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

[joelr]

That's right, Jesus did establish His Church and every single Christian will inherit eternal paradise. The Church has been growing ever since He established it, today it's growing faster than ever before.

Your problem with the Church is, you have a false view of what the Church is. The Church is not a denomination or ethnic group, it's a body of believers from every age. We are all one body with Christ as our head.

I can understand why 90% of Christians will get a rude shock on judgement day. They thought that making a profession of faith would give them a ticket to heaven, but it's not that simple.

The reason it mentions there will be different interpretations in the gospels is because each gospel writer wanted theirs to be taken as the actual correct version. This does not make it prophetic in any way. Each gospel intended to be the entire NT. When you say Jesus started the church you are way off. The first gospel that we know wasn't until 40 years later and the entire next century had no one orthadox church. Each sect was as legit as the others yet they all had radically different beliefs. The canon wasn't official until the 3rd century?

Christianity is not growing faster, by 2050 Islam will be larger.

 

[joelr]

I can't have a rational discussion with someone who refuses to look at evidence which contradicts their own preconceived ideas

Says someone who claims to "not trust secular historians"? As if there is some conspiracy all historians have that when they find evidence for Christianity they are like "oh no, hide this evidence"?
If you cannot look at historical evidence and make an honest evaluation
(which you already admitted you cannot) then you are simply not interested in what's true.
You literally refuse to look at evidence which contradicts your own preconceived ideas yet call out someone else for doing it?

Can you not see how bad you are using confirmation bias to keep your beliefs safe?

 

[joelr]

Zoroastrianism existing before Christianity doesn't mean that Christianity copied Zoroastrianism. That's like saying correlation equals causation. Evidence would be the Bible quoting Zoroaster.

Why can you not understand this? Does Battlestar Galactica say "wow we are so glad for Star Wars for inspiring this space fiction"?
Does any myth ever explain their sources? NO! A myth isn't a PhD thesis paper??? Religious myths are written by PEOPLE. They were called scribes and religious leaders would be like "hey, God has spoken to me...." and they would pretend like they were getting this firsthand from a God and that it was a new concept. Or that their version was the best and real version.

What we know is that during the Persian occupation a crapton of new ideas were written into the OT. All of them were ideas that were in the Persian myths already. The scribes are not going to write "Yahweh says we are going to get a savior and he got the idea from Zororaster"?

The flood myths are found in hundreds of religions. NONE of them say "this myth was copied from our neighbors the Mesopotamians".
When people write myths they pretend like they are getting messages from some deity. Why would you think they would admit to copying?

 

[joelr]

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


.

I told you that that quote is found on pg 29. That book by Mary Boyce also confirms that the Persian myths about a world savior are from 6 BC.

You have provided no evidence that the evidence is "insufficient"? You did post a quote of the leading scholar on the ancient Persian religion saying Christianity likely WAS influenced by them.

 

[Skywalker]

I told you that that quote is found on pg 29. That book by Mary Boyce also confirms that the Persian myths about a world savior are from 6 BC.

You have provided no evidence that the evidence is "insufficient"? You did post a quote of the leading scholar on the ancient Persian religion saying Christianity likely WAS influenced by them.

Zoroaster is never described as a Savior. The Shocking Servant

III. His Universal Victory

“So he will sprinkle many nations, and kings will shut their mouths because of him. For what they were not told, they will see, and what they have not heard, they will understand” (v. 15).


The word “sprinkle” speaks of the purifying power of the blood of Christ. In this context, it means that the effects of his death have no national limits. Though he was Jew dying on a Roman cross, because he was also the Son of God, his bloody sacrifice will provide cleansing and healing for many nations.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Zoroaster is never described as a Savior. The Shocking Servant

Another so what argument.

If you copied only half of a friend's test in school did you cheat?

 

[Skywalker]

I told you that that quote is found on pg 29. That book by Mary Boyce also confirms that the Persian myths about a world savior are from 6 BC.

You have provided no evidence that the evidence is "insufficient"? You did post a quote of the leading scholar on the ancient Persian religion saying Christianity likely WAS influenced by them.

Saying Christianity was likely influenced by Zoroastrianism is circumstantial evidence at best.

 

[Skywalker]

Another so what argument.

If you copied only half of a friend's test in school did you cheat?

How could the Christians have copied the Zoroastrian view of the Messiah if the blood of Zoroaster doesn't forgive people from their sins?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How could the Christians have copied the Zoroastrian view of the Messiah if the blood of Zoroaster doesn't forgive people from their sins?

If you copied only half of a friend's test in school did you cheat?

 

[Skywalker]

If you copied only half of a friend's test in school did you cheat?

What evidence is there the Christian idea of the Messiah was borrowed from Zoroastrianism? The second coming of Zoroaster is not a consistent doctrine in their faith and many even believe the second coming will involve someone else.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What evidence is there the Christian idea of the Messiah was borrowed from Zoroastrianism? The second coming of Zoroaster is not a consistent doctrine in their faith and many even believe the second coming will involve someone else.

