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

[Skywalker]

Sorry that was never ever the prediction . You need to read the story. It was a prediction about a Nebuchadnezzar and no one else. It would help if you knew the history of Tyre. It had a history of being attacked and overrun in the past. That is why it was heavily fortified. Guess what happens when an island is attacked fairly often? It loses now and then. It is hardly a prediction.


This is a problem for believers in prophecy. Either the prophecies in the Bible fail quite often. Or they have to be diluted to the point where they are worthless.

Can you answer this question: Are the prophecies worthless themselves or are there some seriously failed ones?

Even if you don't believe that Alexander the Great attacked Tyre, there are other prophecies in the Bible that were fulfilled. Biblical Prophecies Fulfilled

BIBLICAL PROPHECIES FULFILLED

There are two extensive prophetic themes in the Old Testament: the inspired record of God's covenant with Israel; and His guidance in it. Both of these themes were given to the various prophets from Moses (B.C. 1500) to Malachi (B.C. 400). One concerns God's people of old, the Jews and their history to come; the other the Lord's Messiah. Messiah (Hebrew) or Christos (Greek) means "the anointed one" or, in modern terminology, the ruler priest. No other subject receives such important attention in God's sight as these themes. Let us begin with the prophecies concerning Jesus. For the sake of brevity only some have been selected:

Some prophecies regarding Jesus



Prophecy of Jesus' birthplace and pre-existence ± B.C. 700:
"But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days." (Micah 5:2).
Fulfilment:
"And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. And while they were there, the time came for her to be delivered. And she gave birth to her first-born son and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn." (Luke 2:47).


Prophecy of the virgin birth, divinity and unique sonship ± B.C. 700:
"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (= God with us) (Isaiah 7:14).
"For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder, and his name will be called 'Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.'". (Isaiah 9:6).
Fulfilment:
"Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit; and her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. But as he considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, 'Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit; she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.' All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: 'Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel' (which means, God with us). (Matthew 1:18-23).


Prophecy concerning the time of his coming ± B.C. 520:
"Seventy weeks (of years, i.e 70 x7 years = 490 years) are determined upon thy people (Daniel's people = Jews) and upon thy holy city (Jerusalem), to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy (i.e. no more prophetic revelation added to the Bible after that), and to anoint the Most Holy (anoint = exalt, crown, dedicate). Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem (which at that time was destroyed and its inhabitants were captives in Babylon) unto the Messiah, the Prince, shall be seven weeks (49 years) and sixty-two weeks (434 years): The streets shall be built again, and the wall, even in troubled times."

 

[Subduction Zone]

This seems contradictory. If all extra-biblical mention Jesus and Christian... and then you say there is no evidence - ???''

Then, you are limiting it to just those who probably didn't care (extra-biblical) and omit those who actually interfaced with and had first or second hand knowledge of him.

Irenaeus (circa AD 120–190) wrote that Polycarp was "instructed" and "appointed" by the apostles, and "conversed with many who had seen Christ...having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:4.

Church Historian Eusibius said of Irenaeus "the accounts which [Polycarp] gave of his intercourse with John and with the others who had seen the Lord. And as he remembered their words, and what he heard from them concerning the Lord, and concerning his miracles and his teaching, having received them from eyewitnesses of the ‘Word of life’."

Eccesiastical History, 4:14

So to say that he didn't exist would be in error.

Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians says "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" and well as "our Lord and God Jesus Christ."

Polycarp, Philippians 12:2.

So, again, to say that he didn't exist because your historian says so is to deny those who knew the apostles.




Your say so doesn't make it so. Your position is that somehow Ehrman is the guru of historians. I wouldn't hold to that position.



I understand that you have your group that you trust but notice the simple "in you face" problems in just these statements:

1. "honest professional context" - as if you differ from his position you are not honest or professional. A fallacy
2. "All non-fundamentalist scholars" - is a global statement with no way to prove that. Additionally, it also forgets the other side that there are fundamentalist scholars that disagree. To infer that if you are fundamental in your belief and support you are therefore wrong is another fallacy
3. "Christian apologetics is pseudo-history" is his viewpoint
4. Comparing it to Atlantis and Moroni really shows what this is about. He doesn't agree with the historicity and makes a foolish and unethical comparison.

As noted above. You omit a more secure viewpoint - those who knew Jesus and the next generation.



Yes... you listened to hours. I have listened and studied for hours. So, we are looking at the same evidence but arrive at a different conclusion.


