There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[Subduction Zone]

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.

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!

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.

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

No, sorry, you are trying to use prophecy to argue for God as evidence. You are not thinking rationally. You cannot claim it to be a message from God if you cannot demonstrate that. All that you have is your old circular logic again.

A valid prophecy can only have one clear interpretation. Multiple interpretations automatically make it a failed prophecy since one has no way of determining which interpretation is valid.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Prayer is ridiculous if one thinks about it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

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?

That would determine what the prophecy was. For example the Tyre prophecy was clearly aimed at the king of Tyre. And that is why it was a failed prophecy. Nebby did not accomplish his goal. If one tries to put it off for generations the prophecy fails on several levels. One of the more important ones is the morality of God. It shows God to be immoral if one has to wait for Alexander to save Zeke's nuts.

That is a given. I fully agree.

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

the king of Tyre was the one that denigrated the Hebrew people. He was who the prophecy was aimed at. Tyre was not destroyed when Nebby attacked. In fact Zeke admitted his failure at the end of the prophecy. He then went on to make another failed prophecy. As I already said the people quite a few generations later were not guilty of that sin. And even Alex did not fulfill it. He merely conquered the island of Tyre. He did not wipe it clean.

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.

Yes, exactly.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm not saying it was mythical, that wasn't my intention. Only that the events could have been exaggerated without fear of heaven. The same could have happened in the stories of Abraham Issac and Jacob an Moses. And, it might not have been that way either. It could have been completely accurate with the assitance of miracles. My belief is not dependent on historical fact; but, I acknowledge the lack of evidence and what it means.

Like I say, I wasn't there. I do believe the Bible is inspired of God. And that He promised certain things and clearly Abraham spoke about this to his family -- and as they say, the rest is history. We know for instance, that Hagar had a child by Abraham also. as well as Sarah and Keturah.
"When informed that Sarah would also have a son from whom “kings of peoples” would come, Abraham petitioned God in behalf of his firstborn: “O that Ishmael might live before you!” God’s reply, after declaring that the future son Isaac would be the covenant heir, was: “As regards Ishmael I have heard you. Look! I will bless him and will make him fruitful and will multiply him very, very much. He will certainly produce twelve chieftains, and I will make him become a great nation.” (Ge 17:16, 18-20) Ishmael was then circumcised, at the age of 13, along with his father and his father’s servants.—Ge 17:23-27."
You can't make this up. So the fact that the exodus took place after things happened makes a lot of sense to me. You just can't make these things up. as far as I'm concerned, too detailed and historical in the making.
Under the subject of Ishmael at https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002215

 

[F1fan]

Did you not ask this before, and an answer given already?
Are you hoping for another? Did you actually consider the answer?
Please consider the following.


Every era has some aspect to it, that may not be the best.
That doesn't automatically follow that there were not other aspects that were useful, and beneficial.

Take our era - the information age
...for the vast majority of people, digital changes happen outside of their conscious perception. They are merely confronted with constantly changing demands and requirements for their social life: They need 'DigiD’s' for their communication with government institutions; they feel the need to own a smartphone and maintain a Facebook page to keep in touch with their family or they feel the constant pressure to update their computer software and hardware in order to “keep up”.

At the same time, the technologies and processes that are behind these changes have become ever smaller, more complex, and more hidden in our daily physical environment. It is difficult, in short, to find a shared language, shared concepts and shared ways of conversation that involve large and diverse groups of people in the question how our personal lives and social power relations are actually changing in relation to digital technologies.

How modern life affects our physical and mental health

None of this is relevant to the fact that the Bible was written in an era where embellishment was common. The fantastic and unbelievable nature of the stories suggest these were not written as factual statements, but stories that shared cultural ideas.

Because they contain values that work for our day - any era. They are timeless.

Yet Western governments moved from theocracies to secular, so not really timeless. More like obsolete. Heck, the major religions can't even maintain consistency within themselves as we see with tens of thousands of sects in Christianity alone.

