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

[Skywalker]

The fact that they refer only to Malachi 3 1 and not he rest of the chapter. It clearly is not about Jesus in context. All sorts of things mentioned there that Jesus did not do.

Malachi 3:2 is a reference to Jesus.

But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap

 

[Skywalker]

Okay, a penalty is fine. The problem is that your God is immoral. It is immoral to give a punishment far in excess of the supposed crime.

If someone committed perjury for a few seconds, they would get in big trouble. How is eternity in hell a fair punishment for sin? | GotQuestions.org

How is eternity in hell a fair punishment for sin?

Question: "How is eternity in hell a fair punishment for sin?"

Answer: Many people are uncomfortable, to say the least, with the idea of an eternal hell. This discomfort, though, is often the result of an incomplete understanding of three things: the nature of God, the nature of man, and the nature of sin. As fallen, sinful human beings, the nature of God is a difficult concept for us to grasp. We tend to see God as a kind, merciful Being whose love for us overrides and overshadows all His other attributes. Of course God is loving, kind, and merciful, but He is first and foremost a holy and righteous God. So holy is He that He cannot tolerate sin. He is a God whose anger burns against the wicked and disobedient (Isaiah 5:25; Hosea 8:5; Zechariah 10:3). He is not only a loving God—He is love itself! But the Bible also tells us that He hates all manner of sin (Proverbs 6:16-19). And while He is merciful, there are limits to His mercy. “Seek the LORD while he may be found; call on him while he is near. Let the wicked forsake his way and the evil man his thoughts. Let him turn to the LORD, and he will have mercy on him, and to our God, for he will freely pardon” (Isaiah 55:6-7).

Humanity is corrupted by sin, and that sin is always directly against God. When David sinned by committing adultery with Bathsheba and having Uriah murdered, he responded with an interesting prayer: “Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight…” (Psalm 51:4). Since David had sinned against Bathsheba and Uriah, how could he claim to have only sinned against God? David understood that all sin is ultimately against God. God is an eternal and infinite Being (Psalm 90:2). As a result, all sin requires an eternal punishment. God’s holy, perfect, and infinite character has been offended by our sin. Although to our finite minds our sin is limited in time, to God—who is outside of time—the sin He hates goes on and on. Our sin is eternally before Him and must be eternally punished in order to satisfy His holy justice.

No one understands this better than someone in hell. A perfect example is the story of the rich man and Lazarus. Both died, and the rich man went to hell while Lazarus went to paradise (Luke 16). Of course, the rich man was aware that his sins were only committed during his lifetime. But, interestingly, he never says, “How did I end up here?” That question is never asked in hell. He does not say, “Did I really deserve this? don’t you think this is a little extreme? A little over the top?” He only asks that someone go to his brothers who are still alive and warn them against his fate.

Like the rich man, every sinner in hell has a full realization that he deserves to be there. Each sinner has a fully informed, acutely aware, and sensitive conscience which, in hell, becomes his own tormenter. This is the experience of torture in hell—a person fully aware of his or her sin with a relentlessly accusing conscience, without relief for even one moment. The guilt of sin will produce shame and everlasting self-hatred. The rich man knew that eternal punishment for a lifetime of sins is justified and deserved. That is why he never protested or questioned being in hell.

The realities of eternal damnation, eternal hell, and eternal punishment are frightening and disturbing. But it is good that we might, indeed, be terrified. While this may sound grim, there is good news. God loves us (John 3:16) and wants us to be saved from hell (2 Peter 3:9). But because God is also just and righteous, He cannot allow our sin to go unpunished. Someone has to pay for it. In His great mercy and love, God provided His own payment for our sin. He sent His Son Jesus Christ to pay the penalty for our sins by dying on the cross for us. Jesus’ death was an infinite death because He is the infinite God/man, paying our infinite sin debt, so that we would not have to pay it in hell for eternity (2 Corinthians 5:21). If we confess our sin and place our faith in Christ, asking for God’s forgiveness based on Christ’s sacrifice, we are saved, forgiven, cleansed, and promised an eternal home in heaven. God loved us so much that He provided the means for our salvation, but if we reject His gift of eternal life, we will face the eternal consequences of that decision.

 

[Skywalker]

Let's try to leave out what is probably myth for now. When you can show that the Bible is reliable then we can discuss some of the more arcane claims of the Bible.

