There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[osgart]

Well if you are going to say what's in the Bible, you can't be picky. Otherwise, you misrepresent the truth, and don't show interest in truth.
Hopefully the latter is not the case.

(Romans 1:18-23)
18 For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way, 19 because what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. 20 For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable. 21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their senseless hearts became darkened. 22 Although claiming they were wise, they became foolish 23 and turned the glory of the incorruptible God into something like the image of corruptible man and birds and four-footed creatures and reptiles.

(Psalm 19:1, 2) 1 The heavens are declaring the glory of God; The skies above proclaim the work of his hands. 2 Day after day their speech bubbles forth, And night after night they reveal knowledge.

Hence...
(Psalm 10:4) In his haughtiness, the wicked man makes no investigation; All his thoughts are: “There is no God.”


Then, alongside that, we have this.
(1 Thessalonians 2:13) . . .when you received God’s word, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but, just as it truthfully is, as the word of God, which is also at work in you believers.

Examining the Bible, reveals this to be true.
(Joshua 23:14) . . .not one word out of all the good promises that Jehovah your God has spoken to you has failed. They have all come true. . .

We have two primary sources of physical evidence where we find hundreds of pieces of evidence.
The holy spirit comes into play, only where the humble - not the haughty, or arrogant deniers - act on the evidence before them.
In other words, they don't squeeze their eyes shut, or stick their head in the sand.

That's what Jesus was referring to in Matthew 13:10-16

The arrogant deniers know it's the truth to even come to denial. I've never run from this stuff. It wouldn't be free will if they had no choice.

Are you saying the arrogant have no choice in the matter of their own souls?

John 16: 4-11

“ I did not tell you these things at first, because I was with you. 5 But now I am going to the One who sent me;+ yet not one of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’ 6 But because I have told you these things, grief has filled your hearts.+ 7 Nevertheless, I am telling you the truth, it is for your benefit that I am going away. For if I do not go away, the helper+ will not come to you; but if I do go, I will send him to you. 8 And when that one comes, he will give the world convincing evidence concerning sin and concerning righteousness and concerning judgment: 9 first concerning sin,+ because they are not exercising faith in me;+ 10 then concerning righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will see me no longer; 11 then concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged.+

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, you've stated that before, and my response is the same. You use a private definition for evidentiary support here, which is what makes the belief unjustified and hold it irrational. Belief by faith is the opposite of justified belief.

Belief by faith coupled with evidence is the only kind of justified belief, since there is no proof that God exists.
My evidentiary support is anything but private since it is all publically available in the Baha'i Reference Library.

Bahá’í Reference Library | The Bahá’í Faith

www.bahai.org

One.

Got any proof of that? No, I did not think so.

You are perfectly free to believe that if you want to, but believing it does not make it so, not anymore than me believing that God exists makes it so.
Logically speaking, if God exists then God exists, and that is reality.
Conversely, if God does not exist then God does not exist, and that is reality.

If God exists, then based upon what we see in this world, there are two reasons that God doesn’t prove that He exists. The first reason is because God does not need our belief since God is fully self-sufficient and has no needs. He second reason that God does not prove He exists is because God wants our faith. If God proved He exists then we would no longer need faith because we would know for a fact that God exists. So it makes logical sense to me why there is no proof that God exists and that is why I believe on faith and evidence.

Because its claims immediately fail critical analysis. They needed to be tested empirically - what I likened to trying on a pair of shoes for fit and wearing them awhile before giving up on them if they don't fit quite right at first.

Fair enough.

Here's where I disagree. Those skilled in critical thinking are immune to being unwilfully indoctrinated.

My point was that they might 'have' the skills but not use them.

Where are the teeth in your religion? I see a ***** cat that I am safe to disregard. What fate do you imagine for me if I die an atheist, and how would it be different if I died a Baha'i instead?

