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

[Subduction Zone]

Zoraster believed in salvation by works which directly contradicts the Bible.

So what? But it is nice that you conced that Zoroasterism is superior to Christianity.

 

[Skywalker]

So what? But it is nice that you conced that Zoroasterism is superior to Christianity.

Salvation by grace is what makes the Bible unique from all religions.

 

[Skywalker]

Why are they doubtful? Here are some of the traits of the religion:

"The idea of a single god was not the only essentially Zoroastrian tenet to find its way into other major faiths, most notably the ‘big three’: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The concepts of Heaven and Hell, Judgment Day and the final revelation of the world, and angels and demons all originated in the teachings of Zarathustra, as well as the later canon of Zoroastrian literature they inspired. Even the idea of Satan is a fundamentally Zoroastrian one; in fact, the entire faith of Zoroastrianism is predicated on the struggle between God and the forces of goodness and light (represented by the Holy Spirit, Spenta Manyu) and Ahriman, who presides over the forces of darkness and evil. While man has to choose to which side he belongs, the religion teaches that ultimately, God will prevail, and even those condemned to hellfire will enjoy the blessings of Paradise (an Old Persian word)."

The obscure religion that shaped the West

Zoroaster was said to be virgin birth and there is just as much evidence for that as there is for the Christian version, which similarities do you find dubious and why?

And of course Zoroaster (also known as Zarathustra) has the best them music. Checkmate Christian:

The Christian idea of Satan existed since the Pharisees who are the precursors to modern Judaism. Even in the book of Job Satan is not described as being one of the holy angels or part of a divine council.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Salvation by grace is what makes the Bible unique from all religions.

It is one of the main failures of Christianity too. It allows people to think that even if they did something wrong that it is alright since they are Christians. In fact some Christians think that because they are Christians that they cannot sin any longer.

 

[Skywalker]

It is one of the main failures of Christianity too. It allows people to think that even if they did something wrong that it is alright since they are Christians. In fact some Christians think that because they are Christians that they cannot sin any longer.

I don't think God is looking for perfect people, but for people who seek Him and strive. Being a Christian doesn't mean a person is perfect. Sinless perfection and license to sin are both false doctrines and neither are found in the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think God is looking for perfect people, but for people who seek Him and strive. Being a Christian doesn't mean a person is perfect. Sinless perfection and license to sin are both false doctrines and neither are found in the Bible.

The Bible can and has been interpreted in many different ways. Those doctrines may not be in your interpretation, but they are in others.

 

[Skywalker]

It is one of the main failures of Christianity too. It allows people to think that even if they did something wrong that it is alright since they are Christians. In fact some Christians think that because they are Christians that they cannot sin any longer.

Zorastrains believe in fire temples and baptism, but Zoraster didn't have a John the Baptist like baptism.

 

[Skywalker]

The Bible can and has been interpreted in many different ways. Those doctrines may not be in your interpretation, but they are in others.

Zorastrians didn't copy the Bible. The New Testament wasn't complete when the Pharisees believed that Satan is the prince of demons, which is different from modern Judaism, even though the Pharisees believed in the precursor of modern Judaism. Their beliefs were similar to that of the New Testament even though the New Testament wasn't complete at the time.

 

[Kenny]

You really make me wonder what is the impetus of your need to disprove the Christian message

1. - "honest professional context" - you need be specific. Because there are actual lies in apologetics while lies in historical papers are flagged by peer-review. For example in that detective "work" he lied. He attributed things to magic while failing to mention there is a huge thing in Christian scholarship called the synoptic problem where the literary interdependence of the gospels is impossible. Yet he DID NOT MENTION this as even a possibility. This omission is an outright lie.

Except "there are actual lies in apologetics" isn't the message he was saying. He was saying that if your were a honest professional you would agree with him... a fallacy.

2. - All non-fundamentalist scholars" - Well a very small few have gotten degrees and still believe evolution is wrong, young Earth is correct and basically throw out several fields of science. The massive amount of confirmation bias here rules these people out. But if they can demonstrate any good scientific point they always have that chance.

LOL... you are just parroting someone's statement because there are more than a hundred of fundamentalist colleges pouring out thousands of degreed scholars. Don't obfuscate the reality that he omitted a whole swath of people by only including those who agreed with his position (as you are doing)

3. - Christian apologetics is pseudo-history" .

Baloney?

4. - Comparing it to Atlantis and Moroni . Christianity is Jewish mythology. It contains wisdom and laws as all myths do but it also contains completely made-up supernatural beings and concepts. Moroni is an angel from Mormonism and is equally as fictitious as an angel from the OT..

No.

