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

We Never Know said:

So do you think our successor will be bigger or smaller?
We will have a successor, evolution shows that.

Click to expand...

It will depend on the environment it lives in. If food is scarce that could favor a smaller stature.

We Never Know said:

You claim they take the bible literally which shows its false. But don't you also have to take the bible literally to claim its false?

Click to expand...

Nope.

Skywalker said:

Similarities between the Bible and other belief systems have to do with probably most of these legends and beliefs come from the fact that everyone had a common beginning and at one time everyone knew God. These accounts were passed down and developed (and became corrupted in some ways) into the stories and traditions that these cultures have today. I think it is just the nature of man to forget and fall away from the truth. I do think the messianic expectation was there from the very beginning ever since the fall, because I think they realized, perhaps more than most people think, that they needed a redeemer in order to be restored to the fellowship and oneness with God that was experienced in Eden. So I don't think it's surprising that that concept was there, people just took it and it became changed into various forms as the cultures developed, and even though they may have held onto the idea, the addition of other gods or pagan practices corrupted it, so that's I think why the gospel was needed, to bring people back to the one true God. Similarities between the Bible and the flood story supports that the same flood happened that non Christians recorded too, and actually supports the Bible.

Click to expand...

The thread is about evidence. What you have written here is apologetics designed to help you deal with the fact that the biblical myths are clearly taken from older cultures. Which is far more likely then stories about magical beings and all sorts of folklore being true. The idea that it supports the Bible is as unlikely as the Matrix being a true story because several of the concepts were in earlier stories.

Skywalker said:

Everyone knows that there are is God and the devil, and it doesn't take much to figure out there are souls, afterlife, and resurrection for everyone at the end of the world. What does it mean that we have eternity in our hearts (Ecclesiastes 3:11)? | GotQuestions.org

Click to expand...

https://www.gotquestions.org/eternity-in-our-hearts.html

So your evidence is "everyone knows" and "it doesn't take much to figure out"? Ha. Odd that it doesn't take much yet zero evidence can be produced?
What's worse is now you say it doesn't take much? Yet you are demonstrable incorrect. For CENTURIES Hebrew religious thinkers had no idea of any of this?

"There is almost no mention in the Hebrew Bible of Heaven as a possible afterlife destination for human being"

"In line with the typical view of most Near Eastern cultures, the Hebrew Bible depicts Heaven as a place that is inaccessible to humans."

Skywalker said:

Similarities between Noah's ark and Sumerian beliefs supports the Bible because Sumerian beliefs describe the same flood event the Bible describes. Belief in the one true God was passed down from Noah to his descendants but the information was lost over time.

Click to expand...

So all myths that are taken from older myths are actually true? That is terrible logic and is simply not true.

Noah is a fiction written after 1200 BC and claimed it took place long before that. The flood myth existed way before the Israelites and we see it reflected in their myths. But you are now saying that they somehow completely forgot about heaven and souls and all the Greek/Persian myths, but then, just when the Persians and Greeks invaded.......THEY REMEMBERED!
That is even more far fetched than the religious myths themselves?

whosetosay... said:

Which Straw Man? No Straw man, no fallacy , nothing made up. You see the bible and it's content is only understood by those whose minds have been open by God.

Click to expand...

Framing scholarship as "utterances of others" rather than the most educated people agreeing on all available evidence is a complete strawman. Many of the actual history scholars were fundamentalist Christians first then realized it was not real. So your special pleading about only certain people's minds being open is another fallacy.
It's like one fallacy after another?

whosetosay... said:

Consensus of Christian scholarship used in the broadest of terms is NEVER going to stand as an argument when up against God himself and his word to those who are lead in Spirit and Truth. You can start right there. Explain what that term means for the believer who is lead by God himself.

Click to expand...

And the Hindu can say the same. And every other religion and every denomination of Christianity who completely disagrees with your version. So there is nothing there to stand on.
Somehow every believer who God is leading can never offer proof and seems to have information that completely disagrees with other believers. The Jehovas Witneses or members of Islam will claim the same special pleading and use it to explain why you are wrong.
It's all self delusion.

whosetosay... said:

What about the last two world wars... what is left to show the scale of destruction that it had on the countries involved?
Given what happened at the tower of babel then the stories of Genesis and God would spread far and wide. Noah is a descendant of Abraham so not a borrowed myth unless you are saying there were stories about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in all these other places? No logic in the argument and the only logic that could be taken is that Noah and his Ark existed.

