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

[74x12]

Matthew didn't write the Gospel according to Matthew. All the authors are anonymous.

"All four were anonymous (the modern names were added in the 2nd century), almost certainly none were by eyewitnesses, and all are the end-products of long oral and written transmission."

Gospel - Wikipedia

But by your own reasoning Wikipedia is even less useful to us because it was written or edited by some random person thousands of years after events transpired.

But here are quotes from ancient sources about Matthew writing in Hebrew.

“Matthew collected the oracles (ta logia) in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as best he could.” – Papias (Eusebius, H.E. 3.39.16)

“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews n their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church.” – Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3.1.1

“As having learnt by tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are unquestionable in the Church of God under heaven, that first was written according to Matthew, who was once a tax collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew language.” – Origen (Eusebius, H.E. 6.25.4)

 

[74x12]

But I don't recall Gallic Wars to be filled with a lot of miracles and magic, which the Gospels are rife with.

It's been awhile since I read the book but that might not be totally accurate ... perhaps signs or omens are mentioned from Mars or some such deity.

Irregardless that's kind of circular reasoning because you're saying the reason that Gallic Wars is more trustworthy is because it doesn't have miracles but the OP's point is that the gospels should be more like the Gallic Wars if we are to believe them. So it's a catch 22?

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Why not ask this at southern baptist convention altar call rather than here? That is a question better left for those who insist it is the case rather than one for God, who obviously doesn't answer for things people say about God. We can't even really say its something the gospels can answer as its not really from the gospels but rather depends upon a context given to the gospels, somewhat like projecting ideas onto them.

Using the same function: why did God allow you to say whatever you wanted about it without correcting you? Though I lack a perfect answer I can make this observation that however God communicates today is probably consistent with the past. You have intelligence. That is probably the same thing given to the people in the past. The people in the past made the best of theirs and probably thought about things just as you do now, albeit in different language.

You are wrong in the bold above. God communicated directly with humans in the Old Testament. Recall Him talking directly to Adam, Enoch, Cain, Noah, Moses, Abraham, et al. Recall God's voice booming out from Mt. Sinai when He shouted the Ten Commandments to the Israelites. Recall God talking directly to Samuel, Jonah. In fact there are over 2,000 times in the Old Testament there are phrases such as, "And God spoke to Moses" or "the word of the Lord came to Jonah" or "God said."

If God talked directly to them why can't He talk directly to me, and to you and to everyone so that they can believe that Jesus really is the Son of God? The mere fact that Jesus and the 12 apostles shows up NOWHERE in the entire 1st Century historic record is, sadly for me, proof positive to me that Jesus at best was a typical prophet, one among hundreds at that time, who got crucified probably for sedition against Rome and was buried. End of Jesus. Except that lots of stories started circulating about many extraordinary things in those days that coalesced into a single figure called Jesus Christ who was then adopted by the fledgling Christian religion as their mascot. That's how things appear to me after I did massive research on the Internet trying to find evidence for Jesus and couldn't. It didn't make sense to me (and apparently to millions of other Christians leaving the faith like I did) that God wouldn't do everything in His power to leave behind irrefutable evidence Jesus was real.

 

[74x12]

As already mentioned by another, the identification of the author of the first gospel as Matthew is a later attribution. Your statement that it was written in Hebrew is unsubstantiated and most likely false. The author of that gospel clearly had a poor knowledge of Hebrew. He made numerous mistakes of quoting the TaNaKh and misunderstanding it.

It was most likely written in Hebrew and the linguistics and structure tell us that. There is evidence to support it. Even a Jewish book of Matthew in Hebrew exists which they kept to debate Christians.

And you're Jewish so of course you think Matthew is wrong about the Tanakh. Of course you interpret it differently. That's a given.

 

[74x12]

He made numerous mistakes of quoting the TaNaKh and misunderstanding it.

Let me guess that it doesn't really say "virgin" in Hebrew? But that's debatable.

 

[Audie]

I always find the best answer for "why is there no evidence for such-and-such an event" to be -- such-and-such an event didn't happen.