Not everyone sees the same things as that would be logically impossible since everyone sees what is in their own mind which is unique to them.
What you see is what you see, but that does not mean that there is something to see that you do not see.

I have no idea what your fate will be, only God knows what anyone's fate will be.
All I have to go on is what is in the Writings of Baha'u'llah, which only tells me the fate of believers.

“Death proffereth unto every confident believer the cup that is life indeed. It bestoweth joy, and is the bearer of gladness. It conferreth the gift of everlasting life.​

​

As to those that have tasted of the fruit of man’s earthly existence, which is the recognition of the one true God, exalted be His glory, their life hereafter is such as We are unable to describe. The knowledge thereof is with God, alone, the Lord of all worlds.”​

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 345-346​

Vague predictions is all that scripture offers, and any number of events can be called its fulfillment.

Some are vague but some are very specific, and those could have only been fulfilled by one person..

You've misunderstood what improbable means in this context. Let me illustrate, along with what is meant by specificity.

I misunderstood nothing. I understood exactly what @Subduction Zone was getting at since this is not my first rodeo with him.
I just happened to be coming at this from an entirely different angle.

In order for a prophecy to be considered fulfilled by the claimant it would not be improbable. Rather, it must have actually happened the way that the prohecy says it will happen, because God’s perfect foreknowledge requires that it was going to actually happen in that way.

Biblical prophecy lacks that specificity and improbability, without which, it is very human and mundane, and reminds no critical thinker of a transhuman prescience.

Some but not all of Biblical prophecy lacks specificity. All of Biblical prophecy lacks improbability, since it has to not only be probable, but it has to be fulfilled in order for the claimant to claim he was the one who fulfilled that prophecy.

You are making this harder than it actually is. This is not really that hard, it is only a matter of connecting the dots.

 

[F1fan]

Being able to die, does not mean they *had* to die.

Why do you think their immediate offspring, for the first several generations, had such long lifespans?

Because it is fiction.

Because those offspring were genetically closer to the perfect lives that Adam & Eve lost.

This is an explanation without facts.

Regaining perfection for humankind, is the main reason Jesus’ sacrifice is called a ransom. Matthew 20:28

It isn't working.

 

[F1fan]

The critics creed: "Deny everything, admit nothing, demand evidence, make outrageous counter accusations."

Counter accusations? What are the accusations by believers?

Let's note the hyperbole of "make outrageous counter accusations" since skeptics are by definition rejecting fantastic religious claims, that happen to lack evidence.

 

[nPeace]

I'm not upset, honest. I think Christians show themselves in a bad light because outside people reading my question notice that Christians are deliberately avoiding answering the question. One name from them would draw me closer to Christianity again because I would have what I have been seeking for the last several years: evidence the Jesus of the gospels actually existed, yet not a single Christian seems able to provide one..

Please can you give an honest answer... was your question answered here? If no, can you please explain why the evidence must be what you think it must be - i.e. secular?
Can you also tell me honestly, why the Bible, which is a collection of ancient documents spanning a period of 16 centuries, cannot be used to provide HISTORICAL evidence of Jesus' authenticity?
Please be reminded of your title - There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

Are you of the view that the only useful evidence, must be secular?
Is secular "evidence" infallible; flawless; accurate;...?

 

[dybmh]

I'm forced to deny there's any evidence for the gospel Jesus' existence because no Christian will present any despite my innumerable requests. Let's nip this in the bud, Dyb:

Do you have ANY secular historic references or citations to support the belief that the gospels Jesus existed? Do you have ANY historic references for Jesus from ANY of the historians in the list I presented in post #44? Do you have any statues or reliefs, or artifacts or monuments or anything dating from the 1st century that history says belonged to Jesus? Do you have any of this? Simple yes or no, and we can proceed from there, but please no 10-paragraph smoke and mirrors in response to cover a simple yes or no. Are you able to answer the question with a simple yes or no?