Click to expand...

Wait you don't know that there is massive evidence of both world wars?

I don't understand your point? Noah is a fictional person and Abraham probably is as well? The Babel story is definitely a myth so how does this add up?
Each culture had their own God and religious myths. Each one believed their stories were real. I just read a paper that explains Israel emerged out of Canaanite society and the religion did as well.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1006/reli.1999.0198?journalCode=rrel20

"
According to the Bible, the first person to form a covenant with God is Abraham. He is the great patriarch. Is there archeological evidence for Abraham?
One of the first efforts of biblical archeology in the last century was to prove the historicity of the patriarchs, to locate them in a particular period in the archeological history. Today I think most archeologists would argue that there is no direct archeological proof that Abraham, for instance, ever lived. We do know a lot about pastoral nomads, we know about the Amorites' migrations from Mesopotamia to Canaan, and it's possible to see in that an Abraham-like figure somewhere around 1800 B.C.E. But there's no direct connection."

whosetosay... said:

So she went to college and suddenly she knows better than who? Why were the books of OT the first five given to Moses to write? Why were they all about actual places and people named and spoken about?

Click to expand...

Consensus in scholarship is that Moses is a myth.
NOVA | The Bible's Buried Secrets | Moses and the Exodus | PBS

"
Meyers: The Moses of the Bible is larger than life. The Moses of the Bible is a diplomat negotiating with the pharaoh; he is a lawgiver bringing the Ten Commandments, the Covenant, down from Sinai. The Moses of the Bible is a military man leading the Israelites in battles. He's the one who organizes Israel's judiciary. He's also the prophet par excellence and a quasi-priestly figure involved in offering sacrifices and setting up the priestly complex, the tabernacle. There's virtually nothing in terms of national leadership that Moses doesn't do. And, of course, he's also a person, a family man.

Now, no one individual could possibly have done all that. So the tales are a kind of aggrandizement. He is also associated with miracles—the memorable story of being found in a basket in the Nile and being saved, miraculously, to grow up in the pharaoh's household. And he dies somewhere in the mountains of Moab. Only God knows where he's buried; God is said to have buried him. This is highly unusual and, again, accords him a special place."

whosetosay... said:

Show me where in the bible this is written? It isn't in fact in the NT Christ a Jew makes it clear that Abraham existed. At no time in the bible has it ever been suggested it was myths.

Click to expand...

The NT are also made up stories. No myth ever says "this is a myth"? But it's all borrowed mythology. Also the literary style of the NT is mythic. It uses all the same literary devices found in all myths. Do you think stories about Krishna are considered myths by Hindu? No?

whosetosay... said:

Matthew 17:2 Moses and Elijah are definitely not mythical nor ever meant to be, The truth is you don't want to know about anything that challenges you to put what you believe to the test.

Click to expand...

Scholarly consensus sees Moses as a mythical figure, while retaining the possibility that a Moses-like figure existed.[12][13][14][15]

Since Thomas Thompsons work in the 70's Moses is absolutely considered a myth in scholarship.
https://www.amazon.com/Historicity-...CRKF3B5E7JZ&psc=1&refRID=Y6HTRRM1HCRKF3B5E7JZ

whosetosay... said:

The truth is you don't want to know about anything that challenges you to put what you believe to the test.

Click to expand...

That's actually a lie because you haven't put forth any evidence. I was willing to listen to what actual scholars and evidence had to say even though it's harder than just believing in fantasies. You have already stated that you won't listen to scholars because of some weird special pleading which means you are the one who will not test your beliefs.

whosetosay... said:

As I have said show the bible is a myth using the bible itself or admit you have just learned what you want to believe without questioning it's truth to validate it.
It is a well known fact that the Jews learned the sayings of Moses off by heart and passed them down each generation.
It started at Moses but therein lies the proof. From Moses to present date.

