Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It still fits the definition of magic.I believe you are mistaking mysticism for Magic. They are not the same thing. It isn't magic simply because you can't see it being done or how it is done.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
It still fits the definition of magic.I believe you are mistaking mysticism for Magic. They are not the same thing. It isn't magic simply because you can't see it being done or how it is done.
Yes, you may believe that. That does not change the fact that it is a myth.I believe the Jesus nativity is not a myth but an event reported by the inspired word of God.
Yes, people do because people are not perfect. The Bible was written by man not by God.
When you use biased and dishonest sites you are saying that you are wrong. See what the sites that are neutral say.
Simply search for "Horus". Avoid Christian sites. Avoid sites that are openly atheist. For example Wikipedia:
"Horus was born to the goddess Isis after she retrieved all the dismembered body parts of her murdered husband Osiris, except his penis, which was thrown into the Nile and eaten by a catfish,[8][9] or sometimes depicted as instead by a crab, and according to Plutarch's account used her magic powers to resurrect Osiris and fashion a phallus[10] to conceive her son (older Egyptian accounts have the penis of Osiris surviving).
After becoming pregnant with Horus, Isis fled to the Nile Delta marshlands to hide from her brother Set, who jealously killed Osiris and who she knew would want to kill their son.[11] There Isis bore a divine son, Horus."
Horus - Wikipedia
Technically that could be said to be a virgin birth. Osiris's fun stick was gone.
Neither was Jesus.Horus was not God in the flesh. The expression the son of God doesn't mean that Jesus was a descendant of God.
Neither was Jesus.
So what? Horus is a god in Egyptian mythology. It does not need to use a meaningless phrase.The Bible mentions Jesus being God in the flesh. Ancient Egyptian mythology doesn't mention Horus being God in the flesh.
So what? Horus is a god in Egyptian mythology. It does not need to use a meaningless phrase.
Neither was Jesus.
This is simply a huge non sequitur.
So what? A person can be convicted on circumstantial evidence alone. There is quite a bit of evidence that the early Hebrews picked up quite a bit of their theology during the Babylonian captivity.
Babylonian captivity - Wikipedia.
There are no verses in the Bible talking about Zoraster. Everyone knows that evil exists. If there is good and a God there is evil regardless if before the New Testament the existence of fallen angels is mentioned.
There is no direct evidence, only circumstantial evidence. During the time of Babylonian captivity, Daniel wrote about the Messiah coming on the clouds and the Antichrist. That coincidentally mirrored Zoroastrian beliefs about good and evil, to a superficial extent.
You keep making odd pointless arguments.
So what? Why do you think that "direct evidence" is all that much better? Perhaps you have watched too many TV crime shows. There is direct evidence of the captivity. And much of Daniel's writing was not about Jesus but about someone at that time. The verse that got abused into being about a virgin birth was not a prophecy about Jesus. Read it in context. It was about a contemporaneous event, someone born of a young woman, not of a virgin even.
8. Zoroaster’s followers expect a “second coming” in the virgin-born Saoshyant or Savior, who is to come in 2341 CE and begin his ministry at age 30, ushering in a golden age. I have been able to confirm that this is true to some extent: a return is expected in 2341 CE, to start a golden age; the details on age 30 I have found nowhere. Whether this future Deliverer would indeed be Zoroaster himself again is indeed something that has been interpreted, but later Zoroastrian texts think that the person will be of the line of Zoroaster, not Zoroaster himself. [Wat.Z, 94-5]
You keep making odd pointless arguments.
So what? Why do you think that "direct evidence" is all that much better? Perhaps you have watched too many TV crime shows. There is direct evidence of the captivity. And much of Daniel's writing was not about Jesus but about someone at that time. The verse that got abused into being about a virgin birth was not a prophecy about Jesus. Read it in context. It was about a contemporaneous event, someone born of a young woman, not of a virgin even.
I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
You keep making odd pointless arguments.
So what? Why do you think that "direct evidence" is all that much better? Perhaps you have watched too many TV crime shows. There is direct evidence of the captivity. And much of Daniel's writing was not about Jesus but about someone at that time. The verse that got abused into being about a virgin birth was not a prophecy about Jesus. Read it in context. It was about a contemporaneous event, someone born of a young woman, not of a virgin even.
An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more likely once alternative explanations have been ruled out.
Yes, if it is insufficient. They have also been found innocent if not enough "direct evidence" is found. They have also been found guilty due to circumstantial evidence. Another "So what?" argument.People have been exonerated based off of evidence being circumstantial. Circumstantial evidence - Wikipedia
Yes, if it is insufficient. They have also been found innocent if not enough "direct evidence" is found. They have also been found guilty due to circumstantial evidence. Another "So what?" argument.
"Historical features of Zoroastrianism, such as messianism, judgment after death, heaven and hell, and free will may have influenced other religious and philosophical systems, including Second Temple Judaism, Gnosticism, Greek philosophy,[10] Christianity, Islam,[11] the Baháʼí Faith, and Buddhism.[1"
Parts of the Old Testament were definitely borrowed. You keep making all or nothing errors. For example the Noah's Ark myth was originally not a Hebrew story.The circumstantial evidence that the Old Testament is borrowed from Zoroastrianism is insufficient. Page 29 of Mary Boyce's book. Mary Boyce - Wikipedia
Since God is just, everyone knows there is judgement after death and hell. The Bible says that eternity is in our hearts. We all know that free will exists, you don't need Zoroaster to teach you that.
Parts of the Old Testament were definitely borrowed. You keep making all or nothing errors. For example the Noah's Ark myth was originally not a Hebrew story.
So what? They did not need to borrow everything.There is no evidence that judgement after death, heaven and hell, and free will, in the Old Testament, are borrowed from Zoroastrianism.