As per David L. Turner recognized as a best commentary author

"Thus, the present commentary seeks to understand Matthew in its own right, utilizing the discipline that has come to be known as narrative criticism (Powell 1990)."

Turner, D., & Bock, D. L. (2005). Cornerstone biblical commentary, Vol 11: Matthew and Mark (p. 3). Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.





Irrelevant. You position basically says the Mohammad never existed either.

As I have said... this never existed Jesus had followers immediately after his death, burial and resurrection. To say he didn't exist is to deny the 1st and 2nd century writers who knew Jesus first hand or in the next generation:

1 John 1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.

Perhaps he should have said "no reliable evidence that Christianity is true". There are only highly biased sources that support your beliefs. There are not independent ones. Evidence that there was someone named Jesus, and even that is rather weak, is not "evidence that Christianity is true" any more than the existence of Muhammad is evidence that Islam is true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Even if you don't believe that Alexander the Great attacked Tyre, there are other prophecies in the Bible that were fulfilled. Biblical Prophecies Fulfilled

Do you have problems understanding simple posts? I ask because there is no way that you should think that I said that Alexander the Great did not attack Tyre. I told you that the prophecy was not about Alexander the Great, it was about Nebuchadnezzar. Read Ezekiel. Zeke was POed at Nebby because he made fun of the Jews. So he wrote a big scary prophesy against them. And it was not much of a prophesy. Nebby was a "king of kings" according to the Bible. But guess what Nebby failed. He did not conquer Tyre. The prophesy failed right there. But then Zeke got a bit too ambitious. Not being satisfied with being wrong about Tyre he predicted that Nebby would defeat Egypt. That never happened either. According to your standards Zeke was not a prophet.

And please, you shoot yourself in the foot with Christian apologist sites. Modern scholars recognize that there was no Moses. Your source shoots itself in the foot by referring to him as a real person.

 

[Skywalker]

Perhaps he should have said "no reliable evidence that Christianity is true". There are only highly biased sources that support your beliefs. There are not independent ones. Evidence that there was someone named Jesus, and even that is rather weak, is not "evidence that Christianity is true" any more than the existence of Muhammad is evidence that Islam is true.

The Roman historian Thallus is an independent source. He mentioned there being darkness during the crucifixion of Jesus. Roman Historian Thallus Mentions Darkness During Jesus’ Crucifixion | Reasons for Jesus

Roman Historian Thallus Mentions Darkness During Jesus’ Crucifixion

By Erik Manning| Skeptics tell us that one of the reasons we can’t trust the Gospels is because they make so many historical gaffes. In particular, the evangelists tell us of far-out tales that aren’t corroborated by other contemporary historians. One of those stories is the darkness that happened during Jesus’ crucifixion, according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

Here’s Mark’s version:

“And when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.” Mark 15:33, cf. Matthew 27:45, Luke 23:44

We know from history that historians like Pliny and Seneca have carefully described much less exciting events in the same kind of remote regions. But they failed to note an eclipse occurring in Judea. What’s up with that? Pliny the Elder wrote a whole book on natural history. How could he have missed this?

ARGUMENTS FROM SILENCE ARE NOTORIOUSLY WEAK
The first thing we need to note here is that this is an argument from silence. And arguing from silence is almost always a poor way to make your point.

In 79 AD, Herculaneum and Pompeii were destroyed by the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius. We learn about it from Pliny’s nephew, Pliny the Younger, and it wasn’t in any of his histories but in a letter to Tacitus. The eruption killed at least 16,000 and up to 60,000 people. No one draws from the silence of other historians that the event didn’t happen. We have plenty of archaeological evidence that it did.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Roman historian Thallus is an independent source. He mentioned there being darkness during the crucifixion of Jesus. Roman Historian Thallus Mentions Darkness During Jesus’ Crucifixion | Reasons for Jesus

Not true, And once again you used a lying source. Why do that? Anyone can check the claims for himself. He wrote about how Sextus Julianus Africanus wrote about an eclipse of the Sun. Guess what? Jesus was crucified very close to Passover. There could not have been a solar eclipse then. And that is the only mention of "darkness". One would think if there was darkness as written in the Bible that everyone would have noticed it. Not just one observer that thought it was an eclipse.