I will deal with any source you like. The gospels coming 40 years later and written wildly fictitious and copying so much from other religions and even from Mark provide only excellent evidence that those are fiction. I have touched on this and there is much more to understanding that this is true. All historians will back this up.

Yes... but it amounted to just opinions



Again... you make me wonder what the impetus of your position is.

 

[Kenny]

That is not a bias. It is a statement. I do not believe because of the failure of followers religions to support their beliefs with evidence and logic.

I disagree.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I disagree.

That is only due to your personal prejudices.

 

[Kenny]

That is only due to your personal prejudices.

You never know... Sometimes we get the view of "Me thinks that thou protests too much" by your posts

 

[Subduction Zone]

You never know... Sometimes we get the view of "Me thinks that thou protests too much" by your posts

Nope, merely reacting to rather ignorant claims most of the time.

But let's get back to the title of this thread. Why is secular evidence, reliable evidence, missing?

 

[Kenny]

Nope, merely reacting to rather ignorant claims most of the time.

But let's get back to the title of this thread. Why is secular evidence, reliable evidence, missing?

It isn't missing (as so many posts have shown) - it is ignored. Just google it.

 

[Skywalker]

The Bible can and has been interpreted in many different ways. Those doctrines may not be in your interpretation, but they are in others.

The nature of God in the Bible and Zoroastrianism is different. Ahura Mazda doesn''t have the high standard of holiness and justice that Yahweh does and its a religion of rituals.

 

[Skywalker]

The Bible can and has been interpreted in many different ways. Those doctrines may not be in your interpretation, but they are in others.

The verses that support Jesus is copied from Zoroaster can be interpreted in many different ways too. Jesus Vs Zoroaster – Debunking The Alleged Parallels | Reasons for Jesus

6. He was slain. Zoroaster was indeed said to be slain, but his death isn’t vested with any significance. There are a couple of stories about his death. A late story has him struck by lightning, but that is from a post-Christian source. An account that is generally accepted has Zoroaster killed at age 77 by a wizard/priest. There are no details on this death, other than that it occurred in a temple. A nice story from the 17th century has Zoroaster whipping out rosary beads and throwing them at his assassin as he dies. [Jack.ZP, 124-9]Either way, Zoroaster’s murder has neither the invested significance nor the surrounding similarities of the death of Jesus. There is also a third account that has him killed in battle as a king! However, none of this may matter as Herzfeld, after analysis of the data, concludes that the “murder of Zoroaster is entirely unhistorical” for the stories of it are all in late sources as much as 1400 years after his time, and had he truly been murdered, it would “resound loudly and persistently in history” before that [Herz.ZW, 241, 845].

The death of Jesus makes him a Savior in the Bible. The death of Zoroaster doesn't have similar significance. The stories of Zoroaster's death were written much later than the time he lived. The New Testament was only written decades at most after Jesus died.

 

[sojourner]

The death of Jesus makes him a Savior in the Bible.

Nope. The Incarnation of Jesus makes him a savior.

 

[Skywalker]

Nope. The Incarnation of Jesus makes him a savior.

Both Jesus being God and dying for our sins makes him a Savior.

 

[Skywalker]

Your source keeps using the same idiotic strawman argument. "There are differences therefore they did not copy that source". This does not work with grade school teachers when they catch kids copying off of each other and it should not work with you. It is pretty sad when grade school defenses of cheating convince you.

Repentance and atonement and God pardoning us are central teachings in the Bible. That similarity between the Bible and Zoroastrianism is exaggerated.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Secular historians believe that Jesus existed. The people who tried to explain away the tomb of Jesus sounded like they were trying to hide something. 26 Powerful Reasons Why Scholars Know Jesus Existed | Reasons for Jesus

Pathetic assembly of non-evidence nearly all Bible-based. Here's No. 5 just to give the readers an example of the kinds of "powerful" evidence for Jesus to be found in this article:

5. The Willingness to Suffer & Die for Jesus

This one is regularly trotted out as "proof" Jesus was real. "Would the apostles willingly go to their deaths for a lie?"

The only problem with this: we haven't a SINGLE mention of any of the apostles ANYWHERE in the secular historic record from which a researcher could even investigate how the apostles died. For all practical purposes, the apostles never existed. We can only conclude in absence of a shred of evidence to the contrary that the apostles were merely mythical figures added to fill out the Jesus story. I mean every leader needs followers, right?

I would sincerely like any Christian here to produce a single piece of secular evidence outside the Bible or biased Christian writings that mentions even one apostle and how they died.

Sadly, the rest of the 26 reasons in the article are just as feeble. Powerful evidence indeed!