Why Didn't God Leave Huge Quantities of Secular Evidence For Jesus?

[night912]

You said that the answers in Genesis article said that Christian martyrs are better than non Christian ones. He never elevated anyone. Christians being persecuted in Indonesia for political reasons is an exception to the rule. Generally Christians are persecuted for believing in Christ.

That's only the parties from Indonesia, how about the Indian Christian Front?

What you said supports that the circumstances of Christians being persecuted are different from other beliefs being persecuted.

How so? Repeating the same thing that was objected doesn't change a thing.

Generally Christians are persecuted for believing in Christ.

That alone, is not martyrdom.

 

[Skywalker]

That's only the parties from Indonesia, how about the Indian Christian Front?


How so? Repeating the same thing that was objected doesn't change a thing.


That alone, is not martyrdom.

The Indian Christian front has nothing to do with Christians who are persecuted for denying Jesus.

People who are persecuted for other belief systems are usually persecuted for political reasons, not for not denying their beliefs. What Makes a Christian Martyr Different from Other Faiths’ Martyr

For most polytheistic religions, martyrdom is usually not much of a concern, since another belief system can be incorporated into the pantheon of deities and beliefs already present. For example, this is why in India today we can see Jesus Christ being added by Hindu worshippers to the religious festivals and even the pantheon of deities. They will even venerate Jesus as a god without recognizing that He is actually the Creator God.

This is not to say that Buddhist or Hindu adherents never become martyrs. The Tibetan Buddhists have for many years been persecuted and martyred by the Chinese government for their refusal to convert to atheistic communism, and Muslims have killed Hindus for their refusal to convert to monotheism as well.

As in all cases of conflict, however, one must remember that religion may not be the only factor in persecution. In the case of the Hindu/Muslim conflict, much of the conflict lies in nationalistic animosity between Pakistanis and Indians. In the case of the Tibetan Buddhists vs. communist Chinese government, it is as much a conflict about self-government and independence versus centralized government as it is about religion. Therefore, deaths on either side may be the result of skirmishing as opposed to actual cases of direct religious persecution leading to martyrdom. Nevertheless, we do know that such persecution and martyrdom does take place. So what makes the Buddhist or Hindu martyr different from the Christian martyr? How does a Christian missionary to Indonesia who is martyred differ from the Tibetan monk who is martyred?

This is a difficult question to answer, but it basically boils down to two things. First, what was the person who was martyred engaged in doing? What was his lifestyle and business, which caused him to be a target? Second, what was the martyr killed for? In the above-mentioned cases of Hindu and Buddhist martyrs, some are engaged in violent or revolutionary activities against another government and so are not true martyrs because they are killed as “enemy combatants.” But many people in this situation are innocent bystanders living in areas viewed as hostile to the government in question. They may be killed inadvertently (or deliberately) because of nationalistic reasons. These deaths would actually be war casualties or genocide, not martyrdom in the religious sense. Others are killed mainly for religious reasons, but without a direct threat to convert or die. These killings are still mostly nationalistic in intent, not true martyrdom. The killing of non-Christians simply because of their religious beliefs and their subsequent refusal to convert to another religion is rare (although not unheard of).

It is martyrdom because they are persecuted for not denying Jesus. What Makes a Christian Martyr Different from Other Faiths’ Martyr

The killing of Christians simply because of their belief and their refusal to deny Christ and convert to a different religion has been recorded countless times since the martyrdom of Stephen in Acts 7 (ca. AD 32–35) up to the present time. In fact, it has been said that more Christians are suffering martyrdom today than ever before—up to 100 thousand per year.2 Often there is additional persecution of Christian populations that leads to loss of property, forced displacement from their homeland, or even time in forced labor camps.3 According to David Barrett, the “persecution of Christians is more common in our generation than ever in history. The oft-quoted statistic is that more people died for their Christian faith in the last century than in all the other centuries of recorded history combined.”4

