If Jesus really did live, and the bible really were true, wouldn't you expect a bit more evidence?

Question

The christians cling to a couple of lines from a translation of Josephus as evidence Jesus existed. The old testament is full of bizarre stuff like a global flood and plants appearing before light along with a ridiculously young Earth.

Wouldn't you expect a bit more evidence if it were all true?

If Jesus really did live, and performed the works christians believe of him, wouldn't every scholar of the day have written about him?

If God performed the big scale miracles credited to him in the old testament, wouldn't all who encounted these feats been converted?

Why didn't the Egyptians convert to the Abrahamic God after the tales of Exodus?

Could it be because it never happened?

Answer 1

you must have faith *cough cough*

♂♂

Answer 2

What makes you think that every scholar did not write about Jesus? After 2000 years how many original books from back then still exists? Not even the original books that are in the Bible have been found yet, if they did last this long. But copies were stored in a cave and found about 50 years ago. If you checked out the history of the Bible, the New Testament's being put together, you would find out other books and letters were found and considered and left out, about 1900 years ago when the New Testament was made.
Most people that were told about Jesus believed in him, until the past 30 - 40 years, when people like you decided you would rather rebel from the truth of the Bible and make up what you wanted.
READ JOHN 21:25 "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."
And that is the same reason why many others countries will worship something they have carved out of wood, that is different; instead of truth.
Look at Pres. Clinton, he worked at lowering the National Deficit and did great at it. When Pres. Bush was elected he didn't want to be remembered as the one who continued Pres. Clinton's good work; so he went and started a war in Iraq when they aren't even the country that flew those airplanes into our buildings on 9/11. And has made the national deficit extremely worse. And probably is responsible for most of those people killed over there.

Answer 3

How much evidence do you need, exactly?

Personally, I couldn't care less about Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Josephus, or any other writers from around the time that Christ lived.

What I do care about is this:
1. All of the books of the New Testament have been proven almost beyond a shadow of a doubt to have been written in the first century A.D.
Why is this important?
It means that mythical qualities are less likely to have been added in. Since most stories were passed around by oral tradition, people at that time would have spoken out if one word had been false. So why didn't they speak out? Why didn't anyone point to Jesus's tomb, and tell the new Christians that it was all a lie, that Jesus was still in there?
2. The disciples were willing to die horrible, violent deaths for their beliefs. They were willing to withstand imprisonment, banishment, ostracism, and many other things. John was even boiled alive! Would they have done this for what they KNEW to be a lie?
As a sidenote, I know that some people try to compare the disciples to certain current "martyrs." However, we're not talking about people a couple thousand years after the fact. We're talking about EYEWITNESSES.

As for the rest of the Bible, there are articles all over the internet about those, and there are LOTS of books on the subject. Contemporary historians at the time of many of the events in the Bible actually do corroborate much of what is written there. In addition to that, there is archaeological evidence.

For the record, I do have my doubts about some of the things in the Bible (Noah's ark is one of them, but there are many other things as well). I know what my fellow Christians have to say about that, but I don't care. I'm a doubter, a skeptic, and "faith" generally doesn't do anything for me. So I understand atheists and agnostics pretty well. On the other hand, I also believe that if God DOES exist, that means that miracles can happen. So the question is, does God exist? And do ANY of us know for a fact whether He does or not?

I could provide you with a list of books to read on the subject, as well as various sites to explore. My HIGHEST recommendation as far as books go, though, would have to be Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution." It's fascinating, well-written, and could easily make a person dig for more. It is NOT the final authority, and there is a lot of dissent from the scientific community towards it, and towards Behe. However, it's a good way to get a person started.

Answer 4

global flood: Back then, they lived in Mesopotamia and believed that was the entire world. One year it had a horrible rainstorm that flooded all of Mesopotamia. It has been scientifically proven

plants appearing before light along with a ridiculously young Earth: This is just symbology. It clearly took much longer than six days to create the universe. Many people believe that each "day" counts as a period of time like a few billion years. The people who orginally made it were the geniuses of their time (their brain power is equal to that of a third Grader at best) and thay just needed a way to teach how the earth was created. Keep in mind thay also believed that the eart was the center of the universe.