Historians support that the Bible is reliable. How We Know The Gospels Are Reliable | Reasons for Jesus

By James Bishop| The general reliability of the gospels is the claim that the gospel biographical texts, which constitute the primary sources for the ministry of the historical Jesus Christ and some of the earliest events preceding the founding of the Church, are historically reliable, and that this view can be arrived at through historical methods. Historian Gary Habermas explains that,

“These arguments are typically based on the quantity, quality, and early date of the available New Testament manuscript copies, additional considerations that favor the traditional authorship of the books, plus extra-biblical confirmation, along with a few archaeological discoveries” (1).

 

[Subduction Zone]

Even a good man or prophet could not pay the price for our sins.

Why not? What is the price of sins and why? You are probably going to claim that God is immoral again.

So why worship an evil God?

 

[Skywalker]

If Jesus was just a man it was suffering. But then he was not God. If he was God then is was all for show.

This is why you need to make up your mind about Jesus.

Jesus suffered on the cross because he was man and God. It wasn't fake suffering. God being all powerful could also become a man.

Does Christ have two natures? | GotQuestions.org

Answer: The Bible does not explicitly address the question of whether Jesus Christ has two natures or only one. As it will be explained below, however, understanding that Christ has two natures is the most biblically and theologically consistent position. The issue came to a head in church history as theologians in the church tried to grapple with and codify the information that the New Testament provides about Jesus.

According to the New Testament, Jesus really is a man, born into the human race, yet He is also fully God. John 1:1 states that the Word is God and then in verse 14 we see that the Word John is speaking of is Jesus who “tabernacled” among us. Matthew and Luke both tell of Jesus’ birth of the Virgin Mary and give His human lineage. It is difficult to understand and explain, but that is what the New Testament teaches. Jesus is God who entered the human race as a man.

Some groups early on tried to explain the nature of Christ by saying that the divine “Christ spirit” came upon the man Jesus. Early Gnosticssaid that the Christ spirit came upon Jesus at His baptism and left Him at the crucifixion. In this scenario, it might seem as though Jesus had two natures; however, on closer examination, this is not the case. The man that people identified as Jesus would actually be two personssharing a body, and each person would only have one nature. He would be Jesus the human and Christ the divine. In this scenario, God only appears to enter the human race, but He does not actually do it.

Another way of trying to explain the data in the New Testament is to say that Jesus Christ was only one person AND that He only had one nature. The difficulty with this explanation is that His nature would be something of an amalgamation of divine and human. He would not be fully human because the divine nature has mixed with the human nature, making Him something more than human. He would not be fully God because the human nature has mixed with the divine nature, making Him something less than divine. We see parallels to this idea in Greek and Roman mythology where a god has a child with a human woman. The offspring is more than human and less than a god—a super human or a demi-god. Hercules was one such person, the son of Zeus and the woman Alcmene.

An illustration may be helpful. Like most illustrations, it is far from perfect and cannot be pressed on every point. Suppose a king wants to identify with the poorest in his country. One way he could do it would be to disguise himself as a beggar and move among them. However, in this situation he is only pretending to be a beggar; he can go back to the castle at night, and he still has all the resources of a king. On the other hand, the king could renounce his throne and give away everything and become a beggar. But in this case, he would cease to be a king. A third option is that he could, for a time, give up the use of all his resources for a set period of time—let’s say 3 years—knowing that at the end of that time he would once again resume the throne. In this last situation, he is both truly a beggar and truly a king. Jesus became man, but He remained God.

The only way to adequately explain the biblical data is to say that Jesus is one Person with two natures—a human nature and a divine nature. He is both God and Man. His two natures are inseparably united (not mixed) in what theologians term the “hypostatic union.” The New Testament affirms that Jesus Christ, who walked the earth, died on a cross, and rose again, was fully a member of the human race with a fully functioning human nature (without sin). At the same time, Jesus was fully God. He willingly humbled Himself and gave up His glory and the right to use His divine attributes apart from the direction of God the Father, but He never ceased to be God. Jesus Christ is fully man and fully God—He has the nature of both. He is a man, but He is more; He is also God. He is God, but He has forever joined Himself to a human nature. A shortened way to express this is to refer to Jesus as the God-Man. He is the Man who is also God, and He is God who became a Man.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Jesus sweat blood before he went to the cross. How is that a false suffering?

Jesus could not have died for our sins if he was a man.

