Sheldon
Veteran Member
You have a canny knack of ignoring the context of a post, I suggest you go back and try and understand the significance and the point being made.
-
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?
- Thread starter an anarchist
- Start date
ElishaElijah
Return
That’s a different issue all together but if you must know that because Adam and Eve believed the Serpent instead of trusting God, death was the result, so all this current worldly system is demonic. Right now there is the Kingdom of Heaven comprised of born again believers and the rest of the world, the Kingdom of Darkness. You have a habit of not answering my questions, demanding an answer to your rabbit trail questions.
I guess you just don’t understand Ephesians 2
MonkeyFire
Well-Known Member
what does this have to do with my post?
ppp
Well-Known Member
Occam's razor says don't multiply entities unnecessarily. You multiplied entitles unnecessarily. The most parsimonious reason for no evidence for your god is that your god does not exist.
parsimonious - using a minimal number of assumptions, steps, or conjectures
joelr
Well-Known Member
It actually is the first revealed religion? Her dates put it at 16-1700 B.c second millenium.
So first - Hinduism is Not a Revealed Religion. It has no Single Authority or Book. ... Even the Vedas are not the ultimate authority in Hinduism.
Nor is the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Babylonian or other. Judaism is a revealed religion but Zoroastrianism is clearly older.
"Zoroastrianism has been so named in the West because its prophet, Zarathushtra, was known to the ancient Greeks as Zoroaster. He was an Iranian, and lived in what for his people were prehistoric times. It is impossible, therefore, to establish fixed dates for his life ; but there is evidence to suggest that he flourished when the Stone Age was giving way for the Iranians to the Bronze Age, possibly, that is, between about 1 700 and 1 500 B.C.
Her lifes work and accolades are all for the work she did on this religion. There was much misinformation prior to her living in Iran with the religious people. So misinformation may still be around about late dates.
It is a fallacy to think one error renders the entire material void? If that were the case every apologetics article with a mistake can be thrown into the trash then??
It's clearly the first revealed religion going by actual historical times. Just because myths in Genesis say Yahweh spoke to people earlier doesn't make it true. Most religions have fiction that goes back millenia. Every religion has a God that created the world and universe so technically every religion will say it's the first.
The information is here for anyone interested in actual truth. You can play apologetics games as much as you like.
paradox
(㇏(•̀ᵥᵥ•́)ノ)
How could that be? Judaism is way older.
maybe but an error which is so obvious clearly shows being in favor of something that is clearly not so.
There is no need since no exact dates are known, it's all a matter of speculation and favorization.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Abraham is a character in a book. Probably fiction.
Archeology of the Hebrew Bible
William Dever Biblical archaeologist
"
The faith of Abraham
According to the Bible, the first person to form a covenant with God is Abraham. He is the great patriarch. Is there archeological evidence for Abraham?
One of the first efforts of biblical archeology in the last century was to prove the historicity of the patriarchs, to locate them in a particular period in the archeological history. Today I think most archeologists would argue that there is no direct archeological proof that Abraham, for instance, ever lived. We do know a lot about pastoral nomads, we know about the Amorites' migrations from Mesopotamia to Canaan, and it's possible to see in that an Abraham-like figure somewhere around 1800 B.C.E. But there's no direct connection."
Abraham
Abraham - Wikipedia
Most historians view the patriarchal age, along with the Exodus and the judges period, as a late literary construct that does not relate to any particular historical era;[8] and after a century of exhaustive archaeological investigation, no evidence has been found for a historical Abraham.[9] It is largely concluded that the Torah/Pentateuch was composed during the early Persian period (late 6th century BCE) as a result of tensions between Jewish landowners who had stayed in Judah during the Babylonian captivity and traced their right to the land through their "father Abraham", and the returning exiles who based their counterclaim on Moses and the Exodus tradition.[10]
All religions have stories that go back millenia, I already mentioned this. And the God character created everything. We are talking about actual history. The Israelites and Judahites formed a tribe around 1200B.C.. Their myths were written down centuries later and some take place many centuries in the past. This is how fiction/mythology works.
