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

[SeekingAllTruth]

I know people who said that they found distant common relatives that they and their spouse have.

Those distant relatives are not direct line Davidic descendants.

 

[Skywalker]

Those distant relatives are not direct line Davidic descendants.

Joseph was legally a son of Heli. Contradictions: What’s in a Father’s Name?

Luke’s Genealogy
When looking at Luke 3, the genealogical list is strictly men from Jesusto Adam, whereas in Matthew’s list, some women were included, such as Tamar, Ruth, and so on. So, if this were a genealogy of Mary, then she would be listed.

Moreover, in the genealogy, Heli is listed as the father of Joseph, who had 2 daughters. The first is Mary, and the other was Zebedee’s unnamed wife (Matthew 27:56; John 19:25). When there were no sons to preserve the inheritance in accordance with the Law of Moses (Numbers 27:1–11; Numbers 36:1–12), the husband would become the son upon marriage to keep up the family name. Therefore, Joseph, when he married Mary, became the son of Heli according to the Law of Moses and could legally be included in the genealogy.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Joseph was legally a son of Heli. Contradictions: What’s in a Father’s Name?

So why in hell does Matthew say Jacob is Joseph's father? Like I asked, did Joseph have TWO fathers????????

 

[Skywalker]

So why in hell does Matthew say Jacob is Joseph's father? Like I asked, did Joseph have TWO fathers????????

Heli was the father in law of Joseph.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Heli was the father in law of Joseph.

Where did you get that?????? The Matthew genealogy clearly states Jacob was Joseph's father.

"....and Jacob the FATHER of Joseph, the husband of Mary"

Oh, I gotta see this one!

 

[Skywalker]

Where did you get that?????? The Matthew genealogy clearly states Jacob was Joseph's father.

"....and Jacob the FATHER of Joseph, the husband of Mary"

Oh, I gotta see this one!

Heli was the father in law of Joseph. Jacob was his father.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Heli was the father in law of Joseph. Jacob was his father.

"being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, Luke 3:23
Doesn't say, son-in-law, says son.

 

[Skywalker]

"being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, Luke 3:23
Doesn't say, son-in-law, says son.

When I was younger people thought my cousin was my sister.

 

[joelr]

Quetzalcoatl's followers did not believe in salvation. He wasn't the son of God. The son of God is a reference to Jesus being the Trinity. Many religions believe in salvation by good works. Guaranteeing someone a good place in the afterlife by good works isn't an aspect of Christianity. What baptism existed in the belief system of Quetzalcoatl? Communion represents Jesus dying for our sins. Nobody believes Quetzalcoatl died for anyone's sins. There is no equivalent to Jesus dying on the cross and the story of Quetzalcoatl. Jesus Vs Quetzacoatl – Debunking The Alleged Parallels | Reasons for Jesus

Why are you and your article debunking something no person has even claimed?
Quezl isn't one of the 7 savior demigods we know of who pre-dates Jesus?
Baptism is found in many religions prior to Christianity.
Savior deities mean they save you from eternal death. They get you into the good afterlife. The Jewish version is you have to have your sins forgiven. This is a Jewish version of the savior deity.

You weird argument that the Jesus myth has some new elements therefore it's real is absurd. Lord of the Rings came up with an entire new take on the hero's journey. So did Star Wars. Doesn't mean they were not following a basic mythic pattern? They all follow the hero's journey. Jesus scores 18 out of 22 on the Rank Ragalin mythotype scale. There is no question the story is highly mythical and all scholars will tell you the gospels are using parables.
None of your apologetics articles can debunk that.

 

[joelr]

The same term being used doesn't mean that the two concepts can be compared. in Judaism the Messiah isn't a Savior but more of a political figure. God is against idolatry because God is a jealous God. It's like in marriage. A person can be jealous of their spouse getting attention from someone else.

The belief of Jesus dying for our sins has to do with, nobody can stand in the presence of God in their sinfulness.

There you go. A Jewish take on the savior god myth. Savior gods get you into the afterlife. All you did here is explain the Israelites version. I actually cannot believe people still actually think that if there is a God of all reality it's a "jealous" God and is bothered by idols? Even most Christians are like "yeah, that isn't real".

 

[Skywalker]

There you go. A Jewish take on the savior god myth. Savior gods get you into the afterlife. All you did here is explain the Israelites version. I actually cannot believe people still actually think that if there is a God of all reality it's a "jealous" God and is bothered by idols? Even most Christians are like "yeah, that isn't real".

