• 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
A complete lack of evidence for what, exactly?
For Jesus...and the 12 apostles...and Paul....and Mark for starts. But let's start with Jesus. He was very famous throughout Israel and even beyond the borders into neighboring countries according to the gospels. His crucifixion caused all sorts of supernatural events like darkness in the middle of the day and dead bodies reanimating and walking through Jerusalem like the Walking Dead. Yet not a single historian ever wrote about any of this even though there were hundreds of historians in and around Jerusalem at the time. Philo of Alexandria, a prominent Jewish historian during the time Jesus was alive, never mentions a word about Jesus. Why is that?
 

SeekingAllTruth

Well-Known Member
And your post is untethered. If you're going to respond to someone, quote or otherwise reference the post being targeted.
Question: does God cure a child's cancer when his parents pray in Jesus name for a cure? Didn't Jesus promise, "If you ask the Father for anything in my name He will give it to you"?
 
Last edited:

Colt

Well-Known Member
Wasn’t Hebrew out of favor during the times of Jesus as a common language? Why would Matthew be written in Hebrew?
 

SeekingAllTruth

Well-Known Member
You're imposing a context onto Jewish papers that you can't even read (or correct me if you claim you can), and they were never called 'The Old Testament' by the writers. Did you not know that? If God, as you say, wrote an Old Testament why didn't God name these books 'Old Testament' ? Therefore you have no grounds to claim I am wrong as you demonstrate what I have said by imposing a context (projected) onto the texts of meanings and of words which they, themselves, do not mention. It is only an imposed context which imposes that 'God' communicated with humans. 'God' is not even a Jewish word but a Christian Germanic one, and there is zero explanation except that it has been imposed upon the text, possibly in an attempt to deceive me, so that I will pay 10% of my income forever to someone who only works one day per week.

I cannot read the original Jewish text of the Old Testament. But we have translations in the modern Bible, true? Are you saying the translations in modern Bibles are not the word of God because they are not in the original Hebrew? And what does it matter if it wasn't called the Old Testament back then? That's what it is called today. Your objection is a red herring.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
But by your own reasoning Wikipedia is even less useful to us because it was written or edited by some random person thousands of years after events transpired.

But here are quotes from ancient sources about Matthew writing in Hebrew.

“Matthew collected the oracles (ta logia) in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as best he could.” – Papias (Eusebius, H.E. 3.39.16)

“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews n their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church.” – Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3.1.1

“As having learnt by tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are unquestionable in the Church of God under heaven, that first was written according to Matthew, who was once a tax collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew language.” – Origen (Eusebius, H.E. 6.25.4)


There is wide consensus among actual biblical historians that Matthew was sourced from Mark.
Even going to Christian scholarship they admit this. Although they have some apologetics for it they do admit that interdependance of the gospels is a myth.

This is from an article on bible.org
The Synoptic Problem | Bible.org
"When one compares the synoptic parallels, some startling results are noticed. Of Mark’s 11,025 words, only 132 have no parallel in either Matthew or Luke. Percentage-wise, 97% of Mark’s Gospel is duplicated in Matthew; and 88% is found in Luke."

In the article they admit that "In sum, it is quite impossible—and ultimately destructive of the faith—to maintain that there is total independence among the gospel writers."

As Bart Ehrman points out in his debate with Mike Licona the followers of Jesus were illiterate (he cites a study that gives a 3% rate of reading/writing) and spoke Aramaic. The gospels were written 40 or more years later in Greek. There was no Hebrew gospel. There is an older theory about a solution to the synoptic problem (the name given to the problem of the gospels obviously using a common source) that there was an Aramaic common source but now it's believed to be Mark:

"The majority of NT scholars hold to Markan priority (either the two-source hypothesis of Holtzmann or the four-source hypothesis of Streeter). This is the view adopted in this paper as well.9 Stein puts forth eight categories of reasons why Mark ought to be considered the first gospel. Though not all of his arguments are of equal weight, both the cumulative evidence and several specific arguments are quite persuasive."

Also the Wiki article happens to match the consensus of all PhD historians regarding the gospels. They do not claim to be eyewitnesses or to be written by the names given to them. That is a 2nd century addition. Ehrman states this clearly at 1:27:00

 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
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.
1 empty tomb.
500 witnesses of the resurrection
Miracles

What more can one ask for?
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
1 empty tomb.
500 witnesses of the resurrection
Miracles

What more can one ask for?
An empty tomb possibly just means Jesus was buried somewhere else or His body removed later.

As to the 500 witnesses cite your source.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
An empty tomb possibly just means Jesus was buried somewhere else or His body removed later.

