Job is considered a very old book of the Hebrew scriptures and it contains the idea of resurrection, but to the earth.
Job 19:25 I know that my redeemer lives,
and that in the end he will stand on the earth.
26 And after my skin has been destroyed,
yet in my flesh I will see God;
27 I myself will see him
with my own eyes—I, and not another.
How my heart yearns within me!
Job has an older Babylonian counterpart. It's all borrowed mythology. The concept that everyone resurrects was a concept that happened after the 2nd Temple Period. There is no doubt that the Persian religion influenced Judaism. This isn't debated in history at all? Satan changed to the Persian version and many other concepts were used.
"The unique historical features of Zoroastrianism, such as its
monotheism,
[5][6][7][8][9] 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."
"During the
Second Temple Period, when Jews were living in the
Achaemenid Empire, 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"
"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.
["
Some Jews may have believed we came from heaven to earth but I think that would be a minority and it is not in the Bible.
An immortal soul does not seem to be in the Bible either but it is easy to see where people get that from without resorting to it being copied from other religions.
It seems to always be the Jews and Christians who have copied their beliefs from other religions.
This copying business no doubt happened but if a religion is true then it did not, but anthropology uses the same naturalistic methodology as science and so the truth of a religion is not considered when deciding where the religion got it's beliefs.
Exactly, it's not in the Bible. It came later from Hellenism and Persian beliefs.
All religions used religious syncretism. The word was invented to not disturb fundamentalists. Judaism is a mix of Mesopotamian myths and then like all other religions it became Hellenized.
This isn't a debate. It's just fundamentalists who can't deal with it but in historicity there isn't any doubt. This religion is a combination of myths, like all others. There is the same chance that this is real as Zues and Heracles being real.
In fact the Wiki page pretty much says this in the Genesis page:
"modern scholars, especially from the 19th century onward, see them as being written hundreds of years after Moses is supposed to have lived, in the 6th and 5th centuries BC.
[7][8] Based on scientific interpretation of archaeological, genetic, and linguistic evidence, most scholars consider Genesis to be primarily
mythological rather than
historical.
Biblical literalists do interpret it as actual history, giving rise to beliefs such as
Young Earth creationism."
That's Genesis but the sentiment exists about all scripture in historicity.
This copying business no doubt happened but if a religion is true then it did not,
So a God actually one time really did show up, except he did all the same things that other myths have their Gods do? But at first he only copied older myths. Then just as the Persians and Greeks occupied Israel then this God decided to use those myths, exactly like the others? With writing that looks like mythology, uses ring structure, triadic inversions and all common markers of myth? Makes it look suspiciously like Mark just took Pauls letters, OT lines and some other fiction and used that to make an earthly narrative? And there is such awful evidence that no historian believes it. Bart Ehrman was actually a fundamentalist who saw that it was simply not real. This God decided to make it look like a myth, leave no evidence that stand up to any standards, fail to say or give any wisdom beyond what humans already knew? Stand behind Israelite cosmology as if it's accurate...there is as much chance that Lord Krishna is real.
What makes sense is that this is a myth, like all other religions you already don't believe.
"he truth of a religion is not considered when deciding where the religion got it's beliefs"
This is more of a personal statement. If you want to hand wave comparative religious studies off then you have that right. All evidence should be considered but I am aware of emotional attachment to a belief which can cause confirmation bias. I have done it.
Roswell is a unique story, it's still fiction until someone proves it's true. So are religions.
No supernatural tale should be believed by rational people who care about what is true until it is demonstrated. But the amount of evidence that this religion is borrowed mythology and is exactly as real as any other is vast. We also know that personal experience and fuzzy feelings can be created simply by belief that a deity is real. It has no bearing on if it's true.