The Christian organization Voice of the Martyrs lists 52 countries that are currently persecuting Christians.5 This persecution includes verbal assault, property confiscation, physical assault, unlawful imprisonment, threats, torture, psychological intimidation, kidnappings, and murder. In Sudan alone it is estimated that hundreds of thousands of Christians have been martyred and up to 2 million forced to flee their homes, simply for refusing to renounce their Christian faith.6

The Romans, the Huns, the Goths, the Vikings, Muslims, Hindus, and other religious groups have perpetrated martyrdom of Christians since the time of the Apostles, mainly because of their Christian faith. The vast majority of these Christian martyrs were not revolutionaries or dissidents, but were ordinary citizens trying to live peaceably among their neighbors. According to principles laid down in Scripture, they paid their taxes, honored the king and governors, loved their neighbors, and gave no cause for offense (Romans 13:1–8; 1 Peter 2:13–17).

How then can we account for this vitriol directed at Christianity in excess of other inter-faith conflicts? The answer lies in the exclusivity of the Christian faith and the means of salvation. True Christianity does not teach a multiplicity of ways to “come to God.” It does not teach that humans are basically good and just need a divine nudge to get on the right track. It does not teach that man can earn merit with God. True Christianity teaches what Jesus Christ taught, that He alone is “the Way, the Truth and the Life: no man comes to the Father, but by Me” (John 14:6). Christianity is intricately tied to the authority of the Bible, which details mankind’s separation from God due to sin, the remedy that God provided through the death and Resurrection of Christ, how God wants to be worshipped, and how we are to conduct ourselves as ambassadors for Christ. We read in Ephesians 2:1 that we are all dead in sins until Christ makes us alive, and in verses 8–9 Paul tells us that we are saved (from God’s judgment) by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ, not by our own good works or merit.

 

[night912]

The Indian Christian front has nothing to do with Christians who are persecuted for denying Jesus.

Correct. That's the whole point as to why I brought up that political party. And what you just said above, proves that you made a bald assertion in your earlier post. I'll post it up so you can see the ridiculousness in your response to the flaws that I've pointed out in your argument. Read what you said......

Christians being persecuted in Indonesia for political reasons is an exception to the rule. Generally Christians are persecuted for believing in Christ.

Now that's embarrassing. Immediately contradicting yourself in your attempt to defend your fallacious argument.

People who are persecuted for other belief systems are usually persecuted for political reasons, not for not denying their beliefs. What Makes a Christian Martyr Different from Other Faiths’ Martyr

It is martyrdom because they are persecuted for not denying Jesus. What Makes a Christian Martyr Different from Other Faiths’ Martyr

Oops. You did it again. Here, I'll gladly post your claim that you made earlier so that you can see for yourself how ridiculous your defense of your fallacious argument.

What you said supports that the circumstances of Christians being persecuted are different from other beliefs being persecuted.

Thanks for proving that you are wrong.

BTW,
I'm criticizing your argument as being fallacious, not persecuting you. Hopefully you're able to stop living in your fantasy world of being a Skywalker, and come back to reality and become an Earthwalker and won't relapse. I have faith that you can do that. Knowing the word, "faith" and its definition, you will understand the meaning of my statement.

 

[Skywalker]

Correct. That's the whole point as to why I brought up that political party. And what you just said above, proves that you made a bald assertion in your earlier post. I'll post it up so you can see the ridiculousness in your response to the flaws that I've pointed out in your argument. Read what you said......


Now that's embarrassing. Immediately contradicting yourself in your attempt to defend your fallacious argument.



Oops. You did it again. Here, I'll gladly post your claim that you made earlier so that you can see for yourself how ridiculous your defense of your fallacious argument.


Thanks for proving that you are wrong.

BTW,
I'm criticizing your argument as being fallacious, not persecuting you. Hopefully you're able to stop living in your fantasy world of being a Skywalker, and come back to reality and become an Earthwalker and won't relapse. I have faith that you can do that. Knowing the word, "faith" and its definition, you will understand the meaning of my statement.

