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

[joelr]

I'll repeat despite your objections, not one document compares to the Bible in detail and history. It is, yes, a religious document or a document about Israel's relationship with God. Nothing anyone has shown me including the saga of Gilgamesh compares in breadth and detail of reality...yes reality, even though there are some things I don't understand. Since I wasn't there as an eyewitness of these events I take into consideration what I know and believe.

Here are a few lines from the far earlier Persian Revelations, which part lacks detail?


Revelations


but Zoroaster taught that the blessed must wait for this culmination till Frashegird and the 'future body' (Pahlavi 'tan i pasen'), when the earth will give up the bones of the dead (Y 30.7). This general resurrection will be followed by the Last Judgment, which will divide all the righteous from the wicked, both those who have lived until that time and those who have been judged already. Then Airyaman, Yazata of friendship and healing, together with Atar, Fire, will melt all the metal in the mountains, and this will flow in a glowing river over the earth. All mankind must pass through this river, and, as it is said in a Pahlavi text, 'for him who is righteous it will seem like warm milk, and for him who is wicked, it will seem as if he is walking in the • flesh through molten metal' (GBd XXXIV. r 8-r 9). In this great apocalyptic vision Zoroaster perhaps fused, unconsciously, tales of volcanic eruptions and streams of burning lava with his own experience of Iranian ordeals by molten metal; and according to his stern original teaching, strict justice will prevail then, as at each individual j udgment on earth by a fiery ordeal. So at this last ordeal of all the wicked will suffer a second death, and will perish off the face of the earth. The Daevas and legions of darkness will already have been annihilated in a last great battle with the Yazatas; and the river of metal will flow down into hell, slaying Angra Mainyu and burning up the last vestige of wickedness in the universe.

Ahura Mazda and the six Amesha Spentas will then solemnize a lt, spiritual yasna, offering up the last sacrifice (after which death wW be no more), and making a preparation of the mystical 'white haoma', which will confer immortality on the resurrected bodies of all the blessed, who will partake of it. Thereafter men will beome like the Immortals themselves, of one thought, word and deed, unaging, free from sickness, without corruption, forever joyful in the kingdom of God upon earth. For it is in this familiar and beloved world, restored to its original perfection, that, according to Zoroaster, eternity will be passed in bliss, and not in a remote insubstantial Paradise. So the time of Separation is a renewal of the time of Creation, except that no return is prophesied to the original uniqueness of living things. Mountain and valley will give place once more to level plain; but whereas in the beginning there was one plant, one animal, one man, the rich variety and number that have since issued from these will remain forever. Similarly the many divinities who were brought into being by Ahura Mazda will continue to have their separate existences. There is no prophecy of their re-absorption into the Godhead. As a Pahlavi text puts it, after Frashegird 'Ohrmaid and the Amahraspands and all Yazads and men will be together. .. ; every place will resemble a garden in spring, in which

there are all kinds of trees and flowers ... and it will be entirely the creation of Ohrrnazd' (Pahl.Riv.Dd. XLVIII, 99, lOO, l07).

 

[joelr]

The problems with Daniel is that this book was never composed in the 6th century BCE...no, the composition of Daniel was more likely near the mid-2nd century BCE.

Whoever was the original author of Daniel, was more contemporary to the 2nd century Maccabees than to 6th century Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar and Cyrus.

And it would seem that whoever wrote Daniel didn’t know the details of line of reigns in the Neo-Babylonian dynasty, and got history wrong.

For one, Daniel 5 kept referred to Belshazzar as son of Nebuchadnezzar, by saying -

• “his father Nebuchadnezzar” (5:2),
• “your father Nebuchadnezzar” (5:11 & 5:18),
• and “And you, Belshazzar his son” (5:22).

However, contemporary records, like the Nabonidus Cylinder in Ur, the clay cylinder show that Belshazzar’s father to be Nabonidus (Nabû-naʾid, 556 - 539 BCE), not to Nebuchadnezzar.

The only immediate family of Nebuchadnezzar, to rule in Nebuchadnezzar’s place, was his son Amel-Marduk (562 - 560 BCE) and his grandson Labashi-Marduk (556 BCE).

Neriglissar (Nergal-šar-uṣur, 560 -556 BCE), Nebuchadnezzar’s foremost general and son-in-law, usurped Amel-Marduk in 560 BCE (I don't remember if Amel-Marduk was assassinated or not). When Neriglissar died, he was succeeded by his son Labashi-Marduk, who only ruled for 3 months before being assassinated in a coup; a coup that was masterminded by Belshazzar, who elevated his own father Nabonidus, as king of Babylonia.

And despite, Daniel repeatedly referring to Belshadazzar as "king" (another thing that book of Daniel got wrong), his father was king to the end of Neo-Babylonian empire, not Belshadazzar.

Nabonidus was still alive when his reign ended, captured and held as a war prisoner and after Babylon had fallen to Cyrus, not to Darius the Mede

According to Daniel (5:31; 6), it was Darius the Mede who captured Babylon in a bloodless siege, not the historical Cyrus. Darius is a fictional invention, and don't exist in any contemporary records. Cyrus had become king of Media So that's another thing, got wrong about Cyrus and Darius.

There is a Darius, who ruled in the later half of 6th century BCE, after Cambyses II (Cyrus' son). This Darius I or Darius the Great reign from 522 to 486 BCE, and he was a Persian, not a Mede...plus his father was Hystaspes, not Ahasuerus (Daniel 9:1).

There simply was no Darius the Mede.

