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

[Skywalker]

OMG. The original Hebrew said Sheol. You really don't know that?

Gibrah is the Hebrew word that refers to the grave. A Biblical Examination of Hell -By Dr. Max D. Younce, Th.D

Sheol is not the grave. A mistranslation--"Sheol" is also translated as grave approximately 25 times in the Old Testament, which has caused much confusion concerning the Doctrine of Hell. Jehovah's Witnesses utilize this translational error to the fullest, claiming Hell is the grave and nothing more. When we look at the Hebrew we find that the word "gibrah" is properly used for "grave." "Gibrah" is translated throughout the Old testament as "grave, burying place, and sepulchre," and properly so. Sheol is never in any case in the Old testament ever referring to grave, burying place or sepulchre; but, rather a place located in the center of the earth. The grave, burying place and sepulchre houses our dead bodies, but Sheol is the compartment that contains the souls and spirits that will never die and which were in those earthly bodies.

 

[Skywalker]

You just proved yourself wrong with that example. Yes there are differences among Christian sects but we know for a fact that they all copied each other on the basic myths?

The coincidences between the Persian religion and Christainity are far too many to be chance. But not only that it all happened while the Persians were occupying their land. They even called the Persian King a messiah?
The similarities between pagan saviors and Jesus are also far to many to be chance. It's called religious synchretism. That's what the word is for? Because cultures borrow myths.

Zoroaster being called the Messiah has a different meaning than Jesus being called the Messiah. Five Reasons Christianity Did Not Copy Mystery Religions | SES

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.

There also isn't a clear doctrine in Zoroastrianism about Zoroaster being the Messiah, like there's a clear doctrine about the second coming of Christ in Christianity and Messianic Judaism.

 

[Skywalker]

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.

Dionysus was not born of a virgin.

Debunking The Jesus/Dionysus Connection | Reasons for Jesus

1. Dionysus was born of a virgin on December 25th and, as the Holy Child, was placed in a manger.
One critic adds to the description of D as the “wondrous babe of God, the Mystery” and “He of the miraculous birth.”

We have already noted in our article on Mithraism why the Christmas birth date is of no relevance and this comes from a later church source, St. Epiphanius, which makes it of no relevance for copycatting claims. And, at any rate, I have noted no allusion to any birth date of Dionysus in any of the literature on him yet, other than one critic’s note that D’s birth was celebrated January 6 by some in Alexandria.

Born of a virgin? Not exactly, although it depends which of the stories you want to believe. In the most popular story, Dionysus’ mother was named Semele, and she was impregnated by Zeus when that dirty old god pulled one of his usual tricks by taking the form of a lightning bolt.

Later, a jealous Hera tricked Semele into asking Zeus to reveal his glory, which ended up burning Semele to a crisp and leaving the prenatal Dionysus behind. No absentee father at first, Zeus picked up the child and sewed him into his thigh until he was ready to be on his own. Dionysus is thus, in a sense, “twice born” and that is the “Mystery” that the above refers to, as found in Harrison. [Dan.GLE, 65; Harr.PGR, 436]

Another story has Dionysus as the son of Zeus and Persephone. [Dan.GLE, 93; Eva.GE, 153] Yet another Asiatic version has Dionysus self-born (these last two stories are very obscure). At any rate, there is clearly nothing like a “virgin” conception or birth here, but what we do have here is the usual divine fornication to which Zeus and other Greek gods were prone.

I have found no evidence that Dionysus was ever called “the Holy Child” (not that this matters, since this is a title of Jesus given well after the time of the Apostles) and also no evidence that Dionysus was placed in a manger. Critics offer neither documentation nor footnote on this point, so barring further discovery, I will have to regard this as a “ringer.”

Other critics refer to a “sacred marriage” that was performed in an “ox stall,” a very tenuous attempt to make a connection. A classical scholar who commented on this article stated of this ceremony:

“The woman represented the LAND (*possibly* a land-goddess), not the fertility goddess…she was actually the wife of a priest-politician called the Basileus who had originally been Athens’ king. There was no question of the ‘marriage’ being intended to produce offspring, though a few modern scholars have speculated that this was its original purpose…it seems to have been the WOMAN who generally represented the goddess, not the man who represented the god. I’m prepared to be proved wrong about this, however – but I think that this holds good as a general rule. The ox-stall was nothing of the kind, but a civic building called the Boukolion (roughly translating as ox-stall). It may originally have been (meant to represent) an ox-stall, but it certainly wasn’t anything of the sort even as early as classical times.”

 

[Skywalker]

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."

