I searched wikipedia and found no traces of Heracles being born of a virgin. Actually, his mother was already married and Zeus deceived her by taking the appearence of her husband.
It seems that someone has been watching Zeitgeist without checking the sources :)
It would seem to me though that a mortal woman being impregnated by a God (Zeus) is exactly the same as what is suggested about The Immaculate Conception by The Virgin Mary in The Bible. That Zeus took the form of the mortal husband of Heracles' mother makes Heracles' birth of a divine nature.
shareErh no, it is not "exactly" the same, hence my question about the difference about what the movie mention and what is told in the legend.
sharePlease explain the difference then when the two examples you're working with are both mortal women who are impregnated by "Gods".
shareDon't know if you're a troll or something, so I'll answer once and if you answer nonsense again, then I'll know what to do... just ignore you.
Here is my answer : being born from a virgin is not "exactly" the same as being born from a deceived married woman. And Hercules never went to Gethsemane. He commited suicide because he could not bear the pain of the poison of the Hydra. I don't see how you link all this with the Christ.
by commandor_data - Don't know if you're a troll or something, so I'll answer once and if you answer nonsense again, then I'll know what to do... just ignore you.
Here is my answer : being born from a virgin is not "exactly" the same as being born from a deceived married woman. And Hercules never went to Gethsemane. He commited suicide because he could not bear the pain of the poison of the Hydra. I don't see how you link all this with the Christ.
by commandor data ~ being born from a virgin is not "exactly" the same as being born from a deceived married woman. And Hercules never went to Gethsemane.
Actually I saw the french subtitles, and the translator made a mistake : he said that Hercules went to Gethsemane. So that's a good point you made. But that part is not that important, because what was a false information is that Hercules was born of a virgin and as you can read in the following comments, he also was not the only begotten.
My point is : they're playing the scientific card here with supposedly logical arguments but they do the same that religious guys do : they enunciate facts which are wrong to better convince you.
I'm not even a specialist in mythology, but I immediatly spotted that mistake, which actually tell us about how much they checked their informations. Frankly, that makes me doubt about the rest too now. I mean, everyone with a little culture knows Hercules's story and knows that it has nothing in common with Jesus except that, like most of religions, he's supposed to be of divine origin. But then again, most of myths (and even some humans through history like Cesar, Alexandre the Great, etc.) pretended to have such origins. So my question is, why make a false statement ?
by commandor_data - Actually I saw the french subtitles, and the translator made a mistake : he said that Hercules went to Gethsemane. So that's a good point you made. But that part is not that important, because what was a false information is that Hercules was born of a virgin and as you can read in the following comments, he also was not the only begotten.
My point is : they're playing the scientific card here with supposedly logical arguments but they do the same that religious guys do : they enunciate facts which are wrong to better convince you.
I'm not even a specialist in mythology, but I immediatly spotted that mistake, which actually tell us about how much they checked their informations. Frankly, that makes me doubt about the rest too now. I mean, everyone with a little culture knows Hercules's story and knows that it has nothing in common with Jesus except that, like most of religions, he's supposed to be of divine origin. But then again, most of myths (and even some humans through history like Cesar, Alexandre the Great, etc.) pretended to have such origins. So my question is, why make a false statement?
You're clearly not a "specialist in mythology" if you don't know that myth is NOT REAL! And thus, like any story, myths vary in the telling. Maybe there is a strain of the Hercules myth that claims his mother is a virgin, and you just haven't come across it on the internet.
My assumption, though, was that John was telling a version of the myth that he knows to be true, but we modern-day humans don't know it because that version was lost. His version's "falsity" was intentional.
But if you really insist on making a perfect parallel between Hercules and Jesus, in order to understand that the older myth might underpin the newer, keep in mind that Mary was also married but a virgin....
__ __ __
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!"--Pres. Merkin Muffley
[deleted]
by whototrust ~ It would seem to me though that a mortal woman being impregnated by a God (Zeus) is exactly the same as what is suggested about The Immaculate Conception by The Virgin Mary in The Bible. That Zeus took the form of the mortal husband of Heracles' mother makes Heracles' birth of a divine nature.
"Finally, I completely disagree that a mortal woman being impregnated by a god (Zeus) who assumes the physical form of a mortal man to 'get it on' with said mortal womanis NOTexactly the same as what is suggested about the Immaculate Conception, etc. etc. etc. "
Erh, did you mean "is exactly the same" or maybe that you wanted to begin with "I completly agree" ? But if I read you correctly, you mean that you disagree with the fact that Zeus (impregnating etc.) is NOT the same as immaculate conception ?
Meaning you agree with the both concept being the same ?
