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

[SeekingAllTruth]

God foundation seal of stone relativity.

A human always lived upon the foundation stone. As the man science storyteller.

Was sacrificed died early age man baby death.....yet the same man human lived on as God the foundation still existed.

Rational teaching self human evident.

God was his foundation to live as that man human.

Was never Satan...when God stone never existed.

O mass Satan earth angel before God.

Think of God converting is saying in want satanic reaction with intent God never existed.

Teaching relativity.

I have no idea what you're trying to say, rational. Sorry.

 

[Skywalker]

But it has nothing to do with whether Jesus actually lived or not. A figure(s) upon which the legend of Jesus as found in the gospels was based maybe, even probably did live and likely he was a seditionist against Rome who was captured and crucified and that was the end of his physical life. But myths around a Messiah were rife in Israel at this time. All the Jews were expecting a Messiah around daniel's predicted time to emerge and free the Jews from Roman rule. It's a tailor-made situation for people who fancy themselves Messiahs to start preaching they are God's Chosen.

But then history goes blank far as Jesus goes. Nobody writes about him. We don't know when this Paul character wrote because we haven't any manuscripts earlier than the 2nd Century of any of his epistles. It's speculation to assume he was writing in 55 CE because nobody mentions him until Luke write Acts in the 2nd Century sometime. It's like someone said, "Trying to nail down proof for Jesus or the apostles is like trying to nail Jell-0 to a wall." It just doesn't hold.

Paul's writings are from the 1st century. The Historical Case for Paul’s Apostleship: And a Critique of Muslim Arguments

1st Century Biblical Sources

With respect to the 1st century Biblical evidence concerning Paul we have Paul’s writings (Romans; 1 & 2 Corinthians; Galatians; Ephesians; Philippians; Colossians; 1 & 2 Thessalonians; 1 & 2 Timothy; Titus; and Philemon), the history of the 1st century church known as “Acts” or “Acts of the Apostles,” and a Christian epistle known as 2 Peter. So, with respect to 1st century Biblical writings we have Paul’s epistles as well as two other independent documents to work with. All of the 1st century Biblical sources that mention Paul affirm that Paul was a genuine Apostle. None of them question that.

All through out the book of Acts we see Paul identified as a true Apostle. And so we could quote numerous passages affirming this from Acts. However, one striking feature is that in the Acts 15 Jerusalem Council Paul played a leading role with the other Apostles such as James and Peter in answering the question about Gentiles being under the law. As the council was in session we see the following:

“And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.” (Acts 15:12)

Paul and Barnabas spoke after Peter (vv. 7-11) and right before James (vv. 13-21) who concluded the council and gave the final decision that Gentiles are not under the law. This demonstrates that there was 1st century recognition of Paul’s acceptance by the early church and by the Apostles themselves as an authoritative voice.

There is evidence for Jesus outside of the four gospel manscrupts that are known about. A Fictional Messiah? - BreakPoint

What is even more startling is that a German scholar has uncovered new evidence that three tiny scraps of Scripture that he found in an Oxford University library were written by a contemporary of Christ—a contemporary who had firsthand evidence that Jesus was the Son of God. The scraps contain lines from Matthew 26 and describe a woman’s anointing of Jesus and Judas’s betrayal of Christ. The fragments were donated to Oxford’s Magdalen College library in 1901 by a missionary alumnus who brought them from Egypt. And there they sat for nearly a century, until a German researcher named Carsten Thiede recently decided to take a closer look at them. Earlier scholars believed the papyrus was written in the second century. But advances in research on Greek texts enabled Dr. Thiede to come to a different and more accurate conclusion. He realized that the fragments were written in a Greek script that was common in the first century b.c. but went out of fashion around the middle of the first century. He concluded that the Magdalen manuscript was actually written in about a.d. 50—a mere seventeen years after the crucifixion of Christ. And the Oxford manuscript is itself a copy, which means the original Gospel of Matthew must have been written even earlier.

 

[Skywalker]

First let's check your source on prophecies concerning nations because the messianic prophecies were just stories written to fulfill the OT prophecies.
The example they give is the Edom prophecy:
" “No one shall remain there,
Nor shall a son of man dwell in it.”
It shall not be quenched night or day;
Its smoke shall ascend forever.
From generation to generation it shall lie waste;
No one shall pass through it forever and ever.

and so forth.

Well the article claims it's so true that it could not be chance except here is the google map for what was Edon:
Google Maps

I can't see the smoke from that high up? "No one shall pass for ever"??
That's weird because there are like 12 cities going down rt 90 just right there which coves the entire length of what was Edon.


So your source is lying.


