• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Psychologically, religion gave people comfort, hope, and a sense of morality, and on top of that, a purpose in life.

Firstly morality has its precursors in evolution, as all animals that have evolved to live in societal group exhibit this ability. Secondly human morality is entirely subjective, it cannot be otherwise. Lastly the fact that religions can offer succour or comfort is not a sound argument for their claims, in fact it is a reason to immediately suspect bias in their favour. Most people prefer a comforting lie, to an uncomfortable truth.

In Christianity, I find it logically the most make sense, and beneficial to the world, with the least nonsensical rituals.

You're kidding right? Where to start, firstly you have invoked logic here purely as rhetoric, so I challenge you to offer a compelling argument for any deity that does not contain a single logical fallacy, as I have yet to see one. I'll even give you a head start, and point out that the two most common fallacies apologists fall into the trap of using are begging the question and argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies, a close third are circular reasoning fallacies, but these contain begging the questions fallacies anyway. So off you go...

As for the religions having the least nonsensical rituals, I have to suppose you're being ironic?

This is better than individualistic moral standard,

No it isn't, you're simply wrong here, even though human morality is subjective we can objectively measure how well people adhere to commonly held moral standards, law breaking for example, or actions that are almost universally held as immoral by human societies like murder and rape. Not this does not mean all humans hold these as immoral, but human societies almost universally do. There is ample research to show that atheists are at least as moral as theists when using the same moral metric to measure this.

Just being good to another humans and to the rest of the world is what makes it count!

Well now you're contradicting your previous claim?

Even, if you can prove there is really no God, without religion (specifically, Christianity), the world would be more hostile for humanity.

Nonsense.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
That’s why the Bible is the only source for truth for everyone, skeptic or believer.

Right because graven images and freedom of religion is so immoral.
But slaves seem to be in your book. Taking women and children as plunder of war, killing every living thing because the people practice a different religion, women can't speak in church, don't speak to family if they don't believe your fiction....
great truths. Flooding the world, plagues, eternal hell...
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
You aren’t a demon but according to the Bible you are being influenced by demons or the prince and power of the air. I would expel them in the name of Jesus Christ.
“And you were dead in your trespasses and sins in which you previously walked according to the ways of this world, according to the ruler of the power of the air, the spirit now working in the disobedient. We too all previously lived among them in our fleshly desires, carrying out the inclinations of our flesh and thoughts, and we were by nature children under wrath as the others were also.”
‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭2:1-3‬ ‭CSB‬‬

So anyone who disagrees with anything the bible says is being influenced by demons?

Do think slavery is ever morally justifiable in the way it is described in Exodus 21, or are you being influenced by demons? :rolleyes:
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Where can I find one of these demons? How do I know they exist at all?

I've never seen nor heard a demon. So there is no evidence that I'm being influenced by them. So I will dismiss the claim, unless you have some evidence.


First rule of demon club, don't talk about demon club. ;)

Am I the only one who sees the circular reasoning involved here? Oh if you say demons don't exist, then you are probably being influenced like a demon. :rolleyes: I'm reminded of Monty Python, and the sketch about witchcraft, hilarious and depressing glimpse into the pernicious and irrational beliefs humans can hold.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
In your thoughts, you going to accept that all your thoughts come from you? They also take advantage of the fleshly desires, they exploit people there.

Of course they all come from my physical brain, why would I think otherwise? Damage my brain badly enough, and my consciousness disappears forever. Fleshy desires? They're the best kind mun...:D:rolleyes:
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
The bible indeed says what is "truth", if you want to refute that "truth" then good luck because you need to answer why Jesus didn't give up and save himself from torture on the cross which lasted for days. He knew what awaits him, so he could have gave up, like anyone else would do in such situation. nobody wants to be tortured.

Jesus didn't give up and save himself because he is the main character in a Jewish version of the Greek dying/rising savior demigod myth? As Mark tells us, it's a parable.

Again, as we see Mark partially used Psalms when crafting that part of the myth. There are many other obvious sources as well.
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. Pauls letters, a transfiguration of the Romulus narrative and more...
 

paradox

(㇏(•̀ᵥᵥ•́)ノ)
Also Jesus wasn't the first anything. Your logic about Muhammad works for Jesus as well. Not the first virgin born messiah, not the first with human parents, not the first to rise in 3 days or the first to get members salvation, not the first eucharist, baptism....even his crucifixion happened before. So scripture is definitely a fictive story as well.
I might consider this but the issue is that you misunderstood "first and last"
Revelation 3:14 explains the meaning of "first" therefore what you have counted is actually after Jesus, not before.