Click to expand...

I have been breaking down biblical myths throughout this thread. Now you want to introduce some new rule where you have to "use the Bible to prove the Bible is ..." WTF? Can you use the Hindu scripture to prove it's myth? Or use any religious scripture to prove it's myth? No. But you can find out that all of the stories are borrowed myths and that they have zero evidence. That has been proven.
You cannot prove any fiction is fiction by using the fictional story? As if every fictional religion and cult writes "oh hey this is all a myth" in the text?
Does Scientology write "this is a myth". Now you are just getting absurd? I am the one looking to actual evidence while you flip flop around with "oh scholars are not opened up by God to truth" and then "the Bible doesn't say it's a myths, so...." all circular arguments designed to avoid actual evidence.

whosetosay... said:

Do the Jews not exist? Are they not all over the world and can you take your family geology all the way back to the time of Moses? But the Jews know for the writings existed on scrolls did they not. In fact all the writing of the Prophets existed on scrolls didn't they? We have the Jews themselves as evidence of the tribes of Israel and the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Excavate away but look for news where things happen. I remember they found what they believed to be the remains of Noah Ark on mount Ararat. If you cannot see the truth in front of you like the Jews themselves how can you hope to believe in their history?

Click to expand...

Do Hindu people not exist? They do. But their scripture are still fictional stories designed to teach lessons.
Exodus is considered a national foundation myth. There are still Egyptians and Greek people. Their religions are not actually true stories?

Q: Questions about whether or not events in the Bible really happened evoke strong passions. As a biblical scholar, how do you see the issue of historical authenticity in terms of the earliest biblical accounts—the ones for which there is little archeological evidence?

Carol Meyers: Too often in modern western thinking we see things in terms of black and white, history or fiction, with nothing in between. But there are other ways of understanding how people have recorded events of their past. There's something called mnemohistory, or memory history, that I find particularly useful in thinking about biblical materials. It's not like the history that individuals may have of their own families, which tends to survive only a generation or two. Rather, it's a kind of collective cultural memory.

When a group of people experience things that are extremely important to their existence as a group, they often maintain collective memories of these events over generations. And these memories are probably augmented and elaborated and maybe even ritualized as a way of maintaining their relevance.

We can understand how mnemohistory works by looking at how it operates in more recent periods. We see this, for instance, in legends about figures in American history—George Washington is a wonderful example. Legends have something historic in them but yet are developed and expanded. I think that some of the accounts of the ancestors in the book of Genesis are similar. They are exciting, important, attention-grabbing, message-bearing narratives that are developed around characters who may have played an important role in the lives of the pre-Israelite ancestors.


The Noah's Ark find (there have been several) are all admitted hoaxes. Do you have to fall for every ridiculous claim that is easily debunked?

Although we would be delighted if the Ark had actually been found, this “discovery” is almost certainly a hoax. We are in no way accusing NAMI of perpetrating the hoax, but it seems that they were victims of a fraud enacted by a Kurdish man called Paraşut.
Has the Ark Been Found? Site Five: Ararat—NAMI Expedition


The Biblical archaeologists seem to have experienced pareidolia; seeing what they want to see in ambiguous patterns or images. Just as religious people will see images of Jesus or the Virgin Mary in toast, stains, or clouds, they may also see images of Noah's Ark in stone cliffs.
Noah's Ark Discovered ... Again and Again | Live Science

Of course, anyone can easily make an assertion with no evidence to support it.

Skywalker said:

The creation is proof of the Creator. Everything that exists has such an order and a purpose that it can't just exist, there has to be God who designed everything.

Click to expand...

EX:
It's obvious that a creation is proof of a Creator, but since the universe was not created, it's proof that there was no in creator.

Skywalker said:

Everything that exists has such an order and a purpose that it can't just exist, there has to be God who designed everything.

Click to expand...

EX:
Everything that exists has such an order and a purpose. And that purpose is to simply exist without there being a god(s).
Since there are things that do actually exist, logic dictates that it's impossible that there is an actual god.

Skywalker said:

Science shows that the universe is so complex that there had to be a Creator, because there can be no change of kinds.

Click to expand...