Recording of Babylonian history, extended from a number of texts, recording the reigns of kings after Nebuchadnezzar (eg Nebuchadnezzar Chronicle), from Neriglissar () to the last king of the Chaldean dynasty, Nabonidus (stele of Nabonidus; Nabonidus Cylinders, there are actually 4 cylinders, the most important ones were discovered at Sippar & Ur; clay tablet known as the Nabonidus Chronicle), as well as recorded events of the Persian king, Cyrus (Cyrus Cylinder, Verse Account Of Nabonidus).

Plus there is also Uruk King List, which have listed all those who ruled in Babylonia in the Chaldean dynasty, including outsiders, like the Persian dynasty to the Seleucid dynasty.

All these sources provide accounts to the history of both Babylonia and Persia, that are either contemporary or near-contemporary, so these provide knowledge to Babylon at this century than the worthless fiction of book of Daniel, which was written 300 years later, hence incredibly unreliable.

History is dependent on piecing together as many different sources as possible, and sorting what events can be verified and what are considered propaganda, and what are literary inventions.

Plus, none of these Babylonian and Persian accounts mention this prophet Daniel, who became adviser to these to these 6th century BCE rulers.

Since neither the book, nor the roles Daniel can be verified, historians now recognize that the book of Daniel is a literary invention.

Exactly, I have two posters talking about how the Bible is so accurate and detailed and historical. One is on about the NT and one about the OT.
Well Acts and Daniel are complete fabrications and it's easily demonstrated.

 

[Brian2]

The problems with Daniel is that this book was never composed in the 6th century BCE...no, the composition of Daniel was more likely near the mid-2nd century BCE.

Whoever was the original author of Daniel, was more contemporary to the 2nd century Maccabees than to 6th century Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar and Cyrus.

And it would seem that whoever wrote Daniel didn’t know the details of line of reigns in the Neo-Babylonian dynasty, and got history wrong.

For one, Daniel 5 kept referred to Belshazzar as son of Nebuchadnezzar, by saying -

• “his father Nebuchadnezzar” (5:2),
• “your father Nebuchadnezzar” (5:11 & 5:18),
• and “And you, Belshazzar his son” (5:22).

However, contemporary records, like the Nabonidus Cylinder in Ur, the clay cylinder show that Belshazzar’s father to be Nabonidus (Nabû-naʾid, 556 - 539 BCE), not to Nebuchadnezzar.

The only immediate family of Nebuchadnezzar, to rule in Nebuchadnezzar’s place, was his son Amel-Marduk (562 - 560 BCE) and his grandson Labashi-Marduk (556 BCE).

Neriglissar (Nergal-šar-uṣur, 560 -556 BCE), Nebuchadnezzar’s foremost general and son-in-law, usurped Amel-Marduk in 560 BCE (I don't remember if Amel-Marduk was assassinated or not). When Neriglissar died, he was succeeded by his son Labashi-Marduk, who only ruled for 3 months before being assassinated in a coup; a coup that was masterminded by Belshazzar, who elevated his own father Nabonidus, as king of Babylonia.

And despite, Daniel repeatedly referring to Belshadazzar as "king" (another thing that book of Daniel got wrong), his father was king to the end of Neo-Babylonian empire, not Belshadazzar.

Nabonidus was still alive when his reign ended, captured and held as a war prisoner and after Babylon had fallen to Cyrus, not to Darius the Mede

According to Daniel (5:31; 6), it was Darius the Mede who captured Babylon in a bloodless siege, not the historical Cyrus. Darius is a fictional invention, and don't exist in any contemporary records. Cyrus had become king of Media So that's another thing, got wrong about Cyrus and Darius.

There is a Darius, who ruled in the later half of 6th century BCE, after Cambyses II (Cyrus' son). This Darius I or Darius the Great reign from 522 to 486 BCE, and he was a Persian, not a Mede...plus his father was Hystaspes, not Ahasuerus (Daniel 9:1).

There simply was no Darius the Mede.

Recording of Babylonian history, extended from a number of texts, recording the reigns of kings after Nebuchadnezzar (eg Nebuchadnezzar Chronicle), from Neriglissar () to the last king of the Chaldean dynasty, Nabonidus (stele of Nabonidus; Nabonidus Cylinders, there are actually 4 cylinders, the most important ones were discovered at Sippar & Ur; clay tablet known as the Nabonidus Chronicle), as well as recorded events of the Persian king, Cyrus (Cyrus Cylinder, Verse Account Of Nabonidus).

Plus there is also Uruk King List, which have listed all those who ruled in Babylonia in the Chaldean dynasty, including outsiders, like the Persian dynasty to the Seleucid dynasty.

All these sources provide accounts to the history of both Babylonia and Persia, that are either contemporary or near-contemporary, so these provide knowledge to Babylon at this century than the worthless fiction of book of Daniel, which was written 300 years later, hence incredibly unreliable.

History is dependent on piecing together as many different sources as possible, and sorting what events can be verified and what are considered propaganda, and what are literary inventions.

Plus, none of these Babylonian and Persian accounts mention this prophet Daniel, who became adviser to these to these 6th century BCE rulers.

Since neither the book, nor the roles Daniel can be verified, historians now recognize that the book of Daniel is a literary invention.

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.

 

[Brian2]

Carrier details them with sources in his Jesus historicity book. It's on his blog as well:

Dying-and-Rising Gods: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier

This is not a CONSPIRACY THEORY? It's from a peer-reviewed 700pg Jesus historicity book by historian Dr Carrier? Scholar Mary Boyce will again be quoted from pg 29 of her book.
Later I will explain that early apologists like Justin M came up with an apologetic that said Jesus was like so many other saviors because Satan prefigured(went back in time) and made those myths look like him. Yes, this is actually real. Modern apologists have desperately tried to stay away from this.
The conspiracy theory is apologetics making you think Christianity is unique which scholarship has long been cringing to behind your backs.