It is so hard to have a discussion with you since you keep contradicting yourself. If Jesus was God what difference would it make what his sweat looked like? If he was God how could crucifixion hurt him?

Please make up your mind

 

[Skywalker]

Why not? What is the price of sins and why? You are probably going to claim that God is immoral again.

So why worship an evil God?

The wages of sin is death. It's like if someone commits a crime. The Wages of Sin - Wikipedia

The Wages of Sin originates from the starting of the biblical verse Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Is a judge evil or immoral for punishing people who don't follow the laws?

 

[Skywalker]

It is so hard to have a discussion with you since you keep contradicting yourself. If Jesus was God what difference would it make what his sweat looked like? If he was God how could crucifixion hurt him?

Please make up your mind

I wasn't talking about what his sweat looked like I was saying that Jesus suffered before he went to the cross. He sweat drops of blood.

Crucifixion hurt Jesus because he was both God and man.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Malachi 3:2 is a reference to Jesus.

How so? That did not happen when he came here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The wages of sin is death. It's like if someone commits a crime. The Wages of Sin - Wikipedia



Is a judge evil or immoral for punishing people who don't follow the laws?

and now you are back to claiming that God is immoral.

Please try to think your posts through instead of spouting irrational dogma that was drilled into you from birth.

A judge is immoral if he places an excessive punishment on a minor crime. Does shoplifting merit an execution?

 

[Skywalker]

How so? That did not happen when he came here.

Who can abide in the day of his coming is a reference to the second coming of the Messiah. The Jewish belief of the two Messiahs supports the Scriptures that Christians and Jews believe in support two advents of the Messiah, whether you believe he is Jesus.

 

[Skywalker]

and now you are back to claiming that God is immoral.

Please try to think your posts through instead of spouting irrational dogma that was drilled into you from birth.

A judge is immoral if he places an excessive punishment on a minor crime. Does shoplifting merit an execution?

God is not immoral. God is loving but he is also a just judge.

Hell is a punishment but its not a punishing. It is eternal separation from God.

 

[Skywalker]

I never claimed that he was an archangel. He was a hamster.

The teaching that Jesus is Michael the Archangel is not supported by the Bible. Six Reasons Why Jesus is Not Michael the Archangel — Blog — Dan Kreft — Seven-Foot Apologist

1. Michael is one among many princes (Daniel 10:13); Jesus is one of a kind (John 3:16; Revelation 19:16)
   
   
2. Jesus created the angels (Colossians 1:16), including Michael
   
   
3. Jesus is higher than the angels (Hebrews 1:1-14; 2:1-18)
   
   1. Angels are not Sons (Hebrews 1:5) ; Jesus is God’s Son (Matthew 3:17)
      
      
   2. Angels worship the Son (Hebrews 1:6; Revelation 19:10; 22:8-9)
      
      
   3. Angels will not rule the world (Hebrews 2:5); Jesus will (Psalm 2:6)
      
4. Michael does not rebuke Satan (Jude 9); Jesus does (Matthew 4:10; 16:23)
   
   
5. Michael is distinguished from the Lord (Jude 9; Philippians 2:11)
   
   
6. Jesus (Revelation 12:5) is distinguished from Michael (Revelation 12:7). How could Jesus be Michael if they are both separate characters in the same story?
   

 

[Subduction Zone]

Who can abide in the day of his coming is a reference to the second coming of the Messiah. The Jewish belief of the two Messiahs supports the Scriptures that Christians and Jews believe in support two advents of the Messiah, whether you believe he is Jesus.

Now you are reinterpreting that verse without any justification. You cannot reinterpret a verse just because it is false.

 

[Skywalker]

Because if God is omnipotent and omniscient there is no need for a false suffering. By the way, if Jesus is God then yes, it is a false suffering. If Jesus was a man what did it accomplish?

God stepped down from his glory and walked the earth with us to save us and teach us how to live. Leading Atheist Scholar Bart Ehrman Affirms The Gospels Present A Divine Jesus | Reasons for Jesus

I think a good first step would be to acknowledge Professor Ehrman’s beliefs, especially for readers who are largely unfamiliar with him. Ehrman, a New Testament/early Christianity historian and distinguished professor of Religious Studies, is an agnostic with atheist leanings. He openly states in a number of his books that he does not believe that Jesus was raised from the dead, and that Jesus was in no way or form God incarnate.