Thallus (historian) - Wikipedia

 

[Skywalker]

Not true, And once again you used a lying source. Why do that? Anyone can check the claims for himself. He wrote about how Sextus Julianus Africanus wrote about an eclipse of the Sun. Guess what? Jesus was crucified very close to Passover. There could not have been a solar eclipse then. And that is the only mention of "darkness". One would think if there was darkness as written in the Bible that everyone would have noticed it. Not just one observer that thought it was an eclipse.

Thallus (historian) - Wikipedia

That is why it had to be a miracle.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is why it had to be a miracle.

No, that there is on report of an eclipse happening and we do not have countless reports of darkness happening is how we know that it did not occur.

Even then eclipses were understood. An explained event does not make massive news. Extended darkness in the middle of the day does not have an explanation. Don't you think that people would have noticed?

 

[Skywalker]

Not true, And once again you used a lying source. Why do that? Anyone can check the claims for himself. He wrote about how Sextus Julianus Africanus wrote about an eclipse of the Sun. Guess what? Jesus was crucified very close to Passover. There could not have been a solar eclipse then. And that is the only mention of "darkness". One would think if there was darkness as written in the Bible that everyone would have noticed it. Not just one observer that thought it was an eclipse.

Thallus (historian) - Wikipedia

Roman Historian Thallus Mentions Darkness During Jesus’ Crucifixion | Reasons for Jesus

A lot of sources don't mention certain events. That doesn't mean they didn't happen.

In 49 AD, Emperor Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome. The Jewish writers Josephus and Philo both fail to mention the event, we only read about it in Suetonius and in Acts 18:2. We’d clearly expect a couple of Jewish contemporaries to take note of this event, but they didn’t. But we don’t infer that their silence means the expulsion didn’t happen.

Regarding the relative weakness of arguments from silence, here’s philosopher Tim McGrew:

“Such arguments from silence are pervasive in New Testament scholarship, but they are tenuous at best….it is a risky business to speculate upon the motives of authors for including or omitting various facts. To create an appearance of inconsistency by this device…is methodologically unsound.” (Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology)

 

[Skywalker]

No, that there is on report of an eclipse happening and we do not have countless reports of darkness happening is how we know that it did not occur.

Even then eclipses were understood. An explained event does not make massive news. Extended darkness in the middle of the day does not have an explanation. Don't you think that people would have noticed?

The Bible doesn't say that there were countless reports of darkness. That one eclipse happened in circumstances where it would have otherwise been impossible without a miracle.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Roman Historian Thallus Mentions Darkness During Jesus’ Crucifixion | Reasons for Jesus

A lot of sources don't mention certain events. That doesn't mean they didn't happen.

Tell my, why do you keep relying on liars? An event that should have had massive reports and the best you can do is to find an obscure reference to something vaguely similar that did not occur at that time tells us that it did not happen.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Bible doesn't say that there were countless reports of darkness. That one eclipse happened in circumstances where it would have otherwise been impossible without a miracle.

Of course it doesn't. Because it never happened. If it did happen you would find the story in many other places than the Bible.

Do not conflate an eclipse that actually happened with a extended period of darkness that did not.

 

[Skywalker]

Tell my, why do you keep relying on liars? An event that should have had massive reports and the best you can do is to find an obscure reference to something vaguely similar that did not occur at that time tells us that it did not happen.

The eclipse that happened when Jesus was crucified was more than local. Roman Historian Thallus Mentions Darkness During Jesus’ Crucifixion | Reasons for Jesus

WHY WOULD PLINY OR SENECA REPORT THE ECLIPSE?
Neither Pliny nor Seneca lived in Judea or near Judea during the time of Jesus. We’re not even sure that the darkness was due to a solar eclipse, it could have been some other natural or supernatural occurrence. Furthermore, while Pliny does write in great detail about other natural events, he doesn’t go into detail about eclipses. There’s a one-sentence ‘chapter’ on the topic in Natural History 2.30. Here it is:

“Unusually long, portentious eclipses of the sun also take place, as when Caesar the dictator was slain; and in the war against Antony, the sun remained dim for nearly a year.”

This isn’t what you’d call a full history of strange periods of darkness throughout the Roman Empire! The critics are overstating their case here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The eclipse that happened when Jesus was crucified was more than local. Roman Historian Thallus Mentions Darkness During Jesus’ Crucifixion | Reasons for Jesus

But he didn't. He was not there.