The list of gods demigods that used to be used and said to match Jesus has been debunked.
Carrie seems to recognise this and so comes up with themes instead of details, as if the gods/demigods stories had the same themes (which they do not unless you use a vivid imagination) and of course the conclusion is that the gospels were copied. And of course this uses the usual presumption that all religions have been copied from other religions and tries to fit this in with Jesus.
All this ignores the fact of the themes in the Bible which point to Jesus and the OT prophecies about a saviour who dies and rises and is the son of God and born of a virgin etc There is no need to go elsewhere. The Bible has it all.
Carrie has just taken the whole thing one step further past saying that the Gospels were made up to reflect the OT prophecies and has gone instead to reflect vague themes in stories of other demigods in history.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Never said it was a science text but it is consistent with how it happened physically

Especially if you explicitly ignore how it actually happened physically.

Furthermore I believe that Moses did write Genesis.

A belief for which there is no evidence at all. And in fact a lot of evidence to support the opposite.

 

[gnostic]

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.

I am not saying the Bible is wrong, as a book of theology for Jews or Christians, but as historical accounts, none of the books are reliable.

And we have far more CONTEMPORARY or NEAR-CONTEMPORARY sources from the Babylonia and Assyria than Hebrew sources contemporary to the settings of these books.

But yes, the Book of Daniel was written centuries later, in the 2nd half of the 2nd century BCE. That's not even close to near-contemporary.

And you have actually read my posts. What Book of Daniel say about Belshadazzar, like him being "king" and being the "son of Nebuchadezzar II", are outright wrong.

The book don't match with Nabonidus Cylinder from Ur, which clearly stated he was the son of Nabonidus, not of Nebuchadezzar.

Which sources, should I accept as more likely to be true, the one written during Nabonidus' lifetime (6th century BCE), or Book of Daniel from 2nd century BCE?

You don't understand how history are verified, and which are considered to be reliable or unreliable. There are more than half-dozen sources in 6th century BCE. So the more centuries that have passed (as it is with the Book of Daniel), the less reliable is the source.

Daniel don't even mention the real son of Nebuchadezzar - Amel-Marduk, who succeeded his father, but Amel-Marduk was deposed by Neriglissar (again, which Daniel don't mention), only demonstrate the unreliability of Daniel as source.

And btw, just because some of the biblical books were named after the supposed characters of the stories, it doesn't mean these books were written by characters.

Surely you don't think the judge/prophet Samuel wrote the books of Samuel, especially when Samuel himself died during 1 Samuel.

So Daniel didn't write the Book of Daniel.

Likewise, the gospels were written anonymously during the 1st century CE, and names (Mark, Matthew, Luke and John) were only applied to these gospels by the 2nd century CE church leaders.

If you cannot understand how historicity work, then I have wasted enough of times, explaining to you what you clearly don't understand and most likely you will never understand..

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have come to believe what the Bible says over what historians and claimants who cast doubt on the accuracy of the scriptures.

Why?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Again what I find interesting is that there is no proof, only conjectural opinion. Doesn't matter how well schooled a person is...the future is the future. Things are often not discovered from the past. But doesn't mean nothing happened.

You've got it backwards. It's your view that doesn't have proof or evidence. The view you say you will adhere to no matter what.
Science is evidence-based.

You hold science to a much higher standard than you hold yourself and your views to.

 

[SkepticThinker]

lol, not random, I love that. That missing genetic link -- from branch swinging monkeys to "homo erectus." lol ok...

What missing genetic link?

Why are all your talking points about evolution about 50 years out of date and/or irrelevant?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I didn't make up the fact that there is no evidence of genetic shift in actuality from gorillas, bonobos, etc and humans. There's that "missing link." So with all the bones, not one shred (literally) of genetic proof that monkeys or bonobos or gorillas evolved to become humans.

For the millionth time, nobody says that monkeys, gorillas or bonobos "evolved to become humans."

You do not understand evolution and your lack of any attempt to actually understand it is pretty alarming.

 

[joelr]

The list of gods demigods that used to be used and said to match Jesus has been debunked.

It has not? There are apologetics about how Horus and Mithras are not dying/rising savior gods. That's because they are not Gods who resurrect and D.M. Murdock made that claim years ago. She was a scholar but not a historian.
Then there are some terrible apologetics that say ridiculous stuff like "oh well the other dying/rising Gods were not on a cross....." and nonsense stuff like that. As if they don't get that each myth is different?

But I don't think you even know what you mean when you say this. Debunked? It's history? There are 6 demigods who were saviors, died and resurrected and through their struggle got followers into an afterlife. Those are historical facts? The sources are even in the blog post? That isn't in debate?
Again, 2nd century apologists actually had to say Satan went back in time and made these stories look like Jesus copies to fool Christians. That was THE apologetic for centuries? Do I need to post the sources with examples again?

But please, show me what you mean by "debunked".

Mithras did have -
The idea of the outpouring of blood leading to salvation seems to be present also in Mithraism with the myth of the slaying of a primal bull.
from the paper :
The Relationship between Hellenistic Mystery Religions and Early Christianity:
A Case Study using Baptism and Eucharist
Jennifer Uzzell

who also of course says there were earlier demigods similar to Jesus.

