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

[Kenny]

Must have missed it, my apologies. But now we have a whole new conundrum: Yes, Muslims do believe in Jesus, but they only believe he was a prophet. They don't believe he was the son of God and they don't believe he resurrected. They say he "appeared so as dead"

"We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah’; – but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not."

So in Christian theology, the only way a person escapes hell and goes to heaven is to believe Jesus is the Son of God crucified for our sins and resurrected.

"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on them." John

"If you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Romans

Muslims do none of these so according Christian theology they will go to hell and burn for eternity.
And still the majority of mankind does not believe in Jesus which means the majority of mankind is going to hell to burn for eternity in the lake of fire.

It is always interesting to me how we, as humans, want to take God's Throne and position and have the ultimate say so on who deserves forgiveness of sins. We want to open the Book of Life that only Jesus opened. People, especially those who don't subscribe to the Risen Lord, want to concentrate on "Hell" when Jesus wanted us to concentrate of The Kingdom of God that has come to everyone.

It almost sounds like your are more of a fundamentalist preacher of "YOU ARE GOING TO HELL"! Is that the message that Jesus gave?

Are we the judgers of the heart? Are we the people that know every nuance of a life that we can determine "I am and YOU are not?"

While you are ready to condemn all these Muslims as those who don't believe we find:

"Iran today is a closed land with countless open hearts," said Yeghnazar. "It is the most open nation to the Gospel in the entire world. Tens of thousands of Iranians are turning to Christ."

Tens of Thousands of Muslims Coming to Christ, Says Iranian Ministry Leader

And that is just one ministry in one country. Are you the determinant of who is believing Jesus to return to the Kingdom of God that Jesus came to give all mankind?

Why is that? This is the question you missed, Ken: If Jesus has provided belief in him as the only way to get to heaven then WHY are so many people going to hell? Seems to me whatever plan God mapped out "from the foundations of the world" as Christians love to quote has backfired badly.

I don't subscribe to this

Putting aside my complete disbelief in Jesus whether as a real person, or a deity, or especially as someone who rose from the dead, the issue has been studied to death and the conclusions are always the same: the concept of burning in hell for one's sins did not originate with the Christians. it originated among the Zoroastrians, a Persian religion dating from as early as 2000 BC but the teachings on hell only entered Zoroastrianism circa 5th century BC. The Greeks picked it because they found it an effective tool for controlling unruly mobs. A thousand years later circa Augustine and Tertullian it enters the Roman Catholic religion because the church leaders realized the Greeks were right: there's no more effective a tool to getting people to do what you want them to do as putting fear into them, in this case fear of burning alive forever in the fires of hell. Works like a charm even today, with televangelists booming how heathen sinners who don't bow to Jesus (and contribute $$$'s to their ministries) will burn in the fires of hell. Many Christians ARE Christian because they are terrified of hell, not because they genuinely love Jesus. I've read their testimonies:

"The fear of going to Hell, or Hell itself as a place, is something that caused me years of depression and anxiety."

But many more have simply upped and left the Christian faith because they realize after studying the issues on the Internet (contrary to what Christians teach about satan being the enemy, the real enemy of Jesus /Christianity is not satan, but the Internet, because the Internet gives people the very power Christian leaders have tried to suppress for centuries: knowledge...of what Christianity is really all about.)

I don't agree that Hell is a NT thought and, though fear can be used by anyone, it wasn't invented to control.

"So for instance the word “Sheol” in Hebrew is used in a variety of ways in the Old Testament. Sometimes it refers to the realm of the dead or the nether world. Sometimes it has a more of a general connotation: both the righteous and the wicked go to Sheol, in terms of the grave. But sometimes it has much more of a negative connotation in terms of the wicked going to Sheol, and it being a place that is not good, a place in which it’s not a part of the land of the living, so it has a negative connotation. So that word Sheol has sort of an overlapping idea that there is a realm outside of what we see in creation, in terms of what we visibly see in the physical materials, to which departed spirits go. And then you begin to see that that whole broad idea of Sheol is used in a variety of ways."

Is Hell found in the Old Testament?

I think those who don't subscribe to this position use it to try to convince people not to consider the work of the Cross and the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

It is true that some historical Christians used Hell for their own manipulation of people to get more money.... but what someone does with the message (twisting it) doesn't change the reality of that which is true in the message.

The internet has been a great tool to reach more people with the Gospel than ever before. It is true that the internet can also be used to misinform, misinterpret and give false narratives about Jesus Christ. You can find anything in the internet including that we never landed on the moon.

You have every right to hold onto your disbelief in Jesus. But you can't force your position on others and, obviously, most people don't subscribe to your position of " my complete disbelief in Jesus whether as a real person"

Billions of people do... Muslims, Hindus, Christians et al.

Decline of Christianity in various countries

• The decline of Christianity is an ongoing trend in West and North Europe. ...
• According to Pew Research Center the largest net losses due religious conversion are expected among Christians between 2010 and 2050, notably in North America (28 million), Europe (24 million).
  
  Decline of Christianity in various countries - Wikipedia

Of course, predicting through 2050 is highly subjective. I believe that there will be an end-time resurgence of faith. Past history, even in Jewish history, shows that there is always an ebb and flow.

