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

[Kenny]

Neither of them wrote what they saw so far as I know.

As far as the empty tomb goes, as I explained earlier

I prefer the witness of those of that time rather that your viewpoint. They have a better handle on what happened IMO

 

[Kenny]

I

The reason that you resist the fact that the Gospels were written by random people is because the foundations of your religious doctrine would be undermined.

You would like to believe that but not really. You haven't provided substantive refutations of who wrote it. People more intelligent than you or I have researched it and came to the conclusion of its veracity.

Some say "scholars say"... as if those scholars have greater import that others... but we still have the historical support of those of their times and/or soon after as well as modern scholars.

 

[ppp]

You would like to believe that but not really. You haven't provided substantive refutations of who wrote it.

Like I said, that is just you resisting. For me this doesn't matter. The fact that the gospels were written anonymously by random people later in time is just a side-show. If you were able to produce signed and witnessed affidavits from all 12 apostles, plus Jesus of his existence and of his alleged miracles. It would not make your case that Jesus is the child of a god.

People more intelligent than you or I have researched it and came to the conclusion of its veracity.

LOL. That like the "top men" from the end of the first Indiana Jones movie?

More relevantly, the consensus view among new Testament historians is that the Gospels were not written by the names assigned to them by the Church.

Since most new Testament historians are also Christians, again like I said, this is just you resisting.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

You would like to believe that but not really. You haven't provided substantive refutations of who wrote it. People more intelligent than you or I have researched it and came to the conclusion of its veracity.

Some say "scholars say"... as if those scholars have greater import that others... but we still have the historical support of those of their times and/or soon after as well as modern scholars.

Like who exactly? Christian theologians who fancy themselves Bible scholars, like Lane Craig and Mike Licona?????

The vast majority of scholars who have no biases the way Christian "scholars" with an agenda to push do, all say the gospels were written anonymously and that it was Irenaeus of Lyon who gave them their names of Matthew, Mark etc. Ever wonder why only 4 gospels chosen for the Bible when about 50 exist? It's because Irenaeus liked the number 4-- because in those days there were 4 corners of the flat earth and 4 pillars to hold up that flat earth. Pretty Holy Spirit-inspired, ain't it?

"In the previous post we saw that the Gospels almost certainly circulated anonymously at first, just as they were composed anonymously. It is an interesting question why the authors all chose to remain anonymous instead of indicating who they were. I have a theory...."

Why Are the Gospels Anonymous? | The Bart Ehrman Blog

We haven't an iota of historic evidence that any of the apostles even lived. I've read that their names were from the 12 signs of the zodiac:

 

[rational experiences]

Common sense.

O earth God sealed stone.
Owns heavens.

Humans after animal beast live.

About one hundred years survival.

Origin parents may have died millions years ago.

Sex kept us alive.

Radiation factoring. Cell removal human only at death. Cell never died it converted changed.

Cell death leads to human death.

Human life owned one hundred years survival. Then died.

We are not one hundred years constant. Only machines react as a constant upon the mass put into the machine to convert.

Gas has small energy mass only. To convert it disappears totally. Stone energy converts has remainder.

Human sex a choice. Is not a science calculation.

Human origins. Human parents. Evidence heavens supported their death.

Science owns no argument against God.

 

[rational experiences]

What does a human claim lives on ?

Recorded speaking voice. Consciousness.

Teaching Christ consciousness life recorded never died. Body however did. Memory lives on image voice recorded.

The actual scientific teaching.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

What does a human claim lives on ?

Recorded speaking voice. Consciousness.

Teaching Christ consciousness life recorded never died. Body however did. Memory lives on image voice recorded.

The actual scientific teaching.

Yes, the total lack of rational historic evidence for Jesus means that he, like us one day, is no more than dust blowing around in the winds of the Middle East. There is no heaven, no afterlife. The earth will burn out one day when our sun supernovas. The universe itself is dying one day at a time and in some countless eon trillions upon trillions of years from now it will go dark and silent and that will be the end of it--of everything actually. So folks enjoy what little time this life has granted you. It is very fleeting.