Any historian of the period knows this? Hebrew Bible professor Francesca Stavrakopoulou also talks about this in a recent interview. Being Greek and growing up secular and studying myths in the original language (not the American encyclopedia versions) she was shocked when she grew up and realized people thought Jesus was a unique story.

Carrie seems to recognise this and so comes up with themes instead of details, as if the gods/demigods stories had the same themes (which they do not unless you use a vivid imagination)

You fell right into that cliche? You actually used the apologetic I just brought up? Please try and get this.
"Every dying-and-rising god is different. Every death is different. Every resurrection is different. All irrelevant. The commonality is that there is a death and a resurrection. Everything else is a mixture of syncretized ideas from the borrowing and borrowed cultures, to produce a new and unique god and myth. In my article on virgin births, I also mentioned this about resurrected gods, with citations of all the evidence I already published under peer review in On the Historicity of Jesus (pp. 45-47, 56-58, 98-100, 105-06, 168-73, 225-29). I also list and discuss a lot of the evidence and theology of resurrection in the world Christianity was born from and in full knowledge of—both Jewish and Pagan—in Not the Impossible Faith (Chapter 3). But on my blog, in the same paragraph, I also mentioned Derreck Bennett’s article, “Ehrman Errs: Yes, Bart, There Were Dying & Rising Gods,” as making a start on showing this. "

themes instead of details

These are details. There is more elaboration in his book OHJ. These are the basic shared details. Jesus is a Jewish version so it will be a unique story in ways just like the Syrain and Thracian versions are different. This isn't difficult? A son/daughter of a supreme God brings salvation from a resurrection? If we see that emerging in the same area during the Hellenistic wave spreading through religions, that is an obvious trend?
The first list is Hellenism which is the main source of the myths and concepts. All of these similarities happening exactly as religious syncretism does happen and you actually say it takes a "vivid imagination" to put this together? That is delusional. Or denial.

The general features most often shared by all these cults are (when we eliminate all their differences and what remains is only what they share in common):

• They are personal salvation cults (often evolved from prior agricultural cults).
• They guarantee the individual a good place in the afterlife (a concern not present in most prior forms of religion).
• They are cults you join membership with (as opposed to just being open communal religions).
• They enact a fictive kin group (members are now all brothers and sisters).
• They are joined through baptism (the use of water-contact rituals to effect an initiation).
• They are maintained through communion (regular sacred meals enacting the presence of the god).
• They involved secret teachings reserved only to members (and some only to members of certain rank).
• They used a common vocabulary to identify all these concepts and their role.
• They are syncretistic (they modify this common package of ideas with concepts distinctive of the adopting culture).
• They are mono- or henotheistic (they preach a supreme god by whom and to whom all other divinities are created and subordinate).
• They are individualistic (they relate primarily to salvation of the individual, not the community).
• And they are cosmopolitan (they intentionally cross social borders of race, culture, nation, wealth, or even gender).

You might start to notice we’ve almost completely described Christianity already. It gets better. These cults all had a common central savior deity, who shared most or all these features (when, once again, we eliminate all their differences and what remains is only what they share in common):

• 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).
• They also all have stories about them set in human history on earth.
• Yet so far as we can tell, none of them ever actually existed.

This “common package” was indeed simply “syncretized” with Jewish elements, ideas, requirements, and sensitivities . The mytheme was simply Judaized. And thence Christianity was born. The “differences” are the Jewish element. The similarities are what were adopted from the widespread mythemes raging with popularity everywhere around them.

But again, early apologists had to say the devil went back in time and made the earlier savior demigods look exactly like Jesus. That is how they dealt with the obvious similarities. - from the same paper:
" In fact they were sufficiently obvious to the early Christian apologists that they felt obliged to offer some explanation for them, particularly since, to their embarrassment, it was clear that the Mystery rituals predated their own. The most common explanation, offered by many Christian apologists including Firmicus Maternus, Tertullian and Justin Martyr, was that demons had deliberately prefigured Christian sacraments in order to lead people astray. This explanation has sufficed for Christians over countless centuries, and indeed scholastic bias towards the assumed uniqueness, primacy and superiority of Christianity is one of the major methodological pitfalls encountered by those engaged in the comparative study of Christianity and the Mysteries. "

In Dialogue 69 Justin Martyr actually says the passions of Jesus are no different than those of Dionysis and so forth.....he just claims the Jesus story is the true version.


What did I say modern apologists do instead? Denial. For example how did you start this post?

 

[joelr]

and of course the conclusion is that the gospels were copied.

We know that Matthew copied Mark, that is 100% in scholarship. Most historians extend that to all gospels. Mark is using several sources. Obviously these dying/rising savior demigods were popular (Inanna the 1st version, Sumerian even resurrected in 3 days) but Mark uses Pauls letters, Psalms, there is a transfiguration of the Romulus narrative ( a popular device in Greek fiction) and other sources from the OT.

So the gospels are really high level fiction. Ring structure, triadic inversions, all the markers of high level Greek school fiction is in Mark. They were not "copied" in that sense.


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?”

And of course this uses the usual presumption that all religions have been copied from other religions and tries to fit this in with Jesus.

It's called religious syncretism. It's well known and there are actual literary methods to demonstrate a work is sourced from another work. It isn't just amateur parallel-mania.

There is no debate that Judaism first used older myths, Mesopotamian for one then used Hellenism and Persian myths during the occupation. There are so many sources and historians to source on this?

Even souls that go to heaven is a Greek borrowing.


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.

Heaven - Wikipedia

All this ignores the fact of the themes in the Bible which point to Jesus and the OT prophecies about a saviour who dies and rises and is the son of God and born of a virgin etc There is no need to go elsewhere. The Bible has it all.