Uh, all of the amateur apologetics articles are going to rehash crank apologetics. Please use historical scholars who actually know how to study history. It would be like if I was to show your articles were incorrect using a chemistry teacher who was also a muslim and just repeated Islamic apologetics with no care at all for what is actually true.
Mary Boyce is by far the authority on the Persians. But here is another Hebrew Bible Professor speaking on the Persian influence during the Persian period:
Persian devil 18:55 Professor Francesca Stavrakopooulou
First the quotes that are not sure about dates say Zoroaster may have lived either 7 or 6 B.C. But Boyce says there is evidence that he lived in 1500 B.C.
But Daniel is from the 2nd century. - "The Book of Daniel is a 2nd-century BC biblical apocalypse with a 6th century BC setting."
And it's a legend , by the 2nd century they had already been exposed to Persian religious myths.
"Daniel is a product of "Wisdom" circles, but the type of wisdom is mantic (the discovery of heavenly secrets from earthly signs) rather than the wisdom of learning—the main source of wisdom in Daniel is God's revelation.[35][36] It is one of a large number of Jewish apocalypses, all of them pseudonymous.[37] The stories of the first half are legendary in origin, and the visions of the second the product of anonymous authors in the Maccabean period (2nd century BC).[5] Chapters 1–6 are in the voice of an anonymous narrator, except for chapter 4 which is in the form of a letter from king Nebuchadnezzar; the second half (chapters 7–12) is presented by Daniel himself, introduced by the anonymous narrator in chapters 7 and 10.[38]"
Also Daniel is apoctalyiptic
The Book of Daniel is an apocalypse, a literary genre in which a heavenly reality is revealed to a human recipient; such works are characterized by visions, symbolism, an other-worldly mediator, an emphasis on cosmic events, angels and demons, and pseudonymity (false authorship).[48] The production of apocalypses occurred commonly from 300 BC to 100 AD, not only among Jews and Christians, but also among Greeks, Romans, Persians ...
And all historical sources say the origin of that genra is Persian.
Apocalypticism - Wikipedia
Arising initially in Zoroastrianism, apocalypticism was developed more fully in Judaic, Christian, and Islamic eschatological speculation.
The Persians already had a full Revelations myth dating far back. I already posted Boyces page on this.
Even if the Hebrews came up with resurrection, it doesn't make it real? But there is no chance they did. The religion completely changed during the Persian and Greek rule. The Greek savior demigods go back millenia.
joelr
Well-Known Member
No we know the first mention of Israel is 1200BC?. The Persian religion is far older. The OT was canonized during the 2nd Temple Period.
"
Zoroastrianism or Mazdayasna is an Iranian religion and one of the world's oldest organized faiths, based on the teachings of the Iranian-speaking prophet Zoroaster (also known as Zaraθuštra in Avestan or as Zartosht in Persian).[1][2] It has a dualistic cosmology of good and evil within the framework of a monotheistic ontology and an eschatology which predicts the ultimate conquest of evil by good.[3] Zoroastrianism exalts an uncreated and benevolent deity of wisdom known as Ahura Mazda (lit. 'Lord of Wisdom') as its supreme being.[4] 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 Gnosticism,[6][7][8] Northern Buddhism,[7] and Greek philosophy.[9]
With possible roots dating back to the 2nd millennium BCE, Zoroastrianism enters recorded history around the middle of the 6th century BCE.[10] It served as the state religion of the ancient Iranian empires for more than a millennium "
They are an ancient religion -
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.
By the time they invaded Israel all of their myths and religion was fully in place.
How can Judaism be "way older"???? In 7BC the Persians were at their peak and had the largest empire ever.
Boyce wrote that the Zoroastrian traditions in the Median city of Ray probably goes back to the 8th century BC.[65] It is suggested that from the 8th century BC, a form of "Mazdaism with common Iranian traditions" existed in Media and the strict reforms of Zarathustra began to spread in western Iran during the reign of the last Median kings in the 6th century BC.
The scholar who actually put the work in and lived with them gives a date of around 1600BC for one of the prophets. The origins are far back and unknown.
Please stop saying Judaism is "way older" without giving a source? AGAIN, here is Biblical archaeologist William Dever:
"
Q: Is there mention of the Israelites anywhere in ancient Egyptian records?