Jesus is the word most commonly used as a curse word. https://www.harvestbiblechurch.net/...lude.cfm&friendly_name=hated-because-of-jesus

Matthew 10:21-23... "Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death. 22 You will be hated by all because of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved. 23 But whenever they persecute you in one city, flee to the next; for truly I say to you, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes."

As a result of following Jesus and going throughout the towns and cities preaching the gospel of Christ's kingdom, the Twelve were warned of how perilous this would be to their very lives. Now Jesus warns them that what they are doing may even put them at odds with their own family members and possibly cause them to be betrayed by those they love the most. First, "brother will betray brother to death." To "betray" is to literally "give over." Thus, brothers, whose bond is stronger than oak, will be willing to betray their siblings due to their hatred of Christ. Second, a father will be willing to betray his own child if that child's faith in Christ is an affront to him. Third, unsaved children will be willing to hand over their parents to anti-Christian authorities and have them "put to death." Certainly, the Christian's enemies will be members of his own household (10:35-36; cf. Micah 7:6). Jesus repeats this same warning on the Mount of Olives with reference to what will happen in the end times (cf. Mark 13:12).

Everything that Jesus has done up to this point in Matthew's Gospel has been wonderful! He has healed the sick all over Palestine, taught with great authority, and even raised the dead. How could anyone hate Him? Yet in v. 22 Jesus warns the Twelve that there would come a day when they would be "hated by all because of My name." Of course not every person on the planet would hate them; many would in fact love them. The term "all" therefore means all people in general, for people from every tribe and language will hate Jesus. So, by simply naming the name of Jesus Christ, those who do so will be hated and thus be in physical danger. One of the ways this can already be seen in Matthew's Gospel is through the demons (8:28-29) who hated the name of Christ, knowing that He held power over them and had the authority to judge them.

 

[night912]

Jesus is the word most commonly used as a curse word. https://www.harvestbiblechurch.net/...lude.cfm&friendly_name=hated-because-of-jesus

There's no need for you to start using curse words just because you were shown that your responses were so ridiculous to the point where you disagreeing with yourself.

And there's no need for you to try to prove that you are capable of out doing yourself, you've already demonstrated that it's a fact, even without trying, you are more than capable of doing it. But if you still need evidence, here it is.....

*****WARNING*****
You probably won't like what you see and might even end up using the #1 word.
26 English Swear Words That You Should Use Very Very Carefully

 

[Skywalker]

There's no need for you to start using curse words just because you were shown that your responses were so ridiculous to the point where you disagreeing with yourself.

And there's no need for you to try to prove that you are capable of out doing yourself, you've already demonstrated that it's a fact, even without trying, you are more than capable of doing it. But if you still need evidence, here it is.....

*****WARNING*****
You probably won't like what you see and might even end up using the #1 word.
26 English Swear Words That You Should Use Very Very Carefully

People never use the name of Allah, Buddha, or Confucius, as a curse word. Why Is “Jesus Christ” Used as “Blasphemous Profanity”?

Real people don’t have their name made into profanity. It just doesn’t happen — but even the most extreme skeptics generally concede that Jesus really lived. When people do this, they are tacitly acknowledging, knowing or not, that there is something more about Jesus, that He is more than just a good man and a religious teacher. He isn’t Mohammed, or Buddha, or the pope, or Joseph Smith. People don’t use their names as profanity.

As Gordo said, there is no real reason for “Jesus Christ” to be blasphemous profanity — or at least, no reason the unbelieving world can give for it. There are many reasons (I’ve given three) for it if He is exactly who He said He is — the Son of God, the Lord of all things, the One who is to be honoured as the Father is honoured, the One who will judge. The fact that He stands pretty much alone in this matter is compelling evidence that there is something unique about Him, something that others don’t have.