.

In historicity it is known the messianic ideas came into Judaism from Persian and then Greek sources during the centuries each culture occupied the Hebrew nation. This period is when the OT was canonized and late books were written. They wanted a messianic savior of their own, everyone was getting one. The Persian scripture is from ~ 1600B C


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.



So Christians can pretend all the stories are self contained and it all started with the one religion and you will get this sort of "history" in church. The truth is it's no different than all religions and it's highly syncretic.

Just because the church put forth a literalist narrative (that didn't start until later) and tried to change history doesn't make it true.

Carrie has just taken the whole thing one step further past saying that the Gospels were made up to reflect the OT prophecies and has gone instead to reflect vague themes in stories of other demigods in history.

No, this is completely wrong. He's just demonstrating that dying/rising saviors who went through a passion (the same Greek word is used for all of them) and baptized members who shared in this ritual adoption would get afterlife entry, was already popular before the gospels were written.

The prophecies were probably from the Persian influence.

Mark is a whole mix of stuff, done exactly in the style the Greek school was teaching. It's definitely fiction.

 

[Brian2]

It has not? There are apologetics about how Horus and Mithras are not dying/rising savior gods. That's because they are not Gods who resurrect and D.M. Murdock made that claim years ago. She was a scholar but not a historian.
Then there are some terrible apologetics that say ridiculous stuff like "oh well the other dying/rising Gods were not on a cross....." and nonsense stuff like that. As if they don't get that each myth is different?

But I don't think you even know what you mean when you say this. Debunked? It's history? There are 6 demigods who were saviors, died and resurrected and through their struggle got followers into an afterlife. Those are historical facts? The sources are even in the blog post? That isn't in debate?
Again, 2nd century apologists actually had to say Satan went back in time and made these stories look like Jesus copies to fool Christians. That was THE apologetic for centuries? Do I need to post the sources with examples again?

But please, show me what you mean by "debunked".

Mithras did have -
The idea of the outpouring of blood leading to salvation seems to be present also in Mithraism with the myth of the slaying of a primal bull.
from the paper :
The Relationship between Hellenistic Mystery Religions and Early Christianity:
A Case Study using Baptism and Eucharist
Jennifer Uzzell

who also of course says there were earlier demigods similar to Jesus.

Any historian of the period knows this? Hebrew Bible professor Francesca Stavrakopoulou also talks about this in a recent interview. Being Greek and growing up secular and studying myths in the original language (not the American encyclopedia versions) she was shocked when she grew up and realized people thought Jesus was a unique story.



You fell right into that cliche? You actually used the apologetic I just brought up? Please try and get this.
"Every dying-and-rising god is different. Every death is different. Every resurrection is different. All irrelevant. The commonality is that there is a death and a resurrection. Everything else is a mixture of syncretized ideas from the borrowing and borrowed cultures, to produce a new and unique god and myth. In my article on virgin births, I also mentioned this about resurrected gods, with citations of all the evidence I already published under peer review in On the Historicity of Jesus (pp. 45-47, 56-58, 98-100, 105-06, 168-73, 225-29). I also list and discuss a lot of the evidence and theology of resurrection in the world Christianity was born from and in full knowledge of—both Jewish and Pagan—in Not the Impossible Faith (Chapter 3). But on my blog, in the same paragraph, I also mentioned Derreck Bennett’s article, “Ehrman Errs: Yes, Bart, There Were Dying & Rising Gods,” as making a start on showing this. "






These are details. There is more elaboration in his book OHJ. These are the basic shared details. Jesus is a Jewish version so it will be a unique story in ways just like the Syrain and Thracian versions are different. This isn't difficult? A son/daughter of a supreme God brings salvation from a resurrection? If we see that emerging in the same area during the Hellenistic wave spreading through religions, that is an obvious trend?
The first list is Hellenism which is the main source of the myths and concepts. All of these similarities happening exactly as religious syncretism does happen and you actually say it takes a "vivid imagination" to put this together? That is delusional. Or denial.

The general features most often shared by all these cults are (when we eliminate all their differences and what remains is only what they share in common):

• They are personal salvation cults (often evolved from prior agricultural cults).
• They guarantee the individual a good place in the afterlife (a concern not present in most prior forms of religion).
• They are cults you join membership with (as opposed to just being open communal religions).
• They enact a fictive kin group (members are now all brothers and sisters).
• They are joined through baptism (the use of water-contact rituals to effect an initiation).
• They are maintained through communion (regular sacred meals enacting the presence of the god).
• They involved secret teachings reserved only to members (and some only to members of certain rank).
• They used a common vocabulary to identify all these concepts and their role.
• They are syncretistic (they modify this common package of ideas with concepts distinctive of the adopting culture).
• They are mono- or henotheistic (they preach a supreme god by whom and to whom all other divinities are created and subordinate).
• They are individualistic (they relate primarily to salvation of the individual, not the community).
• And they are cosmopolitan (they intentionally cross social borders of race, culture, nation, wealth, or even gender).

You might start to notice we’ve almost completely described Christianity already. It gets better. These cults all had a common central savior deity, who shared most or all these features (when, once again, we eliminate all their differences and what remains is only what they share in common):

• 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).
• They also all have stories about them set in human history on earth.
• Yet so far as we can tell, none of them ever actually existed.

This “common package” was indeed simply “syncretized” with Jewish elements, ideas, requirements, and sensitivities . The mytheme was simply Judaized. And thence Christianity was born. The “differences” are the Jewish element. The similarities are what were adopted from the widespread mythemes raging with popularity everywhere around them.

