• 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?

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
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?
Because that would have destroyed the goal.

The goal is to reconcile with God by turning back to Him, trusting Him --

aka: "Faith". (but what does this word really mean?)

Throughout the common bible we hear over and over that faith is what God wants us to achieve. It's trust, basically. But not just a trust after extensive proof. Rather, a more...essential trust. To trust before seeing the outcome.

I cannot achieve 'faith' that I have a car. I simply look and see it, as an observed reality, right there in the driveway.

To have faith is to trust in what is not yet seen. Faith is the essence of trust.

So, proof before that trust would obviate the goal. Faith is the goal, and so clear and easy evidence all must be absent. Even removed. (even perhaps hunted down and removed)

The Adam and Eve story in the 'Garden' is a story of the breakdown of faith, and the only good way for us to learn, after that, was for us to have to learn for ourselves that we should trust God, a learning process that the best Parent would allow us to learn for ourselves. God wants a good relationship with those willing to have a good relationship, see. Not an power-based relationship (like easy and clear evidence of God would cause), but instead a love based relationship (the kind that is rooted in trust).
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Paul knew Peter and the Apostles. Plus, seeing a light that blinded him as he heard the voice of Jesus isn't a "vision". Even those around him heard things.


Paul had a revelation. He mentioned Apostles but did not learn from them. Acts is considered historical fiction and shown to be borrowing from several literary sources including Odessyeus. It follows the story arc exactly.
-Shipwrecked with the same nautical images and vocabulary
-appearance of a divine being assuring safety
-riding of planks on the sea
-hero lands on island and meets hospitable strangers
-hero is mistaken for a God
-hero is sent on a new ship
and so on..
Luke read Corinthians 11:25 and decided to create a shipwreck narrative.

So Paul just had a vision and new of people who believed in the movement. The wildly fictitious narratives came 50 years later and use myth from 3 different hero-class myths.

But even the Damascus account is called "a vision"? I don't see why that would be a problem?
Visions are ubiquitous across religions—even now, but then especially.
 
Last edited:

joelr

Well-Known Member
Why would I put aside accounts that were recorded? Which scholars are you quoting? The ones I read say it was history. As a matter of fact, Acts is so full of verified statements, people, places, traveling times, historical names et al it can only be historical and not declarations of faith.

Tombs have been around way before the time period. And they still are discovering them.

The number could have been rounded off... at some point after 100, why would exact numbers be that important?

Besides it being recorded? They still happen.

The gospel narratives are not said to be historical by any historian? Bart Ehrman, Richard carrier, Mark Goodacre, Elaine Pagels, the only people who are trying to make it have some historical value are theologians or similar.
There is a great debate between Ehrman and a Biblical scholar Peter Williams. Every time Williams gets to something he cannot answer he claims "well I'm not a historian so..."

Ehrman had another debate with apologist scholar Mike Licona on are there discrepancies in the NT (is it reliable) and he demonstrated there were and Licona had to admit there were. Licona's apologetics for it were that each author gives his artistic rendition or something like that?
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
As I noted before, very little difference. I'm sure you can find some... but none that make the difference.

So.. we are pretty sure of what Jesus said.

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

But we also know that over 90% of the original Greek in Mark is in Matthew. So we know Matthew sourced Mark and added his interpretations. These writers were not writing history. When we get to Luke we have clear examples of OT narratives being transformed line by line into Jesus stories (Kings for one). So this demonstrated that these writers were writing stories.
 

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
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

But we also know that over 90% of the original Greek in Mark is in Matthew. So we know Matthew sourced Mark and added his interpretations. These writers were not writing history. When we get to Luke we have clear examples of OT narratives being transformed line by line into Jesus stories (Kings for one). So this demonstrated that these writers were writing stories.
The consensus seems to be that Mark was written down sometime from 66AD to closely after 70AD, before the fall of Jerusalem.

