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

[Kenny]

That is the opposite of what historians are saying.
Ehrman is one of the top NT historians. Here he points out the followers of Jesus spoke Aramaic and were illiterate. 40-50 (a lifetime) years later the gospels were written in Greek by highly educated writers who were not eyewitnesses and the names were added in the 2nd century.
1:25:55

https://crossexamined.org/historical-accuracy-book-acts/

They were not illiterate in as much as he read from the scrolls. Greek was an international language and Israel was a center for travel. Roman soldiers were common as well as the language. Perhaps you are just a one language person and want to project that to others?

Paul was highly educated and people of education were convinced of the preaching of the gospels.

 

[halbhh]

You appear to be side stepping my questions. If that is intentional, please say so, so that I don't waste my time.

Ok, I'll try to be more clear.

So what are your non-subjective criteria?

Only testing. Only. Not another thing on that level of key/central criteria. Testing and the outcomes of testing.

What about all of the people who think that it is worse?

As before I'm very willing to convey precisely what I did, and/or discuss what you've done in precise ways, if you (or anyone) would like to get into details.

Consider: If your car won't start, I have a list of things to do, and if the 1rst and 2nd thing don't work, there is a 3rd.

If you do all three of the first steps fully, then there is a 4th. See? That's what I'm able to offer from a distance over the internet.

Or the people who interpret the text different and think there way is better?

This has several pieces, and they are each important. Do you have the patience and time to hear from me more than 1 thing on this question? I did already say that I'm a unique individual, and that instantly implies that just like everyone else, I have unique experiences and information and understanding, and so does every other person. But that's only 1 piece. There is more.

 

[ppp]

Ok, I'll try to be more clear.

Thanks.

Only testing. Only. Not another thing on that level of key/central criteria. Testing and the outcomes of testing.

halbhh: I do testing
joe: What are the criteria for your testing?
halbhh: Only testing.

Oh well. Thanks for trying. I guess.

 

[halbhh]

Thanks.



halbhh: I do testing
joe: What are the criteria for your testing?
halbhh: Only testing.

Oh well. Thanks for trying. I guess.

I thought I'd already given that detail and wanted to avoid repetition. (I've posted it a few times, but perhaps not to you!)

To test a proposition, such as a way to live, my method is to try several ways extensively and compare the outcomes. Since of course only 2 or 8 or a dozen results are not statistically significant (not conclusive enough), to me it's needed to test repeatedly, in varied situations. Which takes a long time.

So, to test the proposition "love your neighbor as yourself" I tried it dozens of times (with strangers I'd not expected to have anything in common with), in a variety of situations. I compared to 2 other main ways, both with extensive testing:

2: 'have a few carefully selected friends, and keep everyone else at a polite (and very cool and disinterested) distance'.

3: 'select a social group, with many people, and then try to become friends with most everyone alike in the group, and ignore people outside of the group'.

Each of these I tested for years, and in total for many hundreds of hours.

So, I got extensive results of these 3 main ways of relating with strangers.

Over about 15 years. At which point the results were so consistently in favor of just 1 of the ways as superior to the other 2, I had a clear result, an outcome, by observation.

 

[ppp]

So, to test "love your neighbor as yourself" I tried it dozens of times (with strangers I'd not expected to have anything in common with), in a variety of situations. It contrasted to my primary main alternative way I'd done for years of: 'have a few carefully selected friends, and keep everyone else at a polite (and very cool and disinterested) distance. And also to a 3rd way I'd been testing extensively in those years (many hundreds of hours worth of testing): 'select a social group, with many people, and then try to become friends with most everyone alike in the group, and ignore people outside of the group'. So, I got extensive results of these 3 main ways of relating with strangers.

So, aside from the general nature of human reactions, what specifically are you claiming that this demonstrates?

 

[halbhh]

So, aside from the general nature of human reactions, what specifically are you claiming that this demonstrates?

Something not at all hard to believe actually: that treating the random people you encounter as your neighbors with love, even though they are basically random strangers you haven't carefully selected ahead of time, really pays off. What one learns, by doing it enough, is how well it pays off, much better than I ever guessed possible. It proved out over time very superior to the other 2 main ways of relating to people I extensively tested also.