Jesus truly is our Lord and our God. That is the only reason His name is used as blasphemous profanity, the only explanation that makes any sense at all.

 

[joelr]

Mythology doesn't mention the belief that God came down to remove the barrier of sin from between people and God. Jesus came to remove the barrier of sin from between people and God because God is perfect and we are not perfect and no matter how many good works do we or how good we try, sin separates us from God.

Well the OT is mythology so that is one mention of sins in myth.
But Lord Krishna also forgives sins and such:

"Krishna promises to forgive and deliver all sinful reactions of those who surrender to Him exclusively. (Bhagavad Gita 18.66) This applies to even the most sinful persons, the only qualification being that they sincerely regret and rectify their misdeeds and never go back to their sinful ways again by being situated in devotional service to Krishna. The most outstanding example of this is Lord Caitanya’s deliverance of the two notorious sinners Jagai and Madhai, infamous for having committed sins of every description, who were by His mercy transformed into flawless pure devotees. On the contrary, continuing to sin on the strength of doing devotional activities and thinking this will counteract the sins is most heinous. Some times people make a habit of confessing their sins or atoning for them (prayascitta) with no intention of giving up sinning; this is an offense and simply makes it much harder to earn the Lord’s forgiveness and reinstate oneself"

But I'm not sure your version of the myth is even correct. Before Yahweh could bring about the end of the world he had to eradicate sin. Or atone for everyone's sins. So Jesus did this so the end times could begin. This obviously didn't happen so they had to change the message.
Danile 9, Jeremiah 23, 25, Isaih 53, Zacariah 3, 6

While there are exceptions to the rule, Christian martyrs were generally persecuted for what they believed in. Many martyrs of other beliefs were persecuted for war or genocide or politics not for refusing to deny their beliefs. What Makes a Christian Martyr Different from Other Faiths’ Martyr

Except thousands of Buddhists alone has been martyred for the same reasons as any Christian martyr. Do you ever get tired of being lied to and fed mis-information about the world? Can you do your own research into things, ever?

Persecution of Buddhists - Wikipedia

 

[joelr]

There is historical evidence that supports the Resurrection of Christ. The apostles were real people who lived with Christ. All of the apostles believed that Christ was real when they saw the risen Christ. 12 Historical Facts About The Resurrection Of Jesus Most Scholars Agree Upon | Reasons for Jesus

We have already visited this and shown the gospels are not considered history. There is no extra-Biblical mention by any historian who does anything except confirm there are christians who follow the gospels. The gospels are known to be all sourced from Mark which is re-workings of OT stories, Paul's letters and all wildly fictitious parables.
Christian scholarship confirms the gospels are not eyewitness accounts, the names were added in the 2nd century and Mark was the source for the others.
We have already established that your apologetics articles are not written by scholars but amateurs or theologians who know nothing about historicity.

If you want to know what's likely true then study the historicity field. If you don't care and want psuedo-history and brainwashing stick to those articles by JP Holding.

What an actual PhD in biblical history who did the recent historicity study on Jesus says about that

" “Jesus’s crucifixion is historically certain”

Bishop bases this on his assertion that “there are many independent sources that attest to Jesus’ crucifixion.” That assertion is false. Christian apologists are confusing the word “independent” with the word “different.” A hundred different sources attest to the existence of Hercules. But they are not independent sources. They all derive, directly or indirectly, from the same single source, a myth about Hercules. Who never existed.

There is in fact only one explicit source for the historicity of Jesus: the Gospel of Mark. All other sources that mention the crucifixion of Jesus as an event in earth history derive that mention from Mark, either directly (e.g. Matthew, Luke, John; Celsus; Justin; etc.) or indirectly, as Christians simply repeat the same claims in those Gospels, which all embellish and thus derive from that same one Gospel, Mark, and their critics simply believed them because they would have thought it was too self-damning to make up, and because there was no way for them to check.