Ehrman is thus arguably one of the leading informed critics of Christianity within the professional academy. He is also skeptical, much in the same way to David Hume, about miracles and whether or not we can even know if a miracle occurred in ancient history. So, it is quite apparent that with Ehrman we aren’t dealing with an ally to Christianity, or an individual who is open to agreeing with orthodox Christian views, in the sense that all four gospels present a divine Jesus.

This backstory gives, in my view, some value to Ehrman’s blog article because it has been Christians who have always viewed the gospel accounts as presenting Jesus who is divine and God incarnate. Many skeptics, however, would disagree, and argue that the synoptics (Mark, Matthew, and Luke) do not present Jesus in this way. They will often argue that only John’s gospel portrays Jesus in such a way, and that we should expect it because John’s gospel is the latest, and due to it being latest it shouldn’t be a surprise to discover an increasing layer of embellishment.

This, they will argue, is because John’s author embellished the core facts of the historical Jesus in such a way as to mould him into a divine figure. But Ehrman disagrees. He admits that Jesus’ divinity is presented throughout all four the gospel accounts including the synoptics, a view he did not initially hold.

According to Ehrman,

“Until a year ago I would have said – and frequently did say, in the classroom, in public lectures, and in my writings – that Jesus is portrayed as God in the Gospel of John but not, definitely not, in the other Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. I would point out that only in John did Jesus say such things as “Before Abraham, I am” (8:58; taking upon himself the name of God, as given to Moses in Exodus 3); his Jewish opponents knew full well what he was saying: they take up stones to stone him.

Later he says “I and the Father are one” (10:30). Again, the Jews break out the stones. Later he tells his disciples, “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father” (14:9). And in a later prayer to God he asks him to “glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world was created” (17:5). None of these sayings, or anything like them, can be found in the other canonical Gospels. Jesus is clearly portrayed as a divine being in John, but only in John (I would have argued).“

 

[Subduction Zone]

The teaching that Jesus is Michael the Archangel is not supported by the Bible. Six Reasons Why Jesus is Not Michael the Archangel — Blog — Dan Kreft — Seven-Foot Apologist

So what? I never made that argument. Now try and find something that say the teaching that Jesus is a hamster is not supported by the Bible.

 

[Skywalker]

You still do not seem to understand that if God is omnipotent and omniscient that Jesus did not have to take our place. In fact if God was just Jesus would not have had to take our place.

Jesus dying on the cross satisfied his just nature and his loving nature.

 

[Subduction Zone]

God stepped down from his glory and walked the earth with us to save us and teach us how to live. Leading Atheist Scholar Bart Ehrman Affirms The Gospels Present A Divine Jesus | Reasons for Jesus

If you believe your source when they say that I have a bridge for sale.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Jesus dying on the cross satisfied his just nature and his loving nature.

That is pure nonsense. Handwaving is not a refutation.

 

[Skywalker]

Fine. Show that the Bible is reliable. Otherwise, hamster it its.

Unlike other faiths, the Bible has historical evidence that backs it up. 84 Historical Facts In The Book Of Acts | Reasons for Jesus

By Erik Manning| Bart Ehrman claims that Luke wasn’t really a traveling companion of Paul. In his book Forged, Ehrman writes: “(The author of Acts) is simply claiming to be a traveling companion of Paul’s and therefore unusually well suited to give a “true” account of Paul’s message and mission. But he almost certainly was not a companion of Paul’s. On the one hand, he was writing long after Paul and his companions were dead. Scholars usually date Acts to around 85 CE or so, over two decades after Paul’s death. On the other hand, he seems to be far too poorly informed about Paul’s theology and missionary activities to have been someone with firsthand knowledge.” (Forged: Writing in the Name of God–Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are, p. 237)

For someone who was writing long after Paul was dead, the author of Acts gets a ridiculous amount of facts right regarding local places, titles, names, environmental conditions, customs and circumstances that only an eyewitness contemporary of the time and events could possibly know.

Classical historian Colin Hemer details dozens of facts that confirm this in his masterful book The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. I don’t know if Dr. Ehrman is just unaware of Hemer’s work, but his research should cause any critic to reconsider the dating of Acts. And if Acts is the sequel to Luke’s Gospel, then it logically follows that Luke was written even earlier.

As you go through the following list, remember Luke didn’t have Google or Wikipedia.

84 HISTORICAL FACTS LUKE GETS RIGHT
1. the natural crossing between correctly named ports (Acts 13:4-5)