But again, early apologists had to say the devil went back in time and made the earlier savior demigods look exactly like Jesus. That is how they dealt with the obvious similarities. - from the same paper:
" In fact they were sufficiently obvious to the early Christian apologists that they felt obliged to offer some explanation for them, particularly since, to their embarrassment, it was clear that the Mystery rituals predated their own. The most common explanation, offered by many Christian apologists including Firmicus Maternus, Tertullian and Justin Martyr, was that demons had deliberately prefigured Christian sacraments in order to lead people astray. This explanation has sufficed for Christians over countless centuries, and indeed scholastic bias towards the assumed uniqueness, primacy and superiority of Christianity is one of the major methodological pitfalls encountered by those engaged in the comparative study of Christianity and the Mysteries. "

In Dialogue 69 Justin Martyr actually says the passions of Jesus are no different than those of Dionysis and so forth.....he just claims the Jesus story is the true version.


What did I say modern apologists do instead? Denial. For example how did you start this post?

If the links below take you to a page, don't forget to scroll up and down to see other gods compared to Jesus. Debunked is the word and they don't even all have the same themes as Jesus. As I said, you have to have a good imagination to see the similarities really and as one of the authors below says, the only way you would be able to see them is to assume that the gospels of Jesus were influenced by them.
As I said, Jesus is in the pages of the OT and does not need other supposedly dying and rising gods.

Question: Was the Resurrection of Jesus based on stories from Near Eastern mythologies?
Evidence for Jesus: Was Inanna (Ishtar) "Crucified" (Crucifixion)? Was Zalmoxis "Resurrected" (Resurrection)?
Evidence for Jesus and Parallel Pagan "Crucified Saviors" Examined
Evidence for Jesus and Parallel Pagan "Crucified Saviors" Examined

 

[Brian2]

We know that Matthew copied Mark, that is 100% in scholarship. Most historians extend that to all gospels. Mark is using several sources. Obviously these dying/rising savior demigods were popular (Inanna the 1st version, Sumerian even resurrected in 3 days) but Mark uses Pauls letters, Psalms, there is a transfiguration of the Romulus narrative ( a popular device in Greek fiction) and other sources from the OT.

So the gospels are really high level fiction. Ring structure, triadic inversions, all the markers of high level Greek school fiction is in Mark. They were not "copied" in that sense.


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?”

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.

In historicity it is known the messianic ideas came into Judaism from Persian and then Greek sources during the centuries each culture occupied the Hebrew nation. This period is when the OT was canonized and late books were written. They wanted a messianic savior of their own, everyone was getting one. The Persian scripture is from ~ 1600B C

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

So Christians can pretend all the stories are self contained and it all started with the one religion and you will get this sort of "history" in church. The truth is it's no different than all religions and it's highly syncretic.

Just because the church put forth a literalist narrative (that didn't start until later) and tried to change history doesn't make it true.

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.

No, this is completely wrong. He's just demonstrating that dying/rising saviors who went through a passion (the same Greek word is used for all of them) and baptized members who shared in this ritual adoption would get afterlife entry, was already popular before the gospels were written.

The prophecies were probably from the Persian influence.

Mark is a whole mix of stuff, done exactly in the style the Greek school was teaching. It's definitely fiction.

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

 

[Brian2]

I am not saying the Bible is wrong, as a book of theology for Jews or Christians, but as historical accounts, none of the books are reliable.

And we have far more CONTEMPORARY or NEAR-CONTEMPORARY sources from the Babylonia and Assyria than Hebrew sources contemporary to the settings of these books.

But yes, the Book of Daniel was written centuries later, in the 2nd half of the 2nd century BCE. That's not even close to near-contemporary.

The Case for a Sixth Century Dating of Daniel. Appendix 3 of Daniel: Faithful Discipleship in a Foreign Land

And you have actually read my posts. What Book of Daniel say about Belshadazzar, like him being "king" and being the "son of Nebuchadezzar II", are outright wrong.

The book don't match with Nabonidus Cylinder from Ur, which clearly stated he was the son of Nabonidus, not of Nebuchadezzar.

Which sources, should I accept as more likely to be true, the one written during Nabonidus' lifetime (6th century BCE), or Book of Daniel from 2nd century BCE?

Answered in link above under "Who is Belshazzar".

Daniel don't even mention the real son of Nebuchadezzar - Amel-Marduk, who succeeded his father, but Amel-Marduk was deposed by Neriglissar (again, which Daniel don't mention), only demonstrate the unreliability of Daniel as source.

Why does the non mention of people mean that Daniel did not know of their existence?

And btw, just because some of the biblical books were named after the supposed characters of the stories, it doesn't mean these books were written by characters.

Surely you don't think the judge/prophet Samuel wrote the books of Samuel, especially when Samuel himself died during 1 Samuel.

So Daniel didn't write the Book of Daniel.

Is that meant to be an argument that shows Daniel did not write the book Daniel?
The book is in the first person in parts and so seems to have been written, at least in part by Daniel.
The book it seems is not in chronological order so maybe someone else put Daniel's notes together.

If you cannot understand how historicity work, then I have wasted enough of times, explaining to you what you clearly don't understand and most likely you will never understand..

I think I can understand how history works but that does not mean that history comes up with the truth all the time......................and it certainly does not mean that if history has not found it, that means it did not happen.

Note the objections to the first solution to the question in the first link.
https://www.stegozoeterno.org/aa-darius-the-mede
Darius the Mede: A solution to his identity

 

[gnostic]

Is that meant to be an argument that shows Daniel did not write the book Daniel?
The book is in the first person in parts and so seems to have been written, at least in part by Daniel.
The book it seems is not in chronological order so maybe someone else put Daniel's notes together.