Dever: No Egyptian text mentions the Israelites except the famous inscription of Merneptah dated to about 1206 B.C.E. But those Israelites were in Canaan; they are not in Egypt, and nothing is said about them escaping from Egypt.
Q: Tell us more about the Merneptah inscription. Why is it so famous?
Dever: It's the earliest reference we have to the Israelites. The victory stele of Pharaoh Merneptah, the son of Ramesses II, mentions a list of peoples and city-states in Canaan, and among them are the Israelites. And it's interesting that the other entities, the other ethnic groups, are described as nascent states, but the Israelites are described as "a people." They have not yet reached a level of state organization.
So the Egyptians, a little before 1200 B.C.E., know of a group of people somewhere in the central highlands—a loosely affiliated tribal confederation, if you will—called "Israelites." These are our Israelites. So this is a priceless inscription.
Q: Does archeology back up the information in the Merneptah inscription? Is there evidence of the Israelites in the central highlands of Canaan at this time?
Dever: We know today, from archeological investigation, that there were more than 300 early villages of the 13th and 12th century in the area. I call these "proto-Israelite" villages.
Forty years ago it would have been impossible to identify the earliest Israelites archeologically. We just didn't have the evidence. And then, in a series of regional surveys, Israeli archeologists in the 1970s began to find small hilltop villages in the central hill country north and south of Jerusalem and in lower Galilee. Now we have almost 300 of them."
So in 1200BC there was a small tribe. Didn't come from Egypt as the Bible says, came from Canaanite cities. I do not care if in 6BC they wrote Genesis and made up stories about people who lived long ago? The flood story is definitely a re-work of the Epic of Gilamesh. Neither flood happened, science has ruled out a world flood. And they were just copying Mesopotamian myths.
The first mention of Israelites, as a small tribe is 1200BC.
Genesis is KNOWN TO BE A MYTH among academia.
The Genesis creation narrative is the creation myth[a] of both Judaism and Christianity.
Scholarly writings frequently refer to Genesis as myth, for while the author of Genesis 1–11 "demythologised" his narrative by removing the Babylonian myths those elements which did not fit with his own faith, it remains a myth in the sense of being a story of origins.[8]
Can you get this? They are stories, made up about people who lived long ago who worshipped he same fictional God.
Every religion does that. None are real.
Mary Boyce does not care about when the Persians started. She's clearly interested in painting an accurate historical picture? If you have some evidence that she "favors" Zoroastrianism to be older than it is (she isn't even in the religion?) then present it? Favoritism? WTF? You posted an apologetics article with literally every sentence wrong in an attempt to bolster up Christianity and make it seem real and original? Historians don't go to such desperate lengths?
Last edited:
joelr
Well-Known Member
As I have established, Mark is writing fiction. We can demonstrate he was using the OT as a source because he used Psalms, some elements of Isaiah 53, Zechariah 9-14, and Wisdom 2 as sources for his narratives. Did a a rewrite of another mythical story, told of Elisha in 2 Kings 4.17-3 and several others.
So naturally he would make the messianic prophecies come true in this legend.