Dionysus was not a Savior in the belief systems of his religion. Debunking The Jesus/Dionysus Connection | Reasons for Jesus

8. He was considered the “only Begotten Son,” “Savior,” “Redeemer,” “Sin Bearer,” “Anointed One” and the “Alpha and Omega.”

Other critics add the title “Lord God of God born” and second the title of “savior,” saying, “His followers call to him: ‘Come, thou savior.'”
The title “Lord God of God born” is referenced to page 444 of Harrison’s book [Harr.PGR] – but it is not there. The Bacchae has Dionysus’ followers saying at his appearance, “We are saved!” — but the critics do not answer the needed question, “Saved from what?” In the context, it is “salvation” from Pentheus’ ire.
It isn’t personal sin that Dionysus saves from, and may not have even been hellfire or damnation. Cole, after a study of the grave inscriptions of Dionysus worshippers, points out that
DIONYSUS “IS NOT A SAVIOR WHO PROMISES HIS WORSHIPPERS REGENERATION, BUT WITH THE STORIES OF HIS OWN REBIRTH AND REJUVENATION, HE IS ONE WHO MAKES THIS LIFE MORE SWEET AND THE NEXT ONE, PERHAPS, ONLY A LITTLE LESS HARSH.” [COL.VFG, 295]
Sounds like a bum deal to me! (Evans, with less detail, supposes an afterlife of sensual joy [Evan.GE, 127], but even that is no match for Christian salvation!). As is typical with the mystery religions, “salvation” has to do with some sort of pleasure experience and has nothing to do with erasing sin.

 

[Skywalker]

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."

Judaism was in ancient times and is not a faith open to other belief systems. 22 Reasons All Scholars Agree Jesus Is Not A Copy Of Pagan Gods | Reasons for Jesus

5. The Jewish were a people who refrained from allowing pagan myths to invade their culture.
Many times in the Old Testament the Jews would reject their one true God, and engage in idolatry. We know of this because it is reported in our biblical texts but no evidence suggests that this happened in 1st century Palestine when Jesus was living. In fact, the New Testament overwhelmingly confirms that the Pharisees were very strict in application of the law (Paul, as a former Pharisee & prior to his conversion, went to the extent of authorizing the killings of early Christians for their blasphemous claim of a risen Jesus.

Knowing this it hugely strains my belief that they would encourage paganism influences). Philosopher William Lane Craig writes that “For Jesus and his disciples they were first century Palestinian Jews, and it is against that background that they must be understood.”

Professor Ben Witherington notes that: “This notion was not a regular part of the pagan lexicon of the afterlife at all, as even a cursory study of the relevant passages in the Greek and Latin classics shows. Indeed, as Acts 17 suggests, pagans were more likely than not to ridicule such an idea. I can understand the apologetic theory if, and only if, the Gospels were directed largely to Pharisaic Jews or their sympathizers. I know of no scholar, however, who has argued such a case.”

William Craig goes on to say:

“The spuriousness of the alleged parallels is just one indication that pagan mythology is the wrong interpretive framework for understanding the disciples’ belief in Jesus’ resurrection.” And that: “…anyone pressing this objection has a burden of proof to bear. He needs to show that the narratives are parallel and, moreover, that they are causally connected.”

Craig concludes: “It boggles the imagination to think that the original disciples would have suddenly and sincerely come to believe that Jesus of Nazareth was risen from the dead just because they had heard of pagan myths about dying and rising seasonal gods.”

Professor Sanders likewise seems to suggest that Jesus is best made sense of within the world of the 1st century Judaism “…the dominant view [among scholars] today seems to be that we can know pretty well what Jesus was out to accomplish, that we can know a lot about what he said, and that those two things make sense within the world of first-century Judaism.”

Professor Martin Hengel notes:

“HELLENISTIC MYSTERY RELIGIONS … COULD GAIN VIRTUALLY NO INFLUENCE [IN JEWISH PALESTINE].”

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

By the Jewish law of those days, he was the son of Heli.

Well, sez you and that apologist writing that article.

 

[joelr]

Sheol is hell because it's described as where the lost go. A Biblical Examination of Hell -By Dr. Max D. Younce, Th.D

Sheol did not mean hell as it means now. A firey place where Satan dwells and bad souls go there.

 

[joelr]

Maybe the book of watchers and the book of enoch had details about the devil that were borrowed from Persian religions, but the idea of Satan being the devil goes back to the book of Job. Job 2:3.

That isn't in question. Satan is described as an Angel of Yahweh and Yahweh sends him to inflict plagues and so on.
Thhis idea of God working with Satan changed after the Persian period and Satan became more like the Persian devil.