Also the 100% accuracy thing is easily shown to be wrong.
There are over 200 prophecies and predictions made by Yahweh that did not happen. Some may have ridiculous apologetics and some are left unanswered. They are listed here:
Bible: Prophecy and Misquotes

Many of them are about how everyone will bow down to the Israelite religion and they will rule the world.
Didn't happen.

But then there is a bigger problem with messianic prophecies. Not only did they suddenly start having them during the Persion period and the Persians already had prophecies of a coming world savior (clear proof that the Israelites borrowed the mythology) but the gospels were written by people who likely had already read the Old Testament? So they wrote the story to fulfill the OT predictions? It's a fictional story based on legends from an older fictional story.
You can believe it all day but there is no way to demonstrate that this isn't exactly what it looks like - myths from one nation.

But the prophecies are exactly as vague and unimpressive as prophecies from Islam, Nostradamus and all other ancient supernatural "oracles". All these prophecies about how much they will rule the world and not one mention about germs or objects smaller than we can see making people sick?

Actually the prophecies in Islam are better. But it's still not a prophecy given by some God? People can make predictions that actually happen.
Look:

“The Byzantines have been defeated. In the nearest land. But they, after their defeat, will triumph. Within three to nine years.” [ar-Rūm 30: 2-4]
And in 8 years they did triumph.

It's also possible that the apostles accurately wrote what they saw. What evidence is there that they fabricated the stories to match the prophecies?

Bible prophecies have been fulfilled. Biblical Prophecies Fulfilled

Let us consider the end of the life of Jesus as predicted in the Old Testament and its fulfilment:



Prophecy of Jesus' humble entry to Jerusalem on a donkey ± B.C. 480:
"Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Jerusalem; behold, your king comes to you, he is just and having salvation; lowly and riding upon a colt, the foal of an *** (donkey). (Zechariah 9:9).
Fulfilment:
"And when they drew near to Jerusalem and came to Bethphage, to the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, 'Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find an *** tied, and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to me. If any one says anything to you, you shall say, 'The Lord has need of them', and he will send them immediately.' This took place to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet, saying, Tell the daughter of Zion, Behold, your king is coming to you, humble, and mounted on an ***, and on a colt, the foal of an ***.'
The disciples went and did what Jesus had directed them; they brought the *** and the colt, and put their garments on them, and he sat thereon. Most of the crowd spread their garments on the road, and others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road. And the crowds that went before him and that followed him shouted, 'Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!'" (Matthew 21:1-9).


Prophecy of the betrayal of Jesus ± B.C. 480:
"Yea, my own familiar friend, in whom I trusted ... has lifted up his heel against me." (Psalm 41:9).
"And I said to them, if you think good, give me the price, and if not forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. And the Lord said unto me: cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prized at of them, (= the price of a slave). And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the Lord." (Zechariah 11:12-13).

 

[sojourner]

Romans 5:8 says, "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." Christ dying for us and being God both make him the Savior.

But that’s not what you said. You didn’t acknowledge the theology of the Incarnation at all, until you were corrected.

 

[Skywalker]

But that’s not what you said. You didn’t acknowledge the theology of the Incarnation at all, until you were corrected.

By saying that Jesus dying for our sins made him the Savior I wasn't denying that the incarnation also did.

 

[sojourner]

By saying that Jesus dying for our sins made him the Savior I wasn't denying that the incarnation also did.

It represents an incomplete theological construct, which is to say, sloppy thinking.
The theological implications of the Incarnation are every bit as important to the equation as the sacrifice. For some constructs, very much more so. People love to poke holes in poorly-presented theology, which opens up the Faith for derision. You who are so into the little apologetics web page you cite so much, should know that, and should be much tighter in your propositions. So far, your reasoning looks pretty much like Swiss cheese.

 

[sojourner]

The Bible has 100% percent accuracy in predicting the future. These future predictions are called "prophecies."

Except that prophecies are not primarily future prediction. Prophecies are truths about the way things are in God’s realm.

 

[sojourner]

Comparing it to Atlantis and Moroni . Christianity is Jewish mythology. It contains wisdom and laws as all myths do but it also contains completely made-up supernatural beings and concepts. Moroni is an angel from Mormonism and is equally as fictitious as an angel from the OT. Joe SMith claimed a revelation. So did Paul. Both were having some type of human experience rather than a visit from a fictional being. Christianity is a syncretic mix of Israelite myths (which came from Mesopotamian myths), later took on many Persian myths and ended with the Mystery religion myths. It is not unethical to say this as it can be shown to be extremely likely.

The only really likely written history we have of Jesus are those quotations that can be shown to be almost certainly or probably authentic — especially those that display multiple attestation in Q and Thomas.