Now, in my mind that time frame isn't that important, even though it does imply living eye witnesses were still alive when Mark was written down.

Here's why: I have (more than once) seen some famous personage passing through a city, heard their ideas in person, and my observation is that if you are 100% sure of precisely what someone said, have it verbatim, etc., that doesn't make their ideas winners (better than competing ideas).

In other words, the precision of the transcript just isn't the key question. The key question is so different:

The key question: Do the ideas work, and work better than alternative ideas?

That's testable.

One can actually do the things the person says, and find out how they work out, with patience and sufficient curiosity. Over time. For myself, that was only a continuation of my general explorations of many various sets of ideas and practices. I tested many.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Because that would have destroyed the goal.

The goal is to reconcile with God by turning back to Him, trusting Him --

aka: "Faith". (but what does this word really mean?)

Throughout the common bible we hear over and over that faith is what God wants us to achieve. It's trust, basically. But not just a trust after extensive proof. Rather, a more...essential trust. To trust before seeing the outcome.

I cannot achieve 'faith' that I have a car. I simply look and see it, as an observed reality, right there in the driveway.

To have faith is to trust in what is not yet seen. Faith is the essence of trust.

So, proof before that trust would obviate the goal. Faith is the goal, and so clear and easy evidence all must be absent. Even removed. (even perhaps hunted down and removed)

The Adam and Eve story in the 'Garden' is a story of the breakdown of faith, and the only good way for us to learn, after that, was for us to have to learn for ourselves that we should trust God, a learning process that the best Parent would allow us to learn for ourselves. God wants a good relationship with those willing to have a good relationship, see. Not an power-based relationship (like easy and clear evidence of God would cause), but instead a love based relationship (the kind that is rooted in trust).

Why would a God hide behind stories that have no evidence but have complete evidence that the stories are borrowed myths? The creation/flood narratives are Mesopotamian myths, all the afterlife, resurrection, messianic, Satan vs God, world ends in fire, world savior were first Persian religious stories then during the Persian occupation became slowly added to the Jewish mythology. And the NT is derivative of other cults and the character belongs to several myth-heavy reference classes. He is a worshipped savior deity. He is a legendary culture hero. He is a Rank-Raglan hero. And he is a revelatory archangel which has a high probability of being myth.
This is basically exactly the same for all religions. So one could give this faith speech about any religion? If it doesn't make those correct then it doesn't work here either.
You could have this faith about any religion or about anything. You could have it about the supremacy of your race.

Faith used in the biblical sense is just a way to say you should believe something with no good evidence.
Faith is not the essence of trust. Evidence is. You trust people and things that have given you reason to trust.
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
The key question: Do the ideas work, and work better than alternative ideas?
The key question in determining what? The very most that could determine is does the idea presented work better than the other ideas that you know about. And that test is only as good as the methodology for testing.
 

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
Why would a God hide behind stories that have no evidence

That's just what I wrote to answer there: just precisely that question (only).

If you can point to what sentence isn't clear, then I could try to clarify.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
The consensus seems to be that Mark was written down sometime from 66AD to closely after 70AD, before the fall of Jerusalem.

Now, in my mind that time frame isn't that important, even though it does imply living eye witnesses were still alive when Mark was written down.

Here's why: I have (more than once) seen some famous personage passing through a city, heard their ideas in person, and my observation is that if you are 100% sure of precisely what someone said, have it verbatim, etc., that doesn't make their ideas winners (better than competing ideas).

In other words, the precision of the transcript just isn't the key question. The key question is so different:

The key question: Do the ideas work, and work better than alternative ideas?

That's testable.

One can actually do the things the person says, and find out how they work out, with patience and sufficient curiosity. Over time. For myself, that was only a continuation of my general explorations of many various sets of ideas and practices. I tested many.

Mark uses parables, ring structure and many other elements of fiction. He even transforms OT stories to create the details of new stories. Parts of the resurrection story are taken from Psalm. Whatever he is writing, it's not history.