EX:
Science shows that the universe is so complex that there had to have been no creator, because there were numerous changes of kinds.

See how easy those assertion refuted your argument?

night912 said:

Of course, anyone can easily make an assertion with no evidence to support it.


EX:
It's obvious that a creation is proof of a Creator, but since the universe was not created, it's proof that there was no in creator.


EX:
Everything that exists has such an order and a purpose. And that purpose is to simply exist without there being a god(s).
Since there are things that do actually exist, logic dictates that it's impossible that there is an actual god.




EX:
Science shows that the universe is so complex that there had to have been no creator, because there were numerous changes of kinds.

See how easy those assertion refuted your argument?

Click to expand...

Science supports that the universe was created. Randomness cannot create such order and purpose that exists in the universe. For example, if earth was a little closer to the sun, life on earth wouldn't be able to survive. The Big Ruckus Over the Big Bang - BreakPoint

The biblical doctrine of creation out of nothing was mocked as hopelessly unscientific. Then about 60 years ago, scientists first suggested the big bang theory. Matter is not eternal after all. It came into existence at a particular time in the remote past--just as Genesis says. Now the really important questions remains. If the universe is not eternal, what cause it to come into existence? Science can't answer that. But obviously the cause of the universe must be something outside the universe--which is just what Christians have been saying all along. Yes, the heavens do declare the glory of God. And today they seem to be speaking louder than ever.

Click to expand...

SeekingAllTruth said:

Behold your ancestors

Click to expand...

Piltdown man was a fake. Homo erectus 'to' modern man: evolution or human variability? - creation.com

With the discovery of Java and Peking Homo erectus fossils (the former was previously called Pithecanthropus erectus, and Peking Man was originally named Sinanthropus pekinensis), in 1891–1893 and 1927–1937 respectively, evolutionary theory received a considerable and much-needed boost. Until Dubois’ Java discoveries, the only alleged link between man and the apes had been a few Neanderthal specimens. The Piltdown hoax of 1912–1914 was not uncovered until 1953, by which time it had played a considerable part in the early skepticism by most authorities toward the Taung-child australopithecine discovery in South Africa in 1924.

With the appearance of the Javan and Peking fossils it seemed that evolutionary theory had been vindicated to a sizeable degree, and Pithecanthropus (ape-man) became a common term in public as well as in palaeoanthropological circles.

After the Piltdown fraud was exposed, the australopithecines came into favour as a transitional form linking an ape-like common-ancestor to human beings, and this link was further strengthened by later finds of both erectus and australopithecine fossils, mainly in East and South. Africa. By the early 1970s, more finds including australopithecus-like material classified as Homo habilis, made it appear that there was now a fairly substantial chain of progressive evolution from a bipedal chimp-like ancestor right through to modern man - A. afarensis, H. habilis, H. erectus, archaic H. sapiens, Neanderthal man and finally Cro-Magnon or modern man. With the rise of the post-World War II creationist movement, largely sparked by the epic work of Whitcomb and Morris in 1961,The Genesis Flood, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan." style="box-sizing: inherit; color: rgb(34, 139, 246); background-color: transparent; border-bottom: none; margin-bottom: 4px; cursor: pointer;">1 one of the most urgent tasks involved was how to respond to this apparent chain of evolutionary progression. In the intervening years since then, creation-oriented scientists have made a number of attacks on the validity of most of these forms, some of them being of high technical quality, others a little less well-informed.

Click to expand...

joelr said:

The thread is about evidence. What you have written here is apologetics designed to help you deal with the fact that the biblical myths are clearly taken from older cultures. Which is far more likely then stories about magical beings and all sorts of folklore being true. The idea that it supports the Bible is as unlikely as the Matrix being a true story because several of the concepts were in earlier stories.


So your evidence is "everyone knows" and "it doesn't take much to figure out"? Ha. Odd that it doesn't take much yet zero evidence can be produced?
What's worse is now you say it doesn't take much? Yet you are demonstrable incorrect. For CENTURIES Hebrew religious thinkers had no idea of any of this?