There are no saviors in pagan belief systems. Five Reasons Christianity Did Not Copy Mystery Religions | SES

5. The Christian redemption from sin offered through faith alone is exclusive.
Christianity from the start was exclusivist. Following in the footsteps of the ancient Hebrew prophets, Christian communities were intolerant of other gods because of their uncompromising belief in one God. The New Testament is alien to any spirit of compromise or cooperation with any pagan god, belief or practice.

Nash again gives us three significant differences between Christian redemption and mystery religions: First, redemption in mystery religions was concerned with fate, necessity, and death. Christian doctrine was concerned with the human need to be saved from sin. Second, there is no parallel in mystery religions to the forensic or legal justification of the believer because of Christ bearing our guilt and sin on the cross. Third, while there was some ethical content to older Greek mystery religions, mystery cults did not produce a moral change or obligation to live rightly.

 

[Skywalker]

Why are you and your article debunking something no person has even claimed?
Quezl isn't one of the 7 savior demigods we know of who pre-dates Jesus?
Baptism is found in many religions prior to Christianity.
Savior deities mean they save you from eternal death. They get you into the good afterlife. The Jewish version is you have to have your sins forgiven. This is a Jewish version of the savior deity.

You weird argument that the Jesus myth has some new elements therefore it's real is absurd. Lord of the Rings came up with an entire new take on the hero's journey. So did Star Wars. Doesn't mean they were not following a basic mythic pattern? They all follow the hero's journey. Jesus scores 18 out of 22 on the Rank Ragalin mythotype scale. There is no question the story is highly mythical and all scholars will tell you the gospels are using parables.
None of your apologetics articles can debunk that.

What Old Testament and Tankah verses about the Messiah are similar to demigods in other belief systems?

 

[joelr]

Psalm 23:6 mentions heaven. "Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life, and I shall dwell in the house of the LORD forever." The idea that all good people go to heaven is salvation by works. That is in Zoroastrianism not in Christianity. Ephesians 2:8-9 says, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."

Heaven in Zoroastrianism is based off of salvation by good works. What redeemer or Savior means in Zoroastrianism has a totally different meaning than it does in Christianity. Jesus Vs Zoroaster – Debunking The Alleged Parallels | Reasons for Jesus

You are viewing that passage now, knowing all the added myths. The Israelites did not see taht as a passage saying everyone will go to "heaven".

"While the the Hebrew phrase leorech yamim literally means 'length of days' and therefore does not necessarily mean forever, it often does refer to eternity. They further argue that the Israelites viewed death with finality and despair."

Heaven is a concept taken from the Persians. The Israelites made changes according to their own beliefs and whatever the religious leaders decided was the "message from God". You are quibbling about such ridiculously small things that it's hard to even believe you are serious?
If the Jewish writers were like "there is one ring to rule them all" then you would be all "hey the Zoroastrians didn't have one ring to rule them all!?!?!"
How many times are you going to link to the same article by an amateur apologist? I already know you do not care what is true so I should not be surprised.
But actual scholars including the leading expert on the Persian religion as well as Old Testament professor Fransesca Strav. has already laid it down. I gave you links to the text and video of her actually saying it.
Yet you continue to source J.P. Holding? We can trace the biblical myths to various sources and the OT went through radical changes during the Persian period and happened to adopt heaven, modern versions of Satan, end of the world apoctalyptic stories and saviors and resurrections for everyone.
There are always differences. Mormonism has a whole new angel, a new set of instructions, stories about American Indians, gold plates and all sorts of new myths. All new ideas. So? Still not real?

 

[Skywalker]

You are viewing that passage now, knowing all the added myths. The Israelites did not see taht as a passage saying everyone will go to "heaven".

"While the the Hebrew phrase leorech yamim literally means 'length of days' and therefore does not necessarily mean forever, it often does refer to eternity. They further argue that the Israelites viewed death with finality and despair."

Heaven is a concept taken from the Persians. The Israelites made changes according to their own beliefs and whatever the religious leaders decided was the "message from God". You are quibbling about such ridiculously small things that it's hard to even believe you are serious?
If the Jewish writers were like "there is one ring to rule them all" then you would be all "hey the Zoroastrians didn't have one ring to rule them all!?!?!"
How many times are you going to link to the same article by an amateur apologist? I already know you do not care what is true so I should not be surprised.
But actual scholars including the leading expert on the Persian religion as well as Old Testament professor Fransesca Strav. has already laid it down. I gave you links to the text and video of her actually saying it.
Yet you continue to source J.P. Holding? We can trace the biblical myths to various sources and the OT went through radical changes during the Persian period and happened to adopt heaven, modern versions of Satan, end of the world apoctalyptic stories and saviors and resurrections for everyone.
There are always differences. Mormonism has a whole new angel, a new set of instructions, stories about American Indians, gold plates and all sorts of new myths. All new ideas. So? Still not real?