No. I have no evidence. And I already said, "Don't beleive it." Hopefully you know and will acknowledge, none of what I have written is smoke and mirrors. I've just been pointing out that there's other plausible explanations, and the 20 point myth-ranking appears to be completely bogus.

Are you able to admit that those bullet points don't *actually* describe Jesus? Certainly not in the same way as they describe Hercules or the others?

If not, then deny everything and admit nothing, demand evidence and make outrageous counter allegations sounds like a pretty good description for what's going on.

It's pretty outrageous to compare Jesus to Hercules based on that list you brought. Can you defend it?

 

[dybmh]

Counter accusations? What are the accusations by believers?

There's historical evidence for the gospel story of Jesus.

Let's note the hyperbole of "make outrageous counter accusations" since skeptics are by definition rejecting fantastic religious claims, that happen to lack evidence.

The outrageous counter accusation is claiming Jesus is a mythical hero like Hercules and several others. It's based on a ranking system where the the criteria appears to be heavily ... ummmm ... let's say massaged so that the Jesus story matches more than it actually does.

And yes, the claim is coming from a critic. Not a skeptic. That's why I called it the critic's creed. Bible critics are rarely actually skeptical. They're believers in youtube anti-bible preachers.

 

[nPeace]

The arrogant deniers know it's the truth to even come to denial. I've never run from this stuff. It wouldn't be free will if they had no choice.

Are you saying the arrogant have no choice in the matter of their own souls?

John 16: 4-11

“ I did not tell you these things at first, because I was with you. 5 But now I am going to the One who sent me;+ yet not one of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’ 6 But because I have told you these things, grief has filled your hearts.+ 7 Nevertheless, I am telling you the truth, it is for your benefit that I am going away. For if I do not go away, the helper+ will not come to you; but if I do go, I will send him to you. 8 And when that one comes, he will give the world convincing evidence concerning sin and concerning righteousness and concerning judgment: 9 first concerning sin,+ because they are not exercising faith in me;+ 10 then concerning righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will see me no longer; 11 then concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged.+

Just as I said.
Why be picky?
(John 14:26) But the helper, the holy spirit, which the Father will send in my name, that one will teach you all things and bring back to your minds all the things I told you.

So, if you can, explain how the verse you pulled and quoted, supports your claim. It doesn't, does it.

The holy spirit cannot operate on empty minds of unbelievers. It operates on hearts and minds that humbly accept the physical evidence. It builds on what's already there, and reveals the deep things of God. John 16:13 Hence...
(Matthew 13:10-16) 10 So the disciples came and said to him: “Why do you speak to them by the use of illustrations?” 11 In reply he said: “To you it is granted to understand the sacred secrets of the Kingdom of the heavens, but to them it is not granted. 12 For whoever has, more will be given him, and he will be made to abound; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 13 That is why I speak to them by the use of illustrations; for looking, they look in vain, and hearing, they hear in vain, nor do they get the sense of it. 14 And the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled in their case. It says: ‘You will indeed hear but by no means get the sense of it, and you will indeed look but by no means see. 15 For the heart of this people has grown unreceptive, and with their ears they have heard without response, and they have shut their eyes, so that they might never see with their eyes and hear with their ears and get the sense of it with their hearts and turn back and I heal them.’ 16 “However, happy are your eyes because they see and your ears because they hear.

The arrogant have the physical evidence before them. Their callous stony heart prevent them from seeing, and gaining understanding from God.
Think of it this way... God lets a deceptive influence mislead them so that they may come to believe the lie, in order that they all may be judged because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness. . . (2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12)

That's easy to understand. If a person blinds themselves, God lets them remain blind. He does nothing to prevent that blindness.
Of couse, that person becomes the victim of every deception out there - flesh and spirit.

 

[Trailblazer]

@Subduction Zone
@It Aint Necessarily So

I am now going to explain what a valid prophecy is and isn’t and why that is the case. First, we have to agree to a set of ground rules. Biblical prophecies are revealed by prophets who are telling of God’s foreknowledge. No human has foreknowledge because no human can see into the future. All a human can do is guess what is likely to happen.