"There is almost no mention in the Hebrew Bible of Heaven as a possible afterlife destination for human being"

"In line with the typical view of most Near Eastern cultures, the Hebrew Bible depicts Heaven as a place that is inaccessible to humans."




So all myths that are taken from older myths are actually true? That is terrible logic and is simply not true.

Noah is a fiction written after 1200 BC and claimed it took place long before that. The flood myth existed way before the Israelites and we see it reflected in their myths. But you are now saying that they somehow completely forgot about heaven and souls and all the Greek/Persian myths, but then, just when the Persians and Greeks invaded.......THEY REMEMBERED!
That is even more far fetched than the religious myths themselves?

Click to expand...

The concepts of the Bible being in other stories supports that the flood that the Bible talked about happened. Did the Bible copy the Flood account from other myths and legends? | GotQuestions.org

Skeptics want to imagine that there was, in fact, no flood and that the Bible’s flood account was borrowed from a Babylonian myth. The evidence seems to suggest otherwise: there was, in fact, a catastrophic worldwide deluge, and the veracity of the biblical account is attested to by numerous other similar ancient accounts. In addition to abundant historical evidence, there is a wealth of physical proof in favor of the flood’s historicity. The flood of Noah’s day was most certainly a real historical event, and the biblical account of what happened is trustworthy.

Click to expand...

everyone knows that there is a God because of the starry heavens above and the moral law within. Everyone knows that there is a devil because if there is good, there is evil.

The Hebrew Bible talks about souls, afterlife, and the resurrection of the dead. What does it mean that we have eternity in our hearts (Ecclesiastes 3:11)? | GotQuestions.org

Seasons come and go, but does anything in this life truly satisfy? The answer in Ecclesiastes is, no, all is vanity (Ecclesiastes 1:2). However, through all the ups and downs and vicissitudes of life, we have a glimpse of stability—God has “set eternity in the human heart.” Life is but a vapor (James 4:14), but we know there is something past this life. We have a divinely implanted awareness that the soul lives forever. This world is not our home.

Click to expand...

Daniel 12:2

And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

Click to expand...

The Hebrew Bible mentions heaven in Psalm 23:6.

Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.

I'm not saying something is true because it was taken from an older myth, I'm saying that the story of the flood being passed down is other beliefs copying the Bible, not the other way around.

Skywalker said:

Science supports that the universe was created. Randomness cannot create such order and purpose that exists in the universe. For example, if earth was a little closer to the sun, life on earth wouldn't be able to survive. The Big Ruckus Over the Big Bang - BreakPoint

Click to expand...

I see that you are still relying on the clueless. You should be asking yourself why those that understand this science do not agree with those people.

Skywalker said:

Piltdown man was a fake. Homo erectus 'to' modern man: evolution or human variability? - creation.com

Click to expand...

More Kool-Aid. Danger of hyper-Christ-cemia.

SeekingAllTruth said:

More Kool-Aid. Danger of hyper-Christ-cemia.

Click to expand...

Piltdown man is not proof that human beings evolved from other beings. Piltdown man was a hoax. The Piltdown Man Fraud - creation.com

Britain’s Greatest Hoax. That was the title of the ‘Timewatch’ investigation of the Piltdown Man fraud, shown on BBC2 television.1 Viewers were presented with a great British ‘whodunnit’ that tried to identify those who made monkeys out of the scientists of the day.

The history of the discovery of the earliest Englishman (as Piltdown Man was so often called) is fairly common knowledge. A laborer was supposedly digging in a gravel pit near the village of Piltdown in Sussex in southern England when he found a piece of bone. He passed it to the local amateur archaeologist of the district, Charles Dawson, who verified its antiquity and pronounced that it was part of a skull which was possibly human. Dawson began to search for the rest of the skull and, in 1912, a jawbone was discovered. Sir Arthur Smith Woodward of the British Museum verified that the skull had human features and the jaw was ape-like. The fossils became known as Piltdown Man and were called Eoanthropus dawsoni which means ‘Dawson’s Dawn Man’. In 1915, another Dawn Man was found a couple of miles away from the site of the first find. Fossil remains of animals that lived with Piltdown Man, together with the tools that he used, were also found at the two sites. At last, here was ‘proof’ that apes had evolved into humans in England.