Mark 15.24: “They part his garments among them, casting lots upon them.”

Psalm 22:18: “They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon them.”

Mark 15.29-31: “And those who passed by blasphemed him, shaking their heads and saying, ‘…Save yourself…’ and mocked him, saying ‘He who saved others cannot save himself!’ ”

Psalm 22.7-8: “All those who see me mock me and give me lip, shaking their head, saying ‘He expected the lord to protect him, so let the lord save him if he likes.’ ”

Mark 15.34: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

Psalm 22.1: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

On top of these links, Mark also appears to have used Psalm 69, Amos 8.9, and some elements of Isaiah 53, Zechariah 9-14, and Wisdom 2 as sources for his narratives. So we can see yet a few more elements of myth in the latter part of this Gospel, with Mark using other scriptural sources as needed for his story,
 

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
.... borrowed myths? The creation/flood narratives are Mesopotamian myths, all the afterlife, resurrection, messianic, Satan vs God, world ends in fire, world savior were first Persian religious stories then ...

Ah!

The way religions of many sorts tend to even share similar story forms -- even if metaphorical in meaning, it's somewhat suggestive (not conclusive of course!) that there may be something to what they are trying to get at or point towards.

Like when many people are saying something notable happened in a lake, it would suggest that perhaps there was something notable happening, possibly.

It would be if all the stories/myths were unalike that we'd then think they may be more likely to be just random ramblings. (or might suggest that be more likely)

To the extent they are similar, we might infer there could possibly be something there to look closer at, to try to discover if there is something substantive to what they are attempting to point to, to the extent we could gauge anything from their similarity or dissimilarity.)
 

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
Mark uses parables, ring structure and many other elements of fiction. He even transforms OT stories to create the details of new stories. Parts of the resurrection story are taken from Psalm. Whatever he is writing, it's not history.

Mark 15.24: “They part his garments among them, casting lots upon them.”

Psalm 22:18: “They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon them.”

Mark 15.29-31: “And those who passed by blasphemed him, shaking their heads and saying, ‘…Save yourself…’ and mocked him, saying ‘He who saved others cannot save himself!’ ”

Psalm 22.7-8: “All those who see me mock me and give me lip, shaking their head, saying ‘He expected the lord to protect him, so let the lord save him if he likes.’ ”

Mark 15.34: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

Psalm 22.1: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

On top of these links, Mark also appears to have used Psalm 69, Amos 8.9, and some elements of Isaiah 53, Zechariah 9-14, and Wisdom 2 as sources for his narratives. So we can see yet a few more elements of myth in the latter part of this Gospel, with Mark using other scriptural sources as needed for his story,
Yes indeed.
 

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
The key question in determining what? The very most that could determine is does the idea presented work better than the other ideas that you know about. And that test is only as good as the methodology for testing.
When I listened in person to various speakers, of many kinds, I found that getting exactly what they said, precisely, didn't matter or help much, to make their techniques or ideas good/beneficial/best/correct (of course).

Instead, the idea/technique/solution would only be proven of value if it could show itself better than competing ideas, in the real world.

So the question of merely whether the transcript was accurate can be a red herring.

Maybe it's my background in hard sciences, but to me presentation isn't very impressive. I want to test, test to destruction if at all possible.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
That's just what I wrote to answer there: just precisely that question (only).

If you can point to what sentence isn't clear, then I could try to clarify.
But it isn't just "no evidence"? It's all literally borrowed mythology, written exactly like myths are written. It's the same in Islam, Hinduism and even the Greek Epics. Or Persian Zoroastrianism. Yet you are not compelled by those possibilities. You have some type of bias where you assume this story is real and then from there make reasons why one would believe without evidence. There are people doing that right now with hundreds of religions. Yet we know most are wrong. So the odds of you also being wrong are extremely high.