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.
hm, if you think passages to prophecies and psalms (which are also prophecies) were used as narratives rather than references to fulfillment by apostles while writing NT then that says enough, I mean how else would apostles claim fulfillment if not by referring to OT? why would referring to OT indicate something wrong?

Mark 15.34: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
Which is a quote of Psalms 22:2, jesus' words on the cross, the end of this psalms says that this is God's work.
Do you consider this Jesus' word with meaning or do you consider it as apostles narrative rather than Jesus' last words?
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
I might consider this but the issue is that you misunderstood "first and last"
Revelation 3:14 explains the meaning of "first" therefore what you have counted is actually after Jesus, not before.

Yeah that's a comment about God not the demigod magic blood atonement sacrifice. But still the reference is useless because from 5-300 B.C the Hebrews were greatly influenced by the Persian religion while the Persians occupied Israel. Most of the Persian myths were borrowed by the Hebrews. Revelation was a big one. Sorry, it's. aPersian myth.

"Arising initially in Zoroastrianism (Persian), apocalypticism was developed more fully in Judaic, Christian, and Islamic eschatological speculation"
Apocalypticism - Wikipedia

Revelations

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.




hm, if you think passages to prophecies and psalms (which are also prophecies) were used as narratives rather than references to fulfillment by apostles while writing NT then that says enough, I mean how else would apostles claim fulfillment if not by referring to OT? why would referring to OT indicate something wrong?

Why else? Because Mark was writing a fictional narrative?
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.


Another way Mark develops this theme is through an elegant ring composition, another common literary device popular at the time (used in myth). In the central part of Mark’s narrative (revolving around Jesus’ travel by sea), Mark carefully crafted nested cycles of themes specifically to convey an underlying message about faith and one’s ability (or lack thereof) to understand the gospel. Here is what the ring structure looks like:

Cycle 1:

Phase 1 (4.1-34) — Jesus with crowds by the sea (preaching from a boat)

Phase 2 (4.35-41) — Eventful crossing of the sea

Phase 3 (5.1-20) — Landing with healings/exorcisms

Interval 1: Step 1 (5.21-43) — First stop (after an uneventful boating)

Step 2 (6.1-6) — Second stop

Step 3 (6.6-29) — Going around

Cycle 2:

Phase 1 (6.30-44) — Jesus with crowds by the sea (with an uneventful boating)

Phase 2 (6.45-52) — Eventful crossing of the sea

Phase 3 (6.53-55) — Landing with healings/exorcisms

Interval 2: Step 1 (6.56-7.23) — Going around

Step 2 (7.24-30) — First stop

Step 3 (7.31-37) — Second stop

Cycle 3:

Phase 1 (8.1-12) — Jesus with crowds by the sea (with an uneventful boating)

Phase 2 (8.13-21) — Eventful crossing of the sea

Phase 3 (8.22-26) — Landing with healings/exorcisms

It’s really quite brilliantly crafted when you look at it: three triadically composed intervals, each of which contains one triadically composite minimal unit. Furthermore, every “Phase 1” in all cycles, takes place during the day and describes Jesus’ actions with crowds on one side of the sea. Every “Phase 2” occurs on the evening of that same day (though not stated explicitly in Cycle 3’s “Phase 2”, it is implied by what would have been a long sea crossing), and also describes actions between Jesus and the twelve disciples in the boat while in transit across the sea. Each “Phase 3” represents Jesus’ healing (and/or exorcising) of people who either come to him or that are brought to him following his arrival on the other side of the sea. Then there are other healings or exorcisms that are interspersed among the intervals that follow each “Phase 3”. Each cycle of this triad occupies one day, so the whole ring structure represents three days, ending with a resolution on the third day — all of which concludes by transitioning into a debate regarding who Jesus really is and what the gospel really is (Mark 8.27-9.1, which is the first time we hear Jesus speak about any of this himself).
Total fiction.



Which is a quote of Psalms 22:2, jesus' words on the cross, the end of this psalms says that this is God's work.
Do you consider this Jesus' word with meaning or do you consider it as apostles narrative rather than Jesus' last words?

