Picture of Mars vs. the earth. So how did Moses know?

[joelr]

So you use prophecies about the dying Jesus and claim that Christians copied them. That's pretty typical for people who do not believe the gospel story.
Interestingly the Jews deny they are Messianic prophecies or that the Messiah brings salvation in any spiritual sense.

This makes no sense? Do you expect historians to read Hindu prophecies and assume they are all true? Does every prophecy in all ancient text start out with the assumption it's true?

There is no evidence for any supernatural happenings, ever. These stories are considered legends. We know FOR A FACT that the Greek writers knew the OT when writing the gospels.
So OF COURSE they wrote the gospels to appear to fulfill prophecy? It's fiction? In fiction if there was an earlier prophecy, you have it come true?

In the early Lord of the Rings prophecies are made. Later in the next book they come to pass. Do you understand how this works?
The NT is a re-write of Kings, Psalms, and so on...

Mark 15.24: “They part his garments among them, casting lots upon them.”

Psalm 22:18: “They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon them.”

Mark 15.29-31: “And those who passed by blasphemed him, shaking their heads and saying, ‘…Save yourself…’ and mocked him, saying ‘He who saved others cannot save himself!’ ”

Psalm 22.7-8: “All those who see me mock me and give me lip, shaking their head, saying ‘He expected the lord to protect him, so let the lord save him if he likes.’ ”

Mark 15.34: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

Psalm 22.1: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

On top of these links, Mark also appears to have used Psalm 69, Amos 8.9, and some elements of Isaiah 53, Zechariah 9-14, and Wisdom 2 as sources for his narratives. So we can see yet a few more elements of myth in the latter part of this Gospel, with Mark using other scriptural sources as needed for his story, whether to “fulfill” what he believed to be prophecy or for some other reason.

Earlier in Mark (chapter 5), we hear about another obviously fictional story about Jesus resurrecting a girl (the daughter of a man named Jairus) from the dead, this miracle serving as another obvious marker of myth, but adding to that implausibility is the fact that the tale is actually a rewrite of another mythical story, told of Elisha in 2 Kings 4.17-37 as found in the OT, and also the fact that there are a number of very improbable coincidences found within the story itself.
In the story with Elisha, we hear of a woman from Shunem who seeks out the miracle-working Elisha, finds him, falls to his feet and begs him to help her son who had recently fallen gravely ill. Someone checks on her son and confirms that he is now dead, but Elisha doesn’t fret about this, and he goes into her house, works his miraculous magic, and raises him from the dead. In Mark’s version of the story (Mark 5.22-43), the same things occur. We hear about Jairus coming to look for Jesus, finds him, falls to his feet and begs him to help him with his daughter. Someone then comes to confirm that she is now dead, but Jesus (as Elisha) doesn’t fret, and he goes into his house, works his miraculous magic, and raises her from the dead.

As for some other notable coincidences, we see Mark reversing a few details in his version of the story. Instead of a woman begging for her son, it is a man begging for his daughter. While in 2 Kings, an unnamed woman comes from a named town (Shunem) which means “rest”, in Mark we have a named man coming from an unnamed town, and the man’s name (Jairus) means “awaken”. In Mark’s conclusion to this story (5.42), he mentions that “immediately they were amazed with great amazement”, and he appears to have borrowed this line from 2 Kings as well (4.13 as found in the Greek Septuagint version of 2 Kings), which says “You have been amazed by all this amazement for us”. It’s important to note that this verse from 2 Kings (as found in the Greek Septuagint), refers to an earlier encounter between the unnamed woman and Elisha where he was previously a guest in her home and this verse was what the woman had said to Elisha on that occasion. Then Elisha blesses her with a miraculous conception (as she was said to be a barren woman in 2 Kings). In fact, this miraculous conception was of the very son that Elisha would later resurrect from the dead. So to add to this use of 2 Kings we also have another reversal from Mark, reversing the placement of this reaction (double amazement) from the child’s miraculous conception (in 2 Kings) to the child’s miraculous resurrection (in Mark 5.42).

 

[joelr]

Messianic prophecies were in the OT before their association with these cultures.

You are actually lying. Your cred is going seriously down. The Persian invasion was 614. The OT was not canonized until AFTER this. Books were finished and added and put together after the Persians occupied the Hebrew nations. In fact first they invited kings and religious leaders to return from exile and encouraged then to have their own religion.

This impacted their feelings and is thought to be why they assimilated many of the myths into Judaism.


It's weird how little followers of the religion sometimes know about the history?


At 4:07 Professor Francesca Stavrakopoulou will explain during the Persian period the OT was revised and canonized.

Historically, the unique features of Zoroastrianism, such as its monotheism,[5] messianism, belief in free will and judgement after death, conception of heaven, hell, angels, and demons, among other concepts, may have influenced other religious and philosophical systems, including the Abrahamic religions
Mary Boyce, pg 29 Zoroastrianism

Once people start assuming syncretism is what happened with all religions they start seeing things in and reading things into other religions that aren't there.

This goes hand in hand with the assumption that the prophecies in the Bible are not real and so those passages had to have been written hundreds of years later.

It all goes hand in hand with the assumption that the story of Jesus is not real and so it had to have been copied.

We can see syncretism happen in every single religion. Somehow you are suggesting it didn't happen in just one? Yet Genesis is a re-working of both Mesopotamian creation myths, it uses lines from the Gilamesh. flood story verbatim, same with several other myths. But the Hellenistic elements were before Christianity and has saviors, supreme gods replacing national gods, baptism, eucharist, souls that are fallen but can be redeemed and go to heaven, the word made flesh, and much more.

The Persians has virgin born world saviors, Satan as an enemy of God in an eternal war and Revelations. Both cultures occupied Israel for centuries and your cognative bias goes so far that you don't think there is religious syncretism?


All you are doing here is saying "well all these stories in the Bible are real so there is no syncretism in this case". First, no proof. Second, evidence shows syncretism.

But it's even worse. Now you have to say this story is true and it's all a big coincidence that all the surrounding cultures had similar myths, BEFORE the real ones happened? Even the myths about Moses are in earlier Egyptian stories?

What you are arguing is absurd. It's the biggest special pleading ever.

Carrier is not an expert and the experts deny what he says. He is just another skeptic who sees what is not there.

what do you mean "not expert"? He's a PhD historian? He spent 6 years studying the historicity of Jesus, he's an expert on the NT, all the historians of the period, all the languages, mystery religions?


How dare you post sources by COMPLETE AMATEUR apologetics, then say Carrier is "not an expert". This is the most absurd, ridiculous and desperate thing you have said.


Not only that but all historians agree about the Greek and Persian influences? He is in favor of mythicism which about 20 scholars are now in favor of. Mythicism has no bearing on this matter.
All historians consider the Gospel narratives to be a mythicized savior story that a human teacher named Jesus was placed into.
All scholarship recognizes the influence of Greek and Persian myths on Christianity.


I have been posting quotes from:

The Relationship between Hellenistic Mystery Religions and Early Christianity:

A Case Study using Baptism and Eucharist Jennifer Uzzell - "
Like Christianity, the Mysteries speak of a deity who dies and is revived; of salvation and a preferential afterlife for the initiated and of a personal and loving relationship with an immanent God. "



As well as scholar Mary Boyce on world saviors, Persian revelations and Persian Satan.

as well as Sanders and Wright on souls and heaven as a Greek influence on Hebrew theology.



All historical scholars? What historian doesn't think that?



Professor Francesca Stavrakopoulou, also agrees Christianity is a mystery religion. I can post a video of her saying that as well.