Does this God find up to be so stupid that we just believe ancient myths? According to this logic all people in all religions should forget evidence and be satisfied with faith. This would go for cults, Scientology and any doctrine one gains faith in. One could have faith with ideas about race or the superiority of one sex/race. So they would also be justified.

This sounds like a desperate way to get around a lack of evidence and a really bad and dangerous dogma.
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
When I listened in person to various speakers, of many kinds, I found that getting exactly what they said, precisely, didn't matter or help much, to make their techniques or ideas good/beneficial/best/correct (of course).

Instead, the idea/technique/solution would only be proven of value if it could show itself better than competing ideas, in the real world.

So the question of merely whether the transcript was accurate can be a red herring.

Maybe it's my background in hard sciences, but to me presentation isn't very impressive. I want to test, test to destruction if at all possible.
Better for whom? Obviously, in the realm of religion, an idea/technique/solution in religion the results are self-selected. So what are your non-subjective criteria? What about all of the people who think that it is worse? Or the people who interpret the text different and think there way is better? Your test sounds self-selected and arbitrary.
 

Colt

Well-Known Member
Is this some Urantia inspired antisemitic vitriol or do you have actual evidence?
Yes, we have the NT which reports how Jesus and his followers were treated by the religious leaders of Judaism. The OT also has records of how prophets were mistreated by religious leaders.

"He went first to his own but his own did not receive him."
 
Last edited:

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
But it isn't just "no evidence"?
Yes. We can even can surmise from the repeated content of the common bible that any clear evidence has to be missing (even removed). If there were clear evidence, it would contradict the text extensively.

The text says repeatedly that the main a main purpose of mortal life is to turn to God in "faith" for reconciliation, but "faith" is to trust without seeing something, to trust before seeing.

That's so central to the text that any actual clear evidence of God would seem to make the text clearly mistaken (or mean we'd have drastically misread it, but while many do misread a lot of things, this aspect of what "faith" is, to believe before seeing, is consistently understood across time and various approaches (churches)/viewpoints, and is clear in the text; if churches/theologians have a short list of universal things they agree on, this is one of those things).
 

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
mythology
Could I suggest to learn more about mythology, a painless and very effective way is to take in the great video interviews of Joseph Campbell (done by Bill Moyers). It's entertaining, and he doesn't waste words, and any non believer would be likely to enjoy gaining a better insight into what myths are and how they work and why.
 

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
Better for whom? Obviously, in the realm of religion, an idea/technique/solution in religion the results are self-selected. So what are your non-subjective criteria? What about all of the people who think that it is worse? Or the people who interpret the text different and think there way is better? Your test sounds self-selected and arbitrary.
Yes, well, I'm just a particular individual, with my particular attitudes.

For me, nothing is much convincing (of being valid or valuable) until it proves to work well, meaning better than competing ideas/solutions.
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
Yes, well, I'm just a particular individual, with my particular attitudes.

For me, nothing is much convincing (of being valid or valuable) until it proves to work well, meaning better than competing ideas/solutions.
You appear to be side stepping my questions. If that is intentional, please say so, so that I don't waste my time.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Paul had a revelation. He mentioned Apostles but did not learn from them. Acts is considered historical fiction and shown to be borrowing from several literary sources including Odessyeus. It follows the story arc exactly.
-Shipwrecked with the same nautical images and vocabulary
-appearance of a divine being assuring safety
-riding of planks on the sea
-hero lands on island and meets hospitable strangers
-hero is mistaken for a God
-hero is sent on a new ship
and so on..
Luke read Corinthians 11:25 and decided to create a shipwreck narrative.

So Paul just had a vision and new of people who believed in the movement. The wildly fictitious narratives came 50 years later and use myth from 3 different hero-class myths.

But even the Damascus account is called "a vision"? I don't see why that would be a problem?
Visions are ubiquitous across religions—even now, but then especially.
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.
 
Top