"The idea of Satan as an opponent of God and a purely evil figure seems to have taken root in Jewish pseudepigrapha during the Second Temple Period,[31] particularly in the apocalypses.["

"Judaism was heavily influenced by Zoroastrianism, the religion of the Achaemenids.[27][8][28] Jewish conceptions of Satan were impacted by Angra Mainyu,[8][29] the Zoroastrian god of evil, darkness, and ignorance.[8] In the Septuagint, the Hebrew ha-Satan in Job and Zechariah is translated by the Greek word diabolos (slanderer), the same word in the Greek New Testament from which the English word "devil" is derived"

wiki on Satan

 

[joelr]

Expressions that people use mention God and heaven and hell. God does everything with an order and a purpose. Beliefs like believing in the resurrection of the dead reflect that.

If those concepts were influenced by the Persians, that doesn't mean that they weren't in the Bible. Satan is mentioned in the book of Enoch, and there is evidence that it's questionable, but that doesn't mean that the interpretation of Satan as the devil in the book of Job isn't biblical.

I don't know what you mean by "biblical"? That is what we were talking about? Before the Persians Satan in the bible was a different character then after the Persian period Satan took on the characteristics of the Persian devil. Everything we are talking about is in the Bible? The Bible is where they wrote the myths down. The Persian's has their own scripture.

God doesn't do anything because he is a character in an ancient book just like all the other Gods.

 

[joelr]

Judaism was in ancient times and is not a faith open to other belief systems. 22 Reasons All Scholars Agree Jesus Is Not A Copy Of Pagan Gods | Reasons for Jesus

Wow, this apologetics article actually has a blatant lie in the actual title!? They just don't care?

I've posted links to 2 biblical scholars explaining the similarities to Jesus and pagan demigods. All historians know of the similarities. We also have 1st century Christian apologists saying they are similar.
When religions take new myths they don't announce they are going to copy stories from other Gods? Slowly over time (the Persian invasion was like 300 years long) religious leaders would pretend to get "messages from their God" and gguess what, they are getting a savior also. Or they pour through old scripture and look for a passage they can re-interpret.
Every religion does it but it's subtle.
No religion is "open" to other religions?

 

[joelr]

Zoroaster being called the Messiah has a different meaning than Jesus being called the Messiah. Five Reasons Christianity Did Not Copy Mystery Religions | SES

https://ses.edu/five-reasons-christianity-did-not-copy-mystery-religions/

Why do we have to keep saying the same thing over and over? Jesus was a Jewish version of the savior demigod.
The point is it's a savior who has come to save humanity and give them entry into the afterlife.

There also isn't a clear doctrine in Zoroastrianism about Zoroaster being the Messiah, like there's a clear doctrine about the second coming of Christ in Christianity and Messianic Judaism.

NO Zoroaster wasn't the Messiah. If you actually read real sources you would know this. He predicted a world savior would come to save humanity and be virgin born. He predicted this around 6BC. The savior would be man but also divine.

 

[joelr]

Dionysus was not born of a virgin.

Debunking The Jesus/Dionysus Connection | Reasons for Jesus

Way to answer post with a non-related topic?

Dionysis isn't even mentioned in Carrier's article on virgin births?

"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."

Virgin Birth: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier

 

[Skywalker]

Sheol did not mean hell as it means now. A firey place where Satan dwells and bad souls go there.

The Bible never says that Satan is the king of hell or hell is literally a place of fire and brimstone. We are all sinners. None of us are good. Is hell literally a place of fire and brimstone? | GotQuestions.org

Question: "Is hell literally a place of fire and brimstone?"

Answer: By raining down fire and brimstone upon the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, God not only demonstrated how He felt about overt sin, but He also launched an enduring metaphor. After the events of Genesis 19:24, the mere mention of fire, brimstone, Sodom or Gomorrah instantly transports a reader into the context of God’s judgment. Such an emotionally potent symbol, however, has trouble escaping its own gravity. This fiery image can impede, rather than advance, its purpose. A symbol should show a similarity between two dissimilar entities. Fire and brimstone describes some of what hell is like—but not all of what hell is.