Since you disagree though, please name ONE rule WE have that is better,

Freedom of religion. What religion has ever actively allowed that under their own rule, with the exception of Arab Spain under the Muslims

Al-Andalus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

and please explain why skepticism is such a good thing,

Because it allows thinkers to not be duped by believing in absurd concepts. Look at how people get defrauded by scam artists. If they were skeptical and slowed down their emotional reactions to great deals they would be less likely to be fooled.

and how you apply it where science is concerned... for example, explain how you apply critical thought and skepticism regarding whale evolution.

If you were skeptical of what your religious disinformation tells you about science you wouldn't ask these embarrassing questions.

First of all the sciences follow a set of ethical standards that experts have to follow in order to keep their jobs. Compare this with Catholic preists who sexually abuse children and are only transfered to a different church and a slap on the wrist.

Second, the ethics that are crucial to science are part of science itself, and it is this high standard, and that science follows facts, and shows all its work, is why it can be trusted by lay people.

Third, I don't know anything about whale evolution, except that I remember something about residual bones that are similar to hip and leg bones. Is that what you are referring to, as if there is some probllem with the work my marine biologists? Did you read some Christian disinformation about whale evolution and you were duped into believing it because you lack adequate skepticism of the fraud that creationists publish?

Is that how you feel about what scientists believe?
How do you feel about these skeptical and critical thinkers?

I can't read the link because I am replying and it doesn't work. Are you trying to catch me in some gotcha thing? Why not make an argument instead of little games.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

​

IF we were there at the time of happening it would be a different test. But we weren't. And frankly the reliability of transmission of the texts as approved and written is high on the level of certainty and accuracy. Until one gets into the bigger questions of textual comparison, there is not much to say in denial as far as I am concerned. I am not changing the subject, but thinking about Philo. And his writing or lack of saying anything about Jesus. Doesn't matter, because I'll go back to Jesus' birth. Naturally he was not born on December 25. I am speaking about what is classically accepted as true or not. To me there are certain expressions used in the Bible of which I will wait for a clearer understanding. So if Philo heard about Jesus and his trial (why would he though?) that's one thing. But we don't know. It is written that Jesus went before Pilate who asked him "What is truth"? I guess Pilate was a philosopher. Jesus knew he was going to die and there is no evidence that Pilate realized later that Jesus was resurrected. Which tells you -- there are some things not stated by traditional historians. Nevertheless, what is true is that the Bible states many did NOT accept Jesus as coming from God. So it is a fair portrayal of the occurrences and attitude of the people and their rulers.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

...................... They will nevertheless insist that their God exists and will point out factual references in the Bible. Not only do they insist that their God is real, but many of them will insist that their God inspired the Bible.

The Bible itself says the Author of the Bible inspirited the Bible at 2nd Tim 3:16-17
Nature is a fact and who can prove that nature is Not a creation.
We exist because something does Not come from nothing.
God is the one who supplied the abundantly needed dynamic energy to create the visible material realm of existence.- Isaiah 40:26

When was the last time you were in a very dark area where there was next to no light at night and looked up at the stars ?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I explained what I believe God's plan/purpose is for humanity in post # #401

.... and where do you agree or not agree with what I posted at post # 388

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I do not believe that Adam and Eve died physically because they disobeyed God. I believe they died spiritually because they disobeyed God.
Regardless of whether or not they had disobeyed God by eating the fruit from the tree eventually they would have died physically since all humans were created to be mortal.

Even angels are mortal but both angelic life and human life can live forever if obedient to God.
Mortal Adam could live forever on Earth as long as he did Not break God's Law of Gen. 2:17
Mortal angels can live forever in Heaven as long as they do Not break God's heavenly laws.

In Eden THE forbidden tree stood for the Law of the Land of Eden.
If you had a generous neighbor who had many fruit trees and said you can come over any time you want and have a much fruit as you want except just Not from one particular tree, would you consider your neighbor to be unreasonable ________

 

[URAVIP2ME]

A lot--I mean A LOT of broken promises in there, not surprisingly.