“The Gospels”

“This should actually count for four reasons to accept Jesus’ existence as each Gospel is an independent account of his life.” Nope. See above. Every Gospel is just an embellished redaction of Mark. Even John .

“The disciples’ deaths.”

There are no reliable sources for the disciples’ deaths. We have, at most, some ridiculous and late legends, based on no identifiable sources. We do not in fact know why or when they died. Or what they died for. This whole argument is therefore hosed from top to bottom.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Mythology doesn't mention the belief that God came down to remove the barrier of sin from between people and God. Jesus came to remove the barrier of sin from between people and God because God is perfect and we are not perfect and no matter how many good works do we or how good we try, sin separates us from God.

While there are exceptions to the rule, Christian martyrs were generally persecuted for what they believed in. Many martyrs of other beliefs were persecuted for war or genocide or politics not for refusing to deny their beliefs. What Makes a Christian Martyr Different from Other Faiths’ Martyr

That's just Christianity's twist on an already popular myth. Gods did come down to earth to help men. The church concocted this idea of a savior dying/rising son of god because they wanted power over men and a good way was to say "You have sin. ONLY WE can forgive that sin through Jesus Christ." Nothing more than a clever gimmick to hold power.

 

[Skywalker]

We have already visited this and shown the gospels are not considered history. There is no extra-Biblical mention by any historian who does anything except confirm there are christians who follow the gospels. The gospels are known to be all sourced from Mark which is re-workings of OT stories, Paul's letters and all wildly fictitious parables.
Christian scholarship confirms the gospels are not eyewitness accounts, the names were added in the 2nd century and Mark was the source for the others.
We have already established that your apologetics articles are not written by scholars but amateurs or theologians who know nothing about historicity.

If you want to know what's likely true then study the historicity field. If you don't care and want psuedo-history and brainwashing stick to those articles by JP Holding.

What an actual PhD in biblical history who did the recent historicity study on Jesus says about that

" “Jesus’s crucifixion is historically certain”

Bishop bases this on his assertion that “there are many independent sources that attest to Jesus’ crucifixion.” That assertion is false. Christian apologists are confusing the word “independent” with the word “different.” A hundred different sources attest to the existence of Hercules. But they are not independent sources. They all derive, directly or indirectly, from the same single source, a myth about Hercules. Who never existed.

There is in fact only one explicit source for the historicity of Jesus: the Gospel of Mark. All other sources that mention the crucifixion of Jesus as an event in earth history derive that mention from Mark, either directly (e.g. Matthew, Luke, John; Celsus; Justin; etc.) or indirectly, as Christians simply repeat the same claims in those Gospels, which all embellish and thus derive from that same one Gospel, Mark, and their critics simply believed them because they would have thought it was too self-damning to make up, and because there was no way for them to check.

“The Gospels”

“This should actually count for four reasons to accept Jesus’ existence as each Gospel is an independent account of his life.” Nope. See above. Every Gospel is just an embellished redaction of Mark. Even John .

“The disciples’ deaths.”

There are no reliable sources for the disciples’ deaths. We have, at most, some ridiculous and late legends, based on no identifiable sources. We do not in fact know why or when they died. Or what they died for. This whole argument is therefore hosed from top to bottom.

A liberal scholar said that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were only written 7 to 32 years after the life of Jesus. The biographies of Alexander the Great were written 400 years after his death. A New Testament scholar said that the gospel of Mark was written 4 years after the life of Jesus.
Darkness at the crucifixion: metaphor or real history? - creation.com

The gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke
Each of these authors briefly records the three-hour darkness during Christ’s crucifixion (Matthew 27:45,
Mark 15:33, Luke 23:44–45). Matthew was one of Jesus’ apostles and an eyewitness to the event. Mark was a close companion of Peter, one of Christ’s three innermost apostles. Mark also travelled with Paul, Luke, and many of the earliest Christians in the Book of Acts. Luke was a Greek physician and historian who carefully investigated the events of Christ’s life. His historical investigation was based on direct and indirect eyewitness accounts from Paul, Peter, James, Mark, Mary (the mother of Jesus), and many of Jesus’ first female followers.Who was Luke and what did he write?)