 

[Kenny]

Like I said, that is just you resisting. For me this doesn't matter. The fact that the gospels were written anonymously by random people later in time is just a side-show. If you were able to produce signed and witnessed affidavits from all 12 apostles, plus Jesus of his existence and of his alleged miracles. It would not make your case that Jesus is the child of a god.


LOL. That like the "top men" from the end of the first Indiana Jones movie?

More relevantly, the consensus view among new Testament historians is that the Gospels were not written by the names assigned to them by the Church.

Since most new Testament historians are also Christians, again like I said, this is just you resisting.

I support and will fight for your right to have a personal opinion.

Since that is all I find here, there is no need to answer.

 

[Kenny]

Like who exactly? Christian theologians who fancy themselves Bible scholars, like Lane Craig and Mike Licona?????

Never heard of those two.

Ravi Zacharias, Francis Chan, Josh McDowell, R.C Sproul and so many others.

The vast majority of scholars who have no biases the way Christian "scholars" with an agenda to push do, all say the gospels were written anonymously and that it was Irenaeus of Lyon who gave them their names of Matthew, Mark etc. Ever wonder why only 4 gospels chosen for the Bible when about 50 exist? It's because Irenaeus liked the number 4-- because in those days there were 4 corners of the flat earth and 4 pillars to hold up that flat earth. Pretty Holy Spirit-inspired, ain't it?

First, Irenaeaus isn't the person who is responsible for creating what we call The Bible.The criteria

The three standards are (1) orthodoxy, (2) apostolic connection, and (3) universal acceptance or church-wide consensus.

Orthodoxy—The sources of authority for the early Christians were the Old Testament, Jesus’ teachings, and those of his apostles. Therefore, the first test for any writing had to be its conformity to what the church already knew to be true. As a side note, the Apostle Paul applies this same line of reasoning to the Christians in Berea, applauding them for checking out what he said in light of the Old Testament Scriptures (Acts 17:11).

Apostolic connection—Because an Apostle had to be someone who was commissioned by Jesus and had both been with Jesus since his baptism by John and had witnessed the resurrection (Acts 1:21-22), the early church placed great weight on their authority. Therefore, the early church required that a NT book have apostolic connection, which meant authorship either by an Apostle himself (though often recorded through a scribe), or someone who had intimate connection with an Apostle. For instance, of the four canonical Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) only the 1st and 3rd were actual Apostles. Nevertheless, Mark was the traveling companion with the Apostle Peter, as Luke was with the Apostle Paul, establishing their places or authority and credibility.

Universal acceptance—The books of the NT were distributed and copies by the churches which the Apostle’s had planted around the known world. However, it was a world without phone, fax, e-mail, or satellite conference. Churches scattered not only around the Mediterranean world but also from Britain to Mesopotamia expressed general agreement on 20 of the 27 books of the NT (by the mid 100s only Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude, and Revelation were yet to be universally recognized by the church).

What were the criteria for New Testament books?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

All right, you tell me which historian calls Jesus by name--and please don't haul out that old canard Josephus. His works have been so doctored with edits and interpolations by Eusebius that we can't trust a thing he writes. Nothing from Josephus survives until after Eusebius gets his greasy fingers on it.

You'll soon find that blustering claims count for very little. The fact is:

The first and most extensive reference to Jesus in the Antiquities, found in Book 18, states that Jesus was the Messiah and a wise teacher who was crucified by Pontius Pilate. It is commonly called the Testimonium Flavianum.[1][3][4] Almost all modern scholars reject the authenticity of this passage in its present form, while the majority of scholars nevertheless hold that it contains an authentic nucleus referencing the execution of Jesus by Pilate, which was then subject to Christian interpolation and/or alteration.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] The exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear, however.[11][12]​

Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the second reference to Jesus in the Antiquities, found in Book 20, Chapter 9, which mentions "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James."[13] This reference is considered to be more authentic than the Testimonium.[14][1][15][16][17][18] [19]

[ source ]​

But you claim to know better and strut your "old canard" with comical certainty.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

You'll soon find that blustering claims count for very little. The fact is:

The first and most extensive reference to Jesus in the Antiquities, found in Book 18, states that Jesus was the Messiah and a wise teacher who was crucified by Pontius Pilate. It is commonly called the Testimonium Flavianum.[1][3][4] Almost all modern scholars reject the authenticity of this passage in its present form, while the majority of scholars nevertheless hold that it contains an authentic nucleus referencing the execution of Jesus by Pilate, which was then subject to Christian interpolation and/or alteration.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] The exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear, however.[11][12]​

Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the second reference to Jesus in the Antiquities, found in Book 20, Chapter 9, which mentions "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James."[13] This reference is considered to be more authentic than the Testimonium.[14][1][15][16][17][18] [19]

[ source ]​

But you claim to know better and strut your "old canard" with comical certainty.

Here's the truth: a Jewish historian writing 95 years after Jesus saying "He was called the Christ" only maybe proves that he heard that people 65 years earlier THOUGHT a man was the Christ. "Christ" just means "anointed". It doesn't mean "Messiah". There were hundreds of Yeshuas running around in those days calling themselves Christ who had brothers named James. So which Yeshua exactly are we talking about? Since there isn't any contemporary historic writings from the actual time of this Jesus fellow, nor any eyewitness testimony from anyone, this writing from Josephus IF IT IS AUTHENTIC is just hearsay by the time it gets to Josephus. So what you have is you asking us to believe Jesus is doing these fabulous miracles, then causing all these dead bodies to come out of their graves like the Walking Dead AMC tv show and walking into Jerusalem, and dozens, maybe hundreds of people seeing them and getting the bejezuz scared out of them. But nobody writes any of this down. Then there is 65 years of absolute silence in the historic record before Josephus MAYBE writes down something about a Jesus that is pure hearsay and of no historic significance for proving Jesus was actually the son of God. That's very thin, Jayhawker.

 

[ppp]

I support and will fight for your right to have a personal opinion.

Since that is all I find here, there is no need to answer.

Since we are not talking about my personal opinion, but the professional, scholarly findings of the community of New Testament scholars, what you are really doing is pretending it is my opinion so as to dishonestly ignore the academic consensus of mostly Christian historians. It's not that you do not have a need to answer, but that you have no answer.

 

[Brickjectivity]

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

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.

I don't know if you're still participating in the thread (since page 7 is kind of long in my opinion), but in addition to my other answer I have another. Evidence based faith is (my opinion) not Christian. In other words I think what you actually left was idolatry and a con rather than faith. The lack of evidence that you cite supports what I am saying here. None of the ancient material is designed in such a way that it can fool anybody by itself. There are endless clues directly in the Christian and Jewish texts that these are not to be read literally, and there are caveats, and there are signs of edits, and there are previous works upon which these are based. Those who manufactured evidence to fool you were most to blame, but you fell for it. It was your own error which allowed for that for a time, and it was to your shame, not that it was your plan or intent. Cons are everywhere, and they seize upon whatever materials they can find to make promises they can't keep. I think you fell for the con. Then as the con artist designed you blamed the bank for your loss. You thought you were leaving 'God'. You weren't actually in the Christian faith at all, putting your faith into proofs. This was not at all Christian. The same goes for a lot of other people...lots and lots. There is a huge industry out there selling proofs, and there are plenty of buyers.

 

[1213]

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 the crucifixion like dead bodies rising from the grave and walking around Jerusalem? If God really wanted us all to believe Jesus is His son ...

I think the reason is that it is not really necessary or meaningful. Also, all evidence becomes instantly religious evidence, if it supports Jesus.

I think the goal is that people become righteous, because eternal life is promised for righteous. I think it is not the same as believing Jesus is the son of God. If I remember correctly, even demons believe that.