Remember: if Adam and Eve would have never had children we simply would Not be here.
The passing of time was allowed so that all of us could be born and think who we would like as Sovereign over us.
Remember God's purpose was that earth be populated ( Not over populated ) - Gen. 1:28
As Acts 24:15 uses the future tense then the future is Not broken but I find is still ahead of us.
No broken promise but a clear warning that the powers in charge will be saying, " Peace and Security....." - 1st Thess. 5:2-3
That 'saying' will just prove to be the precursor to the coming great tribulation of Rev. 7:14
In other words, this world's system is now like a run-away freight train that is on fire !

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Bible itself says the Author of the Bible inspirited the Bible at 2nd Tim 3:16-17
Nature is a fact and who can prove that nature is Not a creation.
We exist because something does Not come from nothing.
God is the one who supplied the abundantly needed dynamic energy to create the visible material realm of existence.- Isaiah 40:26

When was the last time you were in a very dark area where there was next to no light at night and looked up at the stars ?

Yes, only the Bible says that it is the inspired work of God. The Bible's countless flaws tend to refute that claim. And yes, nature is a fact but you have your burden of proof backwards. You are the one that needs to "prove" that it is a creation. When one reasons rationally one does not accept something as true without reliable evidence. One does not get to assume that something is true and then demand that others prove them wrong By your standards the Flying Spaghetti Monster is true since no one has proved him to be false.

As to something coming from nothing you would need to properly define your terms. The universe may be a whole lot of "nothing".

You might want to work on your logic skills a little bit. You have not made a coherent argument for your God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Remember: if Adam and Eve would have never had children we simply would Not be here.
The passing of time was allowed so that all of us could be born and think who we would like as Sovereign over us.
Remember God's purpose was that earth be populated ( Not over populated ) - Gen. 1:28
As Acts 24:15 uses the future tense then the future is Not broken but I find is still ahead of us.
No broken promise but a clear warning that the powers in charge will be saying, " Peace and Security....." - 1st Thess. 5:2-3
That 'saying' will just prove to be the precursor to the coming great tribulation of Rev. 7:14
In other words, this world's system is now like a run-away freight train that is on fire !

Myths, such as Adam and Eve, tend to only exist in myths. We know that there never were just two people. There was no "first person". You are now at the level of calling God a liar since the evidence for evolution is so pervasive that only an omnipotent God could have lied by planting endless false evidence for evolution. Creationists never seem to understand that when they claim that the Genesis account is accurate that they are calling their own God a liar.

 

[Thrillobyte]

IF we were there at the time of happening it would be a different test. But we weren't. And frankly the reliability of transmission of the texts as approved and written is high on the level of certainty and accuracy. Until one gets into the bigger questions of textual comparison, there is not much to say in denial as far as I am concerned. I am not changing the subject, but thinking about Philo. And his writing or lack of saying anything about Jesus. Doesn't matter, because I'll go back to Jesus' birth. Naturally he was not born on December 25. I am speaking about what is classically accepted as true or not. To me there are certain expressions used in the Bible of which I will wait for a clearer understanding. So if Philo heard about Jesus and his trial (why would he though?) that's one thing. But we don't know. It is written that Jesus went before Pilate who asked him "What is truth"? I guess Pilate was a philosopher. Jesus knew he was going to die and there is no evidence that Pilate realized later that Jesus was resurrected. Which tells you -- there are some things not stated by traditional historians. Nevertheless, what is true is that the Bible states many did NOT accept Jesus as coming from God. So it is a fair portrayal of the occurrences and attitude of the people and their rulers.

We've only got the written record or lack thereof to go on. Scholars puzzle why Philo didn't write about the most famous Jew in the entire Middle East, especially after the Great Darkness, the Great Earthquake, and The Great Zombie Rising. The only logical conclusion one can drawn is that he didn't write about it because it never happened. Is there any way Philo even if he had been in Alexandria at the time could have avoided the Great Darkness that Mark says covered the world? Is there any good reason other than it never happened to explain why culture from around the world don't have a single record of this Great Darkness? The only logical reason, True is that it never happened. It was all created in Matthew's fertile imagination.

