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

[Skywalker]

right, except for:

During the period of the Second Temple (c. 515 BC – 70 AD), the Hebrew people lived under the rule of first the Persian Achaemenid Empire, then the Greek kingdoms of the Diadochi, and finally the Roman Empire.[32] Their culture was profoundly influenced by those of the peoples who ruled them.[32] Consequently, their views on existence after death were profoundly shaped by the ideas of the Persians, Greeks, and Romans.[33][34] The idea of the immortality of the soul is derived from Greek philosophy[34] and the idea of the resurrection of the dead is derived from Persian cosmology.[34] By the early first century AD, these two seemingly incompatible ideas were often conflated by Hebrew thinkers.[34] The Hebrews also inherited from the Persians, Greeks, and Romans the idea that the human soul originates in the divine realm and seeks to return there.[32] The idea that a human soul belongs in Heaven and that Earth is merely a temporary abode in which the soul is tested to prove its worthiness became increasingly popular during the Hellenistic period (323 – 31 BC).[29] Gradually, some Hebrews began to adopt the idea of Heaven as the eternal home of the righteous dead.[29]


you cannot win.

Psalm 23:6 mentions immortality of the soul. Daniel 12:2 mentions the resurrection of the dead.

Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.

And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

Genesis 3:19 mentions the human soul returning to God.

In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

You don't need Greek philosophy to know that humans were meant to be in connection with God. The belief that the soul is tested to prove its worthiness is not mentioned in the Bible. The Bible says we need a Savior because none of us are worthy.

Psalm 23:6 mentions Heaven being the abode of the righteous dead.

 

[joelr]

Those things didn't need to be borrowed, they were already in the bible. Although, the heaven thing, nowhere in the bible does not teach anything like that. It says there will be a new heavens and a new earth, and the new Jerusalem will come down to earth, so we started out on the earth, and we will stay on the earth.
There area many pictures/ figures of resurrection in the bible. YHWH breathed into Adam, who then became a living soul, He gives us our soul, nothing borrowed about that.

Yes but many many biblical scholars are explaing that they were influenced including Mary Boyce:


"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.[12]"

 

[Skywalker]

nope: that's what you get for trusting amateur non-scholarship apologetics


"And indeed, carved on the walls of the pyramids centuries before Christianity began were the declarations of the goddess Isis (or Horus, or their agents), “I have come to thee…that I may revivify thee, that I may assemble for thee thy bones, that I may collect for thee thy flesh, that I may assemble for thee thy dismembered limbs…raise thyself up, king, [as for] Osiris; thou livest!” (Pyramid Texts 1684a-1685a and 1700, = Utterance 606; cf. Utterance 670); “Raise thyself up; shake off thy dust; remove the dirt which is on thy face; loose thy bandages!” (Pyramid Texts 1363a-b, = Utterance 553); “[As for] Osiris, collect thy bones; arrange thy limbs; shake off thy dust; untie thy bandages; the tomb is open for thee; the double doors of the coffin are undone for thee; the double doors of heaven are open for thee…thy soul is in thy body…raise thyself up!” (Pyramid Texts 207b-209a and 2010b-2011a, = Utterance 676). That sure sounds like a physical resurrection of Osiris’s body to me. (As even confirmed by the most recent translation of James P. Allen, cf. pp. 190, 224-25, 272. The spells he clarifies are sung to and about the resident Pharaoh, but in the role of Osiris, receiving the same resurrection as Osiris, e.g. “there has been done for me what was done for my father Osiris on the day of tying bones together, of making functional the feet,” “do for him that which you did for his brother Osiris on the day,” etc.)"

Other than Osiris being the judge of the dead, the parallels between Jesus and Osiris are weak.

 

[Skywalker]

Yes but many many biblical scholars are explaing that they were influenced including Mary Boyce:


"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.[12]"

I don't agree with Mary Boyce because heaven and hell are mentioned in Psalms. God being the judge of the earth is mentioned in Genesis. The whole theme of the Bible is people making good and bad choices, which goes back to free will. Job mentioned that his redeemer lives.

 

[joelr]

Psalm 23:6 mentions immortality of the soul. Daniel 12:2 mentions the resurrection of the dead.





Genesis 3:19 mentions the human soul returning to God.



