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

Kenny · Dec 30, 2020

SeekingAllTruth said:
Dennis MacDonald has written a book on this theory which is very convincing. Mark, a Greek would have been trained in Homer and generously borrowed from Homer for his gospel. It's evident in that the similarities are just too numerous and alike to be mere coincidence.

Is Mark's Gospel Based on Homer's Odyssey?

An interesting thought... I couldn't subscribe to that for two reasons...

1) The story isn't limited to Mark
2) Mark listed where he got the information

Mark 1:2 As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, “Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way,
Mark 7:6 And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me;
Mark 9:12 And he said to them, “Elijah does come first to restore all things. And how is it written of the Son of Man that he should suffer many things and be treated with contempt?
Mark 9:13 But I tell you that Elijah has come, and they did to him whatever they pleased, as it is written of him.”
Mark 11:17And he was teaching them and saying to them, “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a den of robbers.”
Mark 14:21 For the Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.”

7. Mark 14:48 And Jesus said to them, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? 49 Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. But let the Scriptures be fulfilled.
8. Mark 14:27 And Jesus said to them, “You will all fall away, for it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.’

As you can see, it wasn't according to Homer but rather according to written scripture

Riders · Dec 30, 2020

74x12 said:
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.

But how can you trust Gallic Wars more than Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? In fact part of Gallic wars was written by someone other than Julius Caesar. He only wrote the first part. That doesn't mean it's not accurate; but I'm just saying. And then you have to trust that Caesar doesn't make somethings up. Perhaps embellish his own accomplishments or justify his actions.

That wouldn't really solve the problem because people would just say it was a forgery by later Christians. Like they say about Josephus' history that mentions Jesus. So whether Josephus' mention of Jesus was a later forgery or not is really unknown.

The Bible is there to get you to seek God for yourself. Once you know God then you wouldn't doubt the book anymore. So I think the point of not giving so much evidence is to encourage people to have communion with God themselves. If God told everyone everything they may just take it all for granted.

So your question boils down to why God wants us to seek him by faith? The world is a fallen place.
The human race is a fallen race. We have to fight unseen forces in order to know God and do good. The point is that we can't do this by ourselves because we aren't more intelligent than the enemy and any truth that God does reveal the enemy will attempt to disparage it and cast doubt on it. So faith is the only way to overcome the world. (1 John 5:4) And God wants to answer faith too. It's not like God desires blind faith. If we have faith then God will answer it and our faith will grow so we can keep believing for even greater things.

Riders · Dec 30, 2020

I agree faith is what saves people not evidence or science. However I do not believe in Jesus. I don´t have faith in the Christian belief system but for those interested in Christianity I would think it´s faith that matters not historical facts, I have faith In God a higher power.

rational experiences · Dec 30, 2020

Basic thinking owns natural truth.

First. Self a thinker quotes to brother human you are not God.

Event thesis God. Something higher in space unknown. Big bang conversion increased radiation. His wisdom how to convert to obtain.

Says energy was self consuming.

Highest law stopped consuming why mass energy is present.

Quotes thesis O pi.or Phi.

O God stone my god. For explanations thinking all the time.

Consciousness the teaching. Thinking versus taking action about thinking which became design. Ability to force change by design.

Brother to Brother human quotes you and God O science designs false God. False prophets. Became the murderer of my life.

God O earth sealed in variable thought upon histories. First vacuum. Second water plus vacuum.

So quotes mother of God highest. Natural.

Science taught science never will you own by thoughts presence of any body natural.

Your claim I will know.

How do you know space when it exists separate to presence and form. The information you quote is why you exist. Presence and form.

As a scientist.

Ask a real thinker for self. Why do you exist man male brother. Answer due to female bio human mother ovary.

What my sperm body human self never owned.

Science as science by use data and science. After ape presence one whole body separate is a human.

Science.

Then the scientist wants to argue science about self. The topic human.

Even though quote Jesus has science themed. The information says born a baby to human parents. Correct info.

How you want to thesis the discussion as science actually is irrelevant. Unless you argue knowing science hurt the highest human natural form. Life continuance. Babies.