Even more compelling is the fact that Rudolph Pesch, the German New Testament scholar, dates the source for Mark’s passion narrative no later thanAD37 based on language, style, grammar, and personal references.Strobel, L. The Case for Christ, p. 220, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 1998." style="box-sizing: inherit; color: rgb(34, 139, 246); background-color: transparent; border-bottom: none; margin-bottom: 4px; cursor: pointer;">5 This is a maximum of four years after the actual event! It can be conclusively stated that the Gospel accounts of the darkness at the crucifixion are extremely early, reliable, and based on eyewitnesses.

the gospel writers did not write a myth. the reason people sin is usually just one of three things or a combination thereof, sex, money, or power, relationships, finances, or pride, or power-those kinda things. Proving Jesus' resurrection without the Bible? - creation.com

• Did the eyewitnesses have anything to gain from lying about what they claimed to see? (No. They gained no gold, girls, or glory for preaching the gospel. Rather, they gained ostracism, suffering, and death.)

 

[Skywalker]

Well the OT is mythology so that is one mention of sins in myth.
But Lord Krishna also forgives sins and such:

"Krishna promises to forgive and deliver all sinful reactions of those who surrender to Him exclusively. (Bhagavad Gita 18.66) This applies to even the most sinful persons, the only qualification being that they sincerely regret and rectify their misdeeds and never go back to their sinful ways again by being situated in devotional service to Krishna. The most outstanding example of this is Lord Caitanya’s deliverance of the two notorious sinners Jagai and Madhai, infamous for having committed sins of every description, who were by His mercy transformed into flawless pure devotees. On the contrary, continuing to sin on the strength of doing devotional activities and thinking this will counteract the sins is most heinous. Some times people make a habit of confessing their sins or atoning for them (prayascitta) with no intention of giving up sinning; this is an offense and simply makes it much harder to earn the Lord’s forgiveness and reinstate oneself"

But I'm not sure your version of the myth is even correct. Before Yahweh could bring about the end of the world he had to eradicate sin. Or atone for everyone's sins. So Jesus did this so the end times could begin. This obviously didn't happen so they had to change the message.
Danile 9, Jeremiah 23, 25, Isaih 53, Zacariah 3, 6



Except thousands of Buddhists alone has been martyred for the same reasons as any Christian martyr. Do you ever get tired of being lied to and fed mis-information about the world? Can you do your own research into things, ever?

Persecution of Buddhists - Wikipedia

According to the Bhagavad Gita, the Hindu sacred book, Krishna identifies himself as "The lord of destruction, The serpent of eternity, The prince of demons". According to the Bible, these are references to Satan. Krishna being a forgiver in Hindu mythology is a superficial similarity to Jesus. Was Jesus’ Death & Resurrection Copied From Krishna? | Reasons for Jesus

Jesus and Krishna: No Meaningful Parallel
People who want to force a parallel say Jesus and Krishna were both pieced and raised from the dead. But again, almost anything can seem similar if you ignore the differences! The key point of the Gospel story is that God used Jesus’ resurrection to validate his divine claims.

Further, the New Testament links Jesus’ death and resurrection to believers receiving forgiveness of sins and eternal life. Indeed, the Christian significance of this event has no meaningful parallel with the Hindu story of Krishna. As my friend Daniel concludes:

“THESE STORIES AND IMPLICATIONS ARE ABOUT AS SIMILAR AS AN ANT AND AN ELEPHANT.”

