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

[Skywalker]

whatever the guys name was, it wasn't that

Another possibility for the name of Jesus was Yehoshua.

 

[Audie]

Another possibility for the name of Jesus was Yehoshua.

Ot Billy Bob. Who cares, you will never know.

 

[halbhh]

Actually according to the Bible we know that Mary had a ten year pregnancy. Oy vey!!

hah hah (that really was funny)

If we are just using metaphors, why not say it was a "700 year pregnancy" (e.g., use a timeline like roughly the time from the plan or prophecy until the advent (or beginning of some) of the events).

 

[Skywalker]

hah hah (that really was funny)

If we are just using metaphors, why not say it was a "700 year pregnancy" (e.g., use a timeline like roughly the time from the plan or prophecy until the advent (or beginning of some) of the events).

Mary was not a descendant of Solomon but she was a descendant of Nathan.

 

[halbhh]

Mary was not a descendant of Solomon but she was a descendant of Nathan.

Hmmm, interesting in a small way. I was just checking here:
Is Mary’s lineage in one of the Gospels? | Bible.org
Not that it matters very much. It might have been more important if someone like Rahab the Canaanite prostitute had not been in the line, but she is either way. To me, Rahab being in the line of descent is a hopeful sign.

 

[Skywalker]

Hmmm, interesting in a small way. I was just checking here:
Is Mary’s lineage in one of the Gospels? | Bible.org
Not that it matters very much. It might have been more important if someone like Rahab the Canaanite prostitute had not been in the line, but she is either way. To me, Rahab being in the line of descent is a hopeful sign.

Mary might not have been a descendant of David's son Heli but she was descended from his son Nathan.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Mary was not a descendant of Solomon but she was a descendant of Nathan.

And where did you get that from? I know, but I wonder if you do.

By the way, as usual you are incorrect in this claim. At least when it comes to your "evidence".

 

[Skywalker]

And where did you get that from? I know, but I wonder if you do.

By the way, as usual you are incorrect in this claim. At least when it comes to your "evidence".

Why Does Jesus Have Two Different Genealogies (Matthew 1:1-16; Luke 3:23-38)?

These two chapters, both giving genealogies of Jesus, at first appear to be contradictory. Actually, however, they complement each other.

The genealogy in Matthew 1 is clearly that of Joseph, Mary's husband. Matthew records it for legal purposes. He is writing to prove to the Jews that Jesus is the Messiah, and the Jews' custom in keeping records is to trace descent through the father. Legally, the Jews of Jesus' day looked on Jesus as a son of Joseph (John 6:42). Also, Joseph's lineage is given to emphasize the fact that Jesus had been born of a virgin. Because of a curse that God placed on one of Joseph's ancestors, Jesus could never sit upon the throne of David if Joseph had been His natural father.

Jesus was legally descended to David through Solomon and biologically related to David through Nathan.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why Does Jesus Have Two Different Genealogies (Matthew 1:1-16; Luke 3:23-38)?

Jesus was legally descended to David through Solomon and biologically related to David through Nathan.

Like I said, I knew where you got that claim from and as usual you are wrong. Please note that you had to go to a Liars for Jesus site rather than a legitimate one that was written by scholars. The problem is that this is another major self contradiction of the Bible. One too large for apologists to ignore so they came up with the fictitious "Mary's line" story. It is not based upon evidence it is based upon a need to defend the Bible against itself. There are all sorts of explanations for this contradiction, none of them well supported. From the two fathers argument for Joseph (a biological one and an adopted one) to Matthew being Mary's line and Luke's being Josephs and others. For a quick overview you can read this:

Genealogy of Jesus - Wikipedia

The almost certainly correct answer is that at least one of the genealogies was made up.

 

[Skywalker]

Like I said, I knew where you got that claim from and as usual you are wrong. Please note that you had to go to a Liars for Jesus site rather than a legitimate one that was written by scholars. The problem is that this is another major self contradiction of the Bible. One too large for apologists to ignore so they came up with the fictitious "Mary's line" story. It is not based upon evidence it is based upon a need to defend the Bible against itself. There are all sorts of explanations for this contradiction, none of them well supported. From the two fathers argument for Joseph (a biological one and an adopted one) to Matthew being Mary's line and Luke's being Josephs and others. For a quick overview you can read this:

Genealogy of Jesus - Wikipedia

The almost certainly correct answer is that at least one of the genealogies was made up.