As to the 500 witnesses cite your source.
No... there were guards at the tomb -- they wanted to make sure he remained in the tomb.

1 Corinthians 15:6
After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
No... there were guards at the tomb -- they wanted to make sure he remained in the tomb.
So the story invented by scribes after the fact goes.

1 Corinthians 15:6
After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
Ah so you have the tall claims of one scribe.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
No... there were guards at the tomb -- they wanted to make sure he remained in the tomb.

1 Corinthians 15:6
After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
Paul is relaying what he heard. And he claims to have a "vision". This is not evidence for anything except that people had some religious beliefs.
Paul did not speak on any empty tomb. That story came a lifetime later and is written as what we would now understand to be a myth from the literary style and analysis. So as evidence it isn't good.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
Are you saying the translations in modern Bibles are not the word of God because they are not in the original Hebrew?
No that is not what I am saying, and I think that it is plainly not.

And what does it matter if it wasn't called the Old Testament back then?
The crux is applying a context not merely a name to the text, and that context can and does radically change every meaning in a library of texts (a bible) which do not explain themselves and use undefined terms which I shall illustrate. For example you can't find the definition of the word 'Holy' in the bible anywhere. It is used a lot. You can find allusions to it, usages, maybe poetry; but there isn't a definition, only interpolation, assumption and impositions. You probably get your ideas about what it means from what people say or from a dictionary or from songs, but you don't get it probably from reading scripture. The same goes for the important word 'Worship'. Its just one of many many words like that. We can have common opinions by sharing the same assumptions, but we can't find our assumptions in the texts. They aren't there. What we have are systems of definitions that we either agree upon or reject. It is all contextual what you are talking about and assumption. Nothing in the text says that you and I are supposed to believe what it says. To begin with its written to Jews.

Try reading The Mill on the Floss to a Sci Fi club. They won't listen to it, because they are there to talk about science fiction. Similarly you won't listen to the scriptures with the Jewish context that originally accompanies them.
 

SeekingAllTruth

Well-Known Member
1 empty tomb.
500 witnesses of the resurrection
Miracles

What more can one ask for?
Putting aside the Bible, which scholars readily say is not recorded history but rather declarations of faith, how do you know there was an empty tomb or even a tomb, period? How do you know there were 500 witnesses of the resurrection? Convenient round number, don't you think? How do you know there were miracles?
 

SeekingAllTruth

Well-Known Member
No that is not what I am saying, and I think that it is plainly not.

The crux is applying a context not merely a name to the text, and that context can and does radically change every meaning in a library of texts (a bible) which do not explain themselves and use undefined terms which I shall illustrate. For example you can't find the definition of the word 'Holy' in the bible anywhere. It is used a lot. You can find allusions to it, usages, maybe poetry; but there isn't a definition, only interpolation, assumption and impositions. You probably get your ideas about what it means from what people say or from a dictionary or from songs, but you don't get it probably from reading scripture. The same goes for the important word 'Worship'. Its just one of many many words like that. We can have common opinions by sharing the same assumptions, but we can't find our assumptions in the texts. They aren't there. What we have are systems of definitions that we either agree upon or reject. It is all contextual what you are talking about and assumption. Nothing in the text says that you and I are supposed to believe what it says. To begin with its written to Jews.

Try reading The Mill on the Floss to a Sci Fi club. They won't listen to it, because they are there to talk about science fiction. Similarly you won't listen to the scriptures with the Jewish context that originally accompanies them.

This is a lot of contextual analytical criticism and definitions and frankly theological gobbledygook which I think you're throwing out there as a smoke screen to cover up what are essentially some pretty simple straightforward facts: that outside the Bible there is not an iota of reliable historical evidence for Jesus or the 12 apostles and the fact that the gospels were written nearly two generations after Jesus and not by any eyewitnesses but rather well-educated Greek believers who had to invent most if the detail that appears in the gospels based on stories that had been circulating for half to a whole century after Jesus.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
It's because God is totally absent in this world and in their lives. He doesn't answer prayer. He doesn't help people out of their difficulties. He doesn't manifest Himself in any way.
I know for a fact, that Jesus has manifested to me when I prayed some time ago

But it's true, Jesus does not appear any time I just command Him
 
Last edited:

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Christians claim He talks to them and manifests Himself to them, but it's not in any way that others can readily see. Has any miracle claimed by Christians ever been proved by scientific observation
IMO, this lacks understanding of spiritual world vs material world. Science works to solve things below the mind. Spirituality is the key to solve that which is beyond the mind. No use to speak Chinese if the other only speaks French. Use Science IF you want to prove worldly stuff AND Spiritual advice to understand spiritual stuff
 
Last edited:
Top