SeekingAllTruth · Dec 30, 2020

KenS said:
An interesting thought... I couldn't subscribe to that for two reasons...

1) The story isn't limited to Mark
2) Mark listed where he got the information

Mark 1:2 As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, “Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way,

Mark 7:6 And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me;

Mark 9:12 And he said to them, “Elijah does come first to restore all things. And how is it written of the Son of Man that he should suffer many things and be treated with contempt?

Mark 9:13 But I tell you that Elijah has come, and they did to him whatever they pleased, as it is written of him.”

Mark 11:17And he was teaching them and saying to them, “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a den of robbers.”

Mark 14:21 For the Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.”

7. Mark 14:48 And Jesus said to them, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? 49 Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. But let the Scriptures be fulfilled.
8. Mark 14:27 And Jesus said to them, “You will all fall away, for it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.’

As you can see, it wasn't according to Homer but rather according to written scripture

Why not try looking at it from this perspective:

It is 70-80 CE (we don't know the real date when Mark was written since the first copies don't show up until the 3rd century)

"...the earliest copy of that gospel comes from P45, a codex of the four gospels dated to the third century."

Lets say 75 CE. It is 50 years since Jesus ministry. Not a word has been written down detailing anything about Jesus. All there is are certain stories floating around about a Galilean crucified by Rome but no details of his prior life. Mark wants to write a gospel about Jesus but he has no details. He was trained in Homer and Homer's Odysseus has a lot of interesting details that Mark can borrow from in constructing this life of Jesus. Much of the Odyssey find its way into Mark's gospel like

* Odysseus is plagued with unfaithful and dim-witted companions. Jesus often say the apostles are dimwitted.
* When Odysseus reveals himself to those he deems faithful, it is always followed by an instruction to keep his identity confidential. In Mark's gospel a figure recognizes Christ as the Messiah but he instructs them to keep his identity a secret.
* Odysseus is described as “a man who’s had his share of sorrows” while the Messiah was prophesied to be “a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief”
* They are both skilled at woodworking.
* Odysseus has to outwit the sea god Poseidon while Jesus displays his authority over the waters twice
* Odysseus reaches his kingdom after a period of estrangement. He secretly reveals himself to a faithful few until a climactic revelation in front of his enemies enables him to take back what is his.
Christ comes to earth, a realm estranged from him by sin, by the means of the Incarnation. He revealed himself to a chosen few until his trial in front of his “enemies.” He defeats them and is vindicated by his resurrection.

It is clear Mark is using details of Odysseus' life to flesh out details of Jesus' life.

Kenny · Dec 31, 2020

SeekingAllTruth said:
Why not try looking at it from this perspective:

It is 70-80 CE (we don't know the real date when Mark was written since the first copies don't show up until the 3rd century)

"...the earliest copy of that gospel comes from P45, a codex of the four gospels dated to the third century."

Lets say 75 CE. It is 50 years since Jesus ministry. Not a word has been written down detailing anything about Jesus. All there is are certain stories floating around about a Galilean crucified by Rome but no details of his prior life. Mark wants to write a gospel about Jesus but he has no details. He was trained in Homer and Homer's Odysseus has a lot of interesting details that Mark can borrow from in constructing this life of Jesus. Much of the Odyssey find its way into Mark's gospel like

* Odysseus is plagued with unfaithful and dim-witted companions. Jesus often say the apostles are dimwitted.
* When Odysseus reveals himself to those he deems faithful, it is always followed by an instruction to keep his identity confidential. In Mark's gospel a figure recognizes Christ as the Messiah but he instructs them to keep his identity a secret.
* Odysseus is described as “a man who’s had his share of sorrows” while the Messiah was prophesied to be “a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief”
* They are both skilled at woodworking.
* Odysseus has to outwit the sea god Poseidon while Jesus displays his authority over the waters twice
* Odysseus reaches his kingdom after a period of estrangement. He secretly reveals himself to a faithful few until a climactic revelation in front of his enemies enables him to take back what is his.
Christ comes to earth, a realm estranged from him by sin, by the means of the Incarnation. He revealed himself to a chosen few until his trial in front of his “enemies.” He defeats them and is vindicated by his resurrection.

