• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

SeekingAllTruth

Well-Known Member
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.
 

Eddi

Christian Agnostic
Premium Member
There are over two billion Christians out of a total world population of over seven billion people

That's a lot of people

Clearly, there is enough evidence for millions and millions of people

So, to answer your question:
Why Didn't God Leave Huge Quantities of Secular Evidence For Jesus?

I'd say: Because he didn't need to for there to be billions of Christians?

Although yes, had he left more non-biblical evidence behind there would probably be many more followers, which raises the question: does God want everyone to be a Christian?
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
they were Greek Christian scholars writing in perfect Koine Greek?
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.

Wouldn't God have made sure that these accounts were perfectly preserved like Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars?
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.

Why instead did God allow whatever might have been written about Jesus by a known historian to be completely lost or destroyed?
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.

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?
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.
 

SeekingAllTruth

Well-Known Member
There are over two billion Christians out of a total world population of over seven billion people

That's a lot of people

Clearly, there is enough evidence for millions and millions of people

So, to answer your question:
Why Didn't God Leave Huge Quantities of Secular Evidence For Jesus?

I'd say: Because he didn't need to for there to be billions of Christians?

Although yes, had he left more non-biblical evidence behind there would probably be many more followers, which raises the question: does God want everyone to be a Christian?

But then you're saying that God also left huge quantities of secular evidence for Allah and Brahma too, right, because there are 1.8 BILLION Moslems and 1.2 BILLION Hindus if we're judging by raw numbers. So God appears to be promoting THREE religions, not just one. This is what the Christians would argue against anyway.

But then let's look at the last part of your answer. does God want everyone to be a Christian? I would say, yes he does. At least that's what the Bible says: "...but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." John 3:18. So we get back to:

"If God wants everyone to be saved from hell, but being saved from hell can only happen by believing on Jesus and no one else, then would it behoove God to leave behind massive quantities of SECULAR evidence to skeptics so that they could not possibly deny Jesus is God incarnate?"
 

Eddi

Christian Agnostic
Premium Member
But then you're saying that God also left huge quantities of secular evidence for Allah and Brahma too, right, because there are 1.8 BILLION Moslems and 1.2 BILLION Hindus if we're judging by raw numbers. So God appears to be promoting THREE religions, not just one. This is what the Christians would argue against anyway.

But then let's look at the last part of your answer. does God want everyone to be a Christian? I would say, yes he does. At least that's what the Bible says: "...but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." John 3:18. So we get back to:

"If God wants everyone to be saved from hell, but being saved from hell can only happen by believing on Jesus and no one else, then would it behoove God to leave behind massive quantities of SECULAR evidence to skeptics so that they could not possibly deny Jesus is God incarnate?"
Perhaps you're looking at it the wrong way round?

Maybe those of us who are Christians have been selected by God to be Christians, whereas those of us who aren't have not been selected?

What if Christians are God's elect?

What if being a Christian is really something that is pre-ordained? As opposed to something one comes to independently, e.g. by accepting the evidence or argument?

I don't know whether I believe this or not but I think this is one way of looking at your question
 

Audie

Veteran Member
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.

If Jesus had gone back to Philadelphia and asked if he'd d care to try again, we'd all
be believers today.

As it id...

But don't forget, if you had proof, then faith
has no role.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

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

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

But, hey, that's just me.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
There are over two billion Christians out of a total world population of over seven billion people

That's a lot of people

Clearly, there is enough evidence for millions and millions of people
I must disagree with you there. All those people are not believing on the basis of evidence. They're believing because they were conditioned to, when they were children who are born with an in-built need, based on survival, to believe unquestioningly what their parents tell them.
So, to answer your question:
Why Didn't God Leave Huge Quantities of Secular Evidence For Jesus?

I'd say: Because he didn't need to for there to be billions of Christians?

Although yes, had he left more non-biblical evidence behind there would probably be many more followers, which raises the question: does God want everyone to be a Christian?
Gotta admit, that's the oddest answer I think I've seen to that sort of question.
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
to be the Messiah and the Second Coming of Christ
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.
Before God could provide such evidence, he would first have to provide evidence the he existed, and that there is such a thing as "divinity". Even if Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were really written by those four guys, and we had the originals, and they were signed, that would not be enough to verify that the events happened as related, nor that there were anything "divine" behind them.