The OT is mythology and Mark was a gifted writer from the Greek school where he was taught to create fictive biographies using a particular style of myth writing. He used ring structure, triadic cycles, chiasmus, here is another source Mark used :
This is between the Passover Narrative and the story of a different Jesus, named Jesus ben Ananias. This was a man who was known as an insane prophet that was active in the 60s CE who was then killed in the siege of Jerusalem (around 70 CE). His story was told in Josephus’ Jewish War, and thus Mark was likely to have known about it, and the number of parallels between what Josephus wrote and that of Mark’s Passover Narrative are far too numerous to be a mere coincidence. Clearly Mark either wrote his narrative based off of what Josephus wrote, or based on the same tale known to Josephus. Here are the parallels between Mark’s Jesus and that of Jesus ben Ananias as found in Josephus’ writings:
1 – Both are named Jesus. (Mark 14.2 = JW 6.301)
2 – Both come to Jerusalem during a major religious festival. (Mark 11.15-17 = JW 6.301)
3 -Both entered the temple area to rant against the temple. (Mark 14.2 = JW 6.301)
4 – During which both quote the same chapter of Jeremiah. (Jer. 7.11 in Mk, Jer. 7.34 in JW)
5 – Both then preach daily in the temple. (Mark 14.49 = JW 6.306)
6 – Both declared “woe” unto Judea or the Jews. (Mark 13.17 = JW 6.304, 306, 309)
7 – Both predict the temple will be destroyed. (Mark 13.2 = JW 6.300, 309)
8 – Both are for this reason arrested by the Jews. (Mark 14.43 = JW 6.302)
9 – Both are accused of speaking against the temple. (Mark 14.58 = JW 6.302)
10 – Neither makes any defense of himself against the charges. (Mark 14.60 = JW 6.302)
11 – Both are beaten by the Jews. (Mark 14.65 = JW 6.302)
12 – Then both are taken to the Roman governor. (Pilate in Mark 15.1 = Albinus in JW 6.302)
13 – Both are interrogated by the Roman governor. (Mark 15.2-4 = JW 6.305)
14 – During which both are asked to identify themselves. (Mark 15.2 = JW 6.305)
15 – And yet again neither says anything in his defense. (Mark 15.3-5 = JW 6.305)
16 – Both are then beaten by the Romans. (Mark 15.15 = JW 6.304)
17 – In both cases the Roman governor decides he should release him. (Mark 14.2 = JW 6.301)
18 – But doesn’t (Mark)…but does (JW) — (Mark 15.6-15 = JW 6.305)
19 – Both are finally killed by the Romans: in Mark, by execution; in the JW, by artillery. (Mark 15.34 = JW 6.308-9)
20 – Both utter a lament for themselves immediately before they die. (Mark 15.34 = JW 6.309)
21 – Both die with a loud cry. (Mark 15.37 = JW 6.309)
The odds of these coincidences arising by chance is quite small to say the least, so it appears Mark used this Jesus as a model for his own to serve some particular literary or theological purpose. In any case, we can see that Mark is writing fiction here, through and through.
So there are many messiahs, none are real, all are just stories written by Greek school writers and others. Pointing to a story as proof of it being real is probably the biggest fallacy one can make in a discussion like this.
Meanwhile Muslims can come along and say Allah is real, it says so in the Quran.
This is a lesson that seems to be over your head?
paradox
(㇏(•̀ᵥᵥ•́)ノ)
"probably" there is an elephant on the moon playing piano right now.
"probably" Mary Boyce was influenced or payed by British government to undermine Christianity.
"probably" Zoroaster and his teachings aren't older than Judaism
Persian religion was polytheistic before Zoroaster:
Ancient Persian Religion - World History Encyclopedia
Zoroaster was probably influenced by the Jews and their monotheism after Persians conquered them, who knows.
But this is very likely because monotheism wasn't known to Persians.
Which as I said, even if true is not older than Judaism, the invention of letter and construction of canon is not a measurement unit of when some religion started, before letter there was oral tradition, oral tradition due to lack of letter doesn't mean that there was no religion.
"may have" yes, but it may have been the other way around, there is no evidence of this.
-------------------------
In any case Zoroaster and his religion and possiblity of influencing Judaism is interesting topic, I'll definitely research more on this.
Last edited:
paradox
(㇏(•̀ᵥᵥ•́)ノ)
Yes, I heard of something similar before.
Unfortunately your source doesn't provide any evidence such as links to research papers.
joelr
Well-Known Member
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.
Osiris
Your apologetics article isn't using original sources for Osirus. Let's consult a historian:
"Not only does Plutarch say Osiris returned to life and was recreated, exact terms for resurrection (anabiôsis and paliggenesia: On Isis and Osiris 35; see my discussion in The Empty Tomb, pp. 154-55), and also describe his physically returning to earth after his death (Plutarch, On Isis and Osiris 19), but the physical resurrection of Osiris’s corpse is explicitly described in pre-Christian pyramid inscriptions! Osiris was also resurrected, according to Plutarch, on the “third day,” and died during a full moon, just like Christ: Passover occurs during the full moon; and in Plutarch, On Isis and Osiris 39 and 42, Osiris dies on the 17th of Athyr, the concluding day of the full moon, and is raised on the 19th, two days later—thus three days inclusively, just like Jesus.....