It is clear Mark is using details of Odysseus' life to flesh out details of Jesus' life.

Again, I know it is a theory... but let's look at some facts.

1) Paul, who was a well learned Pharisee, preached the same message. He wouldn't have been snookered into believing a work of Homer.
2) John, a major influence in promoting of the Kingdom of God, also wouldn't have been influenced by Homer
3) Peter knew Jesus and didn't follow Homer's writings. Luke wrote what eye witnesses saw and heard.
4) Dating:

Jesus was 33 before he did (34 AD)
Some say that Matthew was the first book written, was written between late 50's or early 60's Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies / Adversus Haereses, Book 3 (Roberts-Donaldson translation) However, some are now saying that Mark was written first which would make it written in early or mid 50's
Obviously they thought that Jesus' coming was imminent so at the beginning they would have thought it wasn't necessary to write anything. It wasn't until time passed that they saw they need.
Mark apparently wasn't the Apostle Mark... which means he didn't accept Jesus until later than 34 AD

Therefore, at the earliest, he wrote it maybe 15 years after he became an ambassador of Christ Jesus or at the latest 20 years... not hard to pen down what Peter was telling him.

So.... I wouldn't follow your theory.

SeekingAllTruth · Dec 31, 2020

KenS said:
Again, I know it is a theory... but let's look at some facts.

1) Paul, who was a well learned Pharisee, preached the same message. He wouldn't have been snookered into believing a work of Homer.
2) John, a major influence in promoting of the Kingdom of God, also wouldn't have been influenced by Homer
3) Peter knew Jesus and didn't follow Homer's writings. Luke wrote what eye witnesses saw and heard.
4) Dating:

Jesus was 33 before he did (34 AD)
Some say that Matthew was the first book written, was written between late 50's or early 60's Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies / Adversus Haereses, Book 3 (Roberts-Donaldson translation) However, some are now saying that Mark was written first which would make it written in early or mid 50's
Obviously they thought that Jesus' coming was imminent so at the beginning they would have thought it wasn't necessary to write anything. It wasn't until time passed that they saw they need.
Mark apparently wasn't the Apostle Mark... which means he didn't accept Jesus until later than 34 AD

Therefore, at the earliest, he wrote it maybe 15 years after he became an ambassador of Christ Jesus or at the latest 20 years... not hard to pen down what Peter was telling him.

So.... I wouldn't follow your theory.

Ken, there are numerous things wrong with your assessment. let me elucidate them one by one:

1. What document outside the Bible are you relying on to confirm Paul was a learned Pharisee? There's nothing in the secular historic record that even mentions Paul or his travels. That's very unusual for somebody who was probably more famous throughout the Mediterranean than Jesus.

2. Paul in his epistles mentions NOTHING about Jesus' life. Secular scholars find that staggering given that Paul supposedly was in Jerusalem as a Pharisee when Jesus was preaching and would have known everything going on about Jesus in 27-30 CE. Paul would have been among those Pharisees plotting Jesus' death when Jesus rode into Jerusalem on palm Sunday. Evangelicals try to brush this glaring fact off by saying, "Well, Paul was more concerned about Jesus as a savior. He didn't care about what Jesus was doing prior to his resurrection." Rubbish! If Paul knew about Jesus' ministry and the rules Jesus purportedly was breaking he would have said something like, "When I saw Jesus healing on the Sabbath I condemned it, not realizing that...bla bla"

3. Since the gospels weren't around in Paul's time how could he have made any connection between Mark and Homer?

4. Scholars today don't accept that John the apostles wrote the gospel attributed to him.

"John, the three Epistles of John, and the Revelation of St. ... Although authorship of all of these works has traditionally been attributed to John the Apostle, only a minority of contemporary scholars believe he wrote the gospel, and most conclude that he wrote none of them."

Authorship of the Johannine works - Wikipedia

5. Re Peter and Luke, you have no authority outside what you have heard to conclude his.

6. No secular scholar places Mark earlier than 70 CE because of Jesus' prediction that Jerusalem would be destroyed. If the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem knew this and believed Mark they would have fled. They didn't.