The word the Bible uses to describe a burning hell—Gehenna—comes from an actual burning place, the valley of Gehenna adjacent to Jerusalem on the south. Gehenna is an English transliteration of the Greek form of an Aramaic word, which is derived from the Hebrew phrase “the Valley of (the son of) Hinnom.” In one of their greatest apostasies, the Jews (especially under kings Ahaz and Manasseh) passed their children through the fires in sacrifice to the god Molech in that very valley (2 Kings 16:3; 2 Chronicles 33:6; Jeremiah 32:35). Eventually, the Jews considered that location to be ritually unclean (2 Kings 23:10), and they defiled it all the more by casting the bodies of criminals into its smoldering heaps. In Jesus’ time this was a place of constant fire, but more so, it was a refuse heap, the last stop for all items judged by men to be worthless. When Jesus spoke of Gehennahell, He was speaking of the city dump of all eternity. Yes, fire was part of it, but the purposeful casting away—the separation and loss—was all of it.

In Mark 9:43 Jesus used another powerful image to illustrate the seriousness of hell. “If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.” For most readers, this image doesescape its own gravity—in spite of the goriness! Few believe that Jesus wants us literally to cut off our own hand. He would rather that we do whatever is necessary to avoid going to hell, and that is the purpose of such language—to polarize, to set up an either/or dynamic, to compare. Since the first part of the passage uses imagery, the second part does also, and therefore should not be understood as an encyclopedic description of hell.

In addition to fire, the New Testament describes hell as a bottomless pit (abyss) (Revelation 20:3), a lake (Revelation 20:14), darkness (Matthew 25:30), death (Revelation 2:11), destruction (2 Thessalonians 1:9), everlasting torment (Revelation 20:10), a place of wailing and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 25:30), and a place of gradated punishment (Matthew 11:20-24; Luke 12:47-48; Revelation 20:12-13). The very variety of hell’s descriptors argues against applying a literal interpretation of any particular one. For instance, hell’s literal fire could emit no light, since hell would be literally dark. Its fire could not consume its literal fuel (persons!) since their torment is non-ending. Additionally, the gradation of punishments within hell also confounds literalness. Does hell’s fire burn Hitler more fiercely than an honest pagan? Does he fall more rapidly in the abyss than another? Is it darker for Hitler? Does he wail and gnash more loudly or more continually than the other? The variety and symbolic nature of descriptors do not lessen hell, however—just the opposite, in fact. Their combined effect describes a hell that is worse than death, darker than darkness, and deeper than any abyss. Hell is a place with more wailing and gnashing of teeth than any single descriptor could ever portray. Its symbolic descriptors bring us to a place beyond the limits of our language—to a place far worse than we could ever imagine.

 

[Skywalker]

Way to answer post with a non-related topic?

Dionysis isn't even mentioned in Carrier's article on virgin births?

"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."

Virgin Birth: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier

Perseus was not born of a virgin. Perseus – Debunking Atheism

You know how many sons of Zeus the writers whom you honor speak of—Hermes, the hermeneutic Word and teacher of all; Asclepius, who was also a healer and after being struck by lightning ascended into heaven—as did Dionysus who was torn in pieces; Heracles, who to escape his torments threw himself into the fire; the Dioscuri born of Leda and Perseus of Danae; and Bellerophon who, though of human origin, rode on the [divine] horse Pegasus.

This is actually different than what Zeitgeist would have you believe. What the film is doing is giving the impression that Justin was admitting that other Pagan gods were crucified like Jesus. He is clearly saying that they did indeed die, but he gives different details which are unlike the Passion of Jesus. — If Zeitgeist had included this in its quotation of Justin Martyr then it would have demolished its point.

Also, in Chapter 22 of First Apology, Justin makes certain similar statements comparing Jesus to the same Greek gods,

If somebody objects that he was crucified, this is in common with the sons of Zeus, as you call them, who suffered, as previously listed. Since their fatal sufferings are narrated as not similar but different, so his unique passion should not seem to be any worse—indeed I will, as I have undertaken, show, as the argument proceeds, that he was better; for he [Jesus] is shown to be better by his actions.

When one begins to read this, the first part seems to confirm Zeitgeist’s claims that Pagan deities were crucified. However when you read on Justin says that “their fatal sufferings are narrated as not similar but different.” — He goes on to call Jesus’ passion “unique.” In fact, Justin is saying through chapters 21 through 29 that Jesus is superior to the others. The reasons why Zeitgeist didn’t include this quote in the film is obvious: They would have demolished their own case.

— Also, to make matters worse for Zeitgeist’s claims, Justin says point blank (in First Apology 55) that none of these gods was crucified like Jesus.

As for the second quote that Zeitgeist gives (which is from First Apology 22) the film quotes a comparison of Jesus with Perseus,

If we declare that he [Jesus] was born of a virgin, you should consider this something in common with Perseus.