If you copied only half of a friend's test in school did you cheat?

 

[Skywalker]

If you copied only half of a friend's test in school did you cheat?

What did Christianity borrow from Zoroastrianism about belief in a Messiah?

 

[Skywalker]

I told you that that quote is found on pg 29. That book by Mary Boyce also confirms that the Persian myths about a world savior are from 6 BC.

You have provided no evidence that the evidence is "insufficient"? You did post a quote of the leading scholar on the ancient Persian religion saying Christianity likely WAS influenced by them.

The Persian beliefs about a world avior are not as ubiquitous as the amount of Christians who believe in the second coming of Jesus and many even believe that that savior figure is not Zoroaster.

 

[Skywalker]

Why can you not understand this? Does Battlestar Galactica say "wow we are so glad for Star Wars for inspiring this space fiction"?
Does any myth ever explain their sources? NO! A myth isn't a PhD thesis paper??? Religious myths are written by PEOPLE. They were called scribes and religious leaders would be like "hey, God has spoken to me...." and they would pretend like they were getting this firsthand from a God and that it was a new concept. Or that their version was the best and real version.

What we know is that during the Persian occupation a crapton of new ideas were written into the OT. All of them were ideas that were in the Persian myths already. The scribes are not going to write "Yahweh says we are going to get a savior and he got the idea from Zororaster"?

The flood myths are found in hundreds of religions. NONE of them say "this myth was copied from our neighbors the Mesopotamians".
When people write myths they pretend like they are getting messages from some deity. Why would you think they would admit to copying?

The Jews rejected Jesus because they wanted the Messiah to be a political figure who would deliver them from the enemies and troubles. The Jewish belief about a Messiah was not that of a Savior. That's why I don't believe that the Jews got their beliefs from Zoroaster.

 

[Skywalker]

So first eternal punishment being "just" is ridiculous. Again, the first 3 commandments are about non-freedom of religion. So if one enjoys graven images without repenting that justifies eternal punishment?
Sin is a made up concept in a bronze age religion. What's worse is this "hell" you speak of isn't even part of the religion? It's not there? Then after they encounter it during a 300 year Zoroastrian invasion it slowly finds it's way into their religion. Wow, what a coincidence.
Newsflash - it's made up.

Look at this, from the Wiki page on salvation,like I said the Jews did not believe in afterlife until the invasion. The religious leaders denied the afterlife.
These are the experts on Yahweh's commands and they know of NO AFTERLIFE.

"During the Second Temple Period, the Sadducees, High Priests, denied any particular existence of individuals after death because it wasn't written in the Torah, while the Pharisees, ancestors of the rabbis, affirmed both bodily resurrection and immortality of the soul, most likely based on the influence of Hellenistic ideas about body and soul and the Pharisaic belief in the Oral Torah. The Pharisees maintained that after death, the soul is connected to God until the messianic era when it is rejoined with the body in the land of Israel at the time of resurrection.[10]"

Based on the influence of Hellenistic ideas about body and soul. Like I said the dying/rising demigods who get you into an afterlife are originally Hellenistic.


Oh, and how did God die? A resurrection isn't dying?

Jesus suffered a horrible death on the cross before he resurrected. The Shocking Servant

II. His Shocking Disfigurement

“Just as there were many who were appalled at him—his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any human being and his form marred beyond human likeness” (v. 14).


The text invites us to consider a shocking disjunction:


Christ exalted to the highest place (v. 13).

Christ disfigured as he dies (v. 14).


Surely there has been a mistake somewhere.

How could this happen?

Who did this to Jesus?


It is not often appreciated that our Lord Jesus died in terrible pain. If you run the clock back from 3 o’clock in the afternoon—the moment of his death—back to about 3 o’clock in the morning and review what had happened to Jesus as he moves through those hours—what you discover is that our Lord Jesus Christ has just been through 12 hours of torture.

Arrested in the middle of the night.

Slapped.

Pushed around.

Mocked.

Slapped again.

Crowned with thorns that went into his scalp.

Scourged with a large strap studded with bits of bone and stone and metal.

His beard ripped out.

Beaten again and again.

Forced to carry the cross through the streets of Jerusalem.

Nails driven through his hands and feet.

Crucified.


If we had been there on that Friday in early April, we would have been repulsed by the odor. Crucifixion was a ghastly way to die. The Romans intended to make it brutal and bloody. They had mastered the art of cruel killing. That day at Calvary the smell of death was everywhere.

He didn’t even look human.

He didn’t even share the “likeness” of a man.