And that’s just Osiris. Clearly raised from the dead in his original, deceased body, restored to life; visiting people on earth in his risen body; and then ruling from heaven above. And that directly adjacent to Judea, amidst a major Jewish population in Alexandria, and popular across the whole empire. But as Plutarch said in On the E at Delphi 9, many religions of his day “narrate deaths and vanishings, followed by returns to life and resurrections.” Not just that one. Plutarch names Dionysus as but an example (and by other names “Zagreus, Nyctelius, and Isodaetes“). And we know for a fact this Dionysus wasn’t the only example Plutarch would have known. Plutarch only names him because he was so closely associated with Osiris, and the most famous.
Dying-and-Rising Gods: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier
"9. The Messiah would be born of a Virgin"
Yes when the Hebrews learned about Messianic saviors from the Persians who were occupying them they began predicting they too would get one. The Persian world savior was also to be virgin born or human parents. The Persian occupation was 5-300BC.
" 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,
"1. The Messiah would be born in Bethlehem"
It has been well established that Mark and other gospel writers used the OT as a source when writing these fictive tales. So they did what they were supposed to do and make the prophecies true? This proves nothing?
In early Tolkien predictions are made. Later in Lord of the Rings they HAPPEN!?!?! WOW, was it prophecy? No, it was fiction writers writing more parts to the fiction.
After the 2nd Temple Period the Hebrew saw that worlds saviors and Greek salvation, heaven and such were really popular in other religions. They completely changed Judaism to fit in all these myths. Outside of fundamentalist apologists who have their head in the sand the world (and historicity field) knows these. are just myths that the Hebrews incorporated into their religion. They are not real. Even Heaven and souls that go there are borrowed myths. They are also fiction.
"
]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.["
"
The ancient Israelites envisaged the universe as a flat disc-shaped Earth floating on water, heaven above, underworld below.[6] Humans inhabited Earth during life and the underworld after death; there was no way that mortals could enter heaven, and the underworld was morally neutral;[7][8] 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.[8] In this period too the older three-level cosmology in large measure gave way to the Greek concept of a spherical earth suspended in space at the center of a number of concentric heavens.[9]
Later Jewish thinkers, adopting ideas from Greek philosophy, concluded that God's Wisdom, Word and Spirit penetrated all things and gave them unity.[11] Christianity in turn adopted these ideas and identified Jesus with the Logos (Word): "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1).[12]
Kaiser, Christopher B"
Petra Pakkanen, Interpreting Early Hellenistic Religion.
joelr
Well-Known Member
HA! A conspiracy theory! It can't be that a bunch of myths came from a bunch of other myths LIKE ALL MYTHOLOGY? HA! It has to be this one time it's a conspiracy theory!
This is good, it demonstrates the confirmation bias needed to believe fiction.
Wow, I guess ALL scholars of the period are getting government money! Hebrew Bible Professor Francesca Stavrakopooulou
also explains the Persian influence at 18:55
Again, present evidence (not denial) of scholarship demonstrating the Persian religion isn't older than Judaism. Or use denial?
Guess what, Judaism was Polythesitic before the 2nd Temple Period!
13:35 the Professor is asked did Judaism have a polytheistic component early on?
It was. The other divinities were down-played to messenger type beings (angels etc..)
Professor F.S. talks about the Persian period and the Judahite religion becoming more Yahweh-centric during the Persian period. They still had other Gods to a degree. This is according to Hebrew scripture.
The Persians believed about their God -
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.
Yahweh was just a national deity at this point. A warroir deity in Exodus.
In 1200 the Israelites were just a tribe emerging out of Canaanite society. Genesis wasn't even written until 6 B.C. so your point doesn't make sense?
Did you just say "no evidence". Only scholars? The leading scholar? Professor S.? Let's bring in another then?