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Mat. 25:46

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 6:23

 

[Kenny]

Since we are not talking about my personal opinion, but the professional, scholarly findings of the community of New Testament scholars, what you are really doing is pretending it is my opinion so as to dishonestly ignore the academic consensus of mostly Christian historians. It's not that you do not have a need to answer, but that you have no answer.

Since your quotes are so scarc, at this time, it is an opinion. Just making a declaration and then pretend that is true doesn't make it so

 

[Colt]

The Old Testament books have multiple authors as well as they went through various forms of revision over time.

 

[ppp]

I support and will fight for your right to have a personal opinion.
Since that is all I find here, there is no need to answer.

Since your quotes are so scarc, at this time, it is an opinion. Just making a declaration and then pretend that is true doesn't make it so

First, take the mote out of your own eyes, @KenS. You do not provide support for your claims.
Second, you have yet to ask for any support for anything specific. Your responses are not considered examinations of what is being said, nor identification of key points that you call into question, nor thoughtful reply. Your responses, such as the ones above carry no more content, "Nuh uh."

 

[danieldemol]

So what you have is you asking us to believe Jesus is doing these fabulous miracles, then causing all these dead bodies to come out of their graves like the Walking Dead AMC tv show and walking into Jerusalem, and dozens, maybe hundreds of people seeing them and getting the bejezuz scared out of them. But nobody writes any of this down. Then there is 65 years of absolute silence in the historic record before Josephus MAYBE writes down something about a Jesus that is pure hearsay and of no historic significance for proving Jesus was actually the son of God.

In defence of @Jayhawker Soule , he is probably only asking you to believe in the historical Jesus as opposed to the dogmatic Jesus.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

I don't know if you're still participating in the thread (since page 7 is kind of long in my opinion), but in addition to my other answer I have another. Evidence based faith is (my opinion) not Christian. In other words I think what you actually left was idolatry and a con rather than faith. The lack of evidence that you cite supports what I am saying here. None of the ancient material is designed in such a way that it can fool anybody by itself. There are endless clues directly in the Christian and Jewish texts that these are not to be read literally, and there are caveats, and there are signs of edits, and there are previous works upon which these are based. Those who manufactured evidence to fool you were most to blame, but you fell for it. It was your own error which allowed for that for a time, and it was to your shame, not that it was your plan or intent. Cons are everywhere, and they seize upon whatever materials they can find to make promises they can't keep. I think you fell for the con. Then as the con artist designed you blamed the bank for your loss. You thought you were leaving 'God'. You weren't actually in the Christian faith at all, putting your faith into proofs. This was not at all Christian. The same goes for a lot of other people...lots and lots. There is a huge industry out there selling proofs, and there are plenty of buyers.

Brick, I honestly don't know what you're saying here. Something about me falling for a con or something. I'm basically saying one thing: the Christian community has been lying to people for centuries telling them there is more evidence for Jesus than there is for Julius Caesar. This is a bald faced lie on its face. It's plainly evident there is much more evidence for Caesar--there's is absolutely none for Jesus when you put the gospels aside. The gospels were anonymous, we don't know who wrote them (could have been little green men from Mars for all we know); they were written up to a century and maybe more after Jesus crucifixion. We have zero evidence for the apostles. Christians are always saying the apostles died martyrdom for their faith. How do we know? There aren't any accounts in secular history or even in the Bible for 10 of them.

Christians are caught in a trap from which they must lie to get out of it. They have to manufacture "evidence" through lies to prove to people Jesus really did rise from the dead. It's late now so I must end here. I'd be happy to take up the discussion tomorrow if you wish.

 

[Colt]

The apostles didn’t believe it either, in fact the women were the first to believe. It wasn’t until the resurrected form of Jesus appeared to the apostles that they believed.

It was assumed that Jesus would “soon return” so no books were written for a while and the Jews certainly weren’t going to write about him in the Jerusalem Times.