Seriously?

You do realize that authors today, can write about fictional protagonists in the first-person narratives, where the authors may name the titles of the books after the protagonists?

You really don’t understand the concept of first-person narrative literature, do you?

Have you ever read the one of the two books of Enoch (1 Enoch & 2 Enoch)?

Both books were also ascribed to main character (Enoch) as “author”, the books were named after the protagonist (Enoch), and the books were written in the first person perspective of Enoch (although in some parts it is in 3rd person perspective).

Enoch was the great grandfather of Noah, and Enoch supposedly not only patriarch, but also a prophet who prophecies about the flood, the events of other patriarchs in Genesis, eg Abraham and Jacob, the events of Exodus, and the Israelite kingdoms. These books also supposedly prophecized the messiah (not Jesus) as being the “son of man”.

These 2 books of Enoch, that I can see where they and how they could have influenced Christian writings of the New Testament, the gospels and epistles and Revelation.

Would you be as naïve to think that Enoch was the “real author” of these 2 books as you did with Daniel as author of book of Daniel?

1 Enoch was written by a number of authors, as the first book was large enough to be divided into several parts (parts as in books, eg Watchers, Parables, Astronomical, Dream Visions, Epistle), with the Book of Watchers was written in the 3rd century BCE and the Book of Parables being written possibly in the 1st century BCE. The complete extant book were persevered by Ethiopic Orthodox Church, and hence translated into Ge’ez (Ethiopic), before Aramaic version were discovered in 1946 at Qumran caves (Dead Sea Scrolls). So the Aramaic fragments from Qumran are much older than the whole Ethiopic translation.

Anyway 1st person narrative was quite common in the Hellenistic period, where fictional characters are said to be “authors” of books, like another apocryphal books that were ascribed to Moses, eg Book of Jubilees.

 

[Brian2]

Would you be as naïve to think that Enoch was the “real author” of these 2 books as you did with Daniel as author of book of Daniel?

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.

 

[joelr]

If the links below take you to a page, don't forget to scroll up and down to see other gods compared to Jesus. Debunked is the word and they don't even all have the same themes as Jesus. As I said, you have to have a good imagination to see the similarities really and as one of the authors below says, the only way you would be able to see them is to assume that the gospels of Jesus were influenced by them.
As I said, Jesus is in the pages of the OT and does not need other supposedly dying and rising gods.

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?

Question: Was the Resurrection of Jesus based on stories from Near Eastern mythologies?

https://quidquidestest.wordpress.co...sed-on-stories-from-near-eastern-mythologies/

First of all this isn't written by a historian. This person has no qualifications? Their sources are 3 apologetics books and 2 articles that briefly summarize Inanna and no others.

He says:
" as more archaeological discoveries occurred throughout the twentieth century, more historical evidence mounted that Frazer was incorrect about every “dying and rising god” in his study. In their respective myths, these gods either never really died, or they never really rose from the dead."

Yes, early 20th century views, long debunked, as CARRIER DEMONSTRATED. So here we go, you again have posted a source that demonstrated exactly what I said apologists do?

So guess what, the article CONFIRMS THAT IT'S TRUE?> ----"Those familiar with Christ’s Resurrection accounts from the four canonical Gospels can already see there are some surface similarities between Inanna’s myth and the story of Christ. Both figures were hung in their death: Inanna on the hook, Christ on the cross. Both figures were dead for “three days,” or at least returned to life on the third day. But the differences run deeper than the similarities. Here are a few of them."

That's it? A dying/rising savior who in 3 days time resurrects for the benefit of the followers. Perfect!?

Then he goes over the differences. I already pointed out, the differences DON'T MATTER, each religion makes changes to the story according to their beliefs and lore. I Literally posted Dr Carrier saying that last post?
You went and did the exact thing that has been pointed out as being a fallacy.


Again, same article - "The story of Inanna is one of many pagan myths that share some similarities to the Resurrection of Christ. " Then they go on to say that Inanna wasn't God incarnate and wasn't on a cross!!
I cannot believe you went and did the ridiculous apologetic???? Yes, each story is going to be different? Elements will be added? These apologetics seem to think that it's got to be a literal copy or it isn't syncretism?

Yet, ALL RELIGIOUS SYNCRETISM WORKS THIS WAY, it produces new versions of a basic myth. The basic myth is a dying/rising savior demigod. I already posted a long list of similarities when you actually read all of the source material for each myth. Yet you continue to lie and say it takes "vivid imagination" to see paralells?

Just dying/rising savior demigods who get followers into the afterlife is enough top understand the basic trend. But baptism into the cult, eucharist, and all the similarities listed above show it's obviously a trend going through religions at the time. The origins are Hellenism and Persian myths. Guess who occupied Israel for 4 centuries before Christianity?

His objections are not even good?
"Inanna escapes the Underworld by using her husband as a replacement. "---------" No one takes His place; rather, he takes our place, taking upon Himself the guilt for our sins, "

Yes Judaism was obsessed with magic substitutionary blood atonment as Hebrews 9 shows. Obsessed. Also obsessed with this magic sin-force that we have to rid our bodies of. SO in this version of the rising savior the magic blood atonement forgives sins. A Jewish version of the popular myth.


"Despite the fact that Inanna becomes a corpse, there is no indication in the story that she first becomes human. " ------------"Christ died like we die. Even skeptics who deny Christ’s divinity argue that he did, indeed, die via crucifixion."