The world history.org seems to agree:

The Hellenistic World: The World of Alexander the Great


Hellenistic thought is evident in the narratives which make up the books of the Bible as the Hebrew Scriptures were revised and canonized during the Second Temple Period (c.515 BCE-70 CE), the latter part of which was during the Hellenic Period of the region. The gospels and epistles of the Christian New Testament were written in Greek and draw on Greek philosophy and religion as, for example, in the first chapter of the Gospel of John in which the word becomes flesh, a Platonic concept.


Oh look, they also agree on the canonization of the OT during the Persian period.




As well as the Britannica entry on Hellenistic religion and it's influence on other religions (they mention Jesus and Yahweh by name)

Hellenistic religion - Beliefs, practices, and institutions



The Hellenistic change that religions went through describes the transition from Judaism to Christianity EXACTLY.



-the seasonal drama was homologized to a soteriology (salvation concept) concerning the destiny, fortune, and salvation of the individual after death.



-his led to a change from concern for a religion of national prosperity to one for individual salvation, from focus on a particular ethnic group to concern for every human. The prophet or saviour replaced the priest and king as the chief religious figure.



-his process was carried further through the identification of the experiences of the soul that was to be saved with the vicissitudes of a divine but fallen soul, which had to be redeemed by cultic activity and divine intervention. This view is illustrated in the concept of the paradoxical figure of the saved saviour, salvator salvandus.



-Other deities, who had previously been associated with national destiny (e.g., Zeus, Yahweh, and Isis), were raised to the status of transcendent, supreme




-The temples and cult institutions of the various Hellenistic religions were repositories of the knowledge and techniques necessary for salvation and were the agents of the public worship of a particular deity. In addition, they served an important sociological role. In the new, cosmopolitan ideology that followed Alexander’s conquests, the old nationalistic and ethnic boundaries had broken down and the problem of religious and social identity had become acute.



-Most of these groups had regular meetings for a communal meal that served the dual role of sacramental participation (referring to the use of material elements believed to convey spiritual benefits among the members and with their deity)



-Hellenistic philosophy (Stoicism, Cynicism, Neo-Aristotelianism, Neo-Pythagoreanism, and Neoplatonism) provided key formulations for Jewish, Christian, and Muslim philosophy, theology, and mysticism through the 18th century



- The basic forms of worship of both the Jewish and Christian communities were heavily influenced in their formative period by Hellenistic practices, and this remains fundamentally unchanged to the present time. Finally, the central religious literature of both traditions—the Jewish Talmud (an authoritative compendium of law, lore, and interpretation), the New Testament, and the later patristic literature of the early Church Fathers—are characteristic Hellenistic documents both in form and content.



-Other traditions even more radically reinterpreted the ancient figures. The cosmic or seasonal drama was interiorized to refer to the divine soul within man that must be liberated.



-Each persisted in its native land with little perceptible change save for its becoming linked to nationalistic or messianic movements (centring on a deliverer figure)



-and apocalyptic traditions (referring to a belief in the dramatic intervention of a god in human and natural events)



- Particularly noticeable was the success of a variety of prophets, magicians, and healers—e.g., John the Baptist, Jesus, Simon Magus, Apollonius of Tyana, Alexander the Paphlagonian, and the cult of the healer Asclepius—whose preaching corresponded to the activities of various Greek and Roman philosophic missionaries

 

[gnostic]

No I was not wanting to imply that because it is written mainly in the first person that it means that Daniel wrote it.
But of course since there is no reason to say the book was written later than the 6th century except for the presumption on the falsehood of prophecy, that combined with being written mainly in the first person comes closer to showing Daniel wrote it.

I have already explained to you in several posts on how there are too many errors in the book of Daniel, as to why the author (of Daniel) couldn’t be contemporary to Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar and Cyrus.

Why do you need me to explain everything again?

As I said in earlier posts, there are a number of both Babylonian and Persian sources that were contemporaries to the 6th century BCE, and it is these sources that demonstrated the author and book of Daniel, don’t have contemporary knowledge of Babylonian history.

Daniel 5’s claim that Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar were father and son...,wrong! Nebuchadnezzar’s son was Amel-Marduk, not Belshazzar. Belshazzar’s father was Nabonidus.

Daniel 5 stated that Belshazzar was king at the time of Babylon’s Fall...again, wrong. Nabonidus was the last Babylonian king of the Neo-Babylonian empire.

Daniel 5 & 6, claimed that it was Darius the Mede was one who taken Babylon...again, wrong. It was Cyrus.

Darius don’t even exist in Babylonian or Persian sources.

It was Cyrus, who became king of Media, when defeated the last Median king, Astyages, in 550 BCE. Cyrus, title was King of Kings; he wasn’t just King of Persia (560 BCE), he was also King of Media (550 BCE, when he defeated Astyages), King of Lydia (547 BCE, when he defeated Croesus), and King of Babylonia after defeating Nabonidus (539 BCE).

That the author of Daniel got these details wrong, make the book as unreliable and invention.

And as I stated earlier, there are no mention of this character “Daniel” in any Persian or Babylonian sources, make it very doubtful of Daniel’s existence.

 

[joelr]

Placing the names in Daniel with those in other historical documents has been problematic especially when some people had more than one name and it is hard to tell at times if the ruler is the father or son.
The assumption that some historians make is to then say that the Bible has to be the one that is wrong.

Carrier goes over the scholarship on why Daniel is considered fake.

 

[joelr]

So you use prophecies about the dying Jesus and claim that Christians copied them. That's pretty typical for people who do not believe the gospel story.
Interestingly the Jews deny they are Messianic prophecies or that the Messiah brings salvation in any spiritual sense.

Listened, at 36:39 he asks the scholar directly about the Hellenistic influence and apologetic objection to the idea.
Not a historian but a Biblical scholar.
M. David Litwa is Research Fellow in Biblical and Early Christian Studies at the Institute for Religion and Critical Inquiry, Australian Catholic University in Melbourne.

Shocking Comparison of Jesus and Greco-Roman Myths
Relying on the methods of the history of religions school and ranging judiciously across Hellenistic literature, M. David Litwa shows that at each stage in their depiction of Jesus’ life and ministry, early Christian writings from the beginning relied on categories drawn not from Judaism alone, but on a wide, pan-Mediterranean understanding of deity: how gods were born, how they acted to manifest power, even how they died----and, after death, how they were taken up into heaven and pronounced divine.

 

[Brian2]

Of course the Gospels were influenced by them? That isn't doubted in historicity? Why would apologists make up a tale about Satan making Jesus look exactly like all older saviors to fool Christians if it were not true?

Why are all historians who write on the subject explaining there are many obvious parallels?
Why are historians all saying there is an obvious influence by Hellenism?

Historians say it was influenced by Hellenism because they see religions as syncretic and cannot say that religions are actually true if they want to remain secular historians.
And of course they are probably right to a much lesser extent that you say.

All of his objections do not show there isn't a trend of dying/rising saviors going around?
We do however have a PhD historian in Jesus and NT studies explaining that Jesus is indeed just another of these myths. He reports that ALL OF THE OTHER VERSIONS ALSO HAVE DIFFERENCES? It's the core myth that is being copied.

I suppose the person with the PhD has to be correct because he has a PhD.
But of course what else does a mythicist and sceptic do? The story of Jesus had to come from somewhere and syncretism exists so the Gospels must be from not only the OT but also from other religions in the area.
It has to be that way because it is not true and Jesus did not even exist.
So even when he finds it hard to find dying and rising saviour gods and when most other secular historians disagree with him and when the only ones he finds that he says were crucified and resurrected bodily were not even crucified or resurrected bodily he ploughs on and goes for vague generalities and of course other sceptics agree because what else can they do.
The true is that it is a religious faith that you have and you want to justify it somehow even though the evidence is not good.