You don't need Greek philosophy to know that humans were meant to be in connection with God. The belief that the soul is tested to prove its worthiness is not mentioned in the Bible. The Bible says we need a Savior because none of us are worthy.

Psalm 23:6 mentions Heaven being the abode of the righteous dead.

a resurrection has nothing to do with the concept of the world ending, all good members resurrect into new bodies, and all the other stuff taken from the Persians.
Your attempt to rescue this religion from borrowing is a complete fail. You haven't made one single point yet?

 

[joelr]

Other than Osiris being the judge of the dead, the parallels between Jesus and Osiris are weak.

there are more similarities to the story:

"And that’s just Osiris. Clearly raised from the dead in his original, deceased body, restored to life; visiting people on earth in his risen body; and then ruling from heaven above. And that directly adjacent to Judea, amidst a major Jewish population in Alexandria, and popular across the whole empire. But as Plutarch said in On the E at Delphi 9, many religions of his day “narrate deaths and vanishings, followed by returns to life and resurrections.” Not just that one. Plutarch names Dionysus as but an example (and by other names “Zagreus, Nyctelius, and Isodaetes“). And we know for a fact this Dionysus wasn’t the only example Plutarch would have known. Plutarch only names him because he was so closely associated with Osiris, and the most famous.

 

[Skywalker]

Hohly crud.
Dying for sins was a Jewish spin. Dying on a cross is just one way a savior god can die. Quetzalcoatl isn't even mentioned in Carrier's article? You just debunked nothing?
I cannot believe I have to say this again.
It's a demigod who goes through a passion, dies and is resurrected and gets members into the afterlife. That is the basic model. It's different in each myth.
It's already been established that Jesus is just another dying/rising savior and was not the first in that region.


"No. The only plausible reason for why some Jews ever came up with a Jewish dying-and-rising savior god in precisely that region and era, is that everyone else had; it was so popular and influential, so fashionable and effective, it was inevitable the idea would seep into some Jewish consciousness, and erupt onto the scene of “inspired” revolutionizing of a perceived-to-be-corrupted faith. They Judaized it, of course. Jesus is as different from Osiris as Osiris is from Dionysus or Inanna or Romulus or Zalmoxis. The differences are the Jewish tweaks. Just as the Persian Zoroastrian system of messianism, apocalypticism, worldwide resurrection, an evil Satan at war with God, and a future heaven and hell effecting justice as eternal fates for all, was Judaized when they were imported into Judaism. None of those ideas existed in Judaism before that (and you won’t find them in any part of the Old Testament written before the Persian conquest). No one claimed they were “corrupting” Judaism with those pagan ideas (even though in fact they were). They simply claimed these new ideas were all Jewish. Ordained and communicated by God, through inspired scripture and revelation. The Christians, did exactly the same thing."

There are difference between Jesus and Osiris besides little details. Osiris did not die for our sins. His resurrection story, which he became like a zombie, had nothing to do with the Christian belief of a Savior.

Jesus Vs Osiris: Debunking The Alleged Parallels | Reasons for Jesus

9. Osiris’ resurrection served to provide hope to all that they may do likewise and become eternal.
This is where we find some of the biggest misuse of terminology, including by some Egyptian scholars of religion (who do not go on to posit a “copycat” relationship!). Osiris resurrected? Not if “resurrection” is defined as coming back in a glorified body. On this point Miller has done some substantial work, reporting the words of J. Z. Smith, so I will let these speak to begin:

“Osiris was murdered and his body dismembered and scattered. The pieces of his body were recovered and rejoined, and the god was rejuvenated. However, he did not return to his former mode of existence but rather journeyed to the underworld, where he became the powerful lord of the dead. In no sense can Osiris be said to have ‘risen’ in the sense required by the dying and rising pattern (as described by Frazer et.al.); most certainly it was never considered as an annual event.”

“IN NO SENSE CAN THE DRAMATIC MYTH OF HIS DEATH AND REANIMATION BE HARMONIZED TO THE PATTERN OF DYING AND RISING GODS (AS DESCRIBED BY FRAZER ET.AL.).”

 

[Skywalker]

a resurrection has nothing to do with the concept of the world ending, all good members resurrect into new bodies, and all the other stuff taken from the Persians.
Your attempt to rescue this religion from borrowing is a complete fail. You haven't made one single point yet?

Other faiths believe that the world will end because it doesn't make sense that God will allow a sinful world to go on forever.