7. You admit that somebody goofed on Jesus returning to earth. People believed he would and they were wrong. God or Jesus got his prediction he would return in the lifetime of his apostles seriously wrong. I showed that in another post. It was clear from Thessolonians that Paul believed Jesus would physically return in his lifetime. How does somebody who claims to be receiving messages directly from God goof so badly on a detail that important?

8. I don't know of an apostle named Mark. Certainly he wasn't one of the 12 original.

halbhh · Dec 31, 2020

Joe W said:
Yeah, yeah. Cute attempt at a diversion. But the fact remains that your interpretation of that text has the same moral short-coming as did my interpretation. I could accept your version and your god would still be rewarding child abandonment.

Matthew 19:29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or fields for the sake of My name will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life.

As a commentary elaborates --

"...The Lord enumerates the persons and objects upon which men's hearts are most commonly and firmly fixed. He begins and ends the list with material possessions - houses and lands, and between them introduces in gradation the most cherished members of the family circle. "Forsaking wife and children" may be understood as abstaining from marriage in order the better to serve God."
(at the link above)

But we can remember a 2nd thing that is also brought to mind: God existing means that in the ultimate sense children are not ultimately abandoned (not even those dying of diseases or famine, acts of nature). He makes a way for anyone to be able to come to Him it seems, not only children that will be counted innocent and given eternal life (should they pass on in youth), but even guilty adults that didn't previously have a chance ( and even in such a dramatic way as for instance in 1 Peter 3:18-20).

halbhh · Dec 31, 2020

Joe W said:
Yeah, yeah. Cute attempt at a diversion. But the fact remains that your interpretation of that text has the same moral short-coming as did my interpretation. I could accept your version and your god would still be rewarding child abandonment.

Look, to generalize, when you find you've got several instance where your interpretations doesn't match any of those of mainstream commentaries (meaning not just occasionally differing, but in each instance of verses you bring up), then it would be most reasonable to begin to wonder if you are interpreting well. Doesn't that make sense? Doesn't it make sense to test your interpretation against a mainstream interpretation, and admit that you could potentially misconstrue something? Part of the whole serious problem of approach the text in a hostile manner is precisely that it will greatly increase the tendency to misconstrue.

If you are trying to see wrongness (or trying to paint a thesis onto the text generally), then you will imagine your expected thing in many places where it's not objectively there by a more neutral eye.

SeekingAllTruth · Dec 31, 2020

halbhh said:
God existing means that in the ultimate sense children are not ultimately abandoned (not even those dying of diseases or famine, acts of nature). He makes a way for anyone to be able to come to Him it seems,

The pagan Christian god is a lousy god. No real God worth His salt would make people come to Him-- He'd go to them and insure that NOBODY went to hell. This pagan Christian god says, "You come to me. I won't lift a finger to go to you. And if you don't I'll send you to eternal torture in hell."

If a child's diaper was full of poop would the father say, "If you want your diaper changed come me and ask. You have free will so make a decision. If you decide not to ask me to change it then you can sit in your poop." What a lousy father he would be. That's exactly what the pagan Christian god is saying.

That's why it is evident that this thing of God wanting us to exercise free will to demonstrate we really want Jesus is so corrupt. It was all designed to get a do-nothing god off the hook so he doesn't have to take responsibility for insuring that nobody was lost to hell. And Jesus demonstrates how heartless and cruel and completely imperfect this doctrine is in Matthew

"Wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. Small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

Can you imagine a God who would let the vast majority of mankind go to hell and NOT do everything in His power to stop it? But Jesus doesn't seem to care. He basically says, "Hey, this is not my doing, this is my Father's. If you have any issues with how screwed up this whole thing is, then take it up with him, not me."

This is NOT a good god. This is an evil god.

ppp · Dec 31, 2020

halbhh said:
Matthew 19:29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or fields for the sake of My name will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life.