Which leads to an interesting question. What about all those shiny silver crosses people like to wear? Whatever else you can say about it, the cross of Jesus wasn’t shiny, it wasn’t silver, and it wasn’t clean. The scene that day was repulsive and horrific. The Romans liked it that way because it sent a message, “This is what happens to troublemakers.”


We sometimes sing, “When I survey the wondrous cross.”

Isaiah reminds us that there was nothing wondrous about the cross that day.

Nothing but blood, pain, agony, torture and death.

 

[Skywalker]

Why would it matter where Zoroastrianism took their myths from? Guess what - ALL MYTHS BORROWED FROM EACH OTHER?
The hero's journey story model is used in Lord of the Rings (Bilbo), Star Wars (Luke), The Matrix (Neo) and countless other stories. They are all very different but still copy a basic myth.
All PhD hhistorians explain that the OT borrowed myth from the Persian invasion. I do not care what "gotquestions.org has to say. Can you make an actual point and use a historian source? Or are you only able to write 1 sentence and a link to an amateur article? Do you have to do that EVERY TIME?

It matters because there is no similar evidence that the Old Testament was borrowed from Zoroastrianism.

The heroes journey story shows that the similarities between Zoroaster and Jesus are coincidences.

 

[Skywalker]

First you cannot even demonstrate that it wasn't meant to be Satan in that story. The author is just saying it "might" be some other evil spirit (hilarious) even though Yahweh already uses Satan to inflict a plague killing 70,000 people and allows Satan to torture Job.
The troubling spirit is is analogous to the satan.
Why any of this matters I don't know because the point is that after the Persian period Satan became re-worked and was much closer to the "enemy of God" version of Satan that is now more popular. This was clearly influenced by the Persians because the OT also copied several other concepts.
(circumcision, pagan; pork taboo, pagan; resurrection, pagan; monotheism, pagan; the apocalypse, pagan; hellfire, pagan;

Satan is a fallen angel, but that doesn't mean he is the destroying angel. 1 Samuel 16:14 doesn't refer to the destroying angel or Satan, but to the evil spirit that God allowed to afflict King Saul. Satan is the devil, the demons are the minions.

 

[Samael_Khan]

There are over two billion Christians out of a total world population of over seven billion people

That's a lot of people

Clearly, there is enough evidence for millions and millions of people

So, to answer your question: Why Didn't God Leave Huge Quantities of Secular Evidence For Jesus?

I'd say: Because he didn't need to for there to be billions of Christians?

Although yes, had he left more non-biblical evidence behind there would probably be many more followers, which raises the question: does God want everyone to be a Christian?

You are assuming here that Christians believe because of evidence. Most Christians have not read the Bible and just believe because they were born into the religion or because they are high on emotion.

 

[Skywalker]

You are assuming here that Christians believe because of evidence. Most Christians have not read the Bible and just believe because they were born into the religion or because they are high on emotion.

A lot of people born into Christianity reject it, like Katy Perry.

 

[Skywalker]

Wow, yet another amateur article.

I already gave the Carrier essay on virgin birth which gives numerous examples as well as motivation. But even if it was actually invented in the gospels, so what? Do you think every invention in all mythologies is real? Do you realize that every concept in Lord of the Rings and all other fiction is made up? People can make stuff up? For a myth to be influenced by another myth it does not have to be identical.
Was West Side Story identical to Romeo and Juliet?

"This is, of course, false. Ra is born of a virgin mother, was not conceived sexually, and predates Christian mythology (by a lot). Perseus, too, is born of a virgin mother, was not conceived any more sexually than Jesus was (both Perseus and Jesus involve magical fluids impregnating their respective mothers), and also long predates Christian tradition (and was even acknowledged by early Christians themselves as doing so). Hephaestus was also in popular conception born of a virgin (albeit a magically reinstated virginity), was not conceived by any material means at all, and again in a tradition well antedating Christianity."


as to motivations:

"So the notion that the virgin birth was not a lift from paganism is highly improbable. The idea is obviously a Jewish adaptation of a popular motif in surrounding cultures. There is no other credible explanation for why it ever became important to claim such a thing of Jesus. Just as “our God must be able to do things your God can” led to syncretistic innovation within Judaism (whereby, for example, the Jews suddenly “discovered” their God would resurrect them, at oddly the very same time they learned the Zoroastrian God would), so “our godman must be as awesome as your godmen” had the same effect. Thus, Jesus couldn’t be sexually conceived, because that was gross, and yet he had to be a pre-existent being inserted into a woman’s womb to reify prophecy. A conundrum. But as soon as Jews saw how the pagans solved this problem for their godmen, they would obviously have stolen the very same solution. This is how all ideas and technologies proliferate from one culture to another. “Well if pagan gods can directly create fetuses just with their divine pneuma, then so can ours, damnit!”"

It detracts from the belief that Jesus was a demigod myth, the virgin birth was borrowed from other beliefs, and Christianity was influenced by Greek mythology.