3. It must be precise and unambiguous. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if meaningless philosophical musings or multiple possible ideas could fulfill the foreknowledge, because ambiguity prevents one from knowing whether the foreknowledge was intentional rather than accidental. TLDR: Vague "predictions" don't count.​

Firstly, it does not matter if a prophecy is precise and unambiguous or not. It is still a prophecy if it is telling of God’s foreknowledge. It might make it more difficult for the reader to know if the prophecy has been fulfilled if it is imprecise and ambiguous, but it is still a valid prophecy, since it was revealed by a prophet who revealed God’s perfect foreknowledge.

Secondly, a prophecy is never accidental, it is always intentional, since it was intended to be used to help people recognize the messiah/return of Christ when he appears on earth.

4. It must be improbable. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of a pure guess, because foreknowledge requires a person to actually know something true, while a correct guess doesn't mean that the guesser knows anything. This also excludes contemporary beliefs that happened be true but were believed to be true without solid evidence. TLDR: Lucky guesses don't count.​

If Biblical prophecies are revealed by prophets who are telling of God’s foreknowledge it not only has to be probable, it has to be fulfilled eventually, since God foretold it and God can never be wrong since God is inerrant. Foreknowledge requires that God has to actually know something is going to happen in the future.

The statement “because foreknowledge requires a person to actually know something true, while a correct guess doesn't mean that the guesser knows anything” is irrelevant since no human has foreknowledge since no human can see into the future.

5. It must have been unknown. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of an educated guess based off contemporary knowledge, because foreknowledge requires a person to know a statement when it would have been impossible, outside of supernatural power, for that person to know it. TLDR: Ideas of the time don't count.​

If Biblical prophecies are revealed by prophets who are telling of God’s foreknowledge, then what is in these prophecies must have been known by God before it was revealed to the prophets. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it was not known by God.

Again, the statement “because foreknowledge requires a person to know a statement when it would have been impossible, outside of supernatural power, for that person to know it” is irrelevant since no human has foreknowledge since no human can see into the future.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Subduction Zone
@It Aint Necessarily So

I am now going to explain what a valid prophecy is and isn’t and why that is the case. First, we have to agree to a set of ground rules. Biblical prophecies are revealed by prophets who are telling of God’s foreknowledge. No human has foreknowledge because no human can see into the future. All a human can do is guess what is likely to happen.

3. It must be precise and unambiguous. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if meaningless philosophical musings or multiple possible ideas could fulfill the foreknowledge, because ambiguity prevents one from knowing whether the foreknowledge was intentional rather than accidental. TLDR: Vague "predictions" don't count.​

Firstly, it does not matter if a prophecy is precise and unambiguous or not. It is still a prophecy if it is telling of God’s foreknowledge. It might make it more difficult for the reader to know if the prophecy has been fulfilled if it is imprecise and ambiguous, but it is still a valid prophecy, since it was revealed by a prophet who revealed God’s perfect foreknowledge.

Secondly, a prophecy is never accidental, it is always intentional, since it was intended to be used to help people recognize the messiah/return of Christ when he appears on earth.

Sorry, but it does matter. An ambiguous prophecy can be interpreted multiple ways. It can "come true" again and again and again. That makes it worthless since those events of coming true contradict each other. To be of any use it can only come true once.

4. It must be improbable. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of a pure guess, because foreknowledge requires a person to actually know something true, while a correct guess doesn't mean that the guesser knows anything. This also excludes contemporary beliefs that happened be true but were believed to be true without solid evidence. TLDR: Lucky guesses don't count.​

If Biblical prophecies are revealed by prophets who are telling of God’s foreknowledge it not only has to be probable, it has to be fulfilled eventually, since God foretold it and God can never be wrong since God is inerrant. Foreknowledge requires that God has to actually know something is going to happen in the future.

