Elaious, and built a Persian temple complex on top of it.

According to Herodotus, the Athenian army was warned by the inhabitants of Sestos about the departure of the Persians. The Athenians entered the city and subsequently pursued the Persians. They encountered Artayctes and his military unit near the river Geite. Most of Artayctes' men were killed in the subsequent battle. Artayctes himself, however, was captured and taken back to Sestos.
Herodotus describes how Artayctes pleads for his life and the life of his son. He offers a hundred talents to the gods, and two hundred to the Athenians if they spare their lives.
However, the Greek general Xanthippus insists on their execution, as payment for the desecration of the Elaious cemetery. Herodotus describes how Artayctes is then crucified. While Artayctes is dying, he witnesses how his son is stoned to death.

The tragic tale of a Zoroastrian or monotheist Father and missionary was forced to witness the death of his own son, and suffer crucifixion at the hands of non-believers.

20. The Resurrection

The doctrine of the resurrection is prevalent in pre-Christian era Zoroastrian scripture as well as the idea of the 3 days it takes for one to ascend to gurodemana "heaven."

 

[arthra]

Being a Baha'i I rarely comment here on another religion's board but just from my own recall there have been parallels and similarities noted between say what you would call the stories about Jesus with myths and legends for quite a long time..

One reaction to this was to herald these similarities as God preparing the people for the Gospel..

What happens if you are grounded in say a religion with emphasis say on rebirth and the power of life is that you will see that in the new religion. You will focus on that with which you are familiar.

Another was to claim Satan had attempted to provide a duplicate or near similar religion to deceive and tempt people and keep them from accepting Christianity.

A third reaction could be that the similarities and parallels are there because of a common origin of religions.

Now if you consider the above also I would ask what is the "meat" or essence of the religion? Is it the miraculous birth story and resurrection, the miracles?

Or is it the teachings that distinguish the religion..in this case Christianity, i.e., the Gospel..the Good News..the teachings of Jesus. Thomas Jefferson and Leo Tolstoy had something in common in this regard..both compiled "Gospels" that were primarily based on the teachings of Jesus...

 

[mojobadshah]

Being a Baha'i I rarely comment here on another religion's board but just from my own recall there have been parallels and similarities noted between say what you would call the stories about Jesus with myths and legends for quite a long time..

One reaction to this was to herald these similarities as God preparing the people for the Gospel..

What happens if you are grounded in say a religion with emphasis say on rebirth and the power of life is that you will see that in the new religion. You will focus on that with which you are familiar.

Another was to claim Satan had attempted to provide a duplicate or near similar religion to deceive and tempt people and keep them from accepting Christianity.

A third reaction could be that the similarities and parallels are there because of a common origin of religions.

Now if you consider the above also I would ask what is the "meat" or essence of the religion? Is it the miraculous birth story and resurrection, the miracles?

Or is it the teachings that distinguish the religion..in this case Christianity, i.e., the Gospel..the Good News..the teachings of Jesus. Thomas Jefferson and Leo Tolstoy had something in common in this regard..both compiled "Gospels" that were primarily based on the teachings of Jesus...

None of that is my angle. I'm interested in where the language and ideas or "The Word" originated. I don't want to be preaching to people. Nobody likes a preacher. I don't even believe in God myself. If my ancestors came up with a profitable "invention" I don't care if they came up with it yesterday or when the world was created. I want what's mine, and I want the same for other cultures. People can believe whatever they want to believe as far as I'm concerned, but when they're profiting off of "inventions" that belong to others that is another story. And even then I don't have a problem with people using other culture's "inventions" to profit from just as long as the originators are being justly compensated for the third-party use of those cultural "inventions." Trademarks don't expire. Expressions like "God," "the Devil" "Heaven and Hell" shouldn't either. They are not universal expressions, but their are a lot of mythological expressions that are so don't fret. Don't be greedy either. If the Catholic Church is making $500 billion a year and they've used cultural expressions which my culture originated then I want to be justly compensated for using them, and I would think that the Church would be lucky to continue to do its business, because in the west compensation for passed infringement can include shutting an establishment down, as well as comp for lawyers fees. Expressions like "God" are part of a culture's identity. I don't know if this is a good analogy but the NT says "God was with the word and God was the word," and "man doesn't live off bread alone, but by every word which proceedeth from the mouth of God," and "the Word was made flesh."