A quote from the article explains why Jesus was born of a virgin. Why Does Jesus Have Two Different Genealogies (Matthew 1:1-16; Luke 3:23-38)?

Jesus was born of a virgin so that he could sit on the throne of David.

These two chapters, both giving genealogies of Jesus, at first appear to be contradictory. Actually, however, they complement each other.

The genealogy in Matthew 1 is clearly that of Joseph, Mary's husband. Matthew records it for legal purposes. He is writing to prove to the Jews that Jesus is the Messiah, and the Jews' custom in keeping records is to trace descent through the father. Legally, the Jews of Jesus' day looked on Jesus as a son of Joseph (John 6:42). Also, Joseph's lineage is given to emphasize the fact that Jesus had been born of a virgin. Because of a curse that God placed on one of Joseph's ancestors, Jesus could never sit upon the throne of David if Joseph had been His natural father.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A quote from the article explains why Jesus was born of a virgin. Why Does Jesus Have Two Different Genealogies (Matthew 1:1-16; Luke 3:23-38)?

Jesus was born of a virgin so that he could sit on the throne of David.

Actually it was just a case of Matthew filling in the back story. It does not appear to have anything to do with history. You are forgetting the failed Nativity stories again.

 

[Skywalker]

Actually it was just a case of Matthew filling in the back story. It does not appear to have anything to do with history. You are forgetting the failed Nativity stories again.

It's not a case of Matthew filling in the back story that Joseph was not the natural father of Jesus because it would have prevented Jesus from inheriting the throne of David. It's in the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not a case of Matthew filling in the back story that Joseph was not the natural father of Jesus because it would have prevented Jesus from inheriting the throne of David. It's in the Bible.

Yes, and that is far from a reliable source. Or did you forget Mary's ten year pregnancy?

 

[Skywalker]

Yes, and that is far from a reliable source. Or did you forget Mary's ten year pregnancy?

Mary and Joseph both being related to David through Nathan and Solomon is different from people in India marrying cousins.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Mary and Joseph both being related to David through Nathan and Solomon is different from people in India marrying cousins.

All this of course is assuming on your part that Matthew and Luke were working from actual birth records. We don't have those records to verify everything and it's plain that both records of Joseph were inaccurate. Apologists have tried to reconcile the horrible discrepancies between the two genealogies by saying one was Mary's, but without much success. So we really don't know if Matthew and Luke were doctoring them to fit their own preconceived notions of what Jesus' genealogy should look like.

 

[Skywalker]

All this of course is assuming on your part that Matthew and Luke were working from actual birth records. We don't have those records to verify everything and it's plain that both records of Joseph were inaccurate. Apologists have tried to reconcile the horrible discrepancies between the two genealogies by saying one was Mary's, but without much success. So we really don't know if Matthew and Luke were doctoring them to fit their own preconceived notions of what Jesus' genealogy should look like.

They didn't mention things to fit their preconceived notions because they didn't fixate on it which would have been the actions of someone trying to promote preconceived notions. Did The Virgin Birth Happen? A Defense Of The Virgin Birth Of Jesus | Reasons for Jesus

Did The Virgin Birth Happen? A Defense Of The Virgin Birth Of Jesus
By
J. P. Holding
-
October 24, 2019
2609


By J. P. Holding| The view of Brown [Brow.BirM, 527-8] and Meier [Meie.MarJ, 222] is ultimately correct. The evidence and the nature of the virgin birth simply leaves questions of its historicity unresolved and unresolvable – and one’s decision regarding it will be based inevitably on preconceived notions. This historical event isn’t one of the sort that leaves tangible footprints.

Nevertheless, there are plenty of reasons to have to get “on the defense” where this subject is concerned:

“How can you believe in the virgin birth? It’s not mentioned anywhere else in the NT besides Matthew and Luke. This indicates that it was either a late invention or one not favored by the early church, because the other NT writers would surely have mentioned something this remarkable and relevant.”

Mentioning the virgin birth would have been irrelevant in other places in the New Testament

 

[Subduction Zone]

They didn't mention things to fit their preconceived notions because they didn't fixate on it which would have been the actions of someone trying to promote preconceived notions. Did The Virgin Birth Happen? A Defense Of The Virgin Birth Of Jesus | Reasons for Jesus

I see that you are still having problems finding reliable resources Here is a hint. Reliable resources do not use loaded language when discussing those that disagree with them For example the Ebonites were referred to as "heretics". Sorry, but that is not the sort of term one will find in a reliable source.