 

[Kenny]

Please select a source from a PhD biblical historian so we know they can read original sources and are familiar with what's already known in the field. Some random Pastor writing articles using English translations is complete bias crank.

Yes... when it doesn't support your position it is bias crank... but if it supports your opinion it isn't/

wait, did you just say "opinion"??
Bart Ehrman:
"The followers of Jesus spoke Araimaic, they were lowe class day laborers, lived in a remmote part of Galilee and were uneducated. 3% literacy rate. Sourced from - Katherine Hetzer, Jewish Literacy In Roman Palestine

Yes... opinion.

"A. History of Jewish Literacy:

1. The Jewish nation is the historically most literate of any nation on earth.
2. Hebrew was the first formal alphabet on earth in 1850 BC from which all other alphabets are derived including English.
3. In 1446 BC Moses mandated father’s reading the Law of Moses to their sons, and therefore also how to read and write, so their sons could repeat the process for their children."

Schools, Education and Literacy of Jews In Synagogues

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

It is always interesting to me how we, as humans, want to take God's Throne and position and have the ultimate say so on who deserves forgiveness of sins. We want to open the Book of Life that only Jesus opened. People, especially those who don't subscribe to the Risen Lord, want to concentrate on "Hell" when Jesus wanted us to concentrate of The Kingdom of God that has come to everyone.

It almost sounds like your are more of a fundamentalist preacher of "YOU ARE GOING TO HELL"! Is that the message that Jesus gave?

Are we the judgers of the heart? Are we the people that know every nuance of a life that we can determine "I am and YOU are not?"

While you are ready to condemn all these Muslims as those who don't believe we find:

"Iran today is a closed land with countless open hearts," said Yeghnazar. "It is the most open nation to the Gospel in the entire world. Tens of thousands of Iranians are turning to Christ."

Tens of Thousands of Muslims Coming to Christ, Says Iranian Ministry Leader

And that is just one ministry in one country. Are you the determinant of who is believing Jesus to return to the Kingdom of God that Jesus came to give all mankind?



I don't subscribe to this



I don't agree that Hell is a NT thought and, though fear can be used by anyone, it wasn't invented to control.

"So for instance the word “Sheol” in Hebrew is used in a variety of ways in the Old Testament. Sometimes it refers to the realm of the dead or the nether world. Sometimes it has a more of a general connotation: both the righteous and the wicked go to Sheol, in terms of the grave. But sometimes it has much more of a negative connotation in terms of the wicked going to Sheol, and it being a place that is not good, a place in which it’s not a part of the land of the living, so it has a negative connotation. So that word Sheol has sort of an overlapping idea that there is a realm outside of what we see in creation, in terms of what we visibly see in the physical materials, to which departed spirits go. And then you begin to see that that whole broad idea of Sheol is used in a variety of ways."

Is Hell found in the Old Testament?

I think those who don't subscribe to this position use it to try to convince people not to consider the work of the Cross and the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

It is true that some historical Christians used Hell for their own manipulation of people to get more money.... but what someone does with the message (twisting it) doesn't change the reality of that which is true in the message.

The internet has been a great tool to reach more people with the Gospel than ever before. It is true that the internet can also be used to misinform, misinterpret and give false narratives about Jesus Christ. You can find anything in the internet including that we never landed on the moon.

You have every right to hold onto your disbelief in Jesus. But you can't force your position on others and, obviously, most people don't subscribe to your position of " my complete disbelief in Jesus whether as a real person"

Billions of people do... Muslims, Hindus, Christians et al.



Of course, predicting through 2050 is highly subjective. I believe that there will be an end-time resurgence of faith. Past history, even in Jewish history, shows that there is always an ebb and flow.

Well, okay, there's a lot in what you said which I will get to in another post. For now I am a bit confused. So let me ask a straight question for which I'd appreciate a one-sentence reply for now just so I can understand your belief:

Do you believe that if someone rejects Christ NOT BECAUSE they're saying, "I know Christ is real but I just want to follow my own sinful life" but because they really saying, "I've seen the lack of evidence; I've weighed what the Christians say is the evidence, and I have determined that there just isn't sufficient reason for me to believe in someone who didn't make a footprint in the secular historical record" do you believe such a person is going to spend eternity in Revelations lake of fire where they will be tormented with pain and flame forever without end simply for rejecting Jesus because they didn't believe in him?

 

[Kenny]

Well, okay, there's a lot in what you said which I will get to in another post. For now I am a bit confused. So let me ask a straight question for which I'd appreciate a one-sentence reply for now just so I can understand your belief:

Do you believe that if someone rejects Christ NOT BECAUSE they're saying, "I know Christ is real but I just want to follow my own sinful life" but because they really saying, "I've seen the lack of evidence; I've weighed what the Christians say is the evidence, and I have determined that there just isn't sufficient reason for me to believe in someone who didn't make a footprint in the secular historical record" do you believe such a person is going to spend eternity in Revelations lake of fire where they will be tormented with pain and flame forever without end simply for rejecting Jesus because they didn't believe in him?

Not touching about hell since that is more than a one answer question.

One sentence... "I don't have the Book of Life so I am not an authority to give the answer". Not trying to side-step such an important question but the more I learn the more I realize I still have more questions than answers.

side-note (there was a time when I said "No" to Jesus because I didn't have enough information to be convinced".