From this site:Evidence for Jesus: Was Inanna (Ishtar) "Crucified" (Crucifixion)? Was Zalmoxis "Resurrected" (Resurrection)?

Classical historian and anti-Christian critic Richard Carrier finds evidence for two other "pagan saviors" before Jesus: "I have confirmed only two real 'resurrected' deities with some uncanny similarity to Jesus which are actually reported before Christian times, Zalmoxis and Inanna...." (Richard Carrier, article "Kersey Graves and the World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors" [2003])

 

[Brian2]

Pace Palm....
there is no "crucifixion" of Inanna (in the myth/story she did "rise" and "ascend from the underworld" -- I will grant that)

oh yeah, he will grant that. That's because the Inanna story IS A DYING/RISING DEMIGOD SAVIOR. The Jesus story was written during Roman rule, their main way of killing people for crimes was crucifixion?
I cannot believe people can be that dim? Not all the saviors were crucified.

I don't think she was really a saviour. If you have to do the same things she did to be saved from the underworld, she is no saviour.
I don't think that she was crucified even though you probably do and Carrier certainly does.
Carrier repeatedly says Inanna was "crucified" and the Sumerian religion "we now know included the worship of a crucified Inanna...." and "the idea of worshipping a crucified deity did predate Christianity...." and "we have here a clear example of many people worshipping a crucified god...."

But no, read her story here, she was not crucified.
Evidence for Jesus: Was Inanna (Ishtar) "Crucified" (Crucifixion)? Was Zalmoxis "Resurrected" (Resurrection)?
Even though using vague generalities supposedly Carrier is no stranger to stretching the truth about the stories to make them look better than they are.

It gets worse.

This amateur thinks that Zalmoxis was not dead or resurrected because his source says Greeks making fun of the Thracian cult worshiping him made up the polemic that he didn’t really die, he just hid in a cave, and thus pretended to have resurrected from the dead. so he doesn't think it's an actual resurrection.

But since he's not a historian, didn't actually read Carriers book, and doesn't know that Herodotus(Histories 4.94–95–96 wrote a polemic explaining that the Greeks wrote that making fun of the Thracian cult.

"But this polemic tells us the Thracians did believe Zalmoxis had died and rose from the dead, and appeared to disciples on earth to prove it (see my discussion in Not the Impossible Faith, pp. 100-05). His disciples then believed they would benefit from his power to bring them into eternal life in paradise.
Herodotus reports that Zalmoxis “fed the leaders among his countrymen” in a hall “and taught them that neither he nor his guests nor any of their descendants would ever die, but that they would go to a place where they would live forever and have all good things,” and then vanished underground “for three years, while the Thracians wished him back and mourned him for dead,” and then “in the fourth year he appeared to the Thracians, and thus they came to believe what he had told them,” thus using his own resurrection to prove theirs

It's also speculated that the original version was 3 days rather than 3 years.
Another demigod who rose from the dead and gets followers to a good afterlife.

From the same site:

Carrier is wrong. Neither Herodotus nor the Thracians/Getae believed Zalmoxis was "buried and [bodily] resurrected" nor did the "Thracians [believe] in the physical resurrection of Zalmoxis...." It was the immortality of the soul that was the Thracian message that also fascinated the Greeks. You can listen to Richard Carrier (MP3 excerpt) try to defend Zalmoxis as a pre-Christian "pagan parallel" and "resurrected" god against Gary Habermas and Mike Licona (from "The Infidel Guy" show).

Zalmoxis was no saviour either. He was a con man according to the Greeks.
But of course Zalmoxis is what you say Jesus is (or those who wrote about Him), con men.
I would say that this story could have been inspiration for the Gospels if I did not believe the Gospels and if the OT did not have the prophecies it has on the death and resurrection of Jesus.
And of course you still need to explain how a dead Jesus managed to fool His disciples that He had risen and why they might believe that if He had not risen.
But of course I guess that people who believe the parallelism of Jesus with gods of other religions usually also believe Jesus did not exist usually so you don't need to explain away Jesus disciples believing and spreading the message.
Some conspiracy theories are right of course but Jesus was a real character in history who did die and had disciples who knew He rose from the dead.

 

[joelr]

Historians say it was influenced by Hellenism because they see religions as syncretic and cannot say that religions are actually true if they want to remain secular historians.
And of course they are probably right to a much lesser extent that you say.

Really? More conspiracy theories? You are doing a tapdance to try and rescue your beliefs.

The historians I listen to are interested in truth. If they felt on any level that any myth was true they would explain why and stand behind their beliefs. There is no "secular" historian. There were some fundamentalists Christians who became historians but they saw that what they believed was not true. So they moved on.
You are actually saying that these historians KNOW that Hellenism isn't really influencing Christianity much at all. BUT, since they want to be secular.....they hide the truth to remain secular.

This. Is. Absurd. This is flat earth. This is 9/11 didn't happen.

If any historian could demonstrate the consensus was wrong and Christainity was unique.....THEY WOULD. THEY WOULD ALSO WRITE A BOOK, get it peer-reviewed and update the field?????????

You have to invent a bizarre fiction to protect your belief. That is not a good sign that you are believing true things.
Historians have to explain in massive detail, using original sources how they reached their conclusion. The idea that Carrier could write a peer-reviewed book and it would contain INCORRECT information is flat out absurd? His sources and side notes take up more space than the actual book? Have you ever read a scholarly monograph?

I suppose the person with the PhD has to be correct because he has a PhD.
But of course what else does a mythicist and sceptic do? The story of Jesus had to come from somewhere and syncretism exists so the Gospels must be from not only the OT but also from other religions in the area..

He's correct because he's generally using the consensus in the field on most opinions. A PhD means you are the person most qualified to research a topic. You learn how to do analysis of sources and understand similarities that are mundane. All source languages and material and histories from the period. And your work is reviewed by your peers.

Gosh, these assumptions? Carrier applied his PhD to do a Jesus HISTORICITY study. He was paid to do this. He expected to confirm the consensus. What he found surprised him.
He became in favor of mythicism only after 7 years of study and writing many books.
He was not a skeptic until he read the entire Bible and recognized it as complete myth.
But it's about the evidence. We have a good idea of where the Jesus story came from. The methodology is laid out with sources, examples, explanations of scholarship methods?

Do you think saying all this about Hindu scripture would be appropriate? "Well the Krishna story happened so skeptics must assume it's syncretic instead of believing the stories?"

It has to be that way because it is not true and Jesus did not even exist.
So even when he finds it hard to find dying and rising saviour gods and when most other secular historians disagree with him and when the only ones he finds that he says were crucified and resurrected bodily were not even crucified

Wait what? OMG. Carrier or any historian NEVER SAID ALL SAVIOR GODS WERE CRUCIFIED?????? OMG? You cannot stop with this apologetic? I though I covered how stupid this is?
Carrier said they are dying/rising savior gods. That is what they are. And followers get some benefit and are often baptized into the cult.
All historians say this. The new video I linked to also says this?

It is not hard to find dying/rising savior Gods? Why are you saying this? Again, from another historian?
"In Pagan Hellenistic and Near Eastern thought, there is no doubt that for millennia before Christ there had been stories of divine beings questing into the underworld and returning transformed in some way."

The video I linked to says it as well?

