Why Didn't God Leave Huge Quantities of Secular Evidence For Jesus?

[Subduction Zone]

I believe you are mistaking mysticism for Magic. They are not the same thing. It isn't magic simply because you can't see it being done or how it is done.

It still fits the definition of magic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe the Jesus nativity is not a myth but an event reported by the inspired word of God.

Yes, you may believe that. That does not change the fact that it is a myth.

 

[Skywalker]

Yes, people do because people are not perfect. The Bible was written by man not by God.

History and science textbooks are written by man and people use them.

 

[Skywalker]

When you use biased and dishonest sites you are saying that you are wrong. See what the sites that are neutral say.

Simply search for "Horus". Avoid Christian sites. Avoid sites that are openly atheist. For example Wikipedia:

"Horus was born to the goddess Isis after she retrieved all the dismembered body parts of her murdered husband Osiris, except his penis, which was thrown into the Nile and eaten by a catfish,[8][9] or sometimes depicted as instead by a crab, and according to Plutarch's account used her magic powers to resurrect Osiris and fashion a phallus[10] to conceive her son (older Egyptian accounts have the penis of Osiris surviving).

After becoming pregnant with Horus, Isis fled to the Nile Delta marshlands to hide from her brother Set, who jealously killed Osiris and who she knew would want to kill their son.[11] There Isis bore a divine son, Horus."

Horus - Wikipedia

Technically that could be said to be a virgin birth. Osiris's fun stick was gone.

Horus was not God in the flesh. The expression the son of God doesn't mean that Jesus was a descendant of God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Horus was not God in the flesh. The expression the son of God doesn't mean that Jesus was a descendant of God.

Neither was Jesus.

 

[Skywalker]

Neither was Jesus.

The Bible mentions Jesus being God in the flesh. Ancient Egyptian mythology doesn't mention Horus being God in the flesh.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Bible mentions Jesus being God in the flesh. Ancient Egyptian mythology doesn't mention Horus being God in the flesh.

So what? Horus is a god in Egyptian mythology. It does not need to use a meaningless phrase.

 

[Skywalker]

So what? Horus is a god in Egyptian mythology. It does not need to use a meaningless phrase.

How can Jesus and Horus have the demigod similarity and thus Jesus being a copy of Horus if being God in the flesh is not what Horus is any of the demigods in pagan mythology were?

 

[Skywalker]

Neither was Jesus.

Not believing that Jesus was God in the flesh is a different issue from whether Jesus was a demigod.

 

[Skywalker]

This is simply a huge non sequitur.

There are no verses in the Bible talking about Zoraster. Everyone knows that evil exists. If there is good and a God there is evil regardless if before the New Testament the existence of fallen angels is mentioned.

 

[Skywalker]

So what? A person can be convicted on circumstantial evidence alone. There is quite a bit of evidence that the early Hebrews picked up quite a bit of their theology during the Babylonian captivity.

Babylonian captivity - Wikipedia.

There is no direct evidence, only circumstantial evidence. During the time of Babylonian captivity, Daniel wrote about the Messiah coming on the clouds and the Antichrist. That coincidentally mirrored Zoroastrian beliefs about good and evil, to a superficial extent.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are no verses in the Bible talking about Zoraster. Everyone knows that evil exists. If there is good and a God there is evil regardless if before the New Testament the existence of fallen angels is mentioned.

You keep making odd pointless arguments.

There is no direct evidence, only circumstantial evidence. During the time of Babylonian captivity, Daniel wrote about the Messiah coming on the clouds and the Antichrist. That coincidentally mirrored Zoroastrian beliefs about good and evil, to a superficial extent.

So what? Why do you think that "direct evidence" is all that much better? Perhaps you have watched too many TV crime shows. There is direct evidence of the captivity. And much of Daniel's writing was not about Jesus but about someone at that time. The verse that got abused into being about a virgin birth was not a prophecy about Jesus. Read it in context. It was about a contemporaneous event, someone born of a young woman, not of a virgin even.

 

[Skywalker]

You keep making odd pointless arguments.


So what? Why do you think that "direct evidence" is all that much better? Perhaps you have watched too many TV crime shows. There is direct evidence of the captivity. And much of Daniel's writing was not about Jesus but about someone at that time. The verse that got abused into being about a virgin birth was not a prophecy about Jesus. Read it in context. It was about a contemporaneous event, someone born of a young woman, not of a virgin even.