More than one sentence:

Mark 2:17 When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Does that mean there are righteous people that do have a place in eternity that have not heard about Jesus?

1 John 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.

Are there people who know God but don't know Jesus because of the work of the Cross opened the door for all?

Rom 2: 10 but glory and honor and inner peace [will be given] to everyone who habitually does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. AMP

Is there a place in eternity for those who do good regardless because Jesus Christ still died for them?

There was a place called Paradise where people who did righteous deeds resided until Jesus came and preached to them... is there another opportunity for those people to hear about Jesus?

So... I leave the judging to Jesus and just let people know... "You CAN be sure now and if you have need of a doctor... Jesus is the doctor" because there are a WHOLE lot of people who KNOW they need a doctor NOW.

 

[halbhh]

two things
1) Every religion gives faith as the most important thing. In Hinduism there are 3 levels of faith, one brings you into association with devotees, then scripture then knowledge and confidence in Krishna.
"Faith is vital for the discharge of devotional service. In Bhagavad-gita (9.3) Krishna says, “Those who are not faithful in this devotional service cannot attain Me,"

Yet those Gods are still fiction. The evidence for all Gods is equal, there is no evidence. Of course they will want faith from followers, the authors know that there will be no visits from Gods. Even though in the stories there are endless supernatural events and visits from Gods. Yahweh even fights a sea monster?


2) Where you do find that scripture says there will be no more supernatural events?



No it's a well known thing in even Christian scholarship called the Synoptic Problem and actual scholars do not try to hide from it. They admit there was a common source.
Up to 95% of the original Greek was transcribed from Mark into Matthew.

Bible.org
The Synoptic Problem | Bible.org


"Any serious discussion of the Synoptic Gospels must, sooner or later, involve a discussion of the literary interrelationships among Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
It is quite impossible to hold that the three synoptic gospels were completely independent from each other. In the least, they had to have shared a common oral tradition. But the vast bulk of NT scholars today would argue for much more than that.3 There are four crucial arguments which virtually prove literary interdependence."


as they say. "laymen" are generally not aware of this:

"The remarkable verbal agreement between the gospels suggests some kind of interdependence. It is popular today among laymen to think in terms of independence—and to suggest either that the writers simply recorded what happened and therefore agree, or that they were guided by the Holy Spirit into writing the same things. This explanation falls short on several fronts."

The 3rd reason debunks your idea


"
First, it cannot explain the differences among the writers—unless it is assumed that verbal differences indicate different events. In that case, one would have to say that Jesus was tempted by the devil twice, that the Lord’s Supper was offered twice, and that Peter denied the Lord six to nine times! In fact, one might have to say that Christ was raised from the dead more than once if this were pressed!

Second, if Jesus spoke and taught in Aramaic (at least sometimes, if not usually), then why are these verbal agreements preserved for us in Greek? It is doubtful that each writer would have translated Jesus’ sayings in exactly the same way so often.

Third, even if Jesus spoke in Greek exclusively, how is it that not only his words but his deeds are recorded in verbal identity? There is a material difference between remembering the verbiage of what one heard and recording what one saw in identical verbiage.

Fourth, when one compares the synoptic materials with John’s Gospel, why are there so few verbal similarities? On an independent hypothesis, either John or the synoptics are wrong, or else John does not record the same events at all in the life of Jesus."

Right now the accepted answer is the Markan priority or that Mark is the source as explained in the article.

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."

The article ends with 8 arguments why regarding Mark as the source is the most probable answer.

It's straightforward and not remarkable that those who wrote Matthew had Mark available somehow, or parts of it, and also another source(s) also: the source 'Q' as commonly said.

It's unremarkable they had sources. Really. Here's why I say that --

If I wrote a text book on algebra, I'd (though I'm exceptionally talented in math) not ignore already existing good textbook(s), but would almost certainly look them over and even paraphrase parts I think are good wordings (and of course now a days also give references as appropriate, etc.) -- in order to best convey accurate math more fully and completely.

I'd also add in my own things I can offer that I didn't find elsewhere.

This is unremarkable. It's not a 'problem' nor anything much, really. Unless one invents a ostentatious problem, just a way to have something to contend or write about.

 

[halbhh]

What side details? You mentioned Campbell and myth? I respond and now you are all "woahh"?



Using the word "logic" then saying something quite illogical is a bit odd?
There is no "maintaining" obvious ideas about the flood myths. I will prove it.
Do you think all of the hundreds of flood myths (looks like one in every religion) is an actual separate event that actually happened? Or is it logical that these myths were borrowed from older cultures?
Obviously, they all didn't happen and as people left a society to form a new one they wrote a slightly different version. That is logical. Well the Israelite people came from the Canaanite culture around 1200BC and began their own myths. Noah closely follows the Epic of Gilamesh. So does the Genesis creation stories. Obviously the logical explanation is they re-worked the same old myths just like every other culture did.

That isn't a "blind alley" or a "cul de sac"? It's how history works. The stories are still interesting, the mythology is great. If you have some special belief that this one version of the myth is actually real, great. Have fun with that. Trying to pass it off as "logical" is a total fail.
Even Christian scholarship generally admits that the flood story is a borrowed myth.

