Originally posted by Amenti
I will count you as one who doesn't care about the factual errors in this movie.

Aren’t there some striking parallels between the Jesus and Zoroaster stories?
Hardly. Zoroaster was a Persian prophet, though some (perhaps erroneously) refer to him as a god. While some scholars claim he was first worshipped around 1700 B.C., the earliest existing references to Zoroaster come from around 600 B.C. However, almost everything we know about Zoroaster come from texts written over 300 years after Jesus walked the Earth, and the earliest existing copies of these texts are from the 13th century. This creates a serious problem for those claiming Christianity "borrowed" from Zoroastrism, since the evidence suggests that it was the other way around, that the Zoroaster character was changed to become more like Jesus in post-Christian times.
1. Zoroaster was born of a virgin and "immaculate conception by a ray of divine reason."

Zoroaster's mom was married when she gave birth to him, and there's nothing suggesting she was celibate while married. The "ray of divine reason" was apparently a purely spiritual thing, and Zoroaster's body actually was created the usual way

Originally posted by KINGOFPAIN

i thought marry was married also?...even though some claim she was not,what about the time she spent with her friend (3 months away from Joseph)? she could have been knocked up then.. so as in the above ... "there's nothing suggesting she was celibate while with joseph"

can you see how trying to debunk truth is pointless.

The Virgin is the first aspect of the Goddess that dates back to Grecian times. "Holy Virgin" was a title for temple prostitutes, a duty of the priestesses of Ishtar, Asherah, or Aphrodite. The title itself did not mean virginity, but it simply meant "unmarried." The functions of these "holy virgins" was to give forth the Mother's grace and love by sexual worship; to heal; to prophecy; to perform sacred dances; to wail for the dead; and to become Brides of God.The Semites, and parthenioi by the Greeks called children born of such virgins bathur. Both terms mean virgin-born. According to the Protoevangelium, the Virgin Mary was a kadesha and perhaps was married to a member of the priesthood known as the "fathers of the gods."

There is an analogy between Mary's impregnation and that of Persephone's. The latter, in her virgin guise, sat in a holy cave and began weaving the great tapestry of the universe, when Zeus, appearing as a phallic serpent, impregnated her with the savior Dionysus. Mary sat in a temple and began to spin a blood-red thread, representing Life in the tapestry of fate. The angel Gabriel came to Mary, telling her that the spirit of the Lord would over shadow her and she would be with child. (Luke 1:28-31) This child was Jesus Christ, who many call savior.

In the Hebrew Gospels the name Mary is designated by almah which means "young woman." The reason that Mary is held to have remained a virgin by Catholics and some Christians is because Matthew in his gospel used the Greek word parthenos, meaning "virgin," instead of almah when referring to the virgin birth of Jesus. Also almah was derived from Persian Al-Mah, the unmated Moon goddess. Another cognate of this term was the Latin alma, "living soul of the world," which is essentially identical to the Greek psyche, and the Sanskrit shakti. So the ancient Holy Virgins, or temple-harlots, were "soul-teachers" or "soul- mothers." Thus comes the term alma mater. A.G.H.

The author of Matthew is saying that Mary's "virgin" birth of Jesus would fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14.
The actual Hebrew verse which the author of Matthew attempts to manufacture a prophecy fulfillment out of doesn't say a virgin would give birth but that a young woman would conceive. As an aside, the KJV Bible does as most Christian Bibles do, which is to translate the Hebrew word "almah" to mean virgin instead of young woman. The RSV (Revised Standard Version) Bible is one of the few Christian Bibles that maintains the term young woman instead of replacing it with the word "virgin". The basic issue is that Isa 7:14 doesn't have anything to do with Jesus in the first place.

Originally posted by KINGOFPAIN

you cant use the bible to prove the bible

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
KUDOS to the OP, thanks for pointing all this out, I have been trying to debunk the individual contentions on various trheads. Such as Jesus wasn't born on December 25th to no avail.