Carrier details 6 dying/rising saviors who pre-date Jesus? Yet you keep coming back with lies or half truths? Why? Crucifixion is the Jewish addition? Why can you not get this?

or resurrected bodily he ploughs on and goes for vague generalities and of course other sceptics agree because what else can they do.
The true is that it is a religious faith that you have and you want to justify it somehow even though the evidence is not good.

Uh, the evidence is excellent? We have shown this? There are 6 in this blog post which you obviously didn't read?
Dying-and-Rising Gods: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier

• They are all “savior gods” (literally so-named and so-called).
• They are usually the “son” of a supreme God (or occasionally “daughter”).
• They all undergo a “passion” (a “suffering” or “struggle,” literally the same word in Greek, patheôn).
• That passion is often, but not always, a death (followed by a resurrection and triumph).
• By which “passion” (of whatever kind) they obtain victory over death.
• Which victory they then share with their followers (typically through baptism and communion).

More:

A dying-and-rising, death-rebirth, or resurrection deity is a religious motif in which a god or goddess dies and is resurrected.[1][2][3][4] Examples of gods who die and later return to life are most often cited from the religions of the ancient Near East, and traditions influenced by them include Biblical and Greco-Roman mythology and by extension Christianity. The concept of a dying-and-rising god was first proposed in comparative mythology by James Frazer's seminal The Golden Bough (1890). Frazer associated the motif with fertility rites surrounding the yearly cycle of vegetation. Frazer cited the examples of Osiris, Tammuz, Adonis and Attis, Dionysus and Jesus.[5]

While Frazer had critics, since then the amount of scholarship on the topic is vast.

I ask you again. Why did the 2nd century apologists say the devil went back in time to make it look like other saviors were just like Jesus if it wasn't true?


[/QUOTE]

 

[joelr]

From this site:Evidence for Jesus: Was Inanna (Ishtar) "Crucified" (Crucifixion)? Was Zalmoxis "Resurrected" (Resurrection)?

Classical historian and anti-Christian critic Richard Carrier finds evidence for two other "pagan saviors" before Jesus: "I have confirmed only two real 'resurrected' deities with some uncanny similarity to Jesus which are actually reported before Christian times, Zalmoxis and Inanna...." (Richard Carrier, article "Kersey Graves and the World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors" [2003])

Why did you post this? This is a critique by RICHARD CARRIER on Kersey Graves work on crucified saviors before Jesus. Carrier destroys it because he's an amateur and it's complete crank.

This is a perfect example of Carrier being HONEST, which you denied him of in a recent post. Going as far to claim he supresses his findings to remain "secular". Can you even fathom people and scholars are secular because that is what the evidence actually shows?

Well this is great proof that crank scholarship is not supported. Also this article is from 2003. THIS IS BEFORE CARRIER STARTED HIS RESEARCH ON HISTORICAL JESUS? My God?
At this point he backed historicity, the consensus.



The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors: Or Christianity Before Christ is unreliable, but no comprehensive critique exists. Most scholars immediately recognize many of his findings as unsupported and dismiss Graves as useless

 

[joelr]

I don't think she was really a saviour. If you have to do the same things she did to be saved from the underworld, she is no saviour.
I don't think that she was crucified even though you probably do and Carrier certainly does.
Carrier repeatedly says Inanna was "crucified" and the Sumerian religion "we now know included the worship of a crucified Inanna...." and "the idea of worshipping a crucified deity did predate Christianity...." and "we have here a clear example of many people worshipping a crucified god...."

But no, read her story here, she was not crucified.
Evidence for Jesus: Was Inanna (Ishtar) "Crucified" (Crucifixion)? Was Zalmoxis "Resurrected" (Resurrection)?
Even though using vague generalities supposedly Carrier is no stranger to stretching the truth about the stories to make them look better than they are.

As I pointed out once already, that article is by an amateur. If you want to discuss Inanna please source a work by a scholar.

Inanna is 10000 years before Hellenism but was crucified in the original tale. She went through a death, a passion - she descended through the layers of hell, losing clothing at each layer. At the bottom she was naked and killed then HUNG from a nail. After 3 days her God father brought her back to life. The ritual to celebrate her rising involves followers eating the "food of life" and drinking the "water of life".
This is passing elements of immortality (entry into an afterlife) onto followers. This is what a savior does.

This is from pg 46 On the Historicity of Jesus , Richard Carrier.

From the same site:

Carrier is wrong. Neither Herodotus nor the Thracians/Getae believed Zalmoxis was "buried and [bodily] resurrected" nor did the "Thracians [believe] in the physical resurrection of Zalmoxis...." It was the immortality of the soul that was the Thracian message that also fascinated the Greeks. You can listen to Richard Carrier (MP3 excerpt) try to defend Zalmoxis as a pre-Christian "pagan parallel" and "resurrected" god against Gary Habermas and Mike Licona (from "The Infidel Guy" show).

Gary Habermas and Mike Licona are apologists. They are not historians who specialize in the period. But it doesn't matter? Yes the Greeks said Zalmoxis didn't die. Herodotus wrote a polemic ((Histories 4.94–95–96 that describes the Thracians did believe Zalmoxis had died and rose from the dead. His disciples then believed they would benefit from his power to bring them into eternal life in paradise.
It's shown in Carriers book - Not the Impossible Faith, pp. 100-05

So he died, resurrected and his followers gained an afterlife. This. Is. A. Savior.

NOw let me make a guess. On this "Infidel Show" that featured Licona and Habermas, .....Carrier WASN'T THERE TO EXPLAIN THAT THEY WERE WRONG? Was He?

Wow.

Zalmoxis was no saviour either. He was a con man according to the Greeks.
But of course Zalmoxis is what you say Jesus is (or those who wrote about Him), con men.

So you have the Zalmoxis story wrong. If you just believe apologists and don't read historians you will get a false narrative.
No that isn't historicity or mythicism. Both are theories in historicity. The ONLY 2 possible theories. Historicity means there was a human man, a Rabbi teaching Hilellite Judaism and later savior demigod myths were written using him.
Mythicism is the whole thing was made up.
There is no theory that he was a con-man.
Mark, the first gospel is completely full with Kings, Psalms, Pauls stories, Jesus Ben Damius, a transfiguration of Romulus and so on. It's entirely fiction. So if Jesus was a man, whatever he was teaching isn't there beyond a few things. But Rabbi Hilell was known for the same teachings and he was before Jesus.

I would say that this story could have been inspiration for the Gospels if I did not believe the Gospels and if the OT did not have the prophecies it has on the death and resurrection of Jesus.
And of course you still need to explain how a dead Jesus managed to fool His disciples that He had risen and why they might believe that if He had not risen.
But of course I guess that people who believe the parallelism of Jesus with gods of other religions usually also believe Jesus did not exist usually so you don't need to explain away Jesus disciples believing and spreading the message.
Some conspiracy theories are right of course but Jesus was a real character in history who did die and had disciples who knew He rose from the dead.

The authentic Epistles know nothing of an earthly Jesus. Nothing. That started with Mark. Those are myths. No body went missing, no apostles. Those are stories written in 70, a human lifetime after any Jesus. Written in a Greek fictive style. Mark even tells us his main character uses parables. That is how in fiction you tell the reader the story is a parable.
No one saw Jesus risen. That is a savior myth. It isn't in any history.
All historians who mention Jesus are mentioning people who believe what the gospels say.
It's like asking questions about the angel Gabrielle who contacted Muhammad. Or Moroni who gave revelations to Joe Smith.
There wasn't any such angel. Well Paul was also not visited by ghost Jesus. Mark wrote fiction. The resurrection narrative doesn't have to be accounted for, it's a story.
The entire 2nd century was radically different sects that radically disagreed, even on the resurrection. Elaine Pagels goes over other sects in the Lost Gospels. This supports people were arguing over which story to follow.

