Zoroaster-Judaism

@fmf said
And what do you believe the "same exact... God of Abraham" will do with Jews and Muslims when they die?

You and divegeester.

This is what this forum devolves into for you two.

An easy way to beat people up that you don't like.

Sorry, not playing your obvious game.

I thought the OP a lot more interesting than your "same old".

@sonship said
My experience is that most people who make cracks like "Spaghetti Monster" or "imaginare sky god" or "Invisible Pink Unicorn" in their attempts to belittle theists are superstitious about their own Scientism.

You are engaging in sophistry. "Superstition" is belief in supernatural causality.

In what way do you think cassaid4 believes in supernatural causality?

The stuff you typed did not say.

Caissad4,

Could you please reply for yourself before FMF the great defender of skeptics (and "Main Poster" ) stuffs more of HIS arguments into your mouth for you?

@suzianne said
This is what this forum devolves into for you two.

An easy way to beat people up that you don't like.

Sorry, not playing your obvious game.

I thought the OP a lot more interesting than your "same old".

You were talking about "the one true God" and about them being "the exact same God".

You also said "Rejection or adoption of Jesus as deity simply doesn't enter into the idea of 'the one true God'".

So my follow up question in this conversation made perfect sense:

What do you believe the "same exact... God of Abraham" will do with Jews and Muslims when they die?

@sonship said
Caissad4,

Could you please reply for yourself before FMF the great defender of skeptics (and "Main Poster" ) stuffs more of HIS arguments into your mouth for you?

The fact that the word superstition means belief in supernatural causality is not an "argument". It's simply a fact and it did not originate with me.

@sonship said
Caissad4,

Could you please reply for yourself before FMF the great defender of skeptics (and "Main Poster" ) stuffs more of HIS arguments into your mouth for you?

I am not superstitious at all. In my life I have seen and experienced events which would surely send a superstitious person screaming and crying into the night.
But, unlike many, I have no problem with admitting that there is much I just do not know. I have much respect for FMF. He is a spiritual seeker, much like myself.
FMF believes that there is a historical Jesus, I think Jesus is most likely a fabrication, a myth, started 40 or 50 years after his supposed death.

@FMF

While you're playing a walking Encyclopedia go get your evidence that I said "Everyday, I am MORE like my Lord Jesus."

Go try your rapid instance access on that data.

@philokalia said
Right, and even during the Exodus there are records of Jews appealing to different gods.

Yet, the period I am talking about -- the times of conquest of Canaan, the times of King David -- which Israel Finklestein specialized in show no archaeological evidence of that and every identifiably Hebrew site is very unique in terms of Middle Eastern archaeology because there a ...[text shortened]... s when there is the nefarious influence of foreign religions. The Bible extensively writes about it.

As a result of this discussion I found a link on Wikipedia to one of his books [1] and when I've finished reading it (it's only a couple of hundred pages) I'll comment further. However, I would point out that the absence of idols is not the same as the absence of polytheism. It's just the absence of idols.

[1] https://www.sbl-site.org/assets/pdfs/9781589839106dwld_txt.pdf

@caissad4

I think Jesus is most likely a fabrication, a myth, started 40 or 50 years after his supposed death.

On historical grounds ONLY - (not religious or revelatory or sacred)

The Resurrection Argument That Changed a Generation of Scholars - Gary Habermas at UCSB

Sample at least the first five to eight minutes.
Think on the first five minutes.
Continue listening if you can.

YouTube

@sonship said
While you're playing a walking Encyclopedia go get your evidence that I said "Everyday, I am MORE like my Lord Jesus."

If you're not "becoming like Jesus" today, just say so.

If you're not "becoming like Jesus" today, just say so.

Yawn. Part of your standard tool box - try to force posters to brag.

You've tried this silly technique to FORCE boasting before.

Same reply -

English Standard Version
Let another praise you, and not your own mouth; a stranger, and not your own lips. (Prov. 27:2)

Funny how you have a great memory for some things and total blackout of amnesia for others.

@sonship said

If you're not "becoming like Jesus" today, just say so.

Yawn. Part of your standard tool box - try to force posters to brag.

You've tried this silly technique to FORCE boasting before.

Same reply -

English Standard Version
Let another praise you, and not your own mouth; a stranger, and not your own lips. (Prov. 27:2)

Funny how you have a great memory for some things and total blackout of amnesia for others.

I am not suffering a "total blackout of amnesia" at all. Where did you get that idea from? If you believe you and other Christians are not "becoming like Jesus" as a result of your faith, just come out and say it.

@sonship said
While you're playing a walking Encyclopedia go get your evidence that I said "Everyday, I am MORE like my Lord Jesus."

Why have you put those eight words in quotation marks?

@suzianne said
From what I have read and understand, both Zoroastrianism and modern Judaism both came about around 3500 years ago. Some things I read implied that Zoroastrianism was around before Judaism, but I see no proof of this, just some speculation, probably driven by those who wish to devalue Judaism, and by association, Christianity. Sources say that Zoroastrianism was first writ ...[text shortened]... hat the Avesta exists today only in fragments, while the Gathas is the bulk of Zoroaster's writings.

My knowledge of Zoroastrianism is rather patchy. (Perhaps 'dusty' is a better description). There is certainly archeological evidence that places the religion in the alleged time period (around 3500 - 4000 years ago) which would make it the oldest monotheistic religion. There is also no question that the religion he (Zoroaster) presented was monotheistic in nature, rejecting as he did the polytheistic religion of his time and advocating for a single creator God, who alone was worthy of worship.

Zoroastrianism became incredibly powerful in its day and through the influence of the Persian Empire would almost unavoidably have had an impact on the shaping and development of the younger Abrahamic religions. You only have to look at some of its key beliefs of one God, judgment day and the like to see this was the case.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
My knowledge of Zoroastrianism is rather patchy. (Perhaps 'dusty' is a better description).

Forgive the attention to detail, but it sounds like your knowledge of Zoroastrianism may have impetigo.