No it's fiction. Mark is creating this already popular story but a Jewish version. Mark is borrowing from Psalms to create a narrative. By using Barabbas Mark is making a statement about the choice of Messiah.

Additionally, in this story, Mark seems to be pointing out how the Jews are erroneously viewing Jesus as the scapegoat, where Jesus is scorned, beaten, spat upon, crowned and pierced, and dressed in scarlet, and though Barabbas is the actual scapegoat, the Jews mistakenly embrace him instead. So Mark seems to be portraying the Jews as acting completely blind to the situation and choosing their sins (i.e. Barabbas) rather than their salvation (i.e. Jesus). Finally, this story seems to suggest that the Jews have also chosen the wrong model for the expected messiah. Whereas Barabbas could be seen as the murderous revolutionary, in line with the common Jewish belief that the messiah was expected to be a kind of revolutionary military leader, Jesus on the other hand, exemplified the suffering servant model of the messiah (another Jewish messianic model, though arguably less popular than the former), and one that would circumvent any need for a military revolution by enacting a spiritual victory through his death instead. So the Jews appear to have chosen the type of messiah they want, rather than the type of messiah that God wants instead (or so Mark believes anyway). Furthermore, rather than using a random lottery (i.e. God) to choose which “goat” would serve as the scapegoat, and which would serve as the atonement, the Jews removed God from the equation and made the choice themselves. If one looks at all of these elements together, we can see just how brilliant Mark’s story is, having multiple allegorical layers weaved into one.



-
the Gospels appear to be fictional historical biographies, likely written by specially interested Christians whose intent was to edify Jesus, just like many other fictional historical biographies that were made for various heroes and sages in antiquity. In fact, all students of literary Greek (the authors of the Gospels wrote their manuscripts in literary Greek), commonly used this fictional biographical technique as a popular rhetorical device — where they were taught to invent narratives about famous and legendary people, as well as to build a symbolic or moral message within it, and where they were taught to make changes to traditional stories in order to make whatever point they desired within their own stories.

So we already have a bit of contemporary background information showing us that fictional biographies were commonplace at the time,
The Gospels as Allegorical Myth, Part I of 4: Mark
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Therefore what you're saying here is that Jesus never existed??
There may have been a human man who the story was based around. The gospel narratives are definitely fiction. Just like all the other savior demigod saviors, none are real. The changes from Judaism to Christianity are 100% Greek Hellenism which was influencing all the local religions. Petra Pakken details this in his work.
 

samtonga43

Well-Known Member
That may be James opinion but it isn't clear.
Well, one does have to think about it (in context)
It also suggests just belief is enough.
"But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works". James 2:18

What’s the Deal with Faith and Works in James?

These verses aren’t a contrast between faith and works. They’re a contrast between true faith and false faith. Anyone can say they believe in God, even demons (James 2:19)! True faith is proved real because it results in good works. False faith is proved dead because it doesn’t.
 
Last edited:

joelr

Well-Known Member
Well, one does have to think about it (in context)

"But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works". James 2:18

No it says straight up faith is enough?
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Mark 16:16
So one can farm, fish, and pray all day and have no works to show and consider them saved.
Other passages contradict that. It's a contradiction because it's a book written by men.

It doesn't matter about false faith? It says if you have (real) faith that is enough. There are many passages that say that. Like a demon can't do good works to fool people?
Then many that contradict it.

Actually when the canon was chosen in 3AD they likely picked the 4 gospels the 4 most popular churchs were using (1 each) and one of the councils was to unify them. They were not entirely successful.
 
Last edited:

paradox

(㇏(•̀ᵥᵥ•́)ノ)
There may have been a human man who the story was based around. The gospel narratives are definitely fiction. Just like all the other savior demigod saviors, none are real.
Therefore all that you say so far is based on "there is no empirical evidence nor one can be made" and thus it's all fiction - end of story.
But the bible is not evidence based book, ex. giving directions on how to repro something, so claiming fiction does not convince me of anything.

Your arguments about history and influence of nations doesn't convince me either since I find no contradiction with fundamentals of Judaism and OT prophecies.

Most of the Persian myths were borrowed by the Hebrews. Revelation was a big one. Sorry, it's. aPersian myth.

"Arising initially in Zoroastrianism (Persian), apocalypticism was developed more fully in Judaic, Christian, and Islamic eschatological speculation"
Apocalypticism - Wikipedia

Revelations

Zoroaster taught
Jesus, apostle John and prophet Daniel predate Zoroaster several centuries.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Therefore all that you say so far is based on "there is no empirical evidence nor one can be made" and thus it's all fiction - end of story.