These various interpretations were called heresies by the leaders of the proto-orthodox church, but many were very popular and had large followings. Part of the unifying trend in proto-orthodoxy was an increasingly harsh anti-Judaism and rejection of Judaizers. Some of the major movements were:

• Gnosticism – second to fourth centuries – reliance on revealed knowledge from an unknowable God, a distinct divinity from the Demiurge who created and oversees the material world. The Gnostics claimed to have received secret teachings (gnosis) from Jesus via other apostles which were not publicly known, or in the case of Valentinius from Paul the Apostle. Gnosticism is predicated on the existence of such hidden knowledge, but brief references to private teachings of Jesus have also survived in the canonic scripture (Mark 4:11) as did warning by the Christ that there would be false prophets or false teachers. Irenaeus' opponents also claimed that the wellsprings of divine inspiration were not dried up, which is the doctrine of continuing revelation.[citation needed]
• Marcionism – second century – the God of Jesus was a different God from the God of the Old Testament.
• Montanism – second century – a pentecostal movement initiated by Montanus and his female disciples, featuring prophetic continuing revelations from the Holy Spirit.
• Adoptionism – second century – Jesus was not born the Son of God, but was adopted at his baptism, resurrection or ascension.
• Docetism – second to third century – Jesus was pure spirit and his physical form an illusion.
• Sabellianism – third century – the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three modes of the one God and not the three separate persons of the Trinity.
• Arianism – third to fourth century – Jesus, while not merely mortal, was not eternally divine and was of some lesser status than God the Father.[note 1]

In the middle of the second century, the Christian communities of Rome, for example, were divided between followers of Marcion, Montanism, and the gnostic teachings of Valentinus.

 

[paarsurrey]

OK, they say water had been on Mars. But the photo of Mars I saw in a journal really showed that the words used to describe the scene might be barren, waste or void. Rocks and lots of them. So the question is -- how do you think Moses knew the earth, at the beginning, was "waste and void;"? (American Standard Version, Genesis 1:2) You think he figured it out that it might have looked that way, although he saw greenery, and animals? I'm also figuring that he couldn't see much on Mars at that point. So how did Moses know the earth's surface was just plain not filled with life as he saw it? Just general reasoning? Of course, the Bible does say that star differs from star...and we know that planets themselves differ from each other.. but so far no one has discovered a planet like the earth as it is now, not conjecture, with trees and animals.

"how do you think Moses knew "

Rest assured that Jesus-God of the Pauline-Christianity did not tell Moses anything about Earth or Mars, please. Right?
If yes, then quote from Jesus in this connection in a straightforward manner in first person, please. Will one, please?

Regards

 

[YoursTrue]

"how do you think Moses knew "

Rest assured that Jesus-God of the Pauline-Christianity did not tell Moses anything about Earth or Mars, please. Right?
If yes, then quote from Jesus in this connection in a straightforward manner in first person, please. Will one, please?

Regards

You perhaps remember that Jesus said God created the first man and woman, is that right? If you need reference to this let me know.

 

[YoursTrue]

"how do you think Moses knew "

Rest assured that Jesus-God of the Pauline-Christianity did not tell Moses anything about Earth or Mars, please. Right?
If yes, then quote from Jesus in this connection in a straightforward manner in first person, please. Will one, please?

Regards

I do know this whether you believe it or not,, the Bible says Moses and God spoke face to face.

 

[Brian2]

It's weird how little followers of the religion sometimes know about the history?

I know what mythicists and syncretists say about the history and I know that they also say that much of the Bible was not written till the Exile. I just don't agree with any of it.

At 4:07 Professor Francesca Stavrakopoulou will explain during the Persian period the OT was revised and canonized.

I haven't got audio on my computer so cannot listen to that. I imaging it will be someone speaking what you have been writing.

Historically, the unique features of Zoroastrianism, such as its monotheism,[5] messianism, belief in free will and judgement after death, conception of heaven, hell, angels, and demons, among other concepts, may have influenced other religious and philosophical systems, including the Abrahamic religions
Mary Boyce, pg 29 Zoroastrianism.

May have? Where's your faith?

We can see syncretism happen in every single religion. Somehow you are suggesting it didn't happen in just one? Yet Genesis is a re-working of both Mesopotamian creation myths, it uses lines from the Gilamesh. flood story verbatim, same with several other myths. But the Hellenistic elements were before Christianity and has saviors, supreme gods replacing national gods, baptism, eucharist, souls that are fallen but can be redeemed and go to heaven, the word made flesh, and much more.
The Persians has virgin born world saviors, Satan as an enemy of God in an eternal war and Revelations. Both cultures occupied Israel for centuries and your cognative bias goes so far that you don't think there is religious syncretism?

The flood happened, the creation happened, where is the copying of Genesis except in the mind of syncretists?
Did the Persians have virgin born world saviours? Could you name some for me.
You and Carrier do overstate the case for the similarities between other religions and Christianity, reading into things what aren't there and even when I point out the OT prophecies that Jesus fulfilled, all you can say is that the gospel story was copied from those prophecies also.
You start off with the idea that God is not true and the supernatural is not true and Jesus is a myth and then you say that I have cognitive bias.

All you are doing here is saying "well all these stories in the Bible are real so there is no syncretism in this case". First, no proof. Second, evidence shows syncretism.

I have faith and I don't mind admitting that. You have no real evidence, just suppositions, but you don't like saying that your conclusions are because of your beliefs.

But it's even worse. Now you have to say this story is true and it's all a big coincidence that all the surrounding cultures had similar myths, BEFORE the real ones happened? Even the myths about Moses are in earlier Egyptian stories?

What you are arguing is absurd. It's the biggest special pleading ever.

Your evidence is weak imo.
It's no coincidence that some religious themes in other religions are also in Judaism and Christianity,,,,,,,,,,,it's just religion and their themes. But as I say you overstate to the point of absurdity.

what do you mean "not expert"? He's a PhD historian? He spent 6 years studying the historicity of Jesus, he's an expert on the NT, all the historians of the period, all the languages, mystery religions?

How dare you post sources by COMPLETE AMATEUR apologetics, then say Carrier is "not an expert". This is the most absurd, ridiculous and desperate thing you have said.

Not only that but all historians agree about the Greek and Persian influences? He is in favor of mythicism which about 20 scholars are now in favor of. Mythicism has no bearing on this matter.
All historians consider the Gospel narratives to be a mythicized savior story that a human teacher named Jesus was placed into.
All scholarship recognizes the influence of Greek and Persian myths on Christianity.

OK he is an expert. But from my pov as a non expert, you don't have to be an expert to see he is wrong and it can be fairly easy for me with a lack of bias in that direction and with my bias in the direction of the Bible being correct.
I don't think you can really divorce his views about this plagiarism from his Jesus myth views.

Professor Francesca Stavrakopoulou, also agrees Christianity is a mystery religion. I can post a video of her saying that as well.

What is the mystery in Christianity that only initiates are told?

Oh look, they also agree on the canonization of the OT during the Persian period.

And what does that prove? Certainly not that the books were changed.

As well as the Britannica entry on Hellenistic religion and it's influence on other religions (they mention Jesus and Yahweh by name)

Hellenistic religion - Beliefs, practices, and institutions

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hellenistic-religion/Beliefs-practices-and-institutions

Many things are said about YHWH and Jesus by secular scholars and the thing they have in common is that they deny what the Bible tells us.