Believing that there is a heaven is different from believing that everyone will go to heaven.

 

[Skywalker]

You are viewing that passage now, knowing all the added myths. The Israelites did not see taht as a passage saying everyone will go to "heaven".

"While the the Hebrew phrase leorech yamim literally means 'length of days' and therefore does not necessarily mean forever, it often does refer to eternity. They further argue that the Israelites viewed death with finality and despair."

Heaven is a concept taken from the Persians. The Israelites made changes according to their own beliefs and whatever the religious leaders decided was the "message from God". You are quibbling about such ridiculously small things that it's hard to even believe you are serious?
If the Jewish writers were like "there is one ring to rule them all" then you would be all "hey the Zoroastrians didn't have one ring to rule them all!?!?!"
How many times are you going to link to the same article by an amateur apologist? I already know you do not care what is true so I should not be surprised.
But actual scholars including the leading expert on the Persian religion as well as Old Testament professor Fransesca Strav. has already laid it down. I gave you links to the text and video of her actually saying it.
Yet you continue to source J.P. Holding? We can trace the biblical myths to various sources and the OT went through radical changes during the Persian period and happened to adopt heaven, modern versions of Satan, end of the world apoctalyptic stories and saviors and resurrections for everyone.
There are always differences. Mormonism has a whole new angel, a new set of instructions, stories about American Indians, gold plates and all sorts of new myths. All new ideas. So? Still not real?

There are always differences between the same essence of beliefs, like different denominations of those who believe in Christ. But the essence is the same regardless of the details. In the same way, the Bible and the Persians having similarities in the details doesn't mean that the Bible copied the Persians. Eternal torment proved ... annihilation refuted

Annihilation vs. Eternal conscious torment
Is eternal conscious torment a pagan false doctrine and a Jewish fable?
Here we document that annihilationists all accept that the view we have proven true, namely eternal conscious torment, was widely believed in the ancient world. They argue that Jesus borrowed from these false pagan doctrines in his teaching on hell. We reject this, as it would mean that Jesus promoted false doctrine. As the spiritual eyes into the spirit world, we believe that Jesus' teaching on eternal conscious torment is not untrue, simply because other cultures had similar views!

Introductory comment:

1. To think that Christ was ignorant of what Gehenna meant to the common people of His day or to assume that He was mistaken in using the rabbinic descriptions of Gehenna is to do great injustice to Him who was the greatest teacher who ever lived. Indeed, the mere fact that Christ utilized the rabbinic language connected with Gehenna, such as "unquenchable fire" and "never- dying worms," demonstrates beyond all doubt to any reasonable person that he deliberately used the word Gehenna to impress upon his hearers that eternal punishment awaits the wicked after the resurrection. No other conclusion is possible.

 

[joelr]

the idea that God loves us so much he would choose to suffer and die for our sins as a person is not found in the rabinnic concept of the Messiah. That's why the Christian concept of a Savior is unique.

Every myth is unique. One ring to rule them all is unique. Saviors get followers into an afterlife. Judaism was obsessed with sin. So their savior has to be a version that gets rid of that magic "sin force" so you can go to the afterlife.

Judaism isn't just based off the Old Testament it's also based off of Rabbinic tradition. It's the the Catholic Church is based off the Bible and the catechism. Psalm 23:6 is in the Hebrew Bible and it mentions heaven. "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." Job 2:3 mentions Satan inciting God against Job for no reason. The malicious nature of Satan is mentioned in the Hebrew Bible. Psalm 9:17 says, "The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God." The wicked and the saved do not both go to the same place. Heaven, hell, and Satan being the enemy of God is mentioned in the Jewish scriptures.

Hinduism teaches salvation by good works.

No Psalm 23 says they go to Sheol. After the Persian influence hell became a big thing.
In Job and other OT stories God still sends Satan on missions. He is Yahweh's agent. Satan becomes a full enemy of God later. This was the influence of the Persian version of the devil.

 

[Skywalker]

Every myth is unique. One ring to rule them all is unique. Saviors get followers into an afterlife. Judaism was obsessed with sin. So their savior has to be a version that gets rid of that magic "sin force" so you can go to the afterlife.




No Psalm 23 says they go to Sheol. After the Persian influence hell became a big thing.
In Job and other OT stories God still sends Satan on missions. He is Yahweh's agent. Satan becomes a full enemy of God later. This was the influence of the Persian version of the devil.

