Instigator / Pro
7
1578
rating
200
debates
54.75%
won
Topic
#6174
It is more likely that the biblical doctrine of Jesus is heavily inspired by the lore of Dionysus.
Status
Voting
The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
Voting will end in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 15,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
3
1542
rating
13
debates
61.54%
won
Description
It is more probable that the stories, myths, and legends of the miracles or feats displayed by Jesus were borrowed from the Greek myths and stories about Dionysus.
The Con angle is allowed to use coincidental similarity to counter this.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Preamble
I am making the claim that it is more likely that the lore of Jesus as portrayed in biblical scripture, copied a lot of the stories of Dionysus.
BOP
Since the resolution isn’t making any implications of certainty, then my actual burden is not as high as people may believe. I only need to take my current hunch and gather evidence to turn it into a working theory. I will succeed at this in two ways.:
- Pointing out the strong similarities between christianity and greek mythology.
- Demonstrating the influence of greek culture on early christianity.
Contentions
Zeitgeist
The idea that christianity stole its stories from pagan myths and beliefs is an old one with a lot of credibility. There were a lot of polytheistic cultures around the time, so the pagan influence was strong when christianity was still a small group before it spread and became global. So the assimilation and integration of pagan lore into christian doctrine is not that hard to believe. Zeitgeist proposes that christianity is an amalgamation of different religions and beliefs borrowed from other cultures with norms and concepts that were passed on to those cultures from other cultures. 1
Christianity copied Greek Mythology
- Ancient Greek Flood Myth to punish mankind, with the two survivors being Deucalion and Pyrrha to repopulate the Earth. And the biblical flood in which the survivors were Noah and his family, and Noah was to repopulate the Earth. 2
- Mankind was created by Prometheus making them from clay, and mud. Then Athena breathes life into them. AKA God creates mankind from dirt and breathes life into them. 3 4
Similarities between Dionysus & Jesus
- Both born of a god with a virgin mortal mother.
- Both surviving murder attempts in their infancy from authority figures.
- Both were deemed pariahs by their respective societies at large.
- Both were violently murdered in gruesome ways.
- Both are associated with wine, and have wine tributes/rituals/traditions celebrated & devoted to them.
- Both cheated death. (Jesus through resurrection, Dionysus through rebirth)
Where christians have this tradition of drinking wine which is supposed to be the literal or metaphorical drinking of Jesus’s blood, it is symbolic. The ancient greeks did the same by drinking wine AKA Dionysus’s blood as an offering to the gods. 5
Greek culture & Early christianity
The first translation of the bible was in the greek language. It was common for certain drafts to be rejected, as this was quite literally the beginning process of building the foundation of future generational christianity, and if the scripture was deemed to be blasphemous then it would not be published. Given the strength of pagan beliefs at the time, this meant it was severely unlikely that the bible would avoid the integration of ancient greek stories to fuel their christian lore and legends. This first translation of the bible is known as the Septuagint. 6
Sources: Zeitgeist (film series) - Wikipedia
Con
#2
More likely than what?
A major semantic obstacle is what precisely the likelihood refers to.
It is easy to say 'than not, duh' but there are many versions of what the miracles and legends are based on instead.
In the description, Pro established that I can even argue it is all coincidence. That makes this a simple victory for me. All my burden of proof really is, is to prove that Pro cannot prove against coincidence.
====
Correlation vs Causation
Two or more variables considered to be related, in a statistical context, if their values change so that as the value of one variable increases or decreases so does the value of the other variable (although it may be in the opposite direction).For example, for the two variables "hours worked" and "income earned" there is a relationship between the two if the increase in hours worked is associated with an increase in income earned. If we consider the two variables "price" and "purchasing power", as the price of goods increases a person's ability to buy these goods decreases (assuming a constant income).Correlation is a statistical measure (expressed as a number) that describes the size and direction of a relationship between two or more variables. A correlation between variables, however, does not automatically mean that the change in one variable is the cause of the change in the values of the other variable.Causation indicates that one event is the result of the occurrence of the other event; i.e. there is a causal relationship between the two events. This is also referred to as cause and effect.Theoretically, the difference between the two types of relationships are easy to identify — an action or occurrence can cause another (e.g. smoking causes an increase in the risk of developing lung cancer), or it can correlate with another (e.g. smoking is correlated with alcoholism, but it does not cause alcoholism). In practice, however, it remains difficult to clearly establish cause and effect, compared with establishing correlation.
====
How heavily is Pro claiming it is?
Another significant issue is what exactly the heaviness of influence needs to be.
In contrast to the issue of "more likely" this heaviness issue favours Pro. If Pro proves slight influence on a false thing such as the assumed birth of Christ now being 25th December, is that heavy enough?
Heavily:
to a notably large in size degree
merriam-webster - heavily
merriam-webster - great (I 'grafted' it onto the definition of 'heavily')
He has to show the Nicaeans and presimably those after the First Council of Nicaea were heavily influenced by the life and legends of Dionysus.