The Hellenistic change that religions went through describes the transition from Judaism to Christianity EXACTLY.

It describes what happened after Jesus lived and died and rose from the dead, exactly. Christianity can be seen in the OT, the New Covenant, the promise of a saviour for the Gentiles and Jews etc. All this happened and you deny that it happened and that Jesus lived and go for syncretism because you start with atheism and analyse everything through those eyes. It's called circular reasoning and confirmation bias etc and no doubt you say that of me and I agree and you deny it of yourself.

-the seasonal drama was homologized to a soteriology (salvation concept) concerning the destiny, fortune, and salvation of the individual after death.

Did the soteriology come before or after Christianity?
Do you think that this concern may have been put into the hearts of people to prepare them for Jesus.
I don't really mind if you say special pleading.

-- The basic forms of worship of both the Jewish and Christian communities were heavily influenced in their formative period by Hellenistic practices, and this remains fundamentally unchanged to the present time. Finally, the central religious literature of both traditions—the Jewish Talmud (an authoritative compendium of law, lore, and interpretation), the New Testament, and the later patristic literature of the early Church Fathers—are characteristic Hellenistic documents both in form and content.

It is amazing where you can end up if you start off by denying the authenticity of certain books. You end up going down that path and believing it no matter what.

-- -Other traditions even more radically reinterpreted the ancient figures. The cosmic or seasonal drama was interiorized to refer to the divine soul within man that must be liberated.

Yes the gnostics were spoken against in the NT.

Thanks for that run down of thought on mystery religions etc

 

[Brian2]

I have already explained to you in several posts on how there are too many errors in the book of Daniel, as to why the author (of Daniel) couldn’t be contemporary to Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar and Cyrus.

Why do you need me to explain everything again?

As I said in earlier posts, there are a number of both Babylonian and Persian sources that were contemporaries to the 6th century BCE, and it is these sources that demonstrated the author and book of Daniel, don’t have contemporary knowledge of Babylonian history.

Daniel 5’s claim that Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar were father and son...,wrong! Nebuchadnezzar’s son was Amel-Marduk, not Belshazzar. Belshazzar’s father was Nabonidus.

Daniel 5 stated that Belshazzar was king at the time of Babylon’s Fall...again, wrong. Nabonidus was the last Babylonian king of the Neo-Babylonian empire.

Daniel 5 & 6, claimed that it was Darius the Mede was one who taken Babylon...again, wrong. It was Cyrus.

Darius don’t even exist in Babylonian or Persian sources.

It was Cyrus, who became king of Media, when defeated the last Median king, Astyages, in 550 BCE. Cyrus, title was King of Kings; he wasn’t just King of Persia (560 BCE), he was also King of Media (550 BCE, when he defeated Astyages), King of Lydia (547 BCE, when he defeated Croesus), and King of Babylonia after defeating Nabonidus (539 BCE).

That the author of Daniel got these details wrong, make the book as unreliable and invention.

And as I stated earlier, there are no mention of this character “Daniel” in any Persian or Babylonian sources, make it very doubtful of Daniel’s existence.

I thought I already posted information about the answers to some of this stuff concerning the Book of Daniel.
And of course answers to the historicity of the Book of Daniel do exist.
eg.
Daniel: The Basic Issues - The Gospel Coalition
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/daniel_aalders.pdf
Daniel in the Critics' Den

 

[Brian2]

Carrier goes over the scholarship on why Daniel is considered fake.

I have no audio and so cannot listen to this.
But I do know there is scholarship on both sides, the liberal and conservative.

 

[joelr]

I know what mythicists and syncretists say about the history and I know that they also say that much of the Bible was not written till the Exile. I just don't agree with any of it.

There is no such thing as a "syncretist". All historians who study the Bible know the religion is syncretic. Personal beliefs have no bearing on what is true, you cannot present evidence that this highly syncretic religion isn't actually syncretic. Those are just fantasy beliefs not supported by facts.

I haven't got audio on my computer so cannot listen to that. I imaging it will be someone speaking what you have been writing.

It's the consensus that the OT was canonized during the 2nd Temple Period

May have? Where's your faith?

That is what Boyce wrote to not upset Christians too much. Academics often speak about being subtle with historical information because fundamentalists will get upset when you demonstrate their religion is just borrowed myths.

The flood happened, the creation happened, where is the copying of Genesis except in the mind of syncretists?

The world flood has been ruled out by modern flood geology. It could not have happened. There is no such thing as syncretists, just historians. Even Biblical scholars who become historians know Genesis is a re-working of Mesopotamian myths.
Religion Identity and the Origins of Ancient Israel.



KL Sparks, PhD Hebrew Bible, Baptist Pastor,


As a rule, modern scholars do not believe that the Bible’s account of early Israel’s history provides a wholly accurate portrait of Israels origins. One reason for this is that the earliest part of Israel’s history in Genesis is now regarded as something other than a work of modern history. It’s primary author was at best an ancient historian (if a historian at all) who lived long after the events he narrated, and who drew freely from sources that were not historical (legends and theological stories), he was more concerned with theology than with the modern quest to learn “what actually happened” (Van Seters 1992; Sparks 2002 pp. 37-71)

Did the Persians have virgin born world saviours? Could you name some for me.

Sure, from Mary Boyce swork on the Persian religion:

Belief in a world Saviour

An important theological development during the dark ages of 'the faith concerned the growth of beliefs about the Saoshyant or coming Saviour. Passages in the Gathas suggest that Zoroaster was filled with a sense that the end of the world was imminent, and that Ahura Mazda had entrusted him with revealed truth in order to rouse mankind for their vital part in the final struggle. Yet he must have realized that he would not himself live to see Frasho-kereti; and he seems to have taught that after him there would come 'the man who is better than a good man' (Y 43.3), the Saoshyant. The literal meaning of Saoshyant is 'one who will bring benefit' ; and it is he who will lead humanity in the last battle against evil. Zoroaster's followers, holding ardently to this expectation, came to believe that the Saoshyant will be born of the prophet's own seed, miraculously preserved in the depths of a lake (identified as Lake K;tsaoya). When the end of time approaches, it is said, a virgin will bathe in this lake and become with child by the prophet; and she will in due course bear a son, named Astvat-ereta, 'He who embodies righteousness' (after Zoroaster's own words: 'May righteousness be embodied' Y 43. r6). Despite his miraculous conception, the coming World Saviour will thus be a man, born of human parents, and so there is no betrayal, in this development of belief in the Saoshyant, of Zoroaster's own teachings about the part which mankind has to play in the great cosmic struggle. The Saoshyant is thought of as being accompanied, like kings and heroes, by Khvarenah, and it is in Yasht r 9 that the extant Avesta has most to tell of him. Khvarenah, it is said there (vv. 89, 92, 93), 'will accompany the victorious Saoshyant ... so that he may restore 9 existence .... When Astvat-ereta comes out from the Lake K;tsaoya, messenger of Mazda Ahura ... then he will drive the Drug out from the world of Asha.' This glorious moment was longed for by the faithful, and the hope of it was to be their strength and comfort in times of adversity.