BTW, that would be the same quality of documentation that I could get right now from living Moonies regarding Sun Myung Moon's claims to be the Messiah and the Second Coming of Christ

I believe the Gallic Wards (to the existent that I am convinced) because I have direct evidence that people exist, that western Europe exists, and that people go to war. When we have similar foundational evidence for the Christian god and the actuality of divinity, then and only then will it be time to start entertaining the plausibility of the stories.
 

SeekingAllTruth

Well-Known Member
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.

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

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

Gospel - Wikipedia

But 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.

Yes, but believing or not believing in Caesar doesn't affect your eternal salvation. Believing Jesus is NOT God's son earns you eternal punishment in the fires of hell. I'd say it's comparing apples to animals.

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.

I think these are the same questions early pagans were asking the church leaders. The leaders would have loved to have had mountains of secular evidence for Jesus and the apostles (there is not a single mention of 10 of the 12 apostles after the gospels so how do we know they really died by martyrdom?) but they didn't have any so they devised the doctrine of "justification by faith alone." With this doctrine Christian leaders could void any necessity for having evidence simply by telling their followers, "Demanding evidence is displeasing to God. He doesn't want you relying of evidence for believing in Jesus. He wants you to just believe what the Bible says and accept it as gospel truth." This frankly is a default excuse for me trying to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge: "Why do you want to see a notarized deed? Isn't my picture of the bridge and this IOU signed by the former owner proof enough I own the bridge?" Their argument was the same as yours: "God doesn't want you to have evidence for Jesus because then believing in him wouldn't force you to grow your faith." But God could have saved all the Moslems and Hindus and Buddhists from going to hell if He had left irrefutable evidence for Jesus, couldn't He?
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
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.
That is certainly not the consensus among modern scholarship.
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.
But I don't recall Gallic Wars to be filled with a lot of miracles and magic, which the Gospels are rife with.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Perhaps you're looking at it the wrong way round?

Maybe those of us who are Christians have been selected by God to be Christians, whereas those of us who aren't have not been selected?

What if Christians are God's elect?

What if being a Christian is really something that is pre-ordained? As opposed to something one comes to independently, e.g. by accepting the evidence or argument?

I don't know whether I believe this or not but I think this is one way of looking at your question
It may well be one way to look at the question -- but I don't think it speaks very highly of God, do you?
 

Colt

Well-Known Member
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 human wisdom must evolve by design. We are supposed to be unsure, discovering spiritual truth by experience. The Son of God incarnate was mostly autonomous, even in his public teaching faze.

Jesus didn't teach that he came to die for sins. That was added after he left.
 
Last edited:

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
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.
Bible is a kind of travel guide ... you still have to walk yourself, and IME, that is true for all the religions I came across
 

Brickjectivity

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

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

Shaul

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

SeekingAllTruth

Well-Known Member
Perhaps you're looking at it the wrong way round?

Maybe those of us who are Christians have been selected by God to be Christians, whereas those of us who aren't have not been selected?

What if Christians are God's elect?

What if being a Christian is really something that is pre-ordained? As opposed to something one comes to independently, e.g. by accepting the evidence or argument?

I don't know whether I believe this or not but I think this is one way of looking at your question

This is what Total hyper-Calvinism says, that God, being the Supreme ruler of the universe, can pick and choose who He wants to save and who He wants to send to hell. Doesn't matter that the not-chosen were never given the Holy Spirit to believe, it was purely God's prerogative to not choose them. Paul said this in Romans 9:20:

"But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "

Seems like a pretty rotten thing for God to do to people that He claims to love, but then hyper-Calvinism says that God can love people even as He predestines them for eternal suffering in hell. Funny way to show love, if you ask me.
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
Seems like a pretty rotten thing for God to do to people that He claims to love, but then hyper-Calvinism says that God can love people even as He predestines them for eternal suffering in hell. Funny way to show love, if you ask me.
Sure is. Heck. Just having a potential path to eternal suffering is a pretty crappy way to show love.
 
Top