The Iranian Impact on Judaism
excerpted from N. F. Gier, Theology Bluebook, Chapter 12
It was not so much monotheism that the exilic Jews learned from the Persians as it was universalism, the belief that one God rules universally and will save not only the Jews but all those who turn to God. This universalism does not appear explicitly until Second Isaiah, which by all scholarly accounts except some fundamentalists, was written during and after the Babylonian exile. The Babylonian captivity was a great blow to many Jews, because they were taken out of Yahweh's divine jurisdiction. Early Hebrews believed that their prayers could not be answered in a foreign land. The sophisticated angelology of late books like Daniel has its source in Zoroastrianism.3 The angels of the early Hebrew books were disguises of Yahweh or one of his subordinate deities. The idea of separate angels appears only after contact with Zoroastrianism.
The central ideas of heaven and a fiery hell appear to come directly from the Israelite contact with Iranian religion. Pre-exilic books are explicit in their notions the afterlife: there is none to speak of. The early Hebrew concept is that all of us are made from the dust and all of us return to the dust. There is a shadowy existence in Sheol, but the beings there are so insignificant that Yahweh does not know them. The evangelical writer John Pelt reminds us that “the inhabitants of Sheol are never called souls (nephesh).”4
Saosyant, a savior born from Zoroaster's seed, will come and the dead shall be resurrected, body and soul. As the final accounting is made, husband is set against wife and brother against brother as the righteous and the damned are pointed out by the divine judge Saosyant. Personal and individual immortality is offered to the righteous; and, as a final fire melts away the world and the damned, a kingdom of God is established for a thousand years.7 The word paradis is Persian in origin and the concept spread to all Near Eastern religions in that form. “Eden” not “Paradise” is mentioned in Genesis, and paradise as an abode of light does not appear in Jewish literature until late books such as Enoch and the Psalm of Solomon.
Satan as the adversary or Evil One does not appear in the pre-exilic Hebrew books. In Job, one of the very oldest books, Satan is one of the subordinate deities in God's pantheon. Here Satan is God's agent, and God gives him permission to persecute Job. The Zoroastrian Angra Mainyu, the Evil One, the eternal enemy of God, is the prototype for late Jewish and Christian ideas of Satan. One scholar claims that the Jews acquired their aversion to homosexuality, not present in pre-exilic times, to the Iranian definition of the devil as a Sodomite.8
In 1 Chron. 21:1 (a book with heavy Persian influences), the Hebrew word satan appears for the first time as a proper name without an article. Before the exile, Satan was not a separate entity per se, but a divine function performed by the Yahweh's subordinate deities (sons of God) or by Yahweh himself. For example, in Num. 22:22 Yahweh, in the guise of mal'ak Yahweh, is “a satan” for Balaam and his ***. The editorial switch from God inciting David to take a census in 2 Sam 24:1, and a separate evil entity with the name “Satan” doing the same deed in 1 Chron. 21:1 is the strongest evidence that there was a radical transformation in Jewish theology. Something must have caused this change, and religious syncretism with Persia is the probable cause. G. Von Rad calls it a “correction due to religious scruples” and further states that “this correction would hardly have been carried out in this way if the concept of Satan had not undergone a rather decisive transformation.”9
The theory of religious influence from Persia is based not only on the generation spent in exile but the 400 years following in which the resurrected nation of Israel lived under strong Persian dominion and influence. The chronicler made his crucial correction to 2 Sam. 24:1 about 400 B.C.E. Persian influence increases in the later Hebrew works like Daniel and especially the intertestamental books. Therefore Satan as a separate evil force in direct opposition to God most likely came from the explicit Zoroastrian belief in such an entity. This concept is not consistent with pre-exilic beliefs.
There is no question that the concept of a separate evil principle was fully developed in the Zoroastrian Gathas (ca. 1,000 B.C.E.). The principal demon, called Druj (the Lie), is mentioned 66 times in the Gathas. But the priestly Jews would also have been exposed to the full Avestan scripture in which Angra Mainyu is mentioned repeatedly. His most prominent symbol is the serpent, so along with the idea of the “Lie,” we have the prototype for the serpent/tempter, in the priestly writers' garden of Genesis.10 There is no evidence that the Jews in exile brought with them any idea of Satan as a separate evil principle.