Yes except Jesus could do magic so he wasn't all human. Jesus had to die similar as a human anyways because again, Judaism has this "sin-force" it's working with. However, surely you must see that these mundane details in theology are Judaisms take on this myth. To look at mundane details and say stuff like you need a "vivid imagination" to see these are all variations on the same myth is dishonest

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.

 

[joelr]

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

http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/JesusEvidenceCarrier.htm

Your second source, are you serious with this?
" I am an "amateur" Catholic and Christian apologist in the sense I have no formal degrees i"

Well, let's humor this.......OH MY GOD HE DID THE SAME THING!!!!???? The good old apologetic "well Inanna wasn't CRUCIFIED".
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.

So scholars know that West Side Story is Romeo and Juliet. But guess what? It can't be can it? Because Romeo was not SHOT BY A GUN? Wow, I guess I debunked that theory!

The Matrix was a re-write (partially) of Neuromancer. Neuromancer had a computer hacker who hacked into the virtual reality dataspace called the "matrix". Among other similar plot devices. But guess what, it cannot be inspired by that movie! Not at all. His girlfriend wasn't called Trinity and he almost died of poison. Why would anyone think the stories have any connection?


It gets worse.

"Was Zalmoxis "Resurrected""

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.

 

[joelr]

Evidence for Jesus and Parallel Pagan "Crucified Saviors" Examined
Evidence for Jesus and Parallel Pagan "Crucified Saviors" Examined

Oh no, same guy. Your last 2 sources are random internet Christian? Seriously you do not care about what is actually true.
If it were up to religious people we would not even have historians. We could just google information that confirms your beliefs and call it history.

What a mess of disinformation?
First he's quoting 2 fundamentalists NOT HISTORIANS - Ronald Nash, Reformed Theological Seminary. and Bruce Metzger - Princeton Theological Seminary and Bible editor Not Historians.

"The question is whether the mysteries, in respect to origin, can be thought of as a whole. The answer must be affirmative, "

From the historical paper I quoted last time on Mystery religions, which debunks most of this apologetic crank,

"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.
Firstly, it is necessary to establish what we mean by the term “Mystery Religion”, which is not as simple as it might seem. There never was a single Mystery Religion with a cohesive body of doctrine or practice. Rather there were many religions with some common ideology but with as many differences as there were similarities. While it is true that over time a degree of syncretism
occurred and some deities were identified with others or seen as aspects of a single God, it is an over simplification to say that there was a single Faith, as Schweitzer observed. It is not even always clear which of the various religions of the time should be identified as Mysteries at all.

Neither Christianity nor the Mystery religions were immutable. Both changed and developed through time and practice varied widely from one place to another so that it is not a simple matter to make valid comparisons. Just as there is no such thing as a single unified “Mystery Religion” so there was never a single entity that could be called “Christianity”; a fact which even Paul is forced to acknowledge. No clearly defined Christian orthodoxy or orthopraxy existed much before the Fourth Century and the line between “Orthodox” and “Gnostic” Christianity was not yet clearly drawn."

Demonstrating that Nash and Metzger have no understanding oif the historical aspects of the mystery religions.

Another section summarizes Nash:

The difference between the pagan "dying gods" and the meaning of Jesus' death are clear. Nash, The Gospel and the Greeks, page 160-161 states:

• none of the so-called "savior-gods" died for someone else; Jesus Christ the Son of God died in place of His creatures (1 Cor 15:3-4; Romans 5:6-8; 1 John 2:1-2; 1 Peter 2:24; 1 Tim 2:4-6) which is unique to Christianity;

Not true at all - "
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. "

• only Jesus died on the cross for sin, the pagan gods are never claimed to die for sins; they were not crucified (there are in fact NO "crucified saviors" other than Jesus) but died violently by other means (self-emasculation; hunting accident; ripped apart by wild boars or the Titans or crazed women or jealous brothers; etc);

Here is the best apologetic, only Jesus dies by crucificion! Only Neo dies by bullet from computer agent. Jesus dies for sins? Wow, sounds like a Jewish version of the savior myth!

• Jesus died once for all (Heb 7:27; 9:25-28; 10:10-14); many of the pagan gods were vegetation deities whose repeated death and "rebirth" depicted the annual cycle of nature; it is a mythical drama with no historical ties;

And only Judaism has the annual temple sacrifice (several animals killed) to remove the sin-force from the bodies of members. But it only lasted 1 year. With the temple destroyed how could they get a magic blood atonement sacrifice that was permanent? The savior will be a son (demigod) of God (and later will just be God) and it's a one time deal. A new version, a new myth.

• the early Christian church believed its proclamation of Jesus' one-time death upon the cross and bodily resurrection is grounded upon what actually happened in history ("we are witnesses of these things" cf. Acts 1:1-4; 1:8; 2:32; 3:15; 5:32; 10:39-41; Luke 1:1-4; 24:48; 1 John 1:1-3; 2 Peter 1:16).
• unlike the pagan gods, Jesus dies voluntarily (John 10:10-18; Phil 2:5-11);
• Jesus' death was not a defeat but a triumph (1 Cor 15:54-58; Col 2:14-15; 2 Tim 1:10).

Gods before Jesus sacrificed themselves. The resurrection of some savior gods was considered a triumph. Then he says the Jesus death is "historical" and sources fiction about Jesus? It's true because it says it's true?
This is truly amateur work at it's finest.


Do you have any historians, please stop with this. You cannot be serious with this? Putting a bunch of hobbyist apologists against a peer-reviewed Jesus historicity book? By a historian????????