You, know, like why is there no evidence for the arrival of aliens in large numbers on earth, or why is there no evidence for the Exodus of the Bible? Well, it's because the aliens haven't arrive, except in movies, and the Exodus never happened (which by the way, the majority of Israeli archaeologists now agree with).

But, hey, that's just me.

Far from "just" you!

 

[stvdv]

Why didn't God leave behind a huge trove of secular evidence for Jesus having lived on earth, dying on the cross and all the supernatural events accompanying

That is like asking "why don't they make university degrees easier to get?"
University degree is for those who really want to know, same with spiritual life

 

[Brickjectivity]

Allowing someone to speak their mind is not the "same function" not preventing text from being lost.

You seem to be assuming there was evidence to begin with and also to know the nature of it. Perhaps instead there used to be evidence that God didn't say such & such and that is what God has allowed to disappear.

 

[Colt]

"Personal religious experience consists in two phases: discovery in the human mind and revelation by the indwelling divine spirit." UB 1955

 

[Brickjectivity]

You are wrong in the bold above. God communicated directly with humans in the Old Testament.

You're imposing a context onto Jewish papers that you can't even read (or correct me if you claim you can), and they were never called 'The Old Testament' by the writers. Did you not know that? If God, as you say, wrote an Old Testament why didn't God name these books 'Old Testament' ? Therefore you have no grounds to claim I am wrong as you demonstrate what I have said by imposing a context (projected) onto the texts of meanings and of words which they, themselves, do not mention. It is only an imposed context which imposes that 'God' communicated with humans. 'God' is not even a Jewish word but a Christian Germanic one, and there is zero explanation except that it has been imposed upon the text, possibly in an attempt to deceive me, so that I will pay 10% of my income forever to someone who only works one day per week.

But keep telling me I'm wrong about something that I probably know more about than you and less than others.

If God talked directly to them why can't He talk directly to me, and to you and to everyone so that they can believe that Jesus really is the Son of God?

Back again to the SBConvention context. Few here would defend that. We know it too well.

Recall Him talking directly to Adam, Enoch, Cain, Noah, Moses, Abraham, et al. Recall God's voice booming out from Mt. Sinai when He shouted the Ten Commandments to the Israelites. Recall God talking directly to Samuel, Jonah.

That story is part of the Pentateuch which several times tells us in its own words that it is written to Jews only and never, ever claims to be something you and I are expected to believe in. Maybe Jews believe in it, but nobody expects me to except for people who want 10% of my income forever so that they only have to work one day per week.

 

[ppp]

You seem to be assuming there was evidence to begin with and also to know the nature of it.

No. I am not. I think people made your religious doctrine up and you believe it - so no - I don't think there was evidence to begin with. My reply was to the specific words I quoted.

 

[MonkeyFire]

You would know if you had faith.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Matthew at least was written in Hebrew and translated to Greek.

That is entirely unproven.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The author of that gospel clearly had a poor knowledge of Hebrew. He made numerous mistakes of quoting the TaNaKh and misunderstanding it.

The Tanakh of the Jewish diaspora was the Septuagint. What evidence do you have that the author misquoted the text available to his audience. And where do you draw the line between midrash and misunderstanding.

While I believe @74x12 to be wrong, let me also suggest that your post likewise exhibits more bias than scholarship.

 

[Shaul]

It was most likely written in Hebrew and the linguistics and structure tell us that. There is evidence to support it. Even a Jewish book of Matthew in Hebrew exists which they kept to debate Christians.

And you're Jewish so of course you think Matthew is wrong about the Tanakh. Of course you interpret it differently. That's a given.

The linguistics and structure tell us the opposite. The evidence shows that this gospel was composed in Greek, church tradition notwithstanding. All of the earliest extant copies of this gospel are in languages other than Hebrew, mostly Greek. There is no evidence independent of Church history that supports a nascent Hebrew manuscript of this gospel.