Well all supernatural tales need evidence. Would you believe the Quran, Mormon updates or any other religious claims of revelations without excellent evidence? Accepting one set of claims with bad evidence is just a choice. It's not based on good evidence. So yes, stories about revelations are always fiction. This seems to be no exception.

We have good evidence that the OT is Mesopotamisn and during the 2nd Temple Period, messianic saviors and Hellenism occupied Israel and influenced the creation of Christianity. That evidence is vast.



But the bible is not evidence based book, ex. giving directions on how to repro something, so claiming fiction does not convince me of anything.

I'm not trying to convince anyone. I'm speaking out to anyone whos interested in critical thinking, rational and logic based skepticism.
Islamic members could make this same claim yet we know that is fiction. Likely the same here.



Your arguments about history and influence of nations doesn't convince me either since I find no contradiction with fundamentals of Judaism and OT prophecies.

You would need be more specific? Genesis is a re-write of Mesopotamian myths. Job is Babylonian. Wold saviors were encountered 5-300 BC during the Persian occupation.
"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 and "

At 4:04.
Hebrew Bible Professor Francesca Stavrakopoulou explains the influence and canonization of the OT during the 2nd Temple Period.
Ideas of Satan was also influenced by them:

"During the Second Temple Period, when Jews were living in the Achaemenid Empire, Judaism was heavily influenced by Zoroastrianism, the religion of the Achaemenids.[26][8][27] Jewish conceptions of Satan were impacted by Angra Mainyu,[8][28] the Zoroastrian god of evil, darkness, and ignorance"


Jesus, apostle John and prophet Daniel predate Zoroaster several centuries.

That is monumentally incorrect.
The worlds leading scholar on the Persian religion in Biblical times is Mary Boyce, I will source her work.
"
Zoroastrians-Their-Religious-Beliefs-and-Practices-MaryBoyce

"
The language of the Gathas is archaic, and close to that of the Rigveda (whose composition has been assigned to about 1 700 B. c. "

The influence of messianic saviors took place from 5-300 BC during the occupation.

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.

God


t Zoroaster went much further, and in a startling departure from accepted beliefs proclaimed Ahura Mazda to be the one uncreated God, existing eternally, and Creator of all else that is good, including all other beneficent divinities.

Jesus and John are AFTER the 2nd Temple Period and not only influenced by Persian myths but thats' late enough to also be Hellenism. The NT is Hellenism.

"
only in Hellenistic times (after c. 330 BCE) did Jews begin to adopt the Greek idea that it would be a place of punishment for misdeeds, and that the righteous would enjoy an afterlife in heaven."

"
-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.[40]"

E. Sanders historian, Biblical scholar
Heaven - Wikipedia

But seriously, how can Jesus and John pre-date Zoroastrianism when they OCCUPIED ISRAEL IN 5 BC????????????????????Hoe does a Christian not know what the 2nd Temple Period Is????
300 years of Persian rule, 100 years of Greek rule? This is where Christianity came from? Most of the regional religions were Hellenized, had saviors who died/rose and so on?
 
Last edited:

paradox

(㇏(•̀ᵥᵥ•́)ノ)
Well all supernatural tales need evidence. Would you believe the Quran, Mormon updates or any other religious claims of revelations without excellent evidence? Accepting one set of claims with bad evidence is just a choice. It's not based on good evidence. So yes, stories about revelations are always fiction. This seems to be no exception.

We have good evidence that the OT is Mesopotamisn and during the 2nd Temple Period, messianic saviors and Hellenism occupied Israel and influenced the creation of Christianity. That evidence is vast.





I'm not trying to convince anyone. I'm speaking out to anyone whos interested in critical thinking, rational and logic based skepticism.
Islamic members could make this same claim yet we know that is fiction. Likely the same here.