 

[Skywalker]

there are more similarities to the story:

"And that’s just Osiris. Clearly raised from the dead in his original, deceased body, restored to life; visiting people on earth in his risen body; and then ruling from heaven above. And that directly adjacent to Judea, amidst a major Jewish population in Alexandria, and popular across the whole empire. But as Plutarch said in On the E at Delphi 9, many religions of his day “narrate deaths and vanishings, followed by returns to life and resurrections.” Not just that one. Plutarch names Dionysus as but an example (and by other names “Zagreus, Nyctelius, and Isodaetes“). And we know for a fact this Dionysus wasn’t the only example Plutarch would have known. Plutarch only names him because he was so closely associated with Osiris, and the most famous.

Osiris did not die for the sins of people. Jesus came back to life to show people that he was their Creator and Savior. Ancient Egyptian beliefs do not have the belief that we are sinners who need a Savior because our sins separate us from God and that as sinners we cannot stand in the presence of a holy God. Even if many details are similar to the details about Jesus the essence is totally different.

 

[joelr]

I don't agree with Mary Boyce because heaven and hell are mentioned in Psalms. God being the judge of the earth is mentioned in Genesis. The whole theme of the Bible is people making good and bad choices, which goes back to free will. Job mentioned that his redeemer lives.

Wow, you already forgot what I said?

It's "sheol" the dead go back to the grave.
Heaven is Gods dwelling place, Daniel wanted to go there to be with god.
This has nothing to do with everyone going to heaven and being resurrected.

You think because you find a similar word this means they didn't copy when PhD experts who spend their lives reading all source material come to this conclusion? This is pure denial. You simply cannot admit to this because it might mean your beliefs are not as real as you thought.

 

[Skywalker]

This isn;t the same as all dead members go to heaven???????????


"David desired to dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of his life, because he wanted to look on God's beauty and to inquire in His temple. During his time, the temple of God dwells only in tents and usually they move it from one place to another. Inside the temple, the ark of the Covenant can be found."

Psalm 23:6 doesn't support universalism.

 

[joelr]

Osiris did not die for the sins of people. Jesus came back to life to show people that he was their Creator and Savior. Ancient Egyptian beliefs do not have the belief that we are sinners who need a Savior because our sins separate us from God and that as sinners we cannot stand in the presence of a holy God. Even if many details are similar to the details about Jesus the essence is totally different.

They might, it doesn't matter. I'm sick of talking to you because you just keep putting the same questions over and over and over even though I answered and debunked your idea?

Judaism was obsessed with sin. So their savior would be a sin-forgiver. This seems like a big deal to you because you have heard about how important sin-forgiveness is all your religious life.
It's just a concept in Judaism. Hindu has sin but they are not as wack about it. Sin is made up. So the Jewish savior forgives sin? That is because Judaism is the only cult with original sin.

It's still ALL MADE UP. There is no original sin. So the idea that Jesus gets you out of this sin is meaningless. They made it up and created a solution. Sounds like a great way to get members, "hey you are an original sinner, but we have the solution!".

WHATEVER?! It's all myth. Sin forgiving Jesus does not make him more real than any other? Original sin is a make believe concept. All myths are fictional as Harry Potter?

 

[Batya]

Yes but many many biblical scholars are explaing that they were influenced including Mary Boyce:


"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.[12]"

I'm sure there was influence in their lives and views in some ways, but as someone who believes in the Bible, I don't believe the written text was influenced, and I believe that these teachings were known and understood without borrowing from other religions. I guess that's the whole point of what you're talking about, that it's nonsense to believe that, but that's how I see it.
I don't intend to get caught up in this thread, as things like this tend to get circular just because of the nature of it, but I just thought that I would respond to that post of yours.

 

[joelr]

I'm sure there was influence in their lives and views in some ways, but as someone who believes in the Bible, I don't believe the written text was influenced, and I believe that these teachings were known and understood without borrowing from other religions. I guess that's the whole point of what you're talking about, that it's nonsense to believe that, but that's how I see it.
I don't intend to get caught up in this thread, as things like this tend to get circular just because of the nature of it, but I just thought that I would respond to that post of yours.