Your apple analogy is also not applicable because as your own reference says (Campbell says this over and over) that if you mistake myths for literal history you are missing the point, mistaking poetry for prose and not understanding what the actual lesson is. so your apple thing is actually ironic.







That is not what Campbell is saying at all. He is saying if you take them literal you miss the real meaning. They are supposed to be analyzed heavily and he spent his life doing that.
He also believes the resurrection of Jesus was a metaphor for dying and being re-born to your higher self. Leaving your animal self behind and living in more compassionate state. He explicitely states several times in Power of Myth that Christians mistake poetry for prose and miss all the lessons by worshipping a demigod.
"All of these symbols in mythology refer to you — have you been reborn? Have you died to your animal nature and come to life as a human incarnation? You are God in your deepest identity. You are one with the transcendent."
He states (chapter called Masks of Eternity) he does not believe in a personal God. In Hero With 1000 Faces he says Buddha, Krishna, Jesus and so on are all equally mythological.
Again in that same chapter he explains the resurrection myths as teaching to live from your highest self and quotes the Thomas gospel which says we are all like Christ. More of a Buddhist teaching.

But yes, I actually love Campbell and find his work extremely enlightening. I'm surprised you are even referencing him because he had a huge problem with Christianity as a literal thing and was always bothered that people didn't realize they were myths same as all the other stories about Gods.

If one hasn't seen the ~ 6 hours of Moyer's interviews with Campbell -- titled "The Power of Myth" -- I'd say one is missing out, and not getting the more full picture on the attitudes of Campbell towards myth that come across more clearly in the in-person interviews.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Not touching about hell since that is more than a one answer question.

One sentence... "I don't have the Book of Life so I am not an authority to give the answer". Not trying to side-step such an important question but the more I learn the more I realize I still have more questions than answers.

side-note (there was a time when I said "No" to Jesus because I didn't have enough information to be convinced".

More than one sentence:

Mark 2:17 When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Does that mean there are righteous people that do have a place in eternity that have not heard about Jesus?

1 John 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.

Are there people who know God but don't know Jesus because of the work of the Cross opened the door for all?

Rom 2: 10 but glory and honor and inner peace [will be given] to everyone who habitually does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. AMP

Is there a place in eternity for those who do good regardless because Jesus Christ still died for them?

There was a place called Paradise where people who did righteous deeds resided until Jesus came and preached to them... is there another opportunity for those people to hear about Jesus?

So... I leave the judging to Jesus and just let people know... "You CAN be sure now and if you have need of a doctor... Jesus is the doctor" because there are a WHOLE lot of people who KNOW they need a doctor NOW.

Again, lots to deal with there but this caught my attention

"I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." ..."

So you and Jesus seem to acknowledge there are righteous people out there and Jesus said, "Those people who are righteous don't need to heed my call."

But Romans 3:10 says, " There is none righteous, no, not one"

So who do I listen to, Jesus or Paul?

 

[Kenny]

Again, lots to deal with there but this caught my attention

"I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." ..."

So you and Jesus seem to acknowledge there are righteous people out there and Jesus said, "Those people who are righteous don't need to heed my call."

But Romans 3:10 says, " There is none righteous, no, not one"

So who do I listen to, Jesus or Paul?

When compared to God.... there is none righteous, no not one. But even the TaNaKh speaks of those that God called righteous. How much more, in the Christian understanding, after the work of the cross where "though your sins be red as scarlet, I will make them white as wool?"

I know Paul wasn't ignorant of the TaNaKh and one of the question I posted is found in Romans 2 before chapter 3.

It isn't either one or the other but rather how does it all fit together.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

When compared to God.... there is none righteous, no not one. But even the TaNaKh speaks of those that God called righteous. How much more, in the Christian understanding, after the work of the cross where "though your sins be red as scarlet, I will make them white as wool?"

I know Paul wasn't ignorant of the TaNaKh and one of the question I posted is found in Romans 2 before chapter 3.

It isn't either one or the other but rather how does it all fit together.

Does it fit together enough that I can still get into heaven if I believe I am a righteous person but cannot possibly ever believe Jesus was who the Bible says he was?

 

[Kenny]

Does it fit together enough that I can still get into heaven if I believe I am a righteous person but cannot possibly ever believe Jesus was who the Bible says he was?

So you insist that I be the judge of hearts... when I don't even have the Book of Life. Trying to create a scenario is a little simplistic--if only life were so simple. "Cannot possibly ever believe" seems kind of close minded IMO.

Certainly one problem I see here is that one is "assuming" one is righteous. Who knows?

Does God have a dividing line that says "If you think you are god and therefore reject the very person of God is still acceptable"? Again... I don't know--wouldn't think so but that is a human view.

You are a Pantheist according to your information. Is there "secular" support for your position? I wouldn't think so. Would that be a double standard because you say there isn't enough secular support for Jesus? I believe so. Certainly secular people don't have much desire to even address spirituality.

So rather that thinking you have a better way to be in the Kingdom of God, why not explore what Jesus had to say when he announced, "The Kingdom of God has come nigh unto you"?

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

So you insist that I be the judge of hearts... when I don't even have the Book of Life. Trying to create a scenario is a little simplistic--if only life were so simple. "Cannot possibly ever believe" seems kind of close minded IMO.

Certainly one problem I see here is that one is "assuming" one is righteous. Who knows?