Just as belief in the coming Saviour developed its element of the miraculous, so, naturally, the person of the prophet himself came to be magnified as the centuries passed. Thus in the Younger Avesta, although never divinized, Zoroaster is exalted as 'the first priest, the first warrior, the first herdsman ... master and judge of the world' (Yt 13. 89, 9 1), one at whose birth 'the waters and plants ... and all the creatures of the Good Creation rejoiced' (Y t 13.99). Angra Mainyu, it is said, fled at that moment from the earth (Yt 17. 19); but he returned to tempt the prophet in vain, with a promise of earthly power, to abjure the faith of Ahura Mazda (Vd 19 .6

You and Carrier do overstate the case for the similarities between other religions and Christianity, reading into things what aren't there and even when I point out the OT prophecies that Jesus fulfilled, all you can say is that the gospel story was copied from those prophecies also.
You start off with the idea that God is not true and the supernatural is not true and Jesus is a myth and then you say that I have cognitive bias.

As I have demonstrated, dying/rising demigods were popular before Jesus. Baptism and the Eucharist are from older Greek religions as pointed out in the paper I sourced.
The scholar David Litwa has a new book detailing the similarities in Greek deities who were pre-Jesus to Jesus

Early apologists literally admitted Jesus was just like all the other demigods?

But we have literally no evidence of Gods or supernatural happenings. We do have myths that can be traced back. The NT clearly used the OT as a source of creation, we see this in re-writes of the Kings and Psalms narrative. So yes, there is excellent evidence that the NT was written to fulfill the prophecy, give Judaism their own savior and update the Moses story. All of the evidence favors this.
What you want is this to be a unique, magic story about real Gods because you have become emotionally invested in the myth. Using conspiracy theories against academia isn't evidence.

Just a few OT uses,
-the crucifixion narrative and find a link (a literary source) with the Book of Psalms in the Old Testament (OT):

Mark 15.24: “They part his garments among them, casting lots upon them.”

Psalm 22:18: “They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon them.”

Mark 15.29-31: “And those who passed by blasphemed him, shaking their heads and saying, ‘…Save yourself…’ and mocked him, saying ‘He who saved others cannot save himself!’ ”

Psalm 22.7-8: “All those who see me mock me and give me lip, shaking their head, saying ‘He expected the lord to protect him, so let the lord save him if he likes.’ ”

Mark 15.34: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

Psalm 22.1: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

On top of these links, Mark also appears to have used Psalm 69, Amos 8.9, and some elements of Isaiah 53, Zechariah 9-14, and Wisdom 2 as sources for his narratives. So we can see yet a few more elements of myth in the latter part of this Gospel, with Mark using other scriptural sources as needed for his story, whether to “fulfill” what he believed to be prophecy or for some other reason.

Earlier in Mark (chapter 5), we hear about another obviously fictional story about Jesus resurrecting a girl (the daughter of a man named Jairus) from the dead, this miracle serving as another obvious marker of myth, but adding to that implausibility is the fact that the tale is actually a rewrite of another mythical story, told of Elisha in 2 Kings 4.17-37 as found in the OT, and also the fact that there are a number of very improbable coincidences found within the story itself. In the story with Elisha, we hear of a woman from Shunem who seeks out the miracle-working Elisha, finds him, falls to his feet and begs him to help her son who had recently fallen gravely ill. Someone checks on her son and confirms that he is now dead, but Elisha doesn’t fret about this, and he goes into her house, works his miraculous magic, and raises him from the dead. In Mark’s version of the story (Mark 5.22-43), the same things occur. We hear about Jairus coming to look for Jesus, finds him, falls to his feet and begs him to help him with his daughter. Someone then comes to confirm that she is now dead, but Jesus (as Elisha) doesn’t fret, and he goes into his house, works his miraculous magic, and raises her from the dead.

 

[joelr]

I have faith and I don't mind admitting that. You have no real evidence, just suppositions, but you don't like saying that your conclusions are because of your beliefs.

I'm using the consensus opinion of Biblical scholarship. I am only interested in believing what is true. There is a literary method to understanding when stories are used and copied in different ways, it isn't supposition or guesswork. But besides that most of this is beyond obvious. Your denial that dying/rising savior demigods who undergo a passion, die and resurrect in 3 days getting followers into an afterlife are not similar to the Jesus story is clear you just cannot handle the facts.

Your evidence is weak imo.

It's no coincidence that some religious themes in other religions are also in Judaism and Christianity,,,,,,,,,,,it's just religion and their themes. But as I say you overstate to the point of absurdity.

Yes, dying/rising saviors who rise in 3 days and get followers into heaven, revelations, baptism, eucharist, all the Hellenistic traits below are from a different scholar. David Litwa s new book on Jesus and Greek deities...All facts

I don't think you can really divorce his views about this plagiarism from his Jesus myth views.

No, no all historians agree with the syncretism? Wright, Sanders, Hundley, Carrier. Boyce
Again, 6 dying/rising demigods before Jesus. Baptism/eucharist, before Jesus, virgin born world saviors born to a human, before Jesus. All of the changes from Judaism to Christianity, from Hellenism.

It isn't about bias, it's just facts.


Christianity is a combination of Hellenism (pagan) and Judaism. These are the Hellenistic traits that all of the religions were adopting from 300B.C and transforming into mystery religions. Judaism did the exact same thing.


Hellenistic religion - Beliefs, practices, and institutions


-his led to a change from concern for a religion of national prosperity to one for individual salvation, from focus on a particular ethnic group to concern for every human. The prophet or saviour replaced the priest and king as the chief religious figure.

-his process was carried further through the identification of the experiences of the soul that was to be saved with the vicissitudes of a divine but fallen soul, which had to be redeemed by cultic activity and divine intervention. This view is illustrated in the concept of the paradoxical figure of the saved saviour, salvator salvandus.
-Other deities, who had previously been associated with national destiny (e.g., Zeus, Yahweh, and Isis), were raised to the status of transcendent, supreme

-The temples and cult institutions of the various Hellenistic religions were repositories of the knowledge and techniques necessary for salvation and were the agents of the public worship of a particular deity. In addition, they served an important sociological role. In the new, cosmopolitan ideology that followed Alexander’s conquests, t

-Most of these groups had regular meetings for a communal meal that served the dual role of sacramental participation (referring to the use of material elements believed to convey spiritual benefits among the members and with their deity)

-Hellenistic philosophy (Stoicism, Cynicism, Neo-Aristotelianism, Neo-Pythagoreanism, and Neoplatonism) provided key formulations for Jewish, Christian, and Muslim philosophy, theology, and mysticism through the 18th century

- The basic forms of worship of both the Jewish and Christian communities were heavily influenced in their formative period by Hellenistic practices, and this remains fundamentally unchanged to the present time. Finally, the central religious literature of both traditions—the Jewish Talmud (an authoritative compendium of law, lore, and interpretation), the New Testament, and the later patristic literature of the early Church Fathers—are characteristic Hellenistic documents both in form and content.

-Other traditions even more radically reinterpreted the ancient figures. The cosmic or seasonal drama was interiorized to refer to the divine soul within man that must be liberated.

-Each persisted in its native land with little perceptible change save for its becoming linked to nationalistic or messianic movements (centring on a deliverer figure)

-and apocalyptic traditions (referring to a belief in the dramatic intervention of a god in human and natural events)

- Particularly noticeable was the success of a variety of prophets, magicians, and healers—e.g., John the Baptist, Jesus, Simon Magus, Apollonius of Tyana, Alexander the Paphlagonian, and the cult of the healer Asclepius—

What is the mystery in Christianity that only initiates are told?

we are entrusted with the mysteries God has revealed (1C 4:1)

(do not) be ignorant of this mystery (R. 11:25)

The message I proclaim about Jesus Christ is in keeping with the mystery hidden for long ages past but now revealed (R 16:25)

We speak a message of wisdom among the mature......and declare Gods wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden (1C 2:6. 7)

Listen I tell you a mystery we will not all sleep but will all be changed( 1C 15:51)

I could not address you as people who live by the spirit but as people who are still worldly - mere infants in Christ. I give you milk not solid food, for you were not ready for it. Indeed you are still not ready. (1C 3:1. 2)


All common mystery cult terminology. Clearly conceiving the religion in mystery terms


Anyone living on milk, being still an infant is not aquainted about the teachings of righteousness. But solid food is for the mature.(H 5:13, 14)

This child-milk adult - solid food is a common allegory for the revealed mystery teachings.