As a commentary elaborates --

"...The Lord enumerates the persons and objects upon which men's hearts are most commonly and firmly fixed. He begins and ends the list with material possessions - houses and lands, and between them introduces in gradation the most cherished members of the family circle. "Forsaking wife and children" may be understood as abstaining from marriage in order the better to serve God."
(at the link above)

But we can remember a 2nd thing that is also brought to mind: God existing means that in the ultimate sense children are not ultimately abandoned (not even those dying of diseases or famine, acts of nature). He makes a way for anyone to be able to come to Him it seems, not only children that will be counted innocent and given eternal life (should they pass on in youth), but even guilty adults that didn't previously have a chance ( and even in such a dramatic way as for instance in 1 Peter 3:18-20).

That commentary is either punning or lying. Either way, you don't get to employ multiple usages of the same word in one sentence and be taken seriously.

ppp · Dec 31, 2020

halbhh said:
Look, to generalize, when you find you've got several instance where your interpretations doesn't match any of those of mainstream commentaries (meaning not just occasionally differing, but in each instance of verses you bring up), then it would be most reasonable to begin to wonder if you are interpreting well. Doesn't that make sense?

It only makes sense if there is a compelling argument for it. What you (or whatever group you are proxying for) are trying to get me to do is to ignore the text as it stands and take your interpolation. But you provide no rational justification for doing so. None. Nada. Zilch.

halbhh said:
Doesn't it make sense to test your interpretation against a mainstream interpretation, and admit that you could potentially misconstrue something?

What you are arguing above is an argument from popularity, and (possibly) an argument from insufficient authority. I accept all sorts of passages are not what they literally look like based upon the mainstream scholarly consensus. But the mainstream religious consensus has no literary credibility.

Kenny · Jan 1, 2021

SeekingAllTruth said:
1. What document outside the Bible are you relying on to confirm Paul was a learned Pharisee? There's nothing in the secular historic record that even mentions Paul or his travels. That's very unusual for somebody who was probably more famous throughout the Mediterranean than Jesus.

There were many Pharisees that aren't mentioned. Certainly the lack of secular evidence doesn't mean it isn't true. In that in his letters he said, "Phil 3:4 though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless.

And then written about him. Acts 22:3 "I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day."

Since no one disputes that fact when the letters were sent throughout the known world - there is no reason to think otherwise.

SeekingAllTruth said:
2. Paul in his epistles mentions NOTHING about Jesus' life. Secular scholars find that staggering given that Paul supposedly was in Jerusalem as a Pharisee when Jesus was preaching and would have known everything going on about Jesus in 27-30 CE. Paul would have been among those Pharisees plotting Jesus' death when Jesus rode into Jerusalem on palm Sunday. Evangelicals try to brush this glaring fact off by saying, "Well, Paul was more concerned about Jesus as a savior. He didn't care about what Jesus was doing prior to his resurrection." Rubbish! If Paul knew about Jesus' ministry and the rules Jesus purportedly was breaking he would have said something like, "When I saw Jesus healing on the Sabbath I condemned it, not realizing that...bla bla"

The problem I see with this is that people assume the, for some reason, Paul was supposed to write about the life of Jesus. There is no reason for him to do so.

In addition, it isn't like he didn't mention Jesus... He preached Jesus,

1 Cor 15:3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

Jesus spoke to Jesus:

1 Cor 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

He understood the need for Jesus:

Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, asof many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

And so much more... so to say he didn't speak about Jesus would be wrong.

SeekingAllTruth said:
3. Since the gospels weren't around in Paul's time how could he have made any connection between Mark and Homer?

He spoke to the disciples and those of import... he would have known about what was being written.

SeekingAllTruth said:
4. Scholars today don't accept that John the apostles wrote the gospel attributed to him.

But scholars of the time immediately after did. As they were of that time period... they have the greater perspective. IMO

SeekingAllTruth said:
John, the three Epistles of John, and the Revelation of St. ... Although authorship of all of these works has traditionally been attributed to John the Apostle, only a minority of contemporary scholars believe he wrote the gospel, and most conclude that he wrote none of them."

Authorship of the Johannine works - Wikipedia

anybody can write this. How do you establish that it is a "minority"? Is it 49%? Is there a tabulation? Not really... it is someone's opinion.

SeekingAllTruth said:
6. No secular scholar places Mark earlier than 70 CE because of Jesus' prediction that Jerusalem would be destroyed. If the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem knew this and believed Mark they would have fled. They didn't.