Does God have a dividing line that says "If you think you are god and therefore reject the very person of God is still acceptable"? Again... I don't know--wouldn't think so but that is a human view.

You are a Pantheist according to your information. Is there "secular" support for your position? I wouldn't think so. Would that be a double standard because you say there isn't enough secular support for Jesus? I believe so. Certainly secular people don't have much desire to even address spirituality.

So rather that thinking you have a better way to be in the Kingdom of God, why not explore what Jesus had to say when he announced, "The Kingdom of God has come nigh unto you"?

Here's the problem with that, Ken. I've been there, done that. I was a Christian for 60 years. I can't think of a single instance where God answered any of my prayers, though I can think of several occasions when He didn't when I needed them answered. Now we're at, "Maybe He answered them but the answer was 'No' " or "Maybe you weren't praying with faith" or "Maybe you had sin in your life" or any one of the dozen or so other retorts Christians give when someone asks "Why doesn't God answer my prayers?" Well, I finally settled on another one, "Maybe God just doesn't give a damn". That seemed to answer the "why".

Then I started investigating the formation of the Christian religion. It took 6 months and lots of videos and scholarly articles outside the Christian propaganda bubble and what I read made sense: no secular evidence for Jesus whatsoever; no secular evidence whatsoever for the apostles; gospels written anonymously by Greek scholars 70-100 years after the fact. Uncanny resemblances between Jesus' life and other earlier dying/rising gods like Dionysius, Hercules, Romulus, Horus and others. Uncanny resemblances between Jesus and Odysseus.

Slowly the truth started to dawn on me. Jesus never existed, or if he did he was just an amalgamation of many Yeshuas living in that time when Israel was a seething cauldron of dissidents. The best I could determine was that this Jesus fellow if he existed had to have been a seditionist trying to instigate a rebellion against Rome and was crucified. The end. He was buried and forgotten for 25 years until possibly Paul (if Paul even existed since we have no secular evidence whatsoever for him either) dug up the legend and started writing epistles about having a mystical experience with him. It all sounded so nebulous, coupled with the complete lack of any presence of God intervening in human affairs that it all clicked. Someone had to have invented us but once this Higher Power did He left us on our own. That's why there is no much evil and suffering in the world even among Christians. God simply doesn't care about us. Here's a final thought: 350,000 people in the US have died from Covid. if 70% of America is Christian then by my calculation 245,000 of them were Christians who had families praying desperately for them to live and they died anyway. God didn't answer a single prayer for any of these Christians. Why on earth would you or anybody else want to worship a God like that?

 

[joelr]

Yes... when it doesn't support your position it is bias crank... but if it supports your opinion it isn't/

No I said a biblical historian. I already explained theology means you study scripture and assume it's divine. Historians look for actual evidence that any character in a story has outside evidence (like mentions from historians). They also compare the stories too see if they might be similar to older myths from cultures they came into contact with. They examine literary styles to see if it's written as a history or as a myth, or was taken from another story. Like with Acts. We also see Luke has taken the Kings narrative and transformed it line by line into a Jesus story in a style that is common when writing fiction.

Someone in the field. I gave a list. What is the point of looking at an article a Pastor wrote who only reads English when a historian would look at that and say even Christian scholars don't agree with that?
Do you care about what is true?

Yes... opinion.

"A. History of Jewish Literacy:

1. The Jewish nation is the historically most literate of any nation on earth.
2. Hebrew was the first formal alphabet on earth in 1850 BC from which all other alphabets are derived including English.
3. In 1446 BC Moses mandated father’s reading the Law of Moses to their sons, and therefore also how to read and write, so their sons could repeat the process for their children."

Schools, Education and Literacy of Jews In Synagogues

Again, an amateur article only sourcing scripture? Do you ever bother to learn actual history of the time period of your own religion?
Bart Ehrman:
"I’ll begin with something that I *have* talked about on the blog before: literacy in Roman Palestine. The reality is that the vast majority of people then and there could not read or write. This comes as a surprise to many people who have heard the modern myth that all boys in Palestine went to Hebrew school and became literate there. Turns out, that’s not true."

Jesus' Literacy | The Bart Ehrman Blog

Here is at least an actual paper from a faculty with 29 sources
Illiteracy in the Land of Israel in the first centuries c.e.

"Comparative data show that under Roman rule the Jewish literacy rate improved in the Land of Israel. However, rabbinic sources support evidence that the literacy rate was less than 3%. This literacy rate, a small fraction of the society, though low by modern standards, was not low at all if one takes into account the needs of a traditional society in the past."


This issue of literacy isn't really weighing in on any major points anyways. The gospels were written by people who clearly went to the highest levels of school and understood how to write myth and how to transform older myths into new and use parables and all sorts of literary devices.
We also know Matthew wrote his gospel using Mark, possibly Luke as well and all the markers of fiction are there.
But they do not claim to be eyewitnesses either.

 

[joelr]

It's straightforward and not remarkable that those who wrote Matthew had Mark available somehow, or parts of it, and also another source(s) also: the source 'Q' as commonly said.

It's unremarkable they had sources. Really. Here's why I say that --

If I wrote a text book on algebra, I'd (though I'm exceptionally talented in math) not ignore already existing good textbook(s), but would almost certainly look them over and even paraphrase parts I think are good wordings (and of course now a days also give references as appropriate, etc.) -- in order to best convey accurate math more fully and completely.