 

[Skywalker]

It represents an incomplete theological construct, which is to say, sloppy thinking.
The theological implications of the Incarnation are every bit as important to the equation as the sacrifice. For some constructs, very much more so. People love to poke holes in poorly-presented theology, which opens up the Faith for derision. You who are so into the little apologetics web page you cite so much, should know that, and should be much tighter in your propositions. So far, your reasoning looks pretty much like Swiss cheese.

Both Jesus being God and dying on the cross makes him the Messiah, because only God could take on the infinite penalty of our sins because God is infinite.

 

[Skywalker]

Except that prophecies are not primarily future prediction. Prophecies are truths about the way things are in God’s realm.

Future predictions come from the omniscience of God.

 

[night912]

By saying that Jesus dying for our sins made him the Savior I wasn't denying that the incarnation also did.

There's a difference there. If both are required and you said that his death is enough, then you were wrong. If the requirement was either his death or the incarnation, then you wouldn't have been wrong.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Paul's writings are from the 1st century. The Historical Case for Paul’s Apostleship: And a Critique of Muslim Arguments

https://answering-islam.org/authors/thompson/paul-historical.html

There is no evidence that proves definitively that paul wrote in the 1st century. he's not mentioned in ANY secular historical records and the earliest copies of manuscripts date to the late 2nd century, no earlier. Historians traditionally accept that Paul was writing in the 1st Century.

There is evidence for Jesus outside of the four gospel manscrupts that are known about. A Fictional Messiah? - BreakPoint

There is NO evidence for Jesus outside the gospels. There are a few mentions of "The Christ" and "Chrestians" in the 2nd century but that's all. No mention of the name "Jesus".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Future predictions come from the omniscience of God.

And since the future predictions of the Bible are all failed prophecies it tells us that your version of God is not omniscient.

This is one of the better articles on Biblical prophecies out there:

Biblical prophecies - RationalWiki

It also gives reasonable criteria for prophecies. This article applies it just to the Bible, but they apply to all prophecies, except for number 2 of course.. I doubt if you can find one prophecy that meets these criteria:

"For a statement to be Biblical foreknowledge, it must fit all of the five following criteria:

1. It must be accurate. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not accurate, because knowledge (and thus foreknowledge) excludes inaccurate statements. TLDR: It's true.
2. It must be in the Bible. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not in the Bible, because Biblical by definition foreknowledge can only come from the Bible itself, rather than modern reinterpretations of the text. TLDR: It's in plain words in the Bible.
3. It must be precise and unambiguous. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if meaningless philosophical musings or multiple possible ideas could fulfill the foreknowledge, because ambiguity prevents one from knowing whether the foreknowledge was intentional rather than accidental. TLDR: Vague "predictions" don't count.
4. It must be improbable. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of a pure guess, because foreknowledge requires a person to actually know something true, while a correct guess doesn't mean that the guesser knows anything. This also excludes contemporary beliefs that happened be true but were believed to be true without solid evidence. TLDR: Lucky guesses don't count.
5. It must have been unknown. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of an educated guess based off contemporary knowledge, because foreknowledge requires a person to know a statement when it would have been impossible, outside of supernatural power, for that person to know it. TLDR: Ideas of the time don't count."

 

[Skywalker]

There's a difference there. If both are required and you said that his death is enough, then you were wrong. If the requirement was either his death or the incarnation, then you wouldn't have been wrong.

The combination of Jesus dying on the cross and being God makes it possible for Him to be the Savior.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The combination of Jesus dying on the cross and being God makes it possible for Him to be the Savior.

This is a logical non sequitur.

 

[Skywalker]

There is no evidence that proves definitively that paul wrote in the 1st century. he's not mentioned in ANY secular historical records and the earliest copies of manuscripts date to the late 2nd century, no earlier. Historians traditionally accept that Paul was writing in the 1st Century.


There is NO evidence for Jesus outside the gospels. There are a few mentions of "The Christ" and "Chrestians" in the 2nd century but that's all. No mention of the name "Jesus".

There is multiple sources evidence from the fist century supporting that Paul wrote in the first century. The Historical Case for Paul’s Apostleship: And a Critique of Muslim Arguments

The book 2 Peter is rejected by many liberal scholars and Muslims but there is a strong case for its authority and for Petrine authorship.(2) This text is another 1st century source that not only affirms that Paul was a true Apostle, but it also identifies Paul’s writings as Scripture:

"15And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures." (2 Peter 3:15-16)

The best case scenario is that Peter wrote this and is accepting Paul. I believe this is the case. The worst case scenario is that this is another independent 1st century attestation affirming the reliability of Paul which we can add to the list. Even if it were not from Peter, it is still an early attestation which was accepted by the church and even added to the Canon of Scripture. Historians look for the earliest 1st century writings when it comes to Jesus and early Christianity. That there are no early 1st century writings asserting that Paul was a false Apostle discredits the Muslim position severely. The historical principles of early sources and multiple independent attestation is thus met with respect to 1st century Biblical evidence for Paul.