So for literally hundreds of years they had no real afterlife then after encountering the Persians they adopt their views on afterlife, God vs Satan, resurrection for all members at the end of time, apocalyism, a world savior who is virgin born and will fight a cosmic struggle for humanity? When these ideas were introduced Jewish religious leaders were torn, many insisted they were wrong (clearly they knew they were Persian) but eventually they came around?
We already know the 2 creation stories mirror Mesopotamian creation stories closely and Noahs ark follows the Epic of Gilamesh very closely and you don't think myths were borrowed?
We also know that the Israelites came from the Canaanites and Yahweh was part of their gods and early Israelites worshipped Ashera along with Yahweh. So sharing myths is very common.
This thread has gotten circular for different reasons.

But this is information taken from all of the top biblical archeologists and history experts on the Bible and the Persian religion. I'm only interested in following what scholarship has to say. I was a believer at one time but I decided to give historical experts a chance. When I now see how detailed they are and how much work goes into learning all the languages to scour over all source material, to peer-review all works and to have a high standard of careful study, writing books and slowly getting information accepted, to think just because I want to believe a story and can tell these experts what's what is simply denial by me.
I want to know what is true. The biblical archeologists also have interesting information. The Bible is a book of stories but they are lessons, laws and myth. Most is greatly enlarged and the supernatural stuff is fiction.

I don't understand why a God of the universe would actually choose 1 group of people only as if human tribalism is important to it? A God would speak to all humans at once. Why do people believe that is even a thing? Everyone had multiple gods, including the Israelites in the early days. One version just happened to gain popularity. All are myths? How can people buy into this tribalism God?

Oh and archeology shows the Canaanites were not evil as portrayed in scripture.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Tacitus mentioned Jesus. Roman Historian Tacitus Mentions Jesus: Our Best Secular Source | Reasons for Jesus

I asked, do you see Jesus' name in there? I won't ask again.

 

[Skywalker]

I asked, do you see Jesus' name in there? I won't ask again.

Christ and Jesus are the same person. Roman Historian Tacitus Mentions Jesus: Our Best Secular Source | Reasons for Jesus

Tacitus refers to Jesus as “Christ” and not by a proper name. Does this mean he didn’t consult official records?
Wells also offers this objection [Well.HistEv, 16-17]. Like the above objection, however, it is not considered at all problematic by any Tacitean or other historian. Rather than find some deficiency in Tacitus because of this, it is more plausible to recognize that Tacitus would use the name with which his readers would be most familiar – and that would not necessarily be the name that Jesus was executed under.

Furthermore, simply referring to “Jesus” would not explain how it is that Jesus’ followers were named Christians; Van Voorst [VanV.JONT, 43ff] further makes the point that Tacitus is actually issuing a subtle corrective here! The text of the oldest manuscript, and most likely reading, spells “Christians” with an e (“Chrestians”).

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Christ and Jesus are the same person. Roman Historian Tacitus Mentions Jesus: Our Best Secular Source | Reasons for Jesus

I think it's a matter of opinion.

 

[Skywalker]

They might, it doesn't matter. I'm sick of talking to you because you just keep putting the same questions over and over and over even though I answered and debunked your idea?

Judaism was obsessed with sin. So their savior would be a sin-forgiver. This seems like a big deal to you because you have heard about how important sin-forgiveness is all your religious life.
It's just a concept in Judaism. Hindu has sin but they are not as wack about it. Sin is made up. So the Jewish savior forgives sin? That is because Judaism is the only cult with original sin.

It's still ALL MADE UP. There is no original sin. So the idea that Jesus gets you out of this sin is meaningless. They made it up and created a solution. Sounds like a great way to get members, "hey you are an original sinner, but we have the solution!".

WHATEVER?! It's all myth. Sin forgiving Jesus does not make him more real than any other? Original sin is a make believe concept. All myths are fictional as Harry Potter?

The idea of Jesus being a Savior makes him distinct from Osiris. In Ancient Egyptian mythology there wasn't an exact equivalent of the concept that sin separates us from God.

 

[Skywalker]

Nope, Why don't you try to see why it was dated to after the Babylonian captivity. Here is a hint, not everything had to be based on Zoroastrianism.

Psalms were written by King David, which was before the Babylonian captivity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Psalms were written by King David, which was before the Babylonian captivity.

They are only attributed to him. That does not mean that he wrote them. If you can find a valid source that says that he wrote them I will gracefully accept this. If you use an apologist source then you are admitting that David did not write them.