I'd also add in my own things I can offer that I didn't find elsewhere.

This is unremarkable. It's not a 'problem' nor anything much, really. Unless one invents a ostentatious problem, just a way to have something to contend or write about.

First Q is not the source, that theory (as stated in the article) is no longer supported by scholarship. It's believed Mark is the source.
How you can say 97% of Mark being written into Matthew is "unremarkable" means you are not paying attention or in some denial.
Had you bothered to read the article they explain why Matthew was using Mark as a source, not as something to "look over".
There are countless examples of mistakes being copies and enough examples for Christian scholars to determine Matthew used Mark when writing his work.

Just one example:
"
1) “Immediately”
The word “immediately” (εὐθύς) is distinctively Markan, occurring over 40 times. Every time Matthew has the word, there is a parallel in Mark. Further, the alternate spelling, εὐθέως, is almost always paralleled in Mark by εὐθύς. “Of the 18,293 words found in Matthew, 10,901 have Markan parallels. In these 10,901 words, ‘immediately’ occurs seventeen times, but in the 7,392 words in Matthew that do not have a Markan parallel, it occurs only once.”45 On the Griesbach hypothesis, we would expect to see twelve instances of “immediately” in the material which finds no parallel with Mark. In other words, Mark’s usage is consistent throughout, while Matthew’s increases only in parallels with Mark. This strongly suggests that Matthew used Mark."

It isn't complicated, through years and years of research and comparison Christian scholars know Mark was the source for Matthew and possibly some of Luke?

 

[joelr]

If one hasn't seen the ~ 6 hours of Moyer's interviews with Campbell -- titled "The Power of Myth" -- I'd say one is missing out, and not getting the more full picture on the attitudes of Campbell towards myth that come across more clearly in the in-person interviews.

This is bizarre?
I thought you would catch on. I have watched the full 3 DVD set twice and read the book at least 5 times.
I just clearly explained to you what Campbell thinks on the Christian mythology. I even quoted Campbell himself?
He believes Jesus is equally as mythic as all other demi-gods. He has found resurrections, messiahs who grant eternal life and so on in many religions pre-Christianity. He explains that it bothers him that Christians think the point is to worship a demigod to get eternal life when they are missing the entire point of the mythology which is explaining to die to your animal self and live from your highest self.
It's a metaphor for a personal death/resurrection.
Which is why he quotes the Thomas gospel where Jesus says everyone is like Christ. The literal reading of myths causes one to miss the lesson.

Late in the book he tells a story about sitting with a priest and talking about a Myan civilization who sacrificed a young virgin couple in a fire and actually consumed the body to gain the youth and vitality. The priest expressed horror and Campbell was like "what do you think Communion is?" There was a belief called Transubstantiation in the catholic church where - is, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, "the change of the whole substance of bread into the substance of the Body of Christ and of the whole substance of wine into the substance of the Blood of Christ.

Campbell explains myths are lessons about how to live life. Not which God to worship to get in an afterlife. It sounds like you have missed the point that Campbell was constantly making.

 

[leroy]

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.

So if I understood well....

You want a source written by a non believer eye witness?

You are actually expecting a source that says"yes I saw the miracles with my own eyes but I dont believe in jesus anyway"


Is this really what you are expecting to find? Or did I misunderstand ?


My point is that this request is unreasonable because any non beliver eye witnesses who saw the miracles would likely become a believer

 

[Kenny]

No I said a biblical historian. I already explained theology means you study scripture and assume it's divine. Historians look for actual evidence that any character in a story has outside evidence (like mentions from historians). They also compare the stories too see if they might be similar to older myths from cultures they came into contact with. They examine literary styles to see if it's written as a history or as a myth, or was taken from another story. Like with Acts. We also see Luke has taken the Kings narrative and transformed it line by line into a Jesus story in a style that is common when writing fiction.

Someone in the field. I gave a list. What is the point of looking at an article a Pastor wrote who only reads English when a historian would look at that and say even Christian scholars don't agree with that?
Do you care about what is true?

Is your source anti-Christian Ehrman? Hardly a reliable source. IMO. Not to mention your posts are about "modern" viewpoints of some without regard with the people who wrote from the generation after the Apostles.

Modern liberal historians and educators are also trying to rewrite US history.

You are making a lot of assumptions.

Again, an amateur article only sourcing scripture? Do you ever bother to learn actual history of the time period of your own religion?
Bart Ehrman:
"I’ll begin with something that I *have* talked about on the blog before: literacy in Roman Palestine. The reality is that the vast majority of people then and there could not read or write. This comes as a surprise to many people who have heard the modern myth that all boys in Palestine went to Hebrew school and became literate there. Turns out, that’s not true."

Jesus' Literacy | The Bart Ehrman Blog

Here is at least an actual paper from a faculty with 29 sources
Illiteracy in the Land of Israel in the first centuries c.e.

So let's look at "your source"

"Assessing the literacy rate in modern society is very easily accomplished but the answer to this question in antiquity is the other way around. Nonetheless, this percentage is reflected in one of the rules in Soferim 11:2 (ed. Higger, p. 218):

A town in which there is only one who reads; he stands up, reads (the Torah), and sits down, he stands up, reads and sits down, even seven times."