The statement “because foreknowledge requires a person to actually know something true, while a correct guess doesn't mean that the guesser knows anything” is irrelevant since no human has foreknowledge since no human can see into the future.

No, once anyone can make a probably prophecy. The next time you go out driving on the road you will see a red car. Wow!!! I must be a prophet. Now if I predicted the make, year and the license plate then you might be able to claim that I was a prophet. Of course there would be exceptions for that too. If I knew where you were and that was my car then not so much.

5. It must have been unknown. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of an educated guess based off contemporary knowledge, because foreknowledge requires a person to know a statement when it would have been impossible, outside of supernatural power, for that person to know it. TLDR: Ideas of the time don't count.​

If Biblical prophecies are revealed by prophets who are telling of God’s foreknowledge, then what is in these prophecies must have been known by God before it was revealed to the prophets. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it was not known by God.

Again, the statement “because foreknowledge requires a person to know a statement when it would have been impossible, outside of supernatural power, for that person to know it” is irrelevant since no human has foreknowledge since no human can see into the future.

Right, it must have been known only by God ahead of time. It must not be general knowledge.

Do you have any prophecy that meets these more than reasonable standards? You failed at showing why they need not be met.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just for the sake of argument, let's look at your five criteria for a valid prophecy:

1. It must be accurate. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not accurate, because knowledge (and thus foreknowledge) excludes inaccurate statements. TLDR: It's true.

What do you mean by accurate?

If a prophecy says that an event will occur within a certain time span then one does not get to change that time span. If the topic of a prophecy is an individual you do not get to change the individual. It has to be about what it says that it is about. And when the event occurs it must match what the prophecy says. That is why the Tyre prophecy is a failed prophecy. Oddly enough those that defend it rarely know that Ezekiel himself admitted that it was a failed prophecy.

1. It must be in the Bible. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not in the Bible, because Biblical by definition foreknowledge can only come from the Bible itself, rather than modern reinterpretations of the text. TLDR: It's in plain words in the Bible.

Well, of course it mist be in the Bible, in order to be Bible prophecy.

1. It must be precise and unambiguous. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if meaningless philosophical musings or multiple possible ideas could fulfill the foreknowledge, because ambiguity prevents one from knowing whether the foreknowledge was intentional rather than accidental. TLDR: Vague "predictions" don't count.

Vague predictions do count as part of the overall picture of the fulfillment of prophecies although as a standalone they don’t prove anything.

1. It must be improbable. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of a pure guess, because foreknowledge requires a person to actually know something true, while a correct guess doesn't mean that the guesser knows anything. This also excludes contemporary beliefs that happened be true but were believed to be true without solid evidence. TLDR: Lucky guesses don't count.

It would not be improbable. Rather, it would not only be probable but it must have actually happened, because God’s perfect foreknowledge requires that it was going to actually happen.

1. It must have been unknown. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of an educated guess based off contemporary knowledge, because foreknowledge requires a person to know a statement when it would have been impossible, outside of supernatural power, for that person to know it. TLDR: Ideas of the time don't count.

It would not be unknown. It would have been known that it was going to happen since that is what God’s perfect foreknowledge requires, something that God new was going to happen in the future.

Wow! You will probably have to expand your quote since I am referring only to the end. You clearly did not understand this. Known to God? Yes, if there was such a being it would know it. But the context was obviously talking about the people of that time and since, at least not until the fulfilment. They may have known of the prophecy, but they could not know that it had been fulfilled until the one event where it was. And also everyone after the fulfilment could point to it and say "That was when the prophecy was fulfilled". If there is debate, then it was not clear. If there are more than one "fulfillments" then it was far too vague.

 

[osgart]

Just as I said.
Why be picky?
(John 14:26) But the helper, the holy spirit, which the Father will send in my name, that one will teach you all things and bring back to your minds all the things I told you.