====
From before Jesus even was crucified (30AD exactly whereas he was crucified 33AD), Catholic thinking began. Orthodox differentistion especially Oriental Orthodox began in 45 AD. Eastern Orthodox claims it began around 30 AD too but really they are a group of original Catholic thinkers that resisted and split off from the thinking already at the Second Council but absolutely by the fourty (the Schism).
The entire process happened against all odds in fact. Think how badly Pagan Romans and Pharisee Jews wanted to bury the tales of Christ and his teachings?
Yet an Emperor felt so inspired by Christ he led a Council...
Constantine the Great.
Due to his legacy/region leading more to Eastern Orthodox over time than Catholicism and no Miracle or significant wisdom attached to him, he is not Sainted. Most Catholics do predict he is in Heaven I am sure.
This fantastic Emperor declared freedom for Christians who had learned to be hidden, spreading the faith quietly. The faith also was considered a sort of Messianic Judaism at first, ir was with the First Council of Micaea the official differing religion that declared Christ as God and one of 3 Trinity etc wa established.
Constantine was so humble an Emperor that he in no shape or form asked them to enshrine him in the Faith. He accepted he was a humble servant of the Lord as the Nicene Creed was made and got baptised eventually. 🤍
He saw many flaws with how Riman Paganism was working out. Theft, rape, murder and more were happening far too often and the peasants did not feel loved nor cared for at all or content under the Pagan Romans.
Alongside leading the revokution that ended up banning Gladiator fights, prisoner abaue and many other human rights, the ball Constantine and the First Council of Nicaea got rolling helped the world so much so that it was inevitable Greece ended up giving up its Pagan faith fornthe 1 true religion, ✝️☦️.
We see that Dionysus has some paralels but do not be confused, Pro is distorting, even misinforming at points.
====
Zeitgeist?
Firstly, Noah's flood if it was localised rather than global has evidence of.happening and this was easily 2k or 1.8k BC.
The Book of Genesis was probably composed around the 5th century BCE;[3] although some scholars believe that primeval history (chapters 1–11), including the flood narrative, may have been composed and added as late as the 3rd century BCE.[4] It draws on two sources, called the Priestly source and the non-Priestly or Yahwist,[5] and although many of its details are contradictory,[6] the story forms a unified whole.[7]
Jews told of that tale centuries before Jesus came as human to us. So, what Pro is trying to do is morph ubrelated aspects of Judaism's doctrine to somehow be the doctrine of Jesus himself.
Noah is part of Tanakh. Pharisee Jews who denounced Jesus and even Orthodox Jews today who completely reject Jesus, all uphold the story of Noah. This is irrelevant to the doctrine finalised in the First Council of Nicaea and thus irrelevant to the debate.
What is likely is that many humans wondered about the past before humans or during early phases and knew of a severe flood in Iraq and Levant region. Greeks are close enough to it to have passed the informstion down through Generations. Furthermore Poseidon is their God of the Ocean, not Dionysus.
Genesis creation story forms also around 5th-6th Century BC. This is also part of Jewish Tanakh which means Jews that completely reject Jesus also hold it as Holy truth. It is as if Pro thinks the topic is about Greek Paganism. It is not. This is about 1 Greek god alone, Dionysus and solely about the doctrine of Jesus relative to him.
Either Prometheus or Zeus made humans, in Greek muthology.
https://www.reddit.com/r/GreekMythology/comments/lq4vmx/who_created_humans_prometheus_or_hephaistos/
Dionyus has nothing at all to do with any of that and worse for Pro, all said thus far in his case was uoheld centureis before, by Jews, many of whose descendants rejected Jesus later while still maintaining the 'Zeitgeist' and genesis as true.
====
Similarities between Dionysus & Jesus
- Both born of a god with a virgin mortal mother.
Zeus was a manwhore. He did not whatsoever give a virgi birth to Dionysus. He did have sex with a female human.
Semele's Death:Semele, a mortal princess, was tricked by Hera, Zeus's wife, into asking Zeus to show himself in his true form, a lightning bolt. This caused Semele's death.
Google AI
It cites the following:
And more.
- Both surviving murder attempts in their infancy from authority figures.
Which authority figures? His mother died while pregnant with him so he got sewn into Zeus' thigh.
- Both were deemed pariahs by their respective societies at large.
You must be joking. Does this mean Satan is based on Jesus as well then? That is not proof at all of it being influenced.
- Both were violently murdered in gruesome ways.
And the latest Horror flick must be heavily influenced by Dionysus too, didn't you know? (Sarcasm)
In the myth of Dionysus, there's a story of his death and resurrection. The infant Dionysus, also known as Zagreus, was torn apart and eaten by the Titans, but his heart was saved.
Google AI.