Why did you say "secular"? Could you also say "biased secular? Do we know what every secular scholar's point of view? We KNOW it was before 70 AD because none of the gospels mention the destruction of Jerusalem. It would have been mentioned as "done" vs the prophecies that it will be done.

It is attributed to St. Mark the Evangelist (Acts 12:12; 15:37), an associate of St. Paul and a disciple of St. Peter, whose teachings the Gospelmay reflect. It is the shortest and the earliest of the four Gospels, presumably written during the decade preceding the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE.

Gospel According to Mark | Description, Authorship, & Facts

I almost sounds like you "want" it to be later.

SeekingAllTruth said:
7. You admit that somebody goofed on Jesus returning to earth. People believed he would and they were wrong. God or Jesus got his prediction he would return in the lifetime of his apostles seriously wrong. I showed that in another post. It was clear from Thessolonians that Paul believed Jesus would physically return in his lifetime. How does somebody who claims to be receiving messages directly from God goof so badly on a detail that important?

Very simple... his was a human "interpretation". There was never a set date.

SeekingAllTruth said:
8. I don't know of an apostle named Mark. Certainly he wasn't one of the 12 original.

That is correct.

Colt · Jan 1, 2021

God is so obvious its blinding.

SeekingAllTruth · Jan 1, 2021

KenS said:
There were many Pharisees that aren't mentioned. Certainly the lack of secular evidence doesn't mean it isn't true. In that in his letters he said, "Phil 3:4 though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless.

And then written about him. Acts 22:3 "I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day."

Since no one disputes that fact when the letters were sent throughout the known world - there is no reason to think otherwise.

The problem I see with this is that people assume the, for some reason, Paul was supposed to write about the life of Jesus. There is no reason for him to do so.

In addition, it isn't like he didn't mention Jesus... He preached Jesus,

1 Cor 15:3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

Jesus spoke to Jesus:

1 Cor 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

He understood the need for Jesus:

Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, asof many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

And so much more... so to say he didn't speak about Jesus would be wrong.

He spoke to the disciples and those of import... he would have known about what was being written.

But scholars of the time immediately after did. As they were of that time period... they have the greater perspective. IMO

anybody can write this. How do you establish that it is a "minority"? Is it 49%? Is there a tabulation? Not really... it is someone's opinion.

Why did you say "secular"? Could you also say "biased secular? Do we know what every secular scholar's point of view? We KNOW it was before 70 AD because none of the gospels mention the destruction of Jerusalem. It would have been mentioned as "done" vs the prophecies that it will be done.

It is attributed to St. Mark the Evangelist (Acts 12:12; 15:37), an associate of St. Paul and a disciple of St. Peter, whose teachings the Gospelmay reflect. It is the shortest and the earliest of the four Gospels, presumably written during the decade preceding the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE.

Gospel According to Mark | Description, Authorship, & Facts

I almost sounds like you "want" it to be later.

Very simple... his was a human "interpretation". There was never a set date.

That is correct.

Responses to your points:

>>>>>"Certainly the lack of secular evidence doesn't mean it isn't true."

It's fine if you want to go down the road of "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". We can do that with leprechauns and faeries too. We have no evidence of them but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Under that pretext you're free to believe whatever you want no matter how outlandish.

>>>>"Since no one disputes that fact when the letters were sent throughout the known world - there is no reason to think otherwise."

The first surviving copies of the Pauline epistles don't appear until the middle of the 4th century. Nothing is known about them before then. They may have been written in 50 CE they may have been written in 250 CE--we simply don't know. Again, people are free to believe whatever they want in the absence of evidence.

>>>>>>"But scholars of the time immediately after did."

Again, a supposition. We don't know because we have no evidence. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

>>>>>"Very simple... his was a human "interpretation". There was never a set date."