In Zoroastrianism the supreme God, Ahura Mazda, gives all humans free-will so that they may choose between good and evil. As we have seen, the religion of Zoroaster may have been the first to discover ethical individualism. The first Hebrew prophet to speak unequivocally in terms of individual moral responsibility was Ezekiel, a prophet of the Babylonian exile. Up until that time Hebrew ethics had been guided by the idea of the corporate personality – that, e.g., the sins of the fathers are visited upon the sons (Ex. 20:1-2).
In 1 Cor. 15:42-49 Paul definitely assumes a dual-creation theory which seems to follow the outlines of Philo and the Iranians. There is only one man (Christ) who is created in the image of God, i.e., according to the “intellectual” creation of Gen. 1:26 (à la Philo). All the rest of us are created in the image of the “dust man,” following the material creation of Adam from the dust in Gen. 2:7.
Nick Gier. Emeritus Professor of Philosophy University of Idaho Senior Fellow Martin Institute of
joelr
Well-Known Member
Except it didn't, it gave Adam and Eve knowledge or life and time and Earthly living, which we all have.
But it's a Mesopotamian myth, as is most of Genesis. Outside of fundamentalism even most Christians know this is myth writing.
Like the Genesis flood narrative, the Genesis creation narrative and the account of the Tower of Babel, the story of Eden echoes the Mesopotamian myth of a king, as a primordial man, who is placed in a divine garden to guard the tree of life.[
A number of parallel concepts to the biblical Garden of Eden exist in various other religions and mythologies. Dilmun in the Sumerian story of Enki and Ninhursag is a paradisaical abode[37] of the immortals, where sickness and death were unknown.[38] The garden of the Hesperides in Greek mythology was also somewhat similar to the Jewish concept of the Garden of Eden, and by the 16th century a larger intellectual association was made in the Cranach painting. In this painting, only the action that takes place there identifies the setting as distinct from the Garden of the Hesperides, with its golden fruit.
Based on scientific interpretation of archaeological, genetic, and linguistic evidence, most scholars consider Genesis to be primarily mythological rather than historical.
It expounds themes parallel to those in Mesopotamian mythology, Comparative mythology provides historical and cross-cultural perspectives for Jewish mythology. Both sources behind the Genesis creation narrative borrowed themes from Mesopotamian mythology,
Genesis 1–11 as a whole is imbued with Mesopotamian myths. Genesis 2 has close parallels with a second Mesopotamian myth, the Atra-Hasis epic – parallels that in fact extend throughout Genesis 2–11, from the Creation to the Flood and its aftermath.
joelr
Well-Known Member
It's Mesopotamian mostly and some Babylonian.
paradox
(㇏(•̀ᵥᵥ•́)ノ)
Likewise you could say "present evidence against Darwin and his theory".
I'm not denying that Persia influenced Israel, it did that's not a secret.
but claim that Zoroastrianism is older than Judaism just doesn't hold.
ElishaElijah
Return
Except it did bring death because we all die. Jesus conquered death and why I’m not fearful anymore, I’ve passed from death to life (eternal life).
“Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham. Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.”
Hebrews 2:14-18 NKJV
It’s interesting that you bring up Mesopotamia because that’s where God first appeared to Abraham. Acts 7 is the summary by Stephen.
What’s your hope? Who are you trusting in?
What’s your strength? I don’t see anything you’ve shared so far as based in truth, I’m wondering what your motives are.
Seems you base your world view on what some unbelieving scholars say while dismissing the many biblical scholars. Personally, I get my views from my Creator and not from people.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
It is a direct response to another of your relentless unevidenced assertions, and just as relentlessly you have failed to offer any answer at all, here are the questions again then: (I've numbered them to make it easier for you).
Sheldon
Veteran Member
I linked the explanation of it for you, if you follow the link it explains why your claim was flawed.
ElishaElijah
Return
1. Do you think anyone who disagrees with the bible is being influenced by demons? Your post suggested you did.
Answer is yes because I’ve already given you Ephesians 2
2. If you do then you must either agree with the appalling endorsement of slavery in Exodus 21, or by your own rationale are being influenced by demons.
No, I don’t think Exodus 21 rules for servants and bondsman is appalling or evil, but what is evil are people making up meanings of scripture and misrepresenting God. So what God means by Exodus 21 is not appalling or evil but the way you apply it is evil and appalling.