You would need be more specific? Genesis is a re-write of Mesopotamian myths. Job is Babylonian. Wold saviors were encountered 5-300 BC during the Persian occupation.
"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 and "

At 4:04.
Hebrew Bible Professor Francesca Stavrakopoulou explains the influence and canonization of the OT during the 2nd Temple Period.
Ideas of Satan was also influenced by them:

"During the Second Temple Period, when Jews were living in the Achaemenid Empire, Judaism was heavily influenced by Zoroastrianism, the religion of the Achaemenids.[26][8][27] Jewish conceptions of Satan were impacted by Angra Mainyu,[8][28] the Zoroastrian god of evil, darkness, and ignorance"




That is monumentally incorrect.
The worlds leading scholar on the Persian religion in Biblical times is Mary Boyce, I will source her work.
"
Zoroastrians-Their-Religious-Beliefs-and-Practices-MaryBoyce

"
The language of the Gathas is archaic, and close to that of the Rigveda (whose composition has been assigned to about 1 700 B. c. "

The influence of messianic saviors took place from 5-300 BC during the occupation.

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.

God


t Zoroaster went much further, and in a startling departure from accepted beliefs proclaimed Ahura Mazda to be the one uncreated God, existing eternally, and Creator of all else that is good, including all other beneficent divinities.

Jesus and John are AFTER the 2nd Temple Period and not only influenced by Persian myths but thats' late enough to also be Hellenism. The NT is Hellenism.

"
only in Hellenistic times (after c. 330 BCE) did Jews begin to adopt the Greek idea that it would be a place of punishment for misdeeds, and that the righteous would enjoy an afterlife in heaven."

"
-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.[40]"

E. Sanders historian, Biblical scholar
Heaven - Wikipedia

But seriously, how can Jesus and John pre-date Zoroastrianism when they OCCUPIED ISRAEL IN 5 BC????????????????????Hoe does a Christian not know what the 2nd Temple Period Is????
300 years of Persian rule, 100 years of Greek rule? This is where Christianity came from? Most of the regional religions were Hellenized, had saviors who died/rose and so on?
I'm not able to find authoritative source which will tell me that resurrection predates Jesus.
Is there such source? or evidence?
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
I'm not able to find authoritative source which will tell me that resurrection predates Jesus.
Is there such source? or evidence?
Second Temple Judaism
Wright, J. Edward (2000), The Early History of Heaven
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.[40]


Zoroastrians-Their-Religious-Beliefs-and-Practices- MaryBoyce. ~1700 B.C.

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 will 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.



Dr Carrier NT historian: From his peer-reviewed book OHJ
Dying-and-Rising Gods: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier
Not in ancient Asia. Or anywhere else. Only the West, from Mesopotamia to North Africa and Europe. There was a very common and popular mytheme that had arisen in the Hellenistic period—from at least the death of Alexander the Great in the 300s B.C. through the Roman period, until at least Constantine in the 300s A.D. Nearly every culture created and popularized one: the Egyptians had one, the Thracians had one, the Syrians had one, the Persians had one, and so on. The Jews were actually late to the party in building one of their own, in the form of Jesus Christ. It just didn’t become popular among the Jews, and thus ended up a Gentile religion. But if any erudite religious scholar in 1 B.C. had been asked “If the Jews invented one of these gods, what would it look like?” they would have described the entire Christian religion to a T. Before it even existed. That can’t be a coincidence.


Within the confines of what was then the Roman Empire, long before and during the dawn of Christianity, there were many dying-and-rising gods. And yes, they were gods—some even half-god, half-human, being of divine or magical parentage, just like Jesus (John 1:1-18; Matthew 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-35; Philippians 2:6-8 & Romans 8:3). And yes, they died. And were dead. And yes, they were then raised back to life; and lived on, even more powerful than before. Some returned in the same body they died in; some lived their second life in even more powerful and magical bodies than they died in, like Jesus did (1 Corinthians 15:35-50 & 2 Corinthians 5:1-10). Some left empty tombs or gravesites; or had corpses that were lost or vanished. Just like Jesus. Some returned to life on “the third day” after dying. Just like Jesus. All went on to live and reign in heaven (not on earth). Just like Jesus. Some even visited earth after being raised, to deliver a message to disciples or followers, before ascending into the heavens. Just like Jesus.


Carrier gives 9 examples of resurrected demigods who pre-date Jesus and gives original sources.
Dying-and-Rising Gods: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
I'm not able to find authoritative source which will tell me that resurrection predates Jesus.
Is there such source? or evidence?