Psalm 23 was before Persian influence and it mentions hell. Sheol cannot be the grave because the wicked and the saved do not go to the same place.

Yahweh told Satan you incited me against Job for no reason, in the book of Job.

 

[Skywalker]

You are viewing that passage now, knowing all the added myths. The Israelites did not see taht as a passage saying everyone will go to "heaven".

"While the the Hebrew phrase leorech yamim literally means 'length of days' and therefore does not necessarily mean forever, it often does refer to eternity. They further argue that the Israelites viewed death with finality and despair."

Heaven is a concept taken from the Persians. The Israelites made changes according to their own beliefs and whatever the religious leaders decided was the "message from God". You are quibbling about such ridiculously small things that it's hard to even believe you are serious?
If the Jewish writers were like "there is one ring to rule them all" then you would be all "hey the Zoroastrians didn't have one ring to rule them all!?!?!"
How many times are you going to link to the same article by an amateur apologist? I already know you do not care what is true so I should not be surprised.
But actual scholars including the leading expert on the Persian religion as well as Old Testament professor Fransesca Strav. has already laid it down. I gave you links to the text and video of her actually saying it.
Yet you continue to source J.P. Holding? We can trace the biblical myths to various sources and the OT went through radical changes during the Persian period and happened to adopt heaven, modern versions of Satan, end of the world apoctalyptic stories and saviors and resurrections for everyone.
There are always differences. Mormonism has a whole new angel, a new set of instructions, stories about American Indians, gold plates and all sorts of new myths. All new ideas. So? Still not real?

Eternity is a possibility for the meaning of that term, based on the Hebrew word.

 

[joelr]

What Old Testament and Tankah verses about the Messiah are similar to demigods in other belief systems?

There is no point in getting that specific because scripture is debated. The point is during the Persian period messianic ideas and other concepts unique to the Persians became prominent in Judaism. They actually called the PERSIAN KING a messiah as well?

"Early in the Second temple Period hopes for a better future are described in the Jewish scriptures.[web 1] After the return from the Babylonian exile, the Persian king Cyrus the Great was called "messiah" in Isaiah, due to his role in the return of the Jewish exiles."

A number of messianic ideas developed during the later Second Temple Period, ranging from this-worldly, political expectations, to apocalyptic expectations of an endtime in which the dead would be resurrected and the Kingdom of Heaven would be established on earth.[web 1] The Messiah might be a kingly "Son of David," or a more heavenly "Son of Man", but "Messianism became increasingly eschatological, and eschatology was decisively influenced by apocalypticism", while "messianic expectations became increasingly focused on the figure of an individual savior."[web 1] According to Zwi Werblowsky, "the Messiah no longer symbolized the coming of the new age, but he was somehow supposed to bring it about." The "Lord's anointed" thus became the "savior and redeemer" and the focus of more intense expectations and doctrines."[web 1] Messianic ideas developed both by new interpretations (pesher, midrash) of the Jewish scriptures, but also by visionary revelations."

 

[joelr]

There are no saviors in pagan belief systems. Five Reasons Christianity Did Not Copy Mystery Religions | SES

I'm starting to see why people still believe in religion. This person is literally telling blatant lies.

"And keep in mind that accounts of Jesus’ life are multiple, grounded in historically reliable documents, written during the lives of eyewitnesses with a mere gap of 50 years or less between the events and the first letters of the New Testament."

No NT scholar says this. 38 years is a human lifetime in that age. Christian scholarship says nothing close to this. Why don't you mind that you are being lied to? Are you incapable of doing actual research outside of apologetics?

I have already given you a scholars explaining that personal salvation cults were popular in that time and they all features a type of savior god. A smaller group actually had dying/rising savior gods.

I don't think any of them were "sin forgiving" saviors. That was a Jewish addition. It's a great con. You join a religion that says you are all infused with this "sin-force" but luckily they have a savior god to erase it.

Do you realize 1st century Christian apologists already said that Jesus was similar to all the pagan deities? Justin Maryter already admitted to it. The way the early church got around it was to say that the devil made it look that way to fool Christians.
Now since that won't fly modern apologists have to just lie.

Of course many an atheist has already cited the second century lament of the Christian apologist Justin Martyr (Dialogue 69):

When we say…Jesus Christ…was produced without sexual union, and was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, we propound nothing new or different from what you believe regarding those whom you call Sons of God. [In fact]…if anybody objects that [Jesus] was crucified, this is in common with the sons of Zeus (as you call them) who suffered, as previously listed [he listed Dionysus, Hercules, and Asclepius]. Since their fatal sufferings are all narrated as not similar but different, so his unique passion should not seem to be any worse.