Im' kind of puzzled here :)
My apologies. Read my sentence again, please. My error is in not putting a space between the words 'woman' and 'is'; which would read: ...said mortal woman is NOT exactly the same as. . . yadda, yadda, yadda. Still confused as to my meaning?
share"Immaculate Conception" refers to the fact that Mary was born without Original Sin and not to her conception of Jesus. Now, before attacking me as a troll (or arguing about this) please google "Immaculate Conception". As it turns out all of you should have computers sitting in front of you.
shareWow, pretty snarky.
shareBTW the immaculate conception is "the conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the womb of her mother, Saint Anne, free from original sin by virtue of the foreseen merits of her son Jesus Christ".
It's different from the virgin birth of Jesus. Only learned this recently myself.
If memory serves me correctly from my high school studies Zeus was enamored with Alcmene, wife of Amphitryon. Zeus disguises himself as Amphitryon to fool Alcmene. Zeus as Amphitryon impregnates Alcmene. Unbeknownst to Alcmene, Zeus leaves and is replaced by her real husband during the love making session. Alcmene becomes pregnant with twins one from Zeus: Hercules; and one from Amphitryon: Iphicles.
I found this blurb about Zeus' escapades at this website:
http://www.netplaces.com/classical-mythology/zeus-and-hera-a-marriage- made-in-heaven/zeuss-love-affairs.htm
Alcmene was a mortal woman — and married. But she refused to consummate the marriage until her husband, Amphitryon, completed an act of revenge for her. Zeus disguised himself as her husband, saying he'd returned successfully from his mission of revenge. Alcmene welcomed Zeus into her bed, believing he was her husband. One myth states that Zeus ordered the sun god to take a few days off so that their night of lovemaking would last longer.
The real Amphitryon wasn't happy to return to a wife who claimed she'd already slept with him. But because her lover had been Zeus, there wasn't anything a mortal man could do about it. Alcmene's union with Zeus led to the birth of the famed hero Heracles.
I think this thread is simply a result of the misplaced in-depth nit-picking of some which results in them missing the message as John also mentioned.
The following movie excerpt and comment pretty much sums up the similarities of conceptions and births that were being expressed for the purpose of comparison, and how those similarities were used to symbolize different but basically similar situations.
by Ten-Inch-Toni - Dan says: "The Christ figure goes all the way back to Krishna. Hercules, of course."
Harry: "Hercules?"
John: "Born of a virgin, Alcmene. A god for a father, Zeus. The only begotten. The Savior. Greek: Soter. The good shepherd. The Prince of Peace bringing gentle persuasion and divine wisdom. He died and joined his father on Olympus a thousand years before Gethsemane."
Edit: "How can you compare pagan mythology to the True Word?"
by Ten-Inch-Toni - The conversation moves on to explain how man has taken, borrowed and erased from mythologies throughout the generations.share
Thank you, WTT. Cheers.
shareEarly Christianity, as well as judaism, borrowed from neighboring legends, beliefs, myths, etc.
However, the comparison with Hercules is false. Instead of going through the intricacies of Christian syncretism, the movie simply spits false, Zeitgeist-like, information in order to deceive viewers.
by juanml82 » Early Christianity, as well as judaism, borrowed from neighboring legends, beliefs, myths, etc.
However, the comparison with Hercules is false. Instead of going through the intricacies of Christian syncretism, the movie simply spits false, Zeitgeist-like, information in order to deceive viewers.
Here's go it goes: Alcmene was virgin, Zeus disguised himself as a man, had intercourse with her and Hercules was conceived in the old fashioned way.
Mary was betrothed, not yet married with Joseph, and virgin. None had sex with her, yet Jesus was conceived.
Which is different from the tale inferred from the movie and hence, deceiving viewers.
by juanml82 » ...Which is different from the tale inferred from the movie and hence, deceiving viewers.
But Hercules was not born to a virgin. The moment Zeus had intercourse wit her mother, her mother stopped being a virgin. You will find a huge amount of other mythological heroes born of a woman and a god, and quite a few born of a woman who was virgin until a god slept with her. All of those had normal conceptions except that, of course, one of their parents was a god.
Jesus, on the other hand, is said to have been born to a woman who was virgin by the time he was born. His conception, acording to the gospels and unlike Hercules, is miraculous.
And yet the "virgin" parts REMAIN for most the most important parts of both stories, hence the ease in making the basic comparison.
[deleted]
Jesus, on the other hand, is said to have been born to a woman who was virgin by the time he was born. His conception, acording to the gospels and unlike Hercules, is miraculous.
Only for Catholics. It's not in the scripture, which is something that a lot of people here are overlooking.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Do you know anybody that was there and can give a first-hand report?
With myths that distant, today's "canonical" version that things like Wikipedia tend to report is only one of many many versions of the story. And somehow everybody agrees on just one version and all the other versions are rather obscure ...but just wait 50 years and see if a different version doesn't come to the fore.