 

[ppp]

Something not at all hard to believe actually: that treating the random people you encounter as your neighbors with love, even though they are basically random strangers you haven't carefully selected ahead of time, really pays off. What one learns, by doing it enough, is how well it pays off, much better than I ever guessed possible. It proved out over time very superior to the other 2 main ways of relating to people I extensively tested also.

That's it? Nothing about the Bible?
Cool.

 

[halbhh]

That's it? Nothing about the Bible?
Cool.

Having tested one (central and key) proposition that Jesus spoke of, and finding it very successful, I then decided to test another one He said.

For my own gain, like sifting through gravel to find gold, or so I thought.

 

[ppp]

Having tested one (central and key) proposition that Jesus spoke of, and finding it very successful, I then decided to test another one He said.

For my own gain, like sifting through gravel to find gold, or so I thought.

I did not ask you what you did next. I asked you what you think that test demonstrates about the Bible?

 

[halbhh]

I did not ask you what you did next. I asked you what you think that test demonstrates about the Bible?

Nothing! Isn't that clear? Well, it did of course demonstrate He got a key thing correct (meaning found a best way, a way better than other ways). But I didn't jump to any far reaching conclusions from that one result. I just tested another proposition (the one about forgiving people that didn't earn forgiveness). But when it also worked amazingly well (to remove stress/old weights, and to add energy and some extra optimism to my life), then I decided He was a good prospector at least, and probably would say something else that was useful.

And all I needed to do was merely test things He said to find any other things. With some time, and effort, I'd gain whatever there was to gain, and put that book back on the shelf, with the others.

 

[ppp]

Nothing! Isn't that clear?

No. But it is now.

Well, it did of course demonstrate He got a key thing correct (meaning found a best way, a way better than other ways).

No. It demonstrated that you found things better. For Jesus, or more accurately the people he was quoting, to have been meaningfully correct, then the scope of the positive effect would have to be wider than just you.

 

[halbhh]

No. But it is now.


No. It demonstrated that you found things better. For Jesus, or more accurately the people he was quoting, to have been meaningfully correct, then the scope of the positive effect would have to be wider than just you.

ah, I'd suggest to anyone they should test things for themselves! At the minimum, one might sooner or later gain something really beneficial for here and now, in this life. There's a reason the famous teachers from the various traditions are well known, I've discovered over time. They often have something of immediate value to life here and now to offer us.

 

[ppp]

ah, I'd suggest to anyone they should test things for themselves! At the minimum, one might sooner or later gain something really beneficial for here and now, in this life. There's a reason the famous teachers from the various traditions are well known, I've discovered over time. They often have something of immediate value to life here and now to offer us.

They are also full of things that should be be reviled. Such as:
"Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

"There be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."

"And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life."

In your belief-set is Jesus, God?

 

[halbhh]

They are also full of things that should be be reviled. Such as:
"Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

"There be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."

"And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life."

In your belief-set is Jesus, God?

The first means don't abandon your loving wife just to get a younger woman.
(It doesn't mean you have to stay with someone abusive.
Nor even that you could never have a new wife. Christ Himself says more on this in another place.)

The 2nd means that for some people (and not that many really), the best possible life path will not include eros love. Some people are just different, given different temperaments and have different best possible paths of life. As other verses help clarify, there's nothing wrong at all in marriage and being a faithful married sexual couple, and so on. It's 100% acceptable and good for followers of Christ.

The 3rd is actually one of the verses I was just thinking of above. It means what it says (if you read in full context) -- that if someone tries to prevent you from being a Christian, you can leave them, rightfully, and not be tied down to them any longer. That if this happens, providence (God) will see, in time, that you gain far more than you lost!

Let me suggest something tho: I'd not try to test these more advanced sayings of His, if I didn't even believe.

I'd try out what more ordinary life experience most all of us may have suggests might work, according to our everyday experience -- things like "love your neighbor as yourself" and "forgive from the heart" and "in everything, do to others as you'd have them do to you" and such basic principles/propositions that seem like they might work, to an ordinary life experience. I'd test those. Sift for gold.