What does that havd to do with beung hung on a Cross and a Pharisee that sympathised offering an expensive-to-own tomb to hold the body?
- Both are associated with wine, and have wine tributes/rituals/traditions celebrated & devoted to them.
But Jesus did so even before dying, Dionysus only become Gid of wine after. Jesus is not 'god of Wine' anyway.
- Both cheated death. (Jesus through resurrection, Dionysus through rebirth)
Cheated is a strong word. Dionysus got stiched together even to be born. He escaped miscarriage and then got zombified in a frankenstein's monster manner. Jesus resurrected directly. It is not the same.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Rebuttals
More likely than what?
A major semantic obstacle is what precisely the likelihood refers to.
It is easy to say 'than not, duh' but there are many versions of what the miracles and legends are based on instead.
In the description, Pro established that I can even argue it is all coincidence. That makes this a simple victory for me. All my burden of proof really is, is to prove that Pro cannot prove against coincidence.
The Con side can be approached however you want to take it. Otherwise the default is ‘than not.’ I am not arguing an absolute, I am claiming that it is plausible that the current evidence suggests that christianity based a lot of their lore around Jesus on Dionysus. That while Jesus and Dionysus are distinct, they are identical enough to warrant a comparison. And the similarities are so strong that the identical resemblance is logically reasonable enough for me to assume that a lot of Jesus is based on Dionysus.
Correlation vs Causation
Two or more variables considered to be related, in a statistical context, if their values change so that as the value of one variable increases or decreases so does the value of the other variable (although it may be in the opposite direction).
For example, for the two variables "hours worked" and "income earned" there is a relationship between the two if the increase in hours worked is associated with an increase in income earned. If we consider the two variables "price" and "purchasing power", as the price of goods increases a person's ability to buy these goods decreases (assuming a constant income).
Correlation is a statistical measure (expressed as a number) that describes the size and direction of a relationship between two or more variables. A correlation between variables, however, does not automatically mean that the change in one variable is the cause of the change in the values of the other variable.
Causation indicates that one event is the result of the occurrence of the other event; i.e. there is a causal relationship between the two events. This is also referred to as cause and effect.
The correlation and causation fallacy usually only refers to comparisons that are small in scale. When I have established a pattern of similarities that remain consistent between the two characters, demonstrating an identical enough resemblance to make a logical inference, as well as point out the influence of greek culture over christianity. Then the correlation and causation is not a sufficient rebuttal.
Also, it is a fact that greek mythology influenced christian lore in the earlier stages.:
Christianity in Greece did not clash with the ancient culture nor did it aim at suppressing or abolishing it. On the contrary, the early Christians made use of the ancient lore to help them in their own spiritual development and in the propagation of their faith and thus greatly enriched Christianity.
Extend all arguments and sources.
Sources: Zeitgeist (film series) - Wikipedia
Con
#4
Oookay.
Pro has changed the debate.
Pro is now making it even Old Testament and comparing it to all Greek mythology.
That is irrelevant to the debate. The debate has a 2-fold, narrow scope:
It is more likely that the biblical doctrine of Jesus is heavily inspired by the lore of Dionysus.
Scope Angle 1: more likely
Scope Angle 2: heavily
Scope parameters:
- Biblical doctrine of Jesus (only)
- lore of Dionysus (only)
- Coincidence/correlation has to be proven less likely than causation.
Round 3
Pro
#5
The debate hasn’t changed, only Con’s understanding.
I rephrased the resolution as a means to clarify my Burden.
Here is how I established my following impacts.:
- By showing the strong influence of greek mythology on early christianity, I’ve bridged the gap through association. Establishing a direct connection, ruling out the correlation vs causation fallacy, and thus proving the more likely than not. (Early christianity or Old Testament scripture is valid because the translations were re-written under christian interpretation)
- Showing the parallels between Jesus and Dionysus through birth of a human mother, but divine father. The themes of self-sacrifice and cheating death. And the traditions of drinking wine. A pattern of similarities which establish a strong resemblance. Thus establishing heavy inspiration.
Con has dropped all my arguments.
Extend arguments and sources.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
A shame about the forfeitures, but it was pretty clear by con quoting AIs that his heart was not in this debate anyways.
I don't think con had access to the easy victory from "more likely" being ambiguous, but he had a clear path from the word "heavily" which could have been leveraged throughout the debate, especially if showing other sources he was inspired by (actually, pro's push to include the Old Testament, could have been twisted with Jesus being more inspired by that than by Dionysus).
Anyways, con misses half the debate, and offers very little in R2, leaving pro's later assessment largely unchallenged.
3 days
I won't do this as a 2 day. I also think more chars are needed.
I can adjust it.
Why 2 days only?
yeah, i changed the description and added that Con is allowed to use coincidental similarity to counter this
How do we separate inspiration from coincidental similarity?
Please can semantics be established in description?