This quote, like the other, is a favorite of the “Jesus-Myth” crowd. But unfortunately for them, this statement does not hold water when one researches Perseus. — The second century BC Greek historian Apollodorusdescribes the birth of Perseus (The Library 2,4,1) as such,

However, she [Danae, Perseus’ mother] was seduced, as some say, by Proetus, whence arose the quarrel between them; but some say that Zeus had intercourse with her in the shape of a stream of gold which poured through the roof into Danae’s lap. When Acrisius afterwards learned that she had got a child Perseus, he would not believe that she had been seduced by Zeus.

The Primary Greek sources clearly say that Danae gave birth to her son, Perseus, through sexual relations. The description of sex may be odd to us, but according to the story it is still sexual.

So basically, when Justin Martyr claims that Perseus was born of a virgin like Jesus himself as he implies is the case with other gods, he is actually exaggerating the whole thing. The primary Greek sources actually say the opposite. — So much for Jesus-Mythers that use these passages by Justin to show that he knew Christianity to be basically the same as paganism.

 

[Skywalker]

Why do we have to keep saying the same thing over and over? Jesus was a Jewish version of the savior demigod.
The point is it's a savior who has come to save humanity and give them entry into the afterlife.




NO Zoroaster wasn't the Messiah. If you actually read real sources you would know this. He predicted a world savior would come to save humanity and be virgin born. He predicted this around 6BC. The savior would be man but also divine.

No pagan god died for the sins of the world. Perseus – Debunking Atheism

Justin says point blank (in First Apology 55) that none of these gods was crucified like Jesus.

Many in Zoroastrianism don't believe that that savior would be 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]

Wow, this apologetics article actually has a blatant lie in the actual title!? They just don't care?

I've posted links to 2 biblical scholars explaining the similarities to Jesus and pagan demigods. All historians know of the similarities. We also have 1st century Christian apologists saying they are similar.
When religions take new myths they don't announce they are going to copy stories from other Gods? Slowly over time (the Persian invasion was like 300 years long) religious leaders would pretend to get "messages from their God" and gguess what, they are getting a savior also. Or they pour through old scripture and look for a passage they can re-interpret.
Every religion does it but it's subtle.
No religion is "open" to other religions?

The essence can be the same with different details but that doesn't mean that the essence of the Bible is the same essence as that of pagan beliefs. None of them died for the sins of the world to save us from our own destruction.

 

[Skywalker]

I don't know what you mean by "biblical"? That is what we were talking about? Before the Persians Satan in the bible was a different character then after the Persian period Satan took on the characteristics of the Persian devil. Everything we are talking about is in the Bible? The Bible is where they wrote the myths down. The Persian's has their own scripture.

God doesn't do anything because he is a character in an ancient book just like all the other Gods.

Correlation doesn't equal causation. Also, Zechariah wrote of Satan the same way that Job wrote about Satan. https://www.enterthebible.org/Contr...ourcebox.aspx?selected_rid=341&original_id=56

In Zechariah the word "Satan" appears with a definitive article, ha-satan, and could be translated as "the adversary" or "the accuser."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Perseus was not born of a virgin. Perseus – Debunking Atheism

That article does not seem to refute the claim that Perseus was born of a virgin. Rather it appears to support the myth.


By the way if you want to claim that some of the Roman Gods were not the product of a virgin birth then by the same standards Jesus's birth was not a virgin birth either.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No pagan god died for the sins of the world. Perseus – Debunking Atheism



Many in Zoroastrianism don't believe that that savior would be Zoroaster. Jesus Vs Zoroaster – Debunking The Alleged Parallels | Reasons for Jesus

So what?

 

[Skywalker]

That isn't in question. Satan is described as an Angel of Yahweh and Yahweh sends him to inflict plagues and so on.
Thhis idea of God working with Satan changed after the Persian period and Satan became more like the Persian devil.

"The idea of Satan as an opponent of God and a purely evil figure seems to have taken root in Jewish pseudepigrapha during the Second Temple Period,[31] particularly in the apocalypses.["

"Judaism was heavily influenced by Zoroastrianism, the religion of the Achaemenids.[27][8][28] Jewish conceptions of Satan were impacted by Angra Mainyu,[8][29] the Zoroastrian god of evil, darkness, and ignorance.[8] In the Septuagint, the Hebrew ha-Satan in Job and Zechariah is translated by the Greek word diabolos (slanderer), the same word in the Greek New Testament from which the English word "devil" is derived"

wiki on Satan

The destroying angel is a different being from Satan. Destroying angel (Bible) - Wikipedia

Job 2:3 doesn't describe God and Satan working together.

And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.