In other words, in some towns there was only one person who could read the Torah, which is a highly (Hebrew) religious reading."

This is riddled with "opinions". "In other words" is an unverified biased opinion.

Because in A town there is only one who reads means that everyone is illiterate? Based on his say so?


What To Expect At Synagogue Services on Saturday Morning | My Jewish Learning

The Rabbi usually talks. A Cantor has years of study. An emissary of the Congregation has to be familiar with the intonations as well as the songs. And lay leader must be knowledgeable.

In a small town that limits who can do things and in a small church it is the pastor that does it all until people are trained. When I first started, because only I read the scriptures didn't mean all of the congregation was illiterate.

We also kno"w Matthew wrote his gospel using Mark, possibly Luke as well and all the markers of fiction are there.
But they do not claim to be eyewitnesses either.

Apparently you aren't versed in writings of that time. Many oral traditions had a group of people who added to what others were saying. It was not "plagiarism" when you quoted what someone else wrote and added your experience to it. Luke quoted what he had heard from eyewitnesses. And saying there were "markers of fiction" doesn't make it so

I see you are dogmatic about your position. Why don't you read some material that is not in agreement and double check?

 

[halbhh]

How you can say 97% of Mark being written into Matthew is "unremarkable" means you are not paying attention or in some denial.

Think more broadly about it, try to step back, and consider: what would you have done, say 50 years after Christ, where you have Mark available, but all the living eye witnesses have died of old age (or there might be only a very few very old ones), and you have Mark.... It would be only sensible and natural to start with Mark, and add in things your oral tradition has available locally. Just for example, as a possible scenario. Using Mark is just...well, honestly, it is just unremarkable.

To not have used Mark would have been...odd. To me personally, it would have been even irresponsible even to not use Mark as a starting point.

It's entirely unremarkable in more than 1 way that they used Mark. Why shouldn't they, first, and second, if they didn't use at least quite a lot of Mark, say a majority at the minimum, that would be odd and seem to suggest the differing books might be merely invention (though again, not a proof, just a suggestive thing). So, it's just not a problem unless you need it to be a problem, then you can think that it is, to satisfy a need to see it that way for some thesis you prefer. But, to me, it's better to be more neutral, and less about trying to maintain a grand thesis of that kind (which is likely to end up blinding one to interesting details).

 

[halbhh]

This is bizarre?
I thought you would catch on. I have watched the full 3 DVD set twice and read the book at least 5 times.
I just clearly explained to you what Campbell thinks on the Christian mythology. I even quoted Campbell himself?
He believes Jesus is equally as mythic as all other demi-gods. He has found resurrections, messiahs who grant eternal life and so on in many religions pre-Christianity. He explains that it bothers him that Christians think the point is to worship a demigod to get eternal life when they are missing the entire point of the mythology which is explaining to die to your animal self and live from your highest self.
It's a metaphor for a personal death/resurrection.
Which is why he quotes the Thomas gospel where Jesus says everyone is like Christ. The literal reading of myths causes one to miss the lesson.

Late in the book he tells a story about sitting with a priest and talking about a Myan civilization who sacrificed a young virgin couple in a fire and actually consumed the body to gain the youth and vitality. The priest expressed horror and Campbell was like "what do you think Communion is?" There was a belief called Transubstantiation in the catholic church where - is, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, "the change of the whole substance of bread into the substance of the Body of Christ and of the whole substance of wine into the substance of the Blood of Christ.

Campbell explains myths are lessons about how to live life. Not which God to worship to get in an afterlife. It sounds like you have missed the point that Campbell was constantly making.

Ah, you seem to have made the error of assuming that if I didn't list 10 points as you just did, I didn't know of them or agree with them. You didn't even ask.

I'd say you have summarized a partial but pertinent several points about Campbell's views -- some of them -- but you attempted to discount or call 'bizarre' the salient one I highlighted, which suggests to me you don't want to realize it or allow it to be so. Can't tolerate considering it perhaps (?).

As I see it, this tendency prevents you from being able to discuss, because you aren't discussing in good faith or with an open mind, but in a more of an urge to maintain an ideology. I hope that guess is wrong! I'd rather you could easily learn new things, from anyone, which is a far better state to be in.

Campbell truly loved myths, and deeply enjoyed them, as anyone watching the interviews could see, if willing to see.

 

[joelr]

Is your source anti-Christian Ehrman? Hardly a reliable source. IMO. Not to mention your posts are about "modern" viewpoints of some without regard with the people who wrote from the generation after the Apostles.

No Way are you going here? Ehrman was a fundamentalist Christian and only deconverted because he realized what he believed wasn't supported without truth. Through honest study of evidence?

He isn't "anti-Chrisian", he saying what he believes is the truth without bias? Your suggestions here are very cult-like and alarming. My source is the ENTIRE HISTORICITY FIELD. When an actual historian demonstrated Christianity isn't real but merely the myths of some Bronze Age Jews you call him"anti-Christian?" So are all Greek mythology specialists anti-Greek? Was Mary Boyce an Anti-Zororastrian?

Ehrman is so dedicated to telling exactly what he finds that he had to quit being a fundamentalist to continue sharing his research and you have the nerve to call him "unreliable"?? YOu are outrageous and do not care about what is actually true? This is shocking.