The eclipse that happened when Jesus was crucified was more than local. Roman Historian Thallus Mentions Darkness During Jesus’ Crucifixion | Reasons for Jesus

Then find a reliable source. If all that you can find are articles by Liars for Jesus you know that it is not so.

 

[Skywalker]

But he didn't. He was not there.

Then find a reliable source. If all that you can find are articles by Liars for Jesus you know that it is not so.

Multiple historians mentioned there being darkness during Jesus being crucified. Roman Historian Thallus Mentions Darkness During Jesus’ Crucifixion | Reasons for Jesus

WERE HISTORIANS REALLY SILENT ABOUT THE DARKNESS DURING THE CRUCIFIXION?
As it turns out, historians may not have been so silent about this darkness that happened during Jesus’ crucifixion. Admittedly, this isn’t an ironclad confirmation of the event, but it is at least interesting.

There’s an obscure first-century Roman historian by the name of Thallus. Like many historians of the time, his works have been lost over time. But in one of the surviving fragments of the third-century Christian historian Julias Africanus, Julius makes an offhand reference to Thallus. He wrote:

“In the third book of his history Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse of the sun — wrongly in my opinion.”

Julius argued that it would have been physically impossible due to the timing. Many scholars agree that Thallus was writing in the 50s, so this would be the earliest reference to Jesus outside of the New Testament and before when Mark is traditionally dated.

Critics argue that it isn’t clear that Thallus was referring to the time of Jesus’ crucifixion, this is just Julius’ interpretation. Furthermore, if Thallus was referring to the time of Jesus’ crucifixion, the source of this information may have been Christian tradition itself.

If so, Thallus was just providing a natural alternative explanation for what reportedly happened by the early church. So it’s argued that Julius’ reference to Thallus can’t be taken as independent historical confirmation of what happened in the Gospels.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Multiple historians mentioned there being darkness during Jesus being crucified. Roman Historian Thallus Mentions Darkness During Jesus’ Crucifixion | Reasons for Jesus

Really? Then why can't you find a reliable source?


There is nothing wrong with going to apologists, also known as Liars for Jesus, to get ideas. But they are far from reliable. Real historians do not agree with this. In fact it is unlikely that Thallus wrote about that since he is know for writing about other times. It is thought by modern scholars that his works have been corrupted (in other words early Christians looking for "evidence" cheated).

You can read more here. This is from an actual PhD scholar of the history of that time and he can also read the sources in their original language when available:

Thallus: An Analysis

 

[Skywalker]

Really? Then why can't you find a reliable source?


There is nothing wrong with going to apologists, also known as Liars for Jesus, to get ideas. But they are far from reliable. Real historians do not agree with this. In fact it is unlikely that Thallus wrote about that since he is know for writing about other times. It is thought by modern scholars that his works have been corrupted (in other words early Christians looking for "evidence" cheated).

You can read more here. This is from an actual PhD scholar of the history of that time and he can also read the sources in their original language when available:

Thallus: An Analysis

Why is Thallus not a reliable source? He was a pagan Roman historian. Him being known about writing for other times doesn't mean there was a motivation for him to lie.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why is Thallus not a reliable source? He was a pagan Roman historian. Him being known about writing for other times doesn't mean there was a motivation for him to lie.

He might be. The sources that you used are not. They do not tell the truth about Thallus. Find reliable sources. See if they come to the same conclusions that your bogus sources do.

 

[Skywalker]

He might be. The sources that you used are not. They do not tell the truth about Thallus. Find reliable sources. See if they come to the same conclusions that your bogus sources do.

What evidence is there that Christians corrupted his works?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What evidence is there that Christians corrupted his works?

Read the article that I linked. It would not be the first time. You should be aware that the same thing was done to the works of Josephus.

 

[Skywalker]

He might be. The sources that you used are not. They do not tell the truth about Thallus. Find reliable sources. See if they come to the same conclusions that your bogus sources do.

Christianity was a small faith at the time and what they taught wasn't believable to the amount of people that it is today. Roman Historian Thallus Mentions Darkness During Jesus’ Crucifixion | Reasons for Jesus

REASONS TO TAKE THE THALLUS REFERENCE SERIOUSLY
That said, it seems unlikely that a Roman historian would take this claim so seriously if it had no basis. Christianity was just a tiny sect at that time, so for him to respond with such seriousness suggests that he believed it to have actually happened and that it was necessary to provide a naturalistic explanation. He would have just denied the event if he had no knowledge that it happened.