And what does that prove? Certainly not that the books were changed.

Books were often re-written. During the 2nd Temple Period a belief started that the reason they were being invaded was punishment for not being Yahweh centric enough. Ashera and any other divinities were done away with. In the link to Professor Stravopolou she explains this happens during the Persian occupation. So yes, things were changed.

Many things are said about YHWH and Jesus by secular scholars and the thing they have in common is that they deny what the Bible tells us.

They, as most rational people, are saying they are stories written by people, not by Gods. Religious myths, same as all others.
But archaeology has shown there was no Exodus. and Israelites came from Canaanites.
King Solomon was a much smaller scale kingdom. More like a town. Genesis is a re-write of Mesopotamian creation/flood myths.
Revelations is a Persian myth.
The NT is definitely a fictional narrative and Acts is a shipwreck narrative borrowing from Homer and so on. The sun didn't blot out and saints didn't raise from the grave. No one rose from the dead.

History also tells you Zeus didn't live on a mountain? Or Heracles was a myth. You need evidence to show those things happened. You don't just see them in a story and go "wow, ok that must have happened, because it says so......"

It describes what happened after Jesus lived and died and rose from the dead, exactly. Christianity can be seen in the OT, the New Covenant, the promise of a saviour for the Gentiles and Jews etc. All this happened and you deny that it happened and that Jesus lived and go for syncretism because you start with atheism and analyse everything through those eyes. It's called circular reasoning and confirmation bias etc and no doubt you say that of me and I agree and you deny it of yourself.

Fist, no it does not. Those Hellenistic elements as the article says started blending into other religions around 300B.C. BEFORE JESUS. The Jesus narrative is a myth written by a Jewish/Greek scholar from the Greek school. The evidence tha Mark is a mythical narrative is 100% The stories are Greek/Persian myths blended with OT narratives, a transfiguration of the Romulus narrative and other fiction.

There is no historical evidence, no evidence of Yahweh or any God ever or anything supernatural from the Bible to ghost stories. It's all fiction. The evidence for Jesus is equal to the evidence for Islam or Lord Krishna. There is no confirmation bias, not even a little.

We have no evidence of any God except stories that look like myths. The stories themselves contain ideas in older myths. No confirmation of anything being historical. So there is no place here where confirmation bias could be used. Stories by anonymous authors that mirror older stories do not get a free pass. They are not real without evidence.


Again, please tell me why early apologists said Satan went back in time and made Jesus look like a copy of older Gods so Christains would think Jesus was justs a copy of Romulus and so on?

If Jesus wasn't actually similar why would they need to do this?


Do you think that because you don't believe Islam is actually true that you are using confirmation bias and circular reasoning? Are you using confirmation bias because you don't believe in Lord JKrishna? The stories say he's true? The story says the Angel Gabrielle came to Muhammad to update Christianity? That is what the story says, so you must be using confirmation bias if you don't believe it!


That is how ridiculous your logic is.

 

[joelr]

Did the soteriology come before or after Christianity?


Do you think that this concern may have been put into the hearts of people to prepare them for Jesus.


I don't really mind if you say special pleading.

OMG? The point is this is all PRE_CHRISTIANITY because this is where the religion came from????



"Hellenistic religion, any of the various systems of beliefs and practices of eastern Mediterranean peoples from 300 BC ....."



The Greek occupied the Jewish lands 100 years before Christianity. Yes, it's all before Jesus?

It is amazing where you can end up if you start off by denying the authenticity of certain books. You end up going down that path and believing it no matter what.

Again, you seem to think one should look at a religious myth and assume, it's all original, it's all true and go from there. Of course if one did this with the Quran or the Mormon scripture you would probably find this insane? Should history books read Joseph Smith encountered the angel Moroni and recieved golden plates and it turns out the American Indians are actually sinners who had their skin burnt red. Bummer for them. Says it right there however? Sorry doesn't work that way. Scholars can see where the christian myths came from. Hellenism/Persian religious myths influenced Hebrew religious leaders from 500-100B.C. We see their myths enter Judaism and Christianity. scholars don;t just cover their eyes and ears and say "NOOOOOOO, CHristainity started all this new stuff...."
It doesn't deny the authenticity of a new religion. It just happens all religions are syncretic. This is a fact. You desparately want it to be unique and seem to think historians should say "well, even though baptism, souls going to heaven, saviors and eucharist and so on, even though it comes from Greek myths going to 300 B.C. since Christianity is the actual real version they didn't copy it from anyone else. Yeah, they blocked their eyes anytime they left the church and blocked their ears during the occupation and made buzzing noises so they wouldn't hear any Persian or Greek myths..."

Expect the Bible tells us this isn't true. The Persian emissary - Seven years later, Cyrus the Great, who allowed the Jews to return to their homeland and rebuild the Temple, - was very much liked by the Jews and they were open to the Persian myths.
Of course then the Greeks invaded and the Greek influence on Hebrew theology is not disputed?

"During this time currents of Judaism were influenced by Hellenistic philosophy developed from the 3rd century BCE, notably the Jewish diaspora in Alexandria, culminating in the compilation of the Septuagint. An important advocate of the symbiosis of Jewish theology and Hellenistic thought is Philo.

The Hellenistic World: The World of Alexander the Great

Hellenistic thought is evident in the narratives which make up the books of the Bible as the Hebrew Scriptures were revised and canonized during the Second Temple Period (c.515 BCE-70 CE), the latter part of which was during the Hellenic Period of the region. The gospels and epistles of the Christian New Testament were written in Greek and draw on Greek philosophy and religion as, for example, in the first chapter of the Gospel of John in which the word becomes flesh, a Platonic concept.

And guess what, reading through the list of Hellenistic religious traits, that describes Christianity EXACTLY. Right down to YAhweh becoming national deity and upgrading to Supreme God.
The Syrians, Thracians and several other religions similar to Judaism also were Hellenized and became mystery religions. Some also had saviors. Christianity has mystery elements as well.

Yes the gnostics were spoken against in the NT.

Uh, the NT is where the fallen soul can return to heaven, meaning that your sect also believes this and it was taken from Hellenism. Let's get more scholars in on it.



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.[47] Their culture was profoundly influenced by those of the peoples who ruled them.[47] Consequently, their views on existence after death were profoundly shaped by the ideas of the Persians, Greeks, and Romans.[48][49] The idea of the immortality of the soul is derived from Greek philosophy[49] and the idea of the resurrection of the dead is derived from Persian cosmology.[49] By the early first century AD, these two seemingly incompatible ideas were often conflated by Hebrew thinkers.[49] 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.[47] 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).[40] Gradually, some Hebrews began to adopt the idea of Heaven as the eternal home of the righteous dead.

Ok it's also Roman.

Wright, Sanders, Hundley...all Biblical period historians

 

[joelr]

I have no audio and so cannot listen to this.
But I do know there is scholarship on both sides, the liberal and conservative.

Historians tell it as it is without bias. Theologians often have bias and apologists is psuedo-science. Christian scholarship is pretty unified on the forgeries of Daniel and the fake Epistles however.