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

[Bird123]

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.

I think you already know the answer. If it comes from God, it will not only add up, it will be high intelligence. If it comes from mankind, one can find holes in the story that do not add up.

Accepting and believing will not bring the answers.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[sojourner]

The Ancient Hebrews weren't mostly illiterate.

The culture of The time of Jesus was oral. Only official edicts were written permanently.

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

Have you read it?

 

[ppp]

I think you already know the answer. If it comes from God, it will not only add up, it will be high intelligence. If it comes from mankind, one can find holes in the story that do not add up.

Under that criteria there are no religious texts or claims that come from God.

 

[Skywalker]

The culture of The time of Jesus was oral. Only official edicts were written permanently.


Have you read it?

The Gospel was written as an edict of the teachings of God.

When Jesus said those will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom, the context was about the spiritual kingdom of God. Jesus didn't mention coming on the clouds in that verse.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

Yes, Muslim sources are not reliable either. They make the same errors.

Tell me would you trust a source that called your beliefs a superstition?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Gospel was written as an edict of the teachings of God.

When Jesus said those will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom, the context was about the spiritual kingdom of God. Jesus didn't mention coming on the clouds in that verse.

There is no reason to believe that. The plain meaning is almost certainly the correct one. That means that it is a failed prophecy.

 

[sojourner]

The Gospel was written as an edict of the teachings of God.

When Jesus said those will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom, the context was about the spiritual kingdom of God. Jesus didn't mention coming on the clouds in that verse.

Not real familiar with the exegetical process, are ya?

 

[Skywalker]

Not real familiar with the exegetical process, are ya?

Before the 1000 year spiritual kingdom of peace, there would be inner peace. What Jesus said is consistent with that.

 

[sojourner]

Before the 1000 year spiritual kingdom of peace, there would be inner peace. What Jesus said is consistent with that.

Yeah, thought so. That’s not how the process works.

 

[Skywalker]

Yeah, thought so. That’s not how the process works.

I believe now that Jesus meant that the people who heard his preaching would see the spreading of the gospel, the kingdom of God, on earth.

 

[sojourner]

I believe now that Jesus meant that the people who heard his preaching would see the spreading of the gospel, the kingdom of God, on earth.

What you believe is immaterial. What the text says is what counts.

 

[Skywalker]

What you believe is immaterial. What the text says is what counts.

The text doesn't say that Jesus was going to return during their lifetimes.

 

[sojourner]

The text doesn't say that Jesus was going to return during their lifetimes.

Again: have you actually read the Bible??

 

[Skywalker]

Again: have you actually read the Bible??

Jesus was talking about evangelism. The kingdom of God began on earth with the gospel being spread.

 

[sojourner]

Jesus was talking about evangelism. The kingdom of God began on earth with the gospel being spread.

That’s not germane to the issue.

 

[Audie]

That’s not germane to the issue.

It is also a chosen interpretation.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

I think you already know the answer. If it comes from God, it will not only add up, it will be high intelligence. If it comes from mankind, one can find holes in the story that do not add up.

Accepting and believing will not bring the answers.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

Accepting and believing is done on blind faith without a need for evidence. I believe that's why the church invented the doctrine of "believing without seeing" (trusting on no evidence).

 

[Skywalker]

That’s not germane to the issue.

The kingdom of God doesn't just refer to the Millennium kingdom of Christ but also the spiritual kingdom of Christ. Was Jesus’ statement to the disciples in Luke 9:27 (also Matthew 16:28; Mark 9:1) incorrect? | GotQuestions.org

Was Jesus’ statement to the disciples in Luke 9:27 (also Matthew 16:28; Mark 9:1) incorrect?
Question: "Was Jesus’ statement to the disciples in Luke 9:27 (also Matthew 16:28; Mark 9:1) incorrect?"

Answer: Luke 9:27 says, "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God." See also Matthew 16:28 and Mark 9:1 for the parallel quotes. In each of the synoptic Gospels, the next event immediately after this promise from Jesus is the transfiguration. Rather than interpreting Jesus’ promise as referring to His coming to establish His kingdom on earth, the context indicates that Jesus was referring to the transfiguration. The Greek word translated "kingdom" can also be translated "royal splendor," meaning that the three disciples standing there would see Christ as He really is—the King of heaven—which occurred in the transfiguration.

The "transfiguration" refers to the event described in the above cited passages when Jesus took Peter, James, and John to the top of the mountain, where He met with Moses and Elijah—representing the Law and the Prophets of the Old Testament—and spoke with them. The disciples saw Jesus in all His glory and splendor, talking with a glorified Moses and Elijah. This is a glimpse of what will occur in Jesus’ kingdom. The disciples were dumbstruck at the sight and "fell on their faces" (Matthew 17:6).

It seems most natural to interpret this promise in Matthew 16:28; Mark 9:1; and Luke 9:27 as a reference to the transfiguration, which "some" of the disciples would witness only six days later, exactly as Jesus predicted. In each Gospel, the very next passage after this promise from Jesus is the transfiguration, which shows Jesus in all His glory which will be seen again in the Kingdom of God. The contextual links make it very likely that this is the proper interpretation.

 

[sojourner]

It is also a chosen interpretation.

The issue at hand regards the biblical evidence that the writers thought the Parousia was imminent, hence no reason to leave a lot of proof of God; God was to be revealed fully shortly. The poster’s interpretations of the provided passage are not cogent for two reasons: 1) the interpretation is not valid, not being based in an exegesis of that passage, and 2) the interpretation does not pertain to other passages that point to a belief in an imminent Parousia.

 

[sojourner]

The kingdom of God doesn't just refer to the Millennium kingdom of Christ but also the spiritual kingdom of Christ. Was Jesus’ statement to the disciples in Luke 9:27 (also Matthew 16:28; Mark 9:1) incorrect? | GotQuestions.org

1) You’re not citing the source. This could be anything.
2) The provided evidence does not speak to the other scriptural references to an imminent Parousia.