Many faiths that are not Jewish or Christian believe that evil exists. Japanese mythology has evil spirits. That doesn't mean those myths are true, but they are a reflection of people knowing that temptation is real.

A return that ushers in a golden age is not a belief that people all believe is about Zoroaster. Jesus Vs Zoroaster – Debunking The Alleged Parallels | Reasons for Jesus

8. Zoroaster’s followers expect a “second coming” in the virgin-born Saoshyant or Savior, who is to come in 2341 CE and begin his ministry at age 30, ushering in a golden age. I have been able to confirm that this is true to some extent: a return is expected in 2341 CE, to start a golden age; the details on age 30 I have found nowhere. Whether this future Deliverer would indeed be Zoroaster himself again is indeed something that has been interpreted, but later Zoroastrian texts think that the person will be of the line of Zoroaster, not Zoroaster himself. [Wat.Z, 94-5]

 

[Skywalker]

You keep making odd pointless arguments.


So what? Why do you think that "direct evidence" is all that much better? Perhaps you have watched too many TV crime shows. There is direct evidence of the captivity. And much of Daniel's writing was not about Jesus but about someone at that time. The verse that got abused into being about a virgin birth was not a prophecy about Jesus. Read it in context. It was about a contemporaneous event, someone born of a young woman, not of a virgin even.

It's similar to how there is no evidence that Jesus was based off pagan mythology, because he was God in the flesh, not a descendant of God.

Jesus referred to himself as the Son of Man.

I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

 

[Skywalker]

You keep making odd pointless arguments.


So what? Why do you think that "direct evidence" is all that much better? Perhaps you have watched too many TV crime shows. There is direct evidence of the captivity. And much of Daniel's writing was not about Jesus but about someone at that time. The verse that got abused into being about a virgin birth was not a prophecy about Jesus. Read it in context. It was about a contemporaneous event, someone born of a young woman, not of a virgin even.

People have been exonerated based off of evidence being circumstantial. Circumstantial evidence - Wikipedia

An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more likely once alternative explanations have been ruled out.

 

[Subduction Zone]

People have been exonerated based off of evidence being circumstantial. Circumstantial evidence - Wikipedia

Yes, if it is insufficient. They have also been found innocent if not enough "direct evidence" is found. They have also been found guilty due to circumstantial evidence. Another "So what?" argument.

 

[Skywalker]

Yes, if it is insufficient. They have also been found innocent if not enough "direct evidence" is found. They have also been found guilty due to circumstantial evidence. Another "So what?" argument.

The circumstantial evidence that the Old Testament is borrowed from Zoroastrianism is insufficient. Page 29 of Mary Boyce's book. Mary Boyce - Wikipedia

"Historical features of Zoroastrianism, such as messianism, judgment after death, heaven and hell, and free will may have influenced other religious and philosophical systems, including Second Temple Judaism, Gnosticism, Greek philosophy,[10] Christianity, Islam,[11] the Baháʼí Faith, and Buddhism.[1"

Since God is just, everyone knows there is judgement after death and hell. The Bible says that eternity is in our hearts. We all know that free will exists, you don't need Zoroaster to teach you that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The circumstantial evidence that the Old Testament is borrowed from Zoroastrianism is insufficient. Page 29 of Mary Boyce's book. Mary Boyce - Wikipedia



Since God is just, everyone knows there is judgement after death and hell. The Bible says that eternity is in our hearts. We all know that free will exists, you don't need Zoroaster to teach you that.

Parts of the Old Testament were definitely borrowed. You keep making all or nothing errors. For example the Noah's Ark myth was originally not a Hebrew story.

 

[Skywalker]

Parts of the Old Testament were definitely borrowed. You keep making all or nothing errors. For example the Noah's Ark myth was originally not a Hebrew story.

There is no evidence that judgement after death, heaven and hell, and free will, in the Old Testament, are borrowed from Zoroastrianism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no evidence that judgement after death, heaven and hell, and free will, in the Old Testament, are borrowed from Zoroastrianism.

So what? They did not need to borrow everything.

Why do you keep making this error.

Until I get an answer I am going to keep asking you this question:

If you only copied only half of a test off of a friend did you still cheat?