Interestingly, the earliest critics of Christianity never said Jesus’ story was ripped off from Hinduism. Right from the get-go, the Apostle Paul acknowledged that Gentiles found the idea of a crucified savior tough to accept (1 Corinthians 1:23), not like it was a common theme in pagan mythology. Even in the second century, the Greek Apologist Justin Martyr made a similar observation in Apology I: Skeptics said the idea of a crucified savior was absolutely crazy (13.4)!

 

[night912]

People never use the name of Allah, Buddha, or Confucius, as a curse word. Why Is “Jesus Christ” Used as “Blasphemous Profanity”?

Allah Yakhthek

 

[joelr]

A liberal scholar said that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were only written 7 to 32 years after the life of Jesus. The biographies of Alexander the Great were written 400 years after his death. A New Testament scholar said that the gospel of Mark was written 4 years after the life of Jesus.
Darkness at the crucifixion: metaphor or real history? - creation.com

Fundamentalist putting fringe theories on gospel dating exist just as flat Earth and fake moon landing conspiracies. They have been shown to be crank and are not accepted in the field because they do not have reasonable proof.
The gospel dating by historians AND the majority of Christian scholarship is by far overwhelming. Mark is first and written around 70-90AD. When the completely fictional myth was written still has no bearing on the fact that it isn't a true story. But that you will jump on any fringe scholar who may forward your beliefs shows you do not care about what is true and only want to hear things that will enable fantasy thinking.
So you don't have to embarrass yourself maybe you should look at some information on how historians know about Alexander the Great.

What Evidence Is There for the Existence of Alexander the Great? Quite a Lot. - Tales of Times Forgotten

And hey there are MILLIONS of Hindu claiming Sai Baba has done miracles that they witnessed, in the early 1900's, eyewitnesses! So do you care? No. We know people lie. Or hear a lie and then re-tell it as if they saw it. For stories about Gods they don't even consider it a lie. They are all "It's for my Lord" and feel justified.

the gospel writers did not write a myth. the reason people sin is usually just one of three things or a combination thereof, sex, money, or power, relationships, finances, or pride, or power-those kinda things. Proving Jesus' resurrection without the Bible? - creation.com

Great, unsourced statement and then preaching beliefs. Joseph Smith didn't tell a lie either about the angel Moroni giving him updated instructions from Jesus. Whatever.
Sure looks like a myth. It sure is copied from older stories. Matches Psalms line by line in one narrative. All the theology is from other older religions. Posting apologetics articles constantly shows why you have no idea about the real world. You won't study people who actually are experts in their field. You won't even consult the expert scholars in Christianity but insult them by promoting crank. Helps me understand why people believe weird stuff.

 

[joelr]

According to the Bhagavad Gita, the Hindu sacred book, Krishna identifies himself as "The lord of destruction, The serpent of eternity, The prince of demons". According to the Bible, these are references to Satan. Krishna being a forgiver in Hindu mythology is a superficial similarity to Jesus. Was Jesus’ Death & Resurrection Copied From Krishna? | Reasons for Jesus

Again you miss the point. You said no other God forgives sin. Well Krishna clearly deals with sin. Does Yahweh not destroy when needed? Does Yahweh not destroy 70,000 humans in a plague? Does Yahweh not erase Sodom? Does Yahweh not begin the end of times where every non-Christian is destroyed by dragons or some other fiction?
Yahweh also has other divine beings who sometimes do the work for him like Satan doing torture and plague work for Yahweh.
Or the "angel of the Lord" who does some terrible deed in the early OT.

Well Krishna has 3 aspects - Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma. One is for destruction which brings re-birth. Your religions are not really all that different. They use Gods to try and make sense of things that happen and human behavior. Maybe if you took your head out of the mis-information in apologetics and actually learned about other religions from schholars in the religion and you could make your own comparison.

Also no-one has claimed Jesus was a direct copy of Krishna? Krishna is not a dying/rising demigod in a mystery religion? These apologists are so uptight they are writing articles debunking claims that no one is even saying.
Are you ever going to link to an actual paper from a scholar? Ever?