 

[sojourner]

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?

First a question: what kind of evidence are you looking for from a culture in which writing was not regularly used?

Second, no memorial evidence was left because the believers all thought the Parousia was to happen in their lifetimes. The epistles and Gospels were written when it became apparent to the subsequent generation that the Parousia was not happening so quickly. Even so, in that culture it’s remarkable that we have any permanent, written record.

 

[Skywalker]

First a question: what kind of evidence are you looking for from a culture in which writing was not regularly used?

Second, no memorial evidence was left because the believers all thought the Parousia was to happen in their lifetimes. The epistles and Gospels were written when it became apparent to the subsequent generation that the Parousia was not happening so quickly. Even so, in that culture it’s remarkable that we have any permanent, written record.

The Ancient Hebrews weren't mostly illiterate.

The Bible never says that the second coming of Jesus was to happen during the lifetime of the apostles.

 

[Skywalker]

I see that you are still having problems finding reliable resources Here is a hint. Reliable resources do not use loaded language when discussing those that disagree with them For example the Ebonites were referred to as "heretics". Sorry, but that is not the sort of term one will find in a reliable source.

This article states true facts about the theology of Islam, even though it also uses the word heretic. Every person in a discussion has a bias to a certain degree. Christian heresy or an entirely different religion: Which is Islam? | carm.org

Some scholars have suggested that Islam, in its origins, might be considered a Christian heresy: a group that broke off from Christianity and developed its own rival body of doctrines. Islam is at best a perversion of Christian theology that eventually developed into its own religion. At worst, it is a completely new religion begun by Muhammad which merely copied certain material from Christianity and Judaism. Whichever the case, it is obvious that he had contact with various heretical Christian groups through his travels, most probably the Gnostics and the Arians (the latter being those who denied the deity of Christ.) I do not know the extent of those contacts that Muhammad had with various heretical Christian-based groups. But his repeated reference to biblical characters and concepts in the Quran requires that we believe he had contact with people who’d been influenced by the Bible. Notice, in the Quran, there is nothing that deals with Hinduism or Buddhism. It’s Christianity that influenced him and it seems that he took many ideas from Christianity and altered them. Does this mean that Islam itself is a Christian heresy?

Let’s take a look.

Term Islam
Atonement There is no atonement work in Islam other than a sincere confession of sin and repentance by the sinner. Muhammad specifically denied the crucifixion of Christ where the atonement took place.
Bible In Islam, the Bible is the respected word of the prophets, but the Muslims cast doubt on its reliability. this is interesting since the Quran says in Surah 3:3 that the Quran confirms that came before it which would be the Old and New Testament. In (Surah 6:34; 6:115; 18:27) the Quran says that the words of Allah cannot be altered. This would mean that the Bible cannot be corrupted, yet Muslims teach it is.
Crucifixion Jesus did not die on the cross. Instead, God allowed Judas to look like Jesus and he was crucified instead, (Surah 4:157).
Devil Iblis, a fallen jinn. Jinn is not angels nor men, but created beings with free will. Jinn was created from fire (2:268, 114:1-6). Here, Muhammad redefined the devil is.
Holy Spirit Muhammad taught that the Holy Spirit is the Archangel Gabriel who delivered the words of the Quran to Muhammad. But, this is a deviation from the Bible where the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity.
Jesus A very great prophet, second only to Muhammad. Jesus is not the son of God (Surah 9:30) and certainly is not divine (Surah 5:17, 75), and he was not crucified (Surah 4:157).
Salvation Forgiveness of sins is obtained by Allah’s grace without a mediator. The Muslim must believe Allah exists, believe in the fundamental doctrines of Islam, believe that Muhammad is his prophet, and follow the commands of Allah given in the Quran.
Son of God A literal son of God. Therefore, Jesus cannot be the son of Allah. But this shows that Muhammad did not understand what Christianity really teaches about the sonship of Christ. It does not state in any way that Christ is the literal offspring of God the father. This is an error of understanding on the part of Muhammad.
Trinity The Father, Jesus, and Mary (Sura 5:73-75, 116)