It isn’t because I’m Jewish I think this gospel is wrong about TaNaKh. It is because the rules of the Hebrew language show it. As do the accepted historical record of events with which this gospel is at variance.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I can' seem to find answers for these questions that constantly pop into my mind. I lost my Christian faith because of the complete lack of evidence for Jesus outside the Bible.

A complete lack of evidence for what, exactly?

 

[Brickjectivity]

No. I am not. I think people made your religious doctrine up and you believe it - so no - I don't think there was evidence to begin with. My reply was to the specific words I quoted.

Oops I got you confused with SeekingAllTruth. I was originally corresponding with them.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

That is like asking "why don't they make university degrees easier to get?"
University degree is for those who really want to know, same with spiritual life

Your logic is flawed. People need some kind of proof if they are going to believe in something on the supernatural non-substantive level. Why are so many Christians turning their backs on Christianity and going into other more lifestyle-friendly religions like Buddhism? It's because God is totally absent in this world and in their lives. He doesn't answer prayer. He doesn't help people out of their difficulties. He doesn't manifest Himself in any way. Christians claim He talks to them and manifests Himself to them, but it's not in any way that others can readily see. Has any miracle claimed by Christians ever been proved by scientific observation? If God is not going to interact with us why should we trust Him for our salvation?

Instead the Church has made doubt, a perfectly rational reaction to lack of evidence, a sin--and blind faith in what cannot be demonstrated into a spiritual goal to be pursued and perfected; that only in this pursuit of blind faith in what we cannot see and what cannot be proved by any historic record can we please God. It doesn't dawn on people that perhaps early Christian fathers were forced into this corner by circumstances of not having any concrete evidence to offer and so had to figure out an alternate means of convincing people to believe in Jesus spite of the lack of any evidence for him. It's interesting that Christians can be very skeptical of worldly things like me trying to sell them the Brooklyn Bridge without a deed ownership, but they are ready to sign onto anything televangelists say God told them to say without the slightest hesitancy. If Bishop Jakes or Creflo Dollar Signs tells his flock, "Jesus told me He wants you all to write a check to me for $1000 so I can by a Lear Jet to do God's work and God will reward you a hundredfold for your gift" people will forego paying their rent and buying food for their families to give him the grand. This is all made possible by the "gift" of blind faith. Don't question Creflo--that's doubt and God doesn't like doubt. He wants you to believe His servant Creflo is asking because God is answering his prayer for a jet. Very fishy that God answers Creflo's prayer but not the prayers of millions of Christians who have children dying of cancer or who are homeless and unemployed. I hope you consider all this when you suggest that blind faith is something we have to work toward like a college degree.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Your logic is flawed.

And your post is untethered. If you're going to respond to someone, quote or otherwise reference the post being targeted.

 

[blü 2]

What we have are texts from Byzantine Greek Bible. Matthew at least was written in Hebrew and translated to Greek. It's not correct to think they were originally written in perfect Koine Greek.

Two reasons to think that the gospel of Matthew wasn't written originally in Hebrew. One is that we have no trace of such a gospel. Another is that the author of Matthew drew, not on the Tanakh in its original Hebrew, but on the Septuagint ─ the translation of the Tanakh into Greek ─ as evidenced by his making the mother of Jesus "a virgin" (from Greek parthenos in the LXX) instead of a "young woman" (Hebrew 'almah in the Tanakh).

But how can you trust Gallic Wars more than Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?

A number of reasons. Julius Caesar wrote / dictated his Gallic Wars with his political position in Rome in mind, so (as you say) here and there we might make allowances for his account. But the historical fact that the Romans conquered Gaul and thereafter ruled it as a province of the Roman Empire is amply confirmed by surviving evidence, and closer to home, none of our surviving Roman texts casts any doubt at all on the substance of what Caesar wrote. Just as relevantly in this context, Caesar's book narrates no miracles, attributes no divine status either to Caesar or to anyone else, has no supernatural moral, and remains at all times within the realm of the possible.

The world is a fallen place. The human race is a fallen race.

I'm trying to think of a respectful word for Phooey!

Have a good Christmas, anyway.