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

[Colt]

You do not seem to understand. When you claim to "know God" you put the burden of proof upon yourself. When you try to shift the burden of proof you in effect admit that you have none, which would mean that you do not "know God". Knowledge is demonstrable. You appear to be conflating knowledge and belief. I will grant that you believe in God. There is little doubt of that But know him? That clearly does not appear to be the case.

God is a subjective experience, Atheist know this. So they reaffirm their own confirmation bias by demanding proofs that they already know can’t be provided. For those of us who have found God we can only ask they you explain how it is the you know we haven’t found the God of the spirit? You can’t because you don’t know.

 

[Colt]

You are very eager to promote your beliefs, yet provide no evidence that you know, or are capable of knowing that your god exists

Neither can you prove a Godless universe, such a belief as a matter of faith in the Atheist doctrines of doubt.

 

[ppp]

Neither can you prove a Godless universe, such a belief as a matter of faith in the Atheist doctrines of doubt.

Even if that were my position (as opposed to merely being your attempt at a smear), it would still be true that you have provided no evidence that you know, or are capable of knowing that your god exists.

For the record, my position is not that the universe is necessarily godless. My position is that no one who has claimed that there are one or more gods has demonstrated that they know, or are capable of knowing that their claim is true. This includes, as I said before, yourself.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

when was the last time you read the Bible? read it from Genesis to revelation and you will find it filled with evidence pointing to Jesus Christ as the Messiah.

The Old Testament is a volume filled with myths and legends mostly stolen from older pagan religions. Example: Noah and the Ark. Earlier version: Epic of Gilgamesh

The Genesis flood narrative matches that in Gilgamesh so closely that few doubt that the Noah story derives from a Mesopotamian account.[42] What is particularly noticeable is the way the Genesis flood story follows the Gilgamesh flood tale "point by point and in the same order", even when the story permits other alternatives.[43] In a 2001 Torah commentary released on behalf of the Conservative Movement of Judaism, rabbinic scholar Robert Wexler stated: "The most likely assumption we can make is that both Genesis and Gilgamesh drew their material from a common tradition about the flood that existed in Mesopotamia. These stories then diverged in the retelling."[44] Ziusudra, Utnapishtim and Noah are the respective heroes of the Sumerian, Akkadian and biblical flood legends of the ancient Near East.

Epic of Gilgamesh - Wikipedia

 

[Colt]

Even if that were my position (as opposed to merely being your attempt at a smear), it would still be true that you have provided no evidence that you know, or are capable of knowing that your god exists.

For the record, my position is not that the universe is necessarily godless. My position is that no one who has claimed that there are one or more gods has demonstrated that they know, or are capable of knowing that their claim is true. This includes, as I said before, yourself.

Now that we have established the obvious, you will still need to find God on your own rather then hiding behind the excuse that others cant prove their subjective experiences to one who see's themselves as the gold standard of what God is and is not.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

It is because we have thousands of copies in dozens of languages that we have better understanding because when you have a copy from the 1200's and it almost matches the one found in the 300's it adds to its validity.

The fact that we have people and writings in the 2nd century, 3rd century and 4th century that we can ascertain that there is no speculation involved.

There is good reason why billions of people are convinced and vast majority of historians agree of its veracity.

The only way it isn't solid is only if you decide in your heart that it isn't solid.

95% of those copies date from 800 CE through the Medieval period. The very first text the Codex Sinaiticus dates from the middle of the 4th century. Again, if you haven't the originals then you have no idea whether or not the copies of copies of copies mimic what the originals said or if there even WERE any originals. THAT is what is purely speculative.

The fact that a lot of people claim to believe in Jesus but that 95% of them have never read the Bible speaks greatly to how easily people are duped into believing something just because their pastors say, "This is true." You don't explain why 1.8 BILLION people are Muslim. Or that the vast majority of humans do not believe in Jesus. If Jesus is the real Messiah then why don't they? Failure on Jesus' part, wouldn't you say?

 

[Subduction Zone]

God is a subjective experience, Atheist know this. So they reaffirm their own confirmation bias by demanding proofs that they already know can’t be provided. For those of us who have found God we can only ask they you explain how it is the you know we haven’t found the God of the spirit? You can’t because you don’t know.

Let's try to look at this rationally. You are already proposing an untestable claim. That means there is no evidence for your beliefs. But there can be evidence against them. If this was true then there should be only one version of "God". There may be small differences based on individual interpretations, but that is not what we see. We see huge differences between the various Gods out there and they appear to be cultural. With no single coherent picture of God the logical conclusion is that most people, if not all, only think that they saw God. And if they "knew God" they could demonstrate it, but no one seems to be able to do that. It appears that you only have mere believe not knowledge. How would you demonstrate that you knew God?

 

[Kenny]

No, apologists by definition are not scholars. One must be willing to own up to ones errors and apologists do not do that. And some university teachers are scholars, but not all.

What noteworthy works have any of those people published?

Noteworthy to you?

Is there a specific area you are interested in?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now that we have established the obvious, you will still need to find God on your own rather then hiding behind the excuse that others cant prove their subjective experiences to one who see's themselves as the gold standard of what God is and is not.

Some of us have honestly looked for him and found him to be absent. If you "knew God" you could do better than untestable beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Noteworthy to you?

Is there a specific area you are interested in?

Noteworthy in being able to support one's claims. I have never seen a noteworthy literalist since they do not know how to test their beliefs and therefore cannot properly support their claims with evidence.

