• 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!

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

SeekingAllTruth

Well-Known Member
The Bible was completed before the apostles were executed, but their deaths were all predicted in the Bible. You obviously know what the Bible doesn't say but you don't know what it does says
Not a single apostle is recorded in the secular historical record, NOT ONE. They were imaginary. If you can cite one secular historian that even mentions a single apostle, let alone their deaths then do it. I guarantee you and everyone else here 1000% you cannot do it because I have investigated it for years and haven't found anything. The apostles were imaginary, made up out of the gospel writers' minds.
 

SeekingAllTruth

Well-Known Member
I can't think of a better test than, bringing a dead person back to life so that's what I consider to be the ultimate test.
I can think of a better test. God writing "I am God. Believe in Jesus, my son" with the stars. Until that happens I will continue to believe what the secular historical record says: Jesus son of god was a myth. And I'm no more afraid of burning in some phony made-up lake of fire than you are afraid of being eaten by an ant.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Not a single apostle is recorded in the secular historical record, NOT ONE. They were imaginary. If you can cite one secular historian that even mentions a single apostle, let alone their deaths then do it. I guarantee you and everyone else here 1000% you cannot do it because I have investigated it for years and haven't found anything. The apostles were imaginary, made up out of the gospel writers' minds.
I am beginning to think that we may be dealing with a couple of poes. It is easier at times to get arguments against an idea by providing very poor arguments for that idea.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Except you forgot that we know that the Nativity is as mythical as the story of the conception of Hercules. If there is any truth to the Jesus story you should focus on the parts that have not been refuted.

How has it been refuted? The Ebionites had beliefs similar to the gnostics, about conception. Did The Virgin Birth Happen? A Defense Of The Virgin Birth Of Jesus | Reasons for Jesus

Didn’t certain Christian groups reject the virgin birth?
“Why believe this doctrine? It was rejected by several Christian groups. The Ebionites (who were the descendants of the Jerusalem church) and certain Gnostics rejected it. [Heine.PACT, 173; Phip.PaulSup, 51] Their objections need to be taken seriously.”

  • To begin, not all Ebionites agreed on this matter. Origen [Mach.VBC, 21] and others recorded the existence of two sects of Ebionites – one that believed in the virgin birth, and the other that did not.
  • Second, the Ebionite belief in this matter is not attested until the SECOND century. Justin Martyr is the earliest to record ANY Jewish-Christian disbelief in the virgin birth [Brown.VirgRes, 49], and it is pure speculation to trace this belief all the way back to the first-century Jerusalem church.
  • The virgin birth tradition is obviously early – Matthew and Luke, because of the differences in the way they report it, are evidently drawing on a pre-gospel tradition. [Brow.BirM, 161 – see also Meie.MarJ, 221]. (It is also well-attested in the apocryphal writings [ibid., 528] which indicates its popularity.)
  • And what of the heretics who denied the virgin birth, other than the Ebionites? It should be kept in mind that what they objected to was not VIRGINAL conception, but CONCEPTION ITSELF. Most of these heretics held a docetic or anti-worldly stance which caused them to find the fact of conception repugnant [Brow.BirM, 528] – so they would have objected even to a “normal” conception. The issue was not really the virgin birth at all.
    Thus, they came up with alternatives like: Jesus simply appeared on earth, coming directly from heaven; Mary herself was an angel; Jesus was actually Gabriel or Michael [Brow.VirgRes, 48], and so on.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
There are all types of variations in myths about Gods and humans having offspring. Sometimes it was just like Mary/Jesus sometimes different. Like the Greek goddess who had sex a lot with Zeus but after a magic bath she became a virgin. They still produce demigods however it's done.
The style of birth used with Mary has happened in myths before Christianity.