 

[ppp]

In your belief-set is Jesus, God?

The first means don't abandon your loving wife just to get a younger woman. (It doesn't mean other stuff like you have to stay with someone abusive, etc.!, nor that you could never have a new wife. Christ Himself says more on this in another place, quite different than what you've got there, which may surprise you. Ask if you want to see where.)

That is not what it says. That is your insertion.

The 2nd means that for some people (and not that many really), the best possible life path will not include eros love. Some people are just different, given different temperaments and have different best possible paths of life. As other verses help clarify, there's nothing wrong at all in marriage and being a faithful married sexual couple, and so on. It's 100% acceptable and good for followers of Christ.

Again, that is your interpolation; not some thing that the text actually says.

The 3rd is actually one of the verses I was just thinking of above. It means what it says (if you read in full context) -- that if someone tries to prevent you from being a Christian, you can leave them, rightfully, and not be tied down to them any longer. That if this happens, providence (God) will see, in time, that you gain far more than you lost!

Again, it does not say that. You just cannot help yourself but insert your own inventions, can you?

 

[halbhh]

That is not what it says. That is your insertion.

Ok, you'll believe what you want. I have the view I have from a full and careful reading of all of the texts. You can just imagine whatever you prefer, but I'd at least check commentaries, myself (*). Or, if you get curious, you could try to ask about things and discuss, instead of asserting. But if it feels safer to assert what you'd prefer to think, no one will stop you.

======
* -- example from a commentary on Matthew 19:29 :
"In times of persecution, under many different cases of pressure, or where his friends were heathens or infidels, a Christian might feel himself constrained to relinquish the dearest ties, to east off all old associations, to put himself wholly in God's hands, freed from all worldly things; such a one should receive ample reward in the present life."
Matthew 19:29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or fields for the sake of My name will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life.

 

[ppp]

Ok, you'll believe what you want. I have the view I have from a full and careful reading of all of the texts. You can just imagine whatever you prefer, but I'd at least check commentaries, myself (*). Or, if you get curious, you could try to ask about things and discuss, instead of asserting. But if it feels safer to assert what you'd prefer to think, no one will stop you.

======
* -- example from a commentary on Matthew 19:29 :
"In times of persecution, under many different cases of pressure, or where his friends were heathens or infidels, a Christian might feel himself constrained to relinquish the dearest ties, to east off all old associations, to put himself wholly in God's hands, freed from all worldly things; such a one should receive ample reward in the present life."
Matthew 19:29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or fields for the sake of My name will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life.

Don't pretend that you have done anything but assert up till now. And even now, you are acting as an assertion-proxy. There are three shortfalls -

• the commentary use is the subjunctive - this might be the case.
• evidence that this is what was intended is lacking.
• abandoning your wife and children is an immoral thing to do and a immoral thing to encourage

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Interesting how you have that viewpoint but absolutely nobody had that viewpoint during Paul's life.

However:

Acts 1:1 In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen.

What was the first book?

Luke 1:1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

As a doctor, who knew how to record things and spoke to those who were "eyewitnesses" ... I don't think they had "Odysseus" as an eyewitness nor the book to go by.

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

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

 

[halbhh]

Don't pretend that you have done anything but assert up till now. And even now, you are acting as an assertion-proxy. There are three shortfalls -

• the commentary use is the subjunctive - this might be the case.
• evidence that this is what was intended is lacking.
• abandoning your wife and children is an immoral thing to do and a immoral thing to encourage

Ok, again, this is up to you.

If you prefer, you can tell yourself any other interpretation than you already know is always wrong. If that's what you want.

No one can prevent you from telling yourself any preferred comfortable old (mis)understanding you liked to think. It's only you that can decide to read and learn more. All I can do is tell you what I know.

At least, you ought to owe yourself to get curious to learn more tho.

 

[ppp]

If you prefer, you can tell yourself any other interpretation than you already know is always wrong. If that's what you want.

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