I argue he did set a "date" : by 65 CE. that's when he died. He said Jesus would return in his lifetime. Jesus didn't. According to the law:

"When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously; thou shalt not listen to him." Deuteronomy 18:22

So don't listen to Paul. By the Bible's standard's he is a false prophet.

halbhh · Jan 1, 2021

SeekingAllTruth said:
The pagan Christian god is a lousy god. No real God worth His salt would make people come to Him-- He'd go to them and insure that NOBODY went to hell. This pagan Christian god says, "You come to me. I won't lift a finger to go to you. And if you don't I'll send you to eternal torture in hell."

If a child's diaper was full of poop would the father say, "If you want your diaper changed come me and ask. You have free will so make a decision. If you decide not to ask me to change it then you can sit in your poop." What a lousy father he would be. That's exactly what the pagan Christian god is saying.

That's why it is evident that this thing of God wanting us to exercise free will to demonstrate we really want Jesus is so corrupt. It was all designed to get a do-nothing god off the hook so he doesn't have to take responsibility for insuring that nobody was lost to hell. And Jesus demonstrates how heartless and cruel and completely imperfect this doctrine is in Matthew

"Wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. Small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

Can you imagine a God who would let the vast majority of mankind go to hell and NOT do everything in His power to stop it? But Jesus doesn't seem to care. He basically says, "Hey, this is not my doing, this is my Father's. If you have any issues with how screwed up this whole thing is, then take it up with him, not me."

This is NOT a good god. This is an evil god.

Actually, your own words: "He'd go to them" is true about God (as in the common bible), in actuality.

At least for the only actual God, the real one, He makes a way for anyone humble enough to turn to Him to be rescued, is what I found out.

(and you can read a surprising part of that for even the dead who didn't get a chance, and even after they die -- in that same post you were responding to here, but from which you quoted only a part of 1 sentence from; it's near the end in the 1rst Peter link)

Have a good day!

Guitar's Cry · Jan 1, 2021

SeekingAllTruth said:
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 who was born into this world for the sole purpose of dying for our sins--and that it was absolutely vital for us to believe Jesus died for our sins in order for God to keep from having to send us to hell for not believing in him, then wouldn't He have done everything in His power to leave behind secular evidence so overwhelming that only a fool or a madman would deny Jesus was divine? Wouldn't God have made sure that every historian in Jesus' time had heard of or witnessed Jesus' death and resurrection and ascension and then written about it? Wouldn't God have made sure that these accounts were perfectly preserved like Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars? Wouldn't God have made absolutely certain that the original gospel accounts from the apostles had been perfectly preserved for future generations so that we had first-hand testimony of what Jesus said and did?

Why instead did God allow whatever might have been written about Jesus by a known historian to be completely lost or destroyed? Why did 50-100 years have to transpire before someone finally decided to write the gospels, and these weren't even from eyewitnesses--they were Greek Christian scholars writing in perfect Koine Greek? And if they had no eyewitnesses or written testimonies to get their information from then how did they know the incredible minute details that appear in their accounts? How, for example did Luke know that an angel appeared to Jesus to comfort him in the Garden of Gethsemane when there were no witnesses to this miraculous event? Further, no manuscripts of any of the New Testament writings surface until the middle/late part of the 2nd Century. Why is that if God was divinely guiding the transmission of information about Jesus?

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.

Because Christ is a metaphor, and the benefit gleaned from it needs to done through introspection and not empirical evidence.

Kenny · Jan 1, 2021

SeekingAllTruth said:
Responses to your points:

>>>>>"Certainly the lack of secular evidence doesn't mean it isn't true."

It's fine if you want to go down the road of "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". We can do that with leprechauns and faeries too. We have no evidence of them but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Under that pretext you're free to believe whatever you want no matter how outlandish.

When does reality cease being reality? We have the recorded letters of the same and yet you have nothing to provide otherwise other than people's opinions 2000 years later which is in discussion by others that don't agree.

SeekingAllTruth said:
>>>>"Since no one disputes that fact when the letters were sent throughout the known world - there is no reason to think otherwise."

The first surviving copies of the Pauline epistles don't appear until the middle of the 4th century. Nothing is known about them before then. They may have been written in 50 CE they may have been written in 250 CE--we simply don't know. Again, people are free to believe whatever they want in the absence of evidence.

No.. that isn't quite the norm nor are your dates correct.