"In other words, the idea of a virgin born, sexlessly conceived god already widely existed in paganism before Christianity arose. And Hera isn’t the only example. If you really insist on the idea being gods born of women who never had sex at all, the pagans had those, too. Perseus was most famously conceived by golden rain falling from the ceiling into the womb of the virgin Danaë, who remained a true virgin, never penetrated by any sexual organ anywhere, all the way to the god’s birth. One might still quibble and say gold coins counts as sex (as later painters imagined the myth to imply), but that’s a stretch, and in any case, it’s neither how the notion was conceived in antiquity (ancient iconography showed the gold falling in droplets, like a literal rain, more evocative of a ubiquitous urban myth of parthenogenesis: semen entering a womb without any organ penetrating the hymen) nor how it was universally understood by pagans: as even Justin Martyr had to admit, this counted as a virgin birth, and everyone said so."

"

The virgin birth myth for Jesus was, certainly, almost entirely modeled on Jewish precedents, both in and out of the Bible—from the miraculous impregnation of Sarah in the OT, to the miraculous conception of Moses in Philo’s Life of Moses and the Biblical Antiquities. But it was a syncretic creation, combining those Jewish elements, with pagan, producing a hybrid, just like every other instance of cultural diffusion (e.g. the way the Romans altered the Athena story when adapting it to Minerva): something different from anything before, yet fully explained by all its precedents. I should also add, for those who will inevitably ask, yes, it’s true, the original Hebrew scriptures did not predict a virgin birth, although their Greek translations could still have inspired the idea, evidencing a third source, the paganized Judaism of Hellenism: see my discussion in The Problem of the Virgin Birth Prophecy.

More relevant though I think was the fact that the idea of God spontaneously creating people was already a Jewish notion for centuries before Christianity came along: it’s precisely how Adam and Eve came to be. If God could fashion them without sex, he could fashion Jesus without sex. Just as he would fashion our future new bodies without sex (2 Corinthians 5). And like Romulus as a pre-existent deity given a body, Jesus was a pre-existent deity given a body (see OHJ, Element 10, pp. 92-96), making sexual conception less pertinent a means anyway, even if the authors were not already disgusted by the idea of sex and thus already inclined to leave it out of any pagan model they borrowed from.

But borrow they did. Before Christianity arose, pagan theology was already awash with women conceiving asexually, and also promulgated the idea of women giving birth as still virgins. Judaism had no comparable idea. Even the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 would have been read by Jews through a Jewish interpretational filter—a filter that lacked any other notion except that a virgin would conceive on her wedding night in the usual way—until they had a pagan filter to see it through. Only then, though Isaiah 7 never mentions a virgin birth (only that a maiden will become pregnant; not that she would then remain a maiden), would any Jew imagine it could have said what pagans might have imagined: that this mother will remain a virgin, thus portending a miracle. That step in reasoning is pagan. And only comes from a pagan milieu. The Christians assimilated their godman to pagan godmen, by Judaizing the pagan elements required. Thus, they preferred the pagan godmen who were fathered sexlessly by God’s pneuma and dynamis (a la Plutarch), upon women who chastely never had sex with anyone else either, so that even the vagina itself that the godman would pass through would be pure of sexual corruption. Ra came by such a way. Perseus as well. And if we allow revirginizing magic, Hephaestus, too. And if they, why not Jesus?

Christians just need to get over this, and accept that their religion is just another evolution of paganism, one more splinter sect of competitive superstitions and mythologies. Its ideas have been cobbled together from the dismembered parts of other religions that preceded it. And when you really think about it, this Frankenstein’s monster is, well, kind of silly. Sexless reproduction and virginal birth canals? How desperate must you be to deny the natural facts of human bodies. And how ruined and sullied your minds must be, to think there is anything at all bad or dirty about one random awkwardly shaped piece of flesh touching another for fun—or babies."
Virgin Birth: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier

The church had no reason to make up a doctrine about the virgin birth. The Virgin Birth Of Jesus – Did The Church Make This Up? | Reasons for Jesus

1. The Virgin Birth Raised Suspicions
Making up a fake story about Jesus’ virgin birth wouldn’t make Christianity more attractive to the Jews. It would actually make people suspicious about Jesus. Who was the real dad? Did Mary hook up with a Roman soldier? That kind of thing. Why make it more difficult to accept the Christian message? The ancient church wouldn’t have taught that Jesus was born of a virgin unless they had good reasons for believing he actually was.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Nonsense. That it would raise suspicions was not a factor until much later. You should be trying to find out how we know that it was faked.