 

[Kenny]

95% of those copies date from 800 CE through the Medieval period. The very first text the Codex Sinaiticus dates from the middle of the 4th century. Again, if you haven't the originals then you have no idea whether or not the copies of copies of copies mimic what the originals said or if there even WERE any originals. THAT is what is purely speculative.

The fact that a lot of people claim to believe in Jesus but that 95% of them have never read the Bible speaks greatly to how easily people are duped into believing something just because their pastors say, "This is true." You don't explain why 1.8 BILLION people are Muslim. Or that the vast majority of humans do not believe in Jesus. Why is that?

Because the Muslims read their scriptures.

You really haven't offered anything here but suppositions and opinions.

Ignatius of Antioch (35-107 A.D.) was a student of the Apostle John. He was martyred, killed by Lions in the arena in Rome. After his arrest and during his transportation to Rome, he wrote seven letters The letters of Ignatius, written very close to 107 A.D., quote from several New Testament books.

So for you to say that there is no substances support is spurious.

What evidence do you have that the copies were not copies of the original?

 

[Subduction Zone]

95% of those copies date from 800 CE through the Medieval period. The very first text the Codex Sinaiticus dates from the middle of the 4th century. Again, if you haven't the originals then you have no idea whether or not the copies of copies of copies mimic what the originals said or if there even WERE any originals. THAT is what is purely speculative.

The fact that a lot of people claim to believe in Jesus but that 95% of them have never read the Bible speaks greatly to how easily people are duped into believing something just because their pastors say, "This is true." You don't explain why 1.8 BILLION people are Muslim. Or that the vast majority of humans do not believe in Jesus. Why is that?

I don't see why they even bother with the "I have manuscripts" claim. Yes, there was fairly accurate copying of later manuscripts. Since the originals are nowhere to be found it is all but impossible to know what the original sources said.

 

[Kenny]

Noteworthy in being able to support one's claims. I have never seen a noteworthy literalist since they do not know how to test their beliefs and therefore cannot properly support their claims with evidence.

So.. noteworthy to your expectations? Or noteworthy to students of the Bible?

 

[ppp]

Even if that were my position (as opposed to merely being your attempt at a smear), it would still be true that you have provided no evidence that you know, or are capable of knowing that your god exists.

Now that we have established the obvious

The obvious being that, you have provided no evidence that you know, or are capable of knowing that your god exists?

...hiding behind the excuse that others cant prove their subjective experiences...

I think you are playing false with me, @cOLTER. You don't believe that your god is merely a "subjective experience". You believe that God is an actual objectivity real being that has existed since long before there were any humans to even have subjective experiences. Correct?

 

[Kenny]

Noteworthy in being able to support one's claims. I have never seen a noteworthy literalist since they do not know how to test their beliefs and therefore cannot properly support their claims with evidence.

Books by Marianne Meye Thompson (Author of John)

Or type in "Works of (and one of the names)" and find all the ones you would like to read

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

I don't see why they even bother with the "I have manuscripts" claim. Yes, there was fairly accurate copying of later manuscripts. Since the originals are nowhere to be found it is all but impossible to know what the original sources said.

Exactly!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because the Muslims read their scriptures.

You really haven't offered anything here but suppositions and opinions.

Ignatius of Antioch (35-107 A.D.) was a student of the Apostle John. He was martyred, killed by Lions in the arena in Rome. After his arrest and during his transportation to Rome, he wrote seven letters The letters of Ignatius, written very close to 107 A.D., quote from several New Testament books.

So for you to say that there is no substances support is spurious.

What evidence do you have that the copies were not copies of the original?

Are you sure about that? Ignatius does not seem to claim to know John in any of his genuine letters. One has to be wary of Church tradition. That far too often assumes facts not in evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Books by Marianne Meye Thompson (Author of John)

Or type in "Works of (and one of the names)" and find all the ones you would like to read

Please note that I did not say that there were no scholars that supported your beliefs. There will always be a few. My claim was that most do not believe that the Bible was written by who it was traditionally ascribed to. For example we know that the Noah's Ark Myth can from the Epic of Gilgamesh. The Exodus has been refuted by archaeologists and historians.. The Noah's Ark Myth was refuted largely in the 1700's and even more so by Darwin's time. Scholars way back then were recognizing the fact that Moses was obviously a fictional character. The problem with literalists is that they read only the Bible and do not test their ideas properly or honestly.

 

[Kenny]

Are you sure about that? Ignatius does not seem to claim to know John in any of his genuine letters. One has to be wary of Church tradition. That far too often assumes facts not in evidence.

The Epistle of Ignatius to St. John the Apostle - Bible Study Tools

 

[Colt]

The obvious being that, you have provided no evidence that you know, or are capable of knowing that your god exists?

I think you are playing false with me, @cOLTER. You don't believe that your god is merely a "subjective experience". You believe that God is an actual objectivity real being that has existed since long before there were any humans to even have subjective experiences. Correct?

The obvious being that, you have provided no evidence that you know, or are capable of knowing that your god exists?

I think you are playing false with me, @cOLTER. You don't believe that your god is merely a "subjective experience". You believe that God is an actual objectivity real being that has existed since long before there were any humans to even have subjective experiences. Correct?

“God is so all real and absolute that no material sign of proof or no demonstration of so-called miracle may be offered in testimony of his reality. Always will we know him because we trust him, and our belief in him is wholly based on our personal participation in the divine manifestations of his infinite reality.” UB 1956