So, if you can, explain how the verse you pulled and quoted, supports your claim. It doesn't, does it.

The holy spirit cannot operate on empty minds of unbelievers. It operates on hearts and minds that humbly accept the physical evidence. It builds on what's already there, and reveals the deep things of God. John 16:13 Hence...
(Matthew 13:10-16) 10 So the disciples came and said to him: “Why do you speak to them by the use of illustrations?” 11 In reply he said: “To you it is granted to understand the sacred secrets of the Kingdom of the heavens, but to them it is not granted. 12 For whoever has, more will be given him, and he will be made to abound; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 13 That is why I speak to them by the use of illustrations; for looking, they look in vain, and hearing, they hear in vain, nor do they get the sense of it. 14 And the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled in their case. It says: ‘You will indeed hear but by no means get the sense of it, and you will indeed look but by no means see. 15 For the heart of this people has grown unreceptive, and with their ears they have heard without response, and they have shut their eyes, so that they might never see with their eyes and hear with their ears and get the sense of it with their hearts and turn back and I heal them.’ 16 “However, happy are your eyes because they see and your ears because they hear.

The arrogant have the physical evidence before them. Their callous stony heart prevent them from seeing, and gaining understanding from God.
Think of it this way... God lets a deceptive influence mislead them so that they may come to believe the lie, in order that they all may be judged because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness. . . (2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12)

That's easy to understand. If a person blinds themselves, God lets them remain blind. He does nothing to prevent that blindness.
Of couse, that person becomes the victim of every deception out there - flesh and spirit.

In order to humble yourself to God you must know that God is God. How can any sinner humble themselves to God without knowing that God is God?

You are in effect saying God did not offer any hope for arrogant sinners, and that God none forgives pride. Iow pride is the unforgivable sin.

And yet God says all sin is forgivable.

In any event salvation is difficult to impossible to obtain in Christianity because it involves in depth study of evidence, and humbling one's self to God they couldn't possibly know because of arrogance.

 

[YoursTrue]

Before i answer, I want you to read something and then contemplate whether or not the Christian god is capable of some of the most evil heinous crimes against humanity imaginable:

"In Joshua 6:20b–21, The Israelite army entered the town of Jericho: Then they devoted to destruction by the edge of the sword all in the city, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and donkeys.” After the destruction of Jericho, next would come the people of Ai, then the people of Makkedah and Libnah and Lachish and Eglon and Debir—every man, woman, and child slaughtered and dedicated to God. In the end, the entire population of thirty-one city-states was utterly destroyed."

20 When the trumpets sounded, the army shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the men gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so everyone charged straight in, and they took the city. 21 They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.

The Christian god wipes out the populations of seven towns--men, woman, children, babies, livestock--everything.

Ask yourself why preachers NEVER touch any of this in their Sunday morning homilies. Because the congregations would stand up and walk right out of church in disgust when they learned this was in the Bible. The truth is 99.99% of people who to Sunday morning services haven't opened a Bible once in their entire lives. If they had they've never read these revolting passages describing the murderous corrupt degenerate god Christians serve.

I'm not going into that now. Although it was men who did that. You really need to know and understand the scriptures and the times to understand these things. I said I wasn't going to discuss it now. But how about today, when men go to war and fight and kill each other for their ruling powers (king, queen, president, etc.). Interesting that when many survive they thank God for their survival. I doubt many on either side would thank God if their loved ones were killed in the war, huh?

 

[Trailblazer]

Sorry, but it does matter. An ambiguous prophecy can be interpreted multiple ways. It can "come true" again and again and again. That makes it worthless since those events of coming true contradict each other. To be of any use it can only come true once.

That is correct, ambiguous prophecies can be interpreted in more than one way, as can all biblical scriptures, but those prophecies are still valid if they were revealed by a prophet of God. The task at had is to try to figure out what the author of the prophecy intended for it to mean.