Since even many Jewish people are not believers, many of the people during the time of Jesus would have thought that Mary had a kid out of wedlock.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The Ebionites believed that conception was something bad. That's similar to the Gnostic belief about the physical world being evil.
Did they? You should find a proper source that supports that. But when it comes to sex crazy beliefs are the norm when it comes to ancient peoples.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Did they? You should find a proper source that supports that. But when it comes to sex crazy beliefs are the norm when it comes to ancient peoples.

Quoted from reasons for Jesus. Did The Virgin Birth Happen? A Defense Of The Virgin Birth Of Jesus | Reasons for Jesus

  • And what of the heretics who denied the virgin birth, other than the Ebionites? It should be kept in mind that what they objected to was not VIRGINAL conception, but CONCEPTION ITSELF. Most of these heretics held a docetic or anti-worldly stance which caused them to find the fact of conception repugnant [Brow.BirM, 528] – so they would have objected even to a “normal” conception. The issue was not really the virgin birth at all.
    Thus, they came up with alternatives like: Jesus simply appeared on earth, coming directly from heaven; Mary herself was an angel; Jesus was actually Gabriel or Michael [Brow.VirgRes, 48], and so on.
 

SeekingAllTruth

Well-Known Member
Pilgrim Soldier said:
I found all of them, so it means you haven't looked everywhere.

You haven't found anything. Fess up.

I asked you to post what you found about all the apostles dying for their faith, Pilgrim. You didn't post a single thing. Why? Because you have nothing. It's so apparent. If you had evidence you would put it up here for all of us to see but you refuse. I'm sure your argument is, "I know it exists. I've seen it. If you want to find it go look for it yourself." You call yourself a Christian, but with deception like that how do you dare?
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Nonsense. That it would raise suspicions was not a factor until much later. You should be trying to find out how we know that it was faked.

There was a suspicion risk factor. Joseph put Mary away so that it didn't look like she committed adultery. Why do you think suspicion wasn't a factor until much later?
 
Last edited:

SeekingAllTruth

Well-Known Member
Pilgrim Soldier said:
I found all of them, so it means you haven't looked everywhere.



I asked you to post what you found about all the apostles dying for their faith, Pilgrim. You didn't post a single thing. Why? Because you have nothing. It's so apparent. If you had evidence you would put it up here for all of us to see but you refuse. I'm sure your argument is, "I know it exists. I've seen it. If you want to find it go look for it yourself." You call yourself a Christian, but with deception like that how do you dare?

I don't expect to hear back from Pilgrim on this. We all know he hasn't a nickel's worth of proof for the apostles. So it's
Check......mate....Game Over.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
What Attis parallel? There are amateur articles that are apologist and articles that are pro-mythicist. Both can be complete crank. A crank article on Attis/Jesus comparisons does not change real facts or work done by actual scholars.

In Carriers blog article where he goes over several other dying/rising demigods he does not even mention Attis.

There was no communion in the Attis belief system. There are supposed parallels between Jesus and pagan beliefs that don't exist. Scholarly evidence shows that the Attis faith didn't have a communion.

Jesus Vs Attis – Debunking The Alleged Parallels | Reasons for Jesus

3. His body as bread was eaten by his worshippers.
The critics Freke and Gandy add, based on a note from Godwin, that initiates of the Mysteries of Attis “had some form of communion” in which they ate from a tambourine and drank from a cymbal, and then say, “What they ate and drank from these sacred instruments is not recorded, but most likely it was bread and wine.” [50]

Despite the footnote to Godwin’s text at the end of this sentence by Freke and Gandy, Godwin makes no such assertion in his text; what Godwin does say is that “what they ate or drank we do not know” — not a word is said about it being “likely” bread and wine, and Freke and Gandy’s footnote is therefore a partial fabrication.

Vermaseren, the dean of Attis studies [Verm.CA, 118-9], adds more. Vermaseren confirms the use of the cymbals, and the eating and drinking portion, but suggests that milk was the drink of choice, because wine and bread were forbidden during the Attis festivals — if wine and bread was the snack of choice, it would have had to have been an exception to this rule.