There is evidence that the gospels were written earlier than people say. https://breakpoint.org/a-fictional-messiah/

If Dr. Thiede’s findings hold up, it could mean that the Gospel of Mark, which predates Matthew’s Gospel, was written as early as a.d. 40—only seven years after the crucifixion. Think of it—only seven years! Dr. Thiede’s conclusions throw a real monkey wrench into the teachings of liberal scholars who contend that the Gospels were written a hundred years or more after Christ’s crucifixion and that contemporaries of Jesus didn’t believe His claims to divinity.

 

[Skywalker]

And since the future predictions of the Bible are all failed prophecies it tells us that your version of God is not omniscient.

This is one of the better articles on Biblical prophecies out there:

Biblical prophecies - RationalWiki

It also gives reasonable criteria for prophecies. This article applies it just to the Bible, but they apply to all prophecies, except for number 2 of course.. I doubt if you can find one prophecy that meets these criteria:

"For a statement to be Biblical foreknowledge, it must fit all of the five following criteria:

1. It must be accurate. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not accurate, because knowledge (and thus foreknowledge) excludes inaccurate statements. TLDR: It's true.
2. It must be in the Bible. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not in the Bible, because Biblical by definition foreknowledge can only come from the Bible itself, rather than modern reinterpretations of the text. TLDR: It's in plain words in the Bible.
3. It must be precise and unambiguous. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if meaningless philosophical musings or multiple possible ideas could fulfill the foreknowledge, because ambiguity prevents one from knowing whether the foreknowledge was intentional rather than accidental. TLDR: Vague "predictions" don't count.
4. It must be improbable. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of a pure guess, because foreknowledge requires a person to actually know something true, while a correct guess doesn't mean that the guesser knows anything. This also excludes contemporary beliefs that happened be true but were believed to be true without solid evidence. TLDR: Lucky guesses don't count.
5. It must have been unknown. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of an educated guess based off contemporary knowledge, because foreknowledge requires a person to know a statement when it would have been impossible, outside of supernatural power, for that person to know it. TLDR: Ideas of the time don't count."

Sometimes hyperbole is used in language. Biblical prophecies - RationalWiki

Joel
There are a number of destruction prophecies targeting Egypt, one of the less complicated and up front ones is found in the book of the minor prophet Joel.

In Joel 3:19, God declares that Egypt will become desolate for their violence against the Hebrews.

“Egypt shall become a desolation and Edom a desolate wilderness, for the violence done to the people of Judah, because they have shed innocent blood in their land.

Once again, from the establishment of the Pharaonic monarchy to modern day, Egypt has never been uninhabited, let alone "desolate".

 

[Skywalker]

This is a logical non sequitur.

Without Jesus being God, he couldn't pay the price of sin, because sin has the penalty of infinite separation from God, and we are finite beings. How is that a non sequitur?

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

There is multiple sources evidence from the fist century supporting that Paul wrote in the first century. The Historical Case for Paul’s Apostleship: And a Critique of Muslim Arguments



There is evidence that the gospels were written earlier than people say. https://breakpoint.org/a-fictional-messiah/

I go back to my original question:

If God really wanted us to believe His son was Jesus Christ who was the savior of mankind, then why didn't He make sure the original gospels were preserved? Why don't we have gospels SIGNED by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John that can be reliably dated to within 10 years of Jesus so that there would be no doubt whatsoever they were genuine and completely in agreement as to the details???????

Instead we have a hodgepodge of conflicting accounts of Jesus birth and death and genealogy written decades to a century and possibly longer afterward by anonymous Greek scholars who obviously were not eyewitnesses and had no sources upon which to base their accounts. Nor does a single historian in Jesus' time or within 50 years of his death mention Jesus or Paul or the 12 apostles.

It seems God did a real crappy job of giving us reliable proof for Jesus. This says to me that God really doesn't give a damn whether or not we believe in Jesus. That's the only logical conclusion I can come to, especially with regard to all the conflicting dates and guesswork for when the gospels were written and who wrote them.

 

[sojourner]

Both Jesus being God and dying on the cross makes him the Messiah, because only God could take on the infinite penalty of our sins because God is infinite.

This isn’t a theological construct. It’s loose opinion. Where, for example do you get the concept that the penalty for sin is “infinite?” Where is your argument that “dying” makes him the Messiah? You’ve pulled out some disparate texts out of context, but you haven’t shown at all that this was in the minds of those who wrote them.

You’ll have to do much, much better.