The Earliest Copy of the Pauline Epistles, c. 180-200 CE
Christianity’s Great Letter Writer
Date– c. AD 180-200
Current Location– Chester Beatty Library, Dublin, Ireland; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Language and Script– Greek, alphabetic

the_earliest_copy_of_the_pauline_epistles-_c-_180-200_ce

And we know that it is a copy and not the original... my position has much more support than yours.

We also know that Peter made reference to Paul's epistle.

Additionally " The Apostolic Fathers give evidence of very early use of the Epistle as Sacred Scripture. St. Ignatius of Antioch (d. A.D. 110-17"
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Epistles to the Thessalonians

If one denies the historical evidence, one is simply not wanting to acknowledge truth. IMV

SeekingAllTruth said:
Again, a supposition. We don't know because we have no evidence. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

>>>>>"Very simple... his was a human "interpretation". There was never a set date."

SeekingAllTruth said:
I argue he did set a "date" : by 65 CE. that's when he died. He said Jesus would return in his lifetime. Jesus didn't. According to the law:

"When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously; thou shalt not listen to him." Deuteronomy 18:22

So don't listen to Paul. By the Bible's standard's he is a false prophet.

Please provide scripture reference.

PS... He wasn't a prophet... he was an apostle.

SeekingAllTruth · Jan 1, 2021

KenS said:
When does reality cease being reality? We have the recorded letters of the same and yet you have nothing to provide otherwise other than people's opinions 2000 years later which is in discussion by others that don't agree.

No.. that isn't quite the norm nor are your dates correct.

The Earliest Copy of the Pauline Epistles, c. 180-200 CE
Christianity’s Great Letter Writer
Date– c. AD 180-200
Current Location– Chester Beatty Library, Dublin, Ireland; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Language and Script– Greek, alphabetic

the_earliest_copy_of_the_pauline_epistles-_c-_180-200_ce

And we know that it is a copy and not the original... my position has much more support than yours.

We also know that Peter made reference to Paul's epistle.

Additionally " The Apostolic Fathers give evidence of very early use of the Epistle as Sacred Scripture. St. Ignatius of Antioch (d. A.D. 110-17"
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Epistles to the Thessalonians

If one denies the historical evidence, one is simply not wanting to acknowledge truth. IMV

Please provide scripture reference.

PS... He wasn't a prophet... he was an apostle.

What you have are copies of copies of copies of copies of copies that are at a minimum by your own post 130 to 150 years old and likely much older. And you're assuming nobody tampered with them in those 150 years like they did with the gospels in a time when changing text by scribes to clarify what the scribes thought the authors were saying was common practice.

So what I offer is facts: no originals survived. Only 20th generation copies that surface a century and a half after they were supposedly written. And we have not a single mention in the secular historic record of an apostle Paul or his Roman trial, or his travels around the Mediterranean or mention of any of his churches. I mean this is like showing me a photograph without a picture in it and saying, "Isn't this a beautiful picture?" And I look and say, "There's nothing in it!" So you produce a copy of words and say, "This is Paul's epistle written 25 years after Jesus." And I ask, "Where's your evidence it was written 25 years after Jesus? All I see is a copy that is dated by experts to 200+ years after 30 CE. How do we know these are the exact words in the original when we don't have the original or anything nearer to it than 200 years?" And where is any non-biased evidence Paul even existed? How do we know these documents weren't written by someone else like, say Marcion and then they attached Paul's name to them?" Ken, nothing you offer is solid or concrete. It's all purely speculative.

SeekingAllTruth · Jan 1, 2021

Guitar's Cry said:
Because Christ is a metaphor, and the benefit gleaned from it needs to done through introspection and not empirical evidence.

Okay, that' makes sense. I've been saying Jesus was real. He was an invention by the church to serve as an avatar or mascot for the faith. Every faith needs a god to be a figurehead. Jesus is Christianity's figurehead.

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

Face to face with my Father

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Face to face with my Father

Well-Known Member

The wonder and awe of "all things".

The wonder and awe of "all things".

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Face to face with my Father

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

The wonder and awe of "all things".

Disciple of Pan

Face to face with my Father

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member