Nevertheless, as usual, this stuff about the snacking habits of Attis’ devotees comes from Christian writers, and at best would reflect the sort of communal meal all ancient societies practiced (being that bread and wine were the key ancient staples).
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
First God did send Satan to do his bidding:

"Yahweh sends the "Angel of Yahweh" to inflict a plague against Israel for three days, killing 70,000 people as punishment for David having taken a census without his approval.[17] 1 Chronicles 21:1 repeats this story,[17] but replaces the "Angel of Yahweh" with an entity referred to as "a satan""

Second this was the early concept of Satan. Later versions after the Persion invasion were much more like the Zorastrian version with Satan being an enemy and at war with God.

Henry Ansgar Kelly is Distinguished Research Professor of Biblical studies explains that the Persian occupation (second temple Judaism) had a big impact on the Jewish concept of Satan.


During the Second Temple Period, when Jews were living in the Achaemenid Empire, Judaism was heavily influenced by Zoroastrianism, the religion of the Achaemenids.[27][8][28] Jewish conceptions of Satan were impacted by Angra Mainyu,[8][29] the Zoroastrian god of evil, darkness, and ignorance.[8] In the Septuagint, the Hebrew ha-Satan in Job and Zechariah is translated by the Greek word diabolos (slanderer), the same word in the Greek New Testament from which the English word "devil" is derived.[30] Where satan is used to refer to human enemies in the Hebrew Bible, such as Hadad the Edomite and Rezon the Syrian, the word is left untranslated but transliterated in the Greek as satan, a neologism in Greek.[30]

The idea of Satan as an opponent of God and a purely evil figure seems to have taken root in Jewish pseudepigrapha during the Second Temple Period,
Satan - Wikipedia



Can you not read - "Judaism was heavily influenced by Zoroastrianism,"?????????

To just say "no" is just denial. You can run from facts and truth and believe whatever you like. But as far as this discussion goes I have demonstrated this is true. You can go to church and pretend the false history presented is real and live in that bubble, Like the movie The 10 Commandments is actually how it happened. But in academia the actual facts are there to be learned if anyone cares.

Satan tempted David to do a census on Israel. Satan wasn't the destroying angel who God used to punish David for the census. Destroying angel (Bible) - Wikipedia

In the Hebrew Bible, the destroying angel (Hebrew: מַלְאָך הַמַשְׁחִית‎, mal'ak ha-mashḥit), also known as mashḥit (מַשְׁחִית‎, 'destroyer'; plural: מַשְׁחִיתִים‎, mashḥitim, 'spoilers, ravagers'), is an entity sent out by Yahweh on several occasions to kill the enemies of the Hebrews.

The spirit that tormented King Saul was a demon who God used for his purposes-God allowed, he didn't cause the evil spirit to torment Saul. Why did God send an evil spirit to torment King Saul? | GotQuestions.org

Question: "Why did God send an evil spirit to torment King Saul?"

Answer:
First Samuel 16:14 says, “The Spirit of the LORD had departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD tormented him.” This is also mentioned in 1 Samuel 16:15–16, 23; 18:10; and 19:9. Why did God let an evil spirit torment Saul? In what way was the evil spirit “from” the Lord?

First, the evil spirit was “from” the Lord in that it was allowed by God to harass Saul. Ultimately, all created things are under God’s control. It is likely that this evil spirit was part of God’s judgment upon Saul for his disobedience. Saul had directly disobeyed God on two occasions (1 Samuel 13:1–14; 15:1–35). Therefore, God removed His Spirit from Saul and allowed an evil spirit to torment him. Likely, Satan and the demons had always wanted to attack Saul; God was now simply giving them permission to do so.

Second, the evil spirit was used to bring David into the life of Saul. This account is recorded immediately following David’s anointing as the future king of Israel. The reader would be wondering how a shepherd boy would become king. First Samuel 16 reveals the first step in this journey. When the king’s servants saw the torment Saul was enduring, they suggested, “See, an evil spirit from God is tormenting you. Let our lord command his servants here to search for someone who can play the lyre. He will play when the evil spirit from God comes on you, and you will feel better” (1 Samuel 16:15–16).
 
Top