That is correct. It can only come true once, but that does not make it worthless, since if it comes true once that means it has been fulfilled by that individual who did the things that made it come true.

No, once anyone can make a probably prophecy. The next time you go out driving on the road you will see a red car. Wow!!! I must be a prophet. Now if I predicted the make, year and the license plate then you might be able to claim that I was a prophet. Of course there would be exceptions for that too. If I knew where you were and that was my car then not so much.

Now you are shifting the goalposts.
The assumption is that the Bible prophecies were revealed by true prophets of God. If not, there is no point even taking any of them seriously, and we can all take our toys and go home!

Right, it must have been known only by God ahead of time. It must not be general knowledge.

That is correct. It had to be known by God ahead of time and how it would be fulfilled would not be general knowledge.
Nobody but God would know exactly what would happen in the future in order to fulfill the prophecy.

Do you have any prophecy that meets these more than reasonable standards? You failed at showing why they need not be met.

I have many prophecies that meet the standards that I highlighted in bold.

 

[YoursTrue]

In order to humble yourself to God you must know that God is God. How can any sinner humble themselves to God without knowing that God is God?

You are in effect saying God did not offer any hope for arrogant sinners, and that God none forgives pride. Iow pride is the unforgivable sin.

And yet God says all sin is forgivable.

In any event salvation is difficult to impossible to obtain in Christianity because it involves in depth study of evidence, and humbling one's self to God they couldn't possibly know because of arrogance.

Not necessarily. Some people get it quicker than others. Take, for example, the man who was blind and yet Jesus healed him. The religious leaders got angry because they claimed this young man was uneducated, therefore couldn't tell them a thing. Luke chapter 9 has that desription. The Pharisees said to the once blind man, "In answer they said to him: “You were altogether born in sin, and yet are you teaching us?” And they threw him out!" So not only did they not believe him, they insulted him and threw him out.

 

[YoursTrue]

Good, but you do not seem to be familiar with the objections by religious people specifically Christians to the idea of praying in this way and studying it. You don't seem to be aware of the idea that "My will be done" is witchcraft, and that even though the participants in the study may have had the best intentions, the researchers, the one's who developed and carried out the study, were testing "MY will be done" ( the will of the researcher ), and not "THY will be done", whch is prayer.

Do you understand? They were testing the wrong thing.

Anyway, the link I brought details these objections, so that you can see that I am making a valid point. And I brought the link to info from a, let's just call them Satanic, group confirming that this idea of "MY will be done" is what is employed by those involved in LHP, the left hand path.

Keep in mind please that God Almighty approved of David despite his sin, yet disapproved of Ahaz and his rule.

 

[YoursTrue]

Good, but you do not seem to be familiar with the objections by religious people specifically Christians to the idea of praying in this way and studying it. You don't seem to be aware of the idea that "My will be done" is witchcraft, and that even though the participants in the study may have had the best intentions, the researchers, the one's who developed and carried out the study, were testing "MY will be done" ( the will of the researcher ), and not "THY will be done", whch is prayer.

Do you understand? They were testing the wrong thing.

Anyway, the link I brought details these objections, so that you can see that I am making a valid point. And I brought the link to info from a, let's just call them Satanic, group confirming that this idea of "MY will be done" is what is employed by those involved in LHP, the left hand path.

(Maybe I misunderstood, but please answer the following as you understand it, thanks.)
Again -- the history of the Jews, north and south, in Israel as a whole during the times of the kings, show that God had a voice in approval or disapproval. So when Jesus prayed that God's will be done, not only was he being humble, but very encouraging to those of us who look forward to Isaiah's promise of a beautiful future. For those, yes, who love God and want His will to be done on the earth. (It will be.)

 

[Trailblazer]

If a prophecy says that an event will occur within a certain time span then one does not get to change that time span.

Of course it has to occur within a certain time span if a time span is given in the prophecy and one does not get to change that time span if a time span is given in the prophecy.

If the topic of a prophecy is an individual you do not get to change the individual.