Modern liberal historians and educators are also trying to rewrite US history.

You are making a lot of assumptions.

OMG. You are invoking a conspiracy theory? With no evidence? Meanwhile Ehrman, Carrier andn other scholars are using original sources to explain their conclusions.
The actual truth is every PhD historian scholar has their own agenda. All of them I have read have 100% dedication to whatever the truth is. Elaine Pagels is STILL A CHRISTIAN although she gives strone reason for doubt in her book on the Gnostic gospels.

Your blanket statement is conspiracy crank.

I
So let's look at "your source"

"Assessing the literacy rate in modern society is very easily accomplished but the answer to this question in antiquity is the other way around. Nonetheless, this percentage is reflected in one of the rules in Soferim 11:2 (ed. Higger, p. 218):

A town in which there is only one who reads; he stands up, reads (the Torah), and sits down, he stands up, reads and sits down, even seven times."

In other words, in some towns there was only one person who could read the Torah, which is a highly (Hebrew) religious reading."

This is riddled with "opinions". "In other words" is an unverified biased opinion.

Why do yiou keep saying "opinion" He sourced a paper?

'Illiteracy as reflected in the HALAKHOT concerning the Reading of the Scroll of Esther and the HALLEL', Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research, 54 (1987), pp. 1-12 (Hebrew).

He gives 29 sources, are you not familiar with how papers work? You posted an article with ZERO sources and now are complaining about a sourced paper by a scholar?
Plus an expert on the period, Ehrman, saying literacy rates were low?
You seem to think random apologetic writings erase scholars actually reading the best source material we have?

Apparently you aren't versed in writings of that time. Many oral traditions had a group of people who added to what others were saying. It was not "plagiarism" when you quoted what someone else wrote and added your experience to it. Luke quoted what he had heard from eyewitnesses. And saying there were "markers of fiction" doesn't make it so

First Luke copied (mistakes and all ) from Josephus. Scholars have long since concluded Acts is a work of fiction. It has all the markers of fiction. This isn't even a question among scholarship?
They have identified parts of Odyesses ,Acts 10 is a re-write of Ezekiel 1, 2, 4, 20 and many other sources and improbable events that just happened to have happened in other narratives popular at that time.
Carrier covers some of the issues in a lecture for whomever cares:

I see you are dogmatic about your position. Why don't you read some material that is not in agreement and double check?

How do you know I don't? I follow apologetics. Generally they are absurd and insulting and it helps realize the vast amounts of self deciet one must employ to believe in myths as real history.
I just read this :

This paper explores the boundaries between fact and fiction in ancient literature. The historians effectively created the concept of ‘fiction’ in Greek literature by defining what could be incontrovertibly established as ‘fact’ by accepted rationalistic criteria. Anything beyond these limits (tales involving distant places, or the distant past, or divine intervention) was widely perceived as belonging to the realm of ‘fiction’. To readers from this background, Acts would fall uncomfortably on the boundary: much of the narrative would sound like fiction, but there is a disturbing undercurrent which suggests that it might after all be intended as fact.


But I am not "dogmatic". I'm following truth. It is not my fault that everyone who makes biblical historicity their life's work realizes that this is mythology no different than any other.

 

[joelr]

Think more broadly about it, try to step back, and consider: what would you have done, say 50 years after Christ, where you have Mark available, but all the living eye witnesses have died of old age (or there might be only a very few very old ones), and you have Mark.... It would be only sensible and natural to start with Mark, and add in things your oral tradition has available locally. Just for example, as a possible scenario. Using Mark is just...well, honestly, it is just unremarkable.

To not have used Mark would have been...odd. To me personally, it would have been even irresponsible even to not use Mark as a starting point.

It's entirely unremarkable in more than 1 way that they used Mark. Why shouldn't they, first, and second, if they didn't use at least quite a lot of Mark, say a majority at the minimum, that would be odd and seem to suggest the differing books might be merely invention (though again, not a proof, just a suggestive thing). So, it's just not a problem unless you need it to be a problem, then you can think that it is, to satisfy a need to see it that way for some thesis you prefer. But, to me, it's better to be more neutral, and less about trying to maintain a grand thesis of that kind (which is likely to end up blinding one to interesting details).

From - Beaton, Richard C. (2005). "How Matthew Writes"
"Matthew is a creative reinterpretation of Mark,[47] stressing Jesus' teachings as much as his acts,[48] and making subtle changes in order to stress his divine nature: for example, Mark's "young man" who appears at Jesus' tomb becomes "a radiant angel" in Matthew.[49] The miracle stories in Mark do not demonstrate the divinity of Jesus, but rather confirm his status as an emissary of God (which was Mark's understanding of the Messiah)"

Matthew was probably writing a gospel he thought would be "the gospel". The authors did not have knowledge that there would be several gospels chosen to be the official.
So he had his agenda he wanted to have in the narrative. Probably his concern that the Jewish tradition not be lost in a gentile church was his reason for writing it.


Matthew (who includes some 600 of Mark's 661 verses) obviously used Mark and simply added his political agenda. The supernatural stuff was changing around fictional narratives.

It's unremarkable because how bronze age myths are created is unremarkable. But it shows he was not an eyewitness and wrote it using another Gospel. So it's not a "separate account" like many Christians like to say.