Almost forty years later, in 1953, Piltdown Man was exposed as a forgery, mainly through the work of Dr Kenneth Oakley. He showed that the skull was from a modern human and that the jawbone and teeth were from an orangutan. The teeth had been filed down to make them look human. The bones and teeth had been chemically treated (and sometimes even painted) to give them the appearance of being ancient. In addition, it was also shown that none of the finds associated with Piltdown Man had been originally buried in the gravel that had been deposited at Piltdown. The Piltdown Man fraud was a great embarrassment to the UK scientific community and questions about it were even asked in the House of Parliament.

Click to expand...

Subduction Zone said:

That is not purpose. That is merely nature. The trees do not exist for us.

Have I stated that there is no god? You may be confused because specific versions of god can be refuted. For example if God can't lie then the "God" of Noah's Ark fame does not exist. That doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. Many Christians conflate their personal God being refuted with all versions of God being refuted.

Click to expand...

It is purpose it isn't just nature. Why would nature give trees the ability to give us oxygen and vice versa? That is design, not purpose.

Skywalker said:

It is purpose it isn't just nature. Why would nature give trees the ability to give us oxygen and vice versa? That is design, not purpose.

Click to expand...

Nope, it is thermodynamics.

Subduction Zone said:

Nope, it is thermodynamics.

Click to expand...

Without the trees we couldn't survive and vice versa show that nature has order and purpose that can only be explained by a Creator.

Skywalker said:

Without the trees we couldn't survive and vice versa show that nature has order and purpose that can only be explained by a Creator.

Click to expand...

There are more rational explanations that do not need one to invoke magic.

Subduction Zone said:

There are more rational explanations that do not need one to invoke magic.

Click to expand...

Magic has nothing to do with God, magic is people wanting to be their own god. Creation and occultism - creation.com

Occultism: the art of exploring and communicating with, the secret world of mysterious spiritual forces; the practice of calling upon spirits or mystical powers of nature; the foretelling of future events and discovery of secret things by the aid of superior spirit beings. Whether it be astrology, sorcery, witchcraft, exorcism, fortune-telling or magic, opposition to God as Creator and Saviour lies at the very heart of all that is occult.
Therefore, basic to every reason for opposing occultism is the fact that God is Creator, above His creation and separate from it.
Every form of the occult denies the principle that God is separate from His creation, sometimes implicitly, but usually it is explicit. Even Satan’s original temptation to man hinged on this denial. His claim that man would become as God denies any eternal and unchangeable difference between the Creator God and the created man.

Click to expand...

Skywalker said:

Magic has nothing to do with God, magic is people wanting to be their own god. Creation and occultism - creation.com

Click to expand...

Sorry, you used a known lying source again. The definition of miracles and magic is the same. You are proposing magic.

Subduction Zone said:

Sorry, you used a known lying source again. The definition of miracles and magic is the same. You are proposing magic.

Click to expand...

A miracle by definition is something that only God can do. Answers in Genesis Explains Miracles

Christians frequently run into the argument that “The Bible can’t be trusted because it has miracles, and they are clearly not possible because science doesn’t accept the miraculous.”How should believers respond?

Aaaargh!! It’s not that “science doesn’t accept” miracles, which sounds like it’s an arbitrary rejection. It’s because miracles are, by definition, events that are literally impossible according to the well-established laws of nature. Anyway, we’re off to a good start. Let’s read on:

Some events recorded in Scripture seem to be clearly outside of the normal physical processes which govern our world. We do not know all the laws of nature and processes in the world, so it is possible that God worked many miracles within the bounds of the laws of nature that He created and sustained (e.g., miracle of timing, using the creation to do His will).

Click to expand...

Skywalker said:

A miracle by definition is something that only God can do. Answers in Genesis Explains Miracles

Click to expand...

Why do you keep using lying sources? You know better than that.

You are wrong again. It is like calling a rich person "eccentric" and a poor person "crazy". The definition is the same, it is just special pleading for a class. Miracles are magic. People use that term because they know that it is foolish to believe in magic so they fool themselves by calling them miracles. Like it or not, they are magic.