Persian and Greek

There exist many similarities between Zoroastrianism and Abrahamic religions as pointed about already by The Jewish Encyclopedia (1906).[94] While some scholars consider that key concepts of Zoroastrian dualism (good and evil; divine twins Ahura Mazda "God" and Angra Mainyu "Satan"), image of the deity, eschatology, resurrection and final judgment, messianism, revelation of Zoroaster on a mountain with Moses on Mount Sinai, three sons of Fereydun with three sons of Noah, heaven and hell, angelology and demonology, cosmology of six days or periods of creation, free will among others influenced Abrahamic religions, while other scholars diminish or reject such influences.[94][95][96][6][8] Lester L. Grabbe in 2006 concluded that "there is general agreement that Persian religion and tradition had its influence on Judaism over the centuries" and the "question is where this influence was and which of the developments in Judaism can be ascribed to the Iranian side as opposed to the effect of the Greek or other cultures".[8] There exist distinctions but also similarities between Zoroastrian and Jewish law regarding marriage and procreation.[97] Mary Boyce noted that besides Abrahamic religions it also had influence to the East on Northern Buddhism.[7]
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
According to wikipedia zoroaster doesn't predate Jesus like I said before:
Zoroaster - Wikipedia

None of this what you said give any concrete evidence that resurrection predates Jesus' resurrection, I can with same weight claim that Jesus is first to be resurrected.


First of all I quoted Mary Boyce who is the leading scholar. Look her up?
Second the wiki page you sourced gives these dates?
somewhere in the second millennium BC. Other scholars date him in the 7th and 6th century BC

Second millenium is BEFORE 1000BC?


Boyce
Nora Elisabeth Mary Boyce (2 August 1920 – 4 April 2006) was a British scholar of Iranian languages, and an authority on Zoroastrianism. She was Professor of Iranian Studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) of the University of London.[1] The Royal Asiatic Society's annual Boyce Prize for outstanding contributions to the study of religion is named after her

In 1944, Boyce joined the faculty of the Royal Holloway College, University of London, where she taught Anglo-Saxon literature and archaeology until 1946. Simultaneously she continued her studies, this time in Persian languages,[3] under the guidance of Vladimir Minorsky at the School of Oriental and African Studies from 1945 to 1947. There she met her future mentor, Walter Bruno Henning, under whose tutelage she began to study Middle Iranian languages.

In 1948, Boyce was appointed lecturer of Iranian Studies at SOAS, specialising in Manichaean, Zoroastrian Middle Persian and Parthian texts. In 1952, she was awarded a doctorate in Oriental Studies from the University of Cambridge. At SOAS, she was promoted to Reader (1958–1961) and subsequently awarded the University of London's professorship in Iranian Studies following Henning's transfer to the University of California at Berkeley.

Boyce remained professor at SOAS until her retirement in 1982, continuing as Professor Emerita and a professorial research associate until her death in 2006. Her speciality remained the religions of speakers of Eastern Iranian languages, in particular Manichaeanism and Zoroastrianism.



This is her dates on Zoroaster


The language of the Gathas is archaic, and close to that of the Rigveda (whose composition has been assigned to about 1 700 B. c. onwards); and the picture of the world to be gained from them is correspon,dingly ancient, that of a Stone Age society. Some allowance may have to be made for literary conservatism; and it is also possible that the 'Avestan' people (as Zoroaster's own tribe is called for want of a better name) were poor or isolated, and so not rapidly influenced by the developments of the Bronze Age. It is only possible therefore to hazard a reasoned conjecture that Zoroaster lived some time between 1 700 and 1 500 B.C
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
According to wikipedia zoroaster doesn't predate Jesus like I said before:
Zoroaster - Wikipedia

None of this what you said give any concrete evidence that resurrection predates Jesus' resurrection, I can with same weight claim that Jesus is first to be resurrected.


Yes you can make any crank claim you like. But I gave an actual PhD Biblical historian who understands original sources giving dates on earlier resurrected savior demigods. In which the consensus among the field is they pre-date Jesus. Not just one scholar.

Then I used the leading (by far) expert on the Persian religion, the only scholar to live in Iran with them for 1 year?

And finally an Oxford scholar from his historical book on heaven.

It is well established that these resurrected demigods predate Jesus, 1 by milleniaa? And Persian resurrectiono was the influence for the Hebrew during the 2nd Temple Period?

What kind of ridiculous statement is this? Yes you can give evidence with the same weight if the entire historicity field agrees with a date.
Theologians are not historians, NT scholars are not historians. Why didn't you just lead with you are not interested in scholarship, what is actually true, and would prefer just believe what you want, regardless of how crank it is?
 
Top