The quotes from Justin do not work against 'me'. They work against the post-historic history of Jesus as being original. Justin is stating, in no uncertain terms, that Satan has planted elements of the Jesus story in pre-history, only to confound the followers of Jesus.
Actually, this isn't what he is saying at all. If he were, he would be trying to argue that he
is propounding something new and different, not that he isn't. Take a closer look at what he writes in
Chapter LIV of his First Apology:
For having heard it proclaimed through the prophets that the Christ was to come, and that the ungodly among men were to be punished by fire, they put forward many to be called sons of Jupiter, under the impression that they would be able to produce in men the idea that the things which were said with regard to Christ were mere marvellous tales, like the things which were said by the poets. And these things were said both among the Greeks and among all nations where they [the demons] heard the prophets foretelling that Christ would specially be believed in; but that in hearing what was said by the prophets they did not accurately understand it, but imitated what was said of our Christ, like men who are in error, we will make plain.
The first piece of this is often cited as Justin Martyr saying that the reason see Christianity as a copycat of paganism is that the devil planted the apparent parallels. Look, though, at the highlighted portions. Justin says that the devils botched the job of planting the parallels, and he goes on to show how the devils botched them:
And because in the prophecy of Moses it had not been expressly intimated whether He who was to come was the Son of God, and whether He would, riding on the foal, remain on earth or ascend into heaven, and because the name of "foal" could mean either the foal of an ass or the foal of a horse, they, not knowing whether He who was foretold would bring the foal of an ass or of a horse as the sign of His coming, nor whether He was the Son of God, as we said above, or of man, gave out that Bellerophon, a man born of man, himself ascended to heaven on his horse Pegasus.
Notice here how he is saying that the story of Bellerophon was supposed to parallel the Triumphal Entry, but it failed to do so because the devils got wrong both that it was a donkey that Jesus rode on, not a horse, and he was still on Earth, not yet ascending to heaven. It was supposed to be a parallel, but it was Justin Martyr who had to make it plain because the devils botched it.
And when they knew what was said, as has been cited above, in the prophecies written aforetime, "Strong as a giant to run his course," [From Psalm 19:5] they said that Hercules was strong, and had journeyed over the whole earth.
This is what the Psalm actually says: "which comes out like a bridegroom from his wedding canopy, and like a strong man runs its course with joy." Justin is stretching to establish a parallel.
When Justin complains that the followers of Mithras used Isaiah as their inspiration/prophecy for their beliefs, does he also characterize this as a 'stretch'?
He doesn't "characterize this as a 'stretch'." He's the one
doing the stretching. This is what he writes in his
Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter LXX:
And when those who record the mysteries of Mithras say that he was begotten of a rock, and call the place where those who believe in him are initiated a cave, do I not perceive here that the utterance of Daniel, that a stone without hands was cut out of a great mountain
This is the text from Daniel, verses 2:31-35, to which he refers:
You were looking, O king, and lo! there was a great statue. This statue was huge, its brilliance extraordinary; it was standing before you, and its appearance was frightening. The head of that statue was of fine gold, its chest and arms of silver, its middle and thighs of bronze, its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of clay. As you looked on, a stone was cut out, not by human hands, and it struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and broke them in pieces. Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold, were all broken in pieces and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away, so that not a trace of them could be found. But the stone that struck the statue became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.
This is not exactly a close parallel.
Justin Martyr is not trying to explain away parallels with paganism, but trying to establish their existence, and especially in the
First Apology, he rationalizes the lack of closeness by saying that the devils did a bad job of imitating the prophecies. geetarmoore, I have to wonder if you actually looked at the content of Justin Martyr's parallels before trying to use them as evidence.
The allegory in Mark 6 jumped right out at me.
Definition of "allegory."
Jesus is upset at the lack of respect he is given. "A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house."
True enough. The problem is that if the story were meant to communicate that Jesus was refusing to do many miracles on account of this disrespect, then it would have said as much. However, instead of saying that he would do no deed of power, it says that he
could do no deed of power.