Now you say you believe Pilate said, "What is truth?" How do you know this and why do you trust the gospel writers when it has been shown conclusively by scholars that the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses, but by anonymous Greek scholars who never saw Jesus or the apostles and were writing at minimum a half a century after Jesus? Where did they get their info to describe in such detail the trial of Jesus when no Roman records mention Jesus' trial? To say, "Well maybe there were records back then" would be pure speculation and it's a hell of a thing to base one's whole life on speculating that maybe records mentioning Jesus existed but don't today. Rational people I believe should be basing their religious beliefs on what the historic records shows AT THIS TIME and right now there simply isn't anything that substantiates what is found in the gospels.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

The Bible itself says the Author of the Bible inspirited the Bible at 2nd Tim 3:16-17
Nature is a fact and who can prove that nature is Not a creation.
We exist because something does Not come from nothing.
God is the one who supplied the abundantly needed dynamic energy to create the visible material realm of existence.- Isaiah 40:26

When was the last time you were in a very dark area where there was next to no light at night and looked up at the stars ?

Do you believe the Bible's claims that there was a talking serpent, a talking donkey, and a man who spent three days inside the stomach of a big fish?

 

[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;...?

I'll finish answering your post now.

was your question answered here?

Of course not. All you said was much of the historical record cannot be trusted. That's an incredibly biased remark. It presumes that historical entries that disprove Jesus cannot be trust but historical entries that prove Jesus CAN be trusted. You don't to have your cake and eat it, Peace.

I explained elsewhere that secular evidence tries to be non-biased which is why it is more trustworthy than Christian writings which are naturally heavily slanted in favor of trying to prove Jesus was real at any cost. This is why the gospels are generally accepted as faith testimonies, not historical records. I've shown this before but I'll probably have to show it time and time again:

"Are the Gospels based on historical facts?

Neither biographies nor objective historical accounts, the gospels resembled religious advertisements. The gospels are not biographies in the modern sense of the word. Rather, they are stories told in such a way as to evoke a certain image of Jesus for a particular audience."

The Story Of The Storytellers - What Are The Gospels? | From Jesus To Christ | FRONTLINE | PBS

www.pbs.org

 

[Trailblazer]

No, sorry, you are trying to use prophecy to argue for God as evidence.

No, I absolutely AM NOT doing that. As I have always said, I believe that the Messengers of God ARE the evidence for God.

A valid prophecy can only have one clear interpretation. Multiple interpretations automatically make it a failed prophecy since one has no way of determining which interpretation is valid.

There might only be one 'correct interpretation' but there will ALWAYS BE multiple interpretations of prophecies, since no two humans think exactly alike.
Let's say that your valid prophecy only has one clear interpretation. How do you think you could know the one clear interpretation that is valid?

 

[Trailblazer]

Prayer is ridiculous if one thinks about it.

It is ridiculous if you are hoping to get what you asked for.
God is not a short order cook.

 

[Trailblazer]

That would determine what the prophecy was. For example the Tyre prophecy was clearly aimed at the king of Tyre. And that is why it was a failed prophecy. Nebby did not accomplish his goal. If one tries to put it off for generations the prophecy fails on several levels. One of the more important ones is the morality of God. It shows God to be immoral if one has to wait for Alexander to save Zeke's nuts.

the king of Tyre was the one that denigrated the Hebrew people. He was who the prophecy was aimed at. Tyre was not destroyed when Nebby attacked. In fact Zeke admitted his failure at the end of the prophecy. He then went on to make another failed prophecy. As I already said the people quite a few generations later were not guilty of that sin. And even Alex did not fulfill it. He merely conquered the island of Tyre. He did not wipe it clean.

Sorry, but you are way out of my league since I am not familiar with the entire Bible. I only know the prophecies that foretold the coming of the Bab and Baha'u'llah.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, only the Bible says that it is the inspired work of God.

And that is a classic case of circular reasoning.

 

[Trailblazer]

Do you believe the Bible's claims that there was a talking serpent, a talking donkey, and a man who spent three days inside the stomach of a big fish?

This thread is actually turning out to be a lot of fun, and it is a lot more fun for me because finally, it is not the Baha'is who are targeted, it is the Christians.
Finally I can sit on the sidelines and watch the game instead of playing it!