How would you know that the prophecy is about a particular individual unless and until that individual fulfilled the prophecy by doing what the prophecy says?

It has to be about what it says that it is about. And when the event occurs it must match what the prophecy says.

That is a given. I fully agree.

That is why the Tyre prophecy is a failed prophecy. Oddly enough those that defend it rarely know that Ezekiel himself admitted that it was a failed prophecy.

Can you explain why that prophecy failed? Was a time span given that failed to be met?

Wow! You will probably have to expand your quote since I am referring only to the end. You clearly did not understand this. Known to God? Yes, if there was such a being it would know it. But the context was obviously talking about the people of that time and since, at least not until the fulfilment. They may have known of the prophecy, but they could not know that it had been fulfilled until the one event where it was. And also everyone after the fulfilment could point to it and say "That was when the prophecy was fulfilled". If there is debate, then it was not clear. If there are more than one "fulfillments" then it was far too vague.

Okay, now I think we are on the right track. We are in agreement that:

- If God exists the prophecy would be known to God.
- The people living at the time the Bible was recorded would not know how the prophecy was going to be fulfilled.
- Nobody would know if the prophecy had been fulfilled until the 'one event' that caused it to be fulfilled.
- Everyone after the fulfillment would be able to see that the prophecy had been fulfilled.
- There cannot be more than one fulfillment of the same prophecy, which means that the same prophecy cannot be fulfilled by more than one person.

 

[YoursTrue]

Good, but you do not seem to be familiar with the objections by religious people specifically Christians to the idea of praying in this way and studying it. You don't seem to be aware of the idea that "My will be done" is witchcraft, and that even though the participants in the study may have had the best intentions, the researchers, the one's who developed and carried out the study, were testing "MY will be done" ( the will of the researcher ), and not "THY will be done", whch is prayer.

Do you understand? They were testing the wrong thing.

Anyway, the link I brought details these objections, so that you can see that I am making a valid point. And I brought the link to info from a, let's just call them Satanic, group confirming that this idea of "MY will be done" is what is employed by those involved in LHP, the left hand path.

Maybe I had this wrong. Are you saying that the participants were told to pray that God's will be done? It sounds ridiculous anyway.

 

[Thrillobyte]

Please can you give an honest answer... was your question answered here? If no, can you please explain why the evidence must be what you think it must be - i.e. secular?
Can you also tell me honestly, why the Bible, which is a collection of ancient documents spanning a period of 16 centuries, cannot be used to provide HISTORICAL evidence of Jesus' authenticity?
Please be reminded of your title - There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

Are you of the view that the only useful evidence, must be secular?
Is secular "evidence" infallible; flawless; accurate;...?

Well, I think your response is, "You're right. Christians CAN'T give the name of a single secular historian who mentions Jesus the Christ or any of the supernatural events surrounding him because there isn't one. But are you determined to discounts ALL books from the Bible which has proven itself a reliable document over 16 centuries?"

Let me tackle your question as I perceive it based on the opinions of secular scholars:

Is the Bible a reliable document for proving Jesus?

From Matt Slick's CARM:

"Many people do not believe that the Bible is a reliable document of history. But, the fact is the Bible is very trustworthy as a historical document."

Is the Bible trustworthy as a historical document?

The Bible is very reliable as a historical document. It has a great many ancient manuscripts that are extremely well preserved.

carm.org

That's an emphatic "Yes" but it comes from one of the most notorious apologists in Christendom.

From ReligionsWiki:

"The Bible is NOT a reliable historical source because it does not meet the standard criteria of source reliability used by historians."

The Bible is not a reliable historical source - Religions Wiki

religions.wiki

That's an emphatic "No."

So who do you believe? Well, the Christians are going to believe Slick and the skeptics are going to believe Wiki. So no ground gained there. Would you agree with that assessment, nPeace?

I'll get to your other points later. I'm kind of in a time crunch right now.

​