If Jesus really did live, and performed the works christians believe of him, wouldn't every scholar of the day have written about him?: Not everyone knew about him because it was the Roman occupied middle east. The romans kept records of jesus and there were eye witness accounts of Jesus Dying and rising from the dead.


If God performed the big scale miracles credited to him in the old testament, wouldn't all who encounted these feats been converted?: Most of the miracles happened before Jesus died and Christianity became a big hit. There was also fear of Roman persecution

Why didn't the Egyptians convert to the Abrahamic God after the tales of Exodus?: They were resentful toward the hebrews and still believed in the gods like Ra, Isis, and Set. Also out of fear of their gods they didn't.


Could it be because it never happened?: It did happen. There is evidence all around in those places (hyroglyphics, Flood, Scientific theory, and Roman History

Answer 5

"If Jesus really did live, and performed the works christians believe of him, wouldn't every scholar of the day have written about him?"

Not necessarily. Consider what scholars of today write about. They write about a lot of trivial nonsense, and miss the bigger important stuff all of the time. Consider the news media of today - do you honestly think they report all of the important things of the day that are happening now? Of course they don't - they're too busy reporting on things like Natalie Holloway missing in Aruba and the Runaway Bride. Jesus Christ was actually just one of many Messianic prophets that appeared in Judea during that period of time. Some of them were actually very warlike and preached revolt against the Romans. There was at the time really no reason for the secular authorities to assume that this Jesus Christ was any different from any of the others.

"If God performed the big scale miracles credited to him in the old testament, wouldn't all who encounted these feats been converted?"

If you go back and read the OT, you will find that in spite of all of the miracles that God performed, the Israelites *still* turned to false gods (the Golden Calf, for example) and still slid into heathenism and apostasy. It's amazing really, when you think about it. But anyone who has to be "razzle-dazzled" by signs and miracles is not a true believer anyway. And in spite of being shown God's power time and time again, many Israelites still would not believe - the story of their unfaithfulness, and God's forgiveness is all in the OT.

"Why didn't the Egyptians convert to the Abrahamic God after the tales of Exodus?"

After the plagues visited on the Egyptians because of Pharoah's hard-heartedness, most of the Egyptians just wanted the Hebrews to leave and be gone for good. Their attitude was "Good riddance, and take your God with you." They weren't denying the power of God mind you.......

Check this out.....

http://www.betchesed.org/biblical_and_extrabiblical.html

There are actually extra-biblical sources that mention Hebrew slaves in Egypt, including some stele (stone monuments) that among other things state that even though they were subordinate, they were somewhat arrogant and felt themselves to be superior, etc.

Answer 6

I don't know about the people of old, but because I have seen and witnessed miracles myself. I believe. Because God has been gracious with me, I believe.

I think it's because people place God in a box.
If a person has a certain view of whom they think God is, it may well never go beyond that.
If a person can only believe in a God who does believable things, what is the point of believing?
Faith, by it's very definition, is bigger than that.
My God is bigger than that. I would see no point in believing in a God who only could do that which I can understand with my own mind.
I beleive there is abundant evidence that Jesus lived, died and rose again. While I believe the scripture is inspired of God, it is also an historical document. There must have also been evidence of Jesus in Roman record keeping of the time. The Romans were sticklers for record keeping. I would imagine much of that stuff is lost or hidden somewhere. It doens't detract from my faith if it's not found.
Regarding the Egyptians, they beleived in their own gods, and I'm sure cowered in terror after the plagues. But how would they know God did it? Pharaoh and his court were the only ones who witnessed that Moses said God would do it. The people "out there" only saw the result. They would have believed they were being cursed by their own gods.
By the way - I think many Egyptians did leave Egypt with the Israelites because of the plagues. I saw a documentary a few years ago that archeologists have found stone markers and pillars with Egyptian accounts as well as the accounts of the Israelites along the trail to the red sea and beyond. An exciting find and likely still being studied I imagine. I'm sorry I can't recall when I saw it or who it was by. I'll try to find it.

many blessings to you :D

here are some links
http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodus.htm
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/031020/20exodus.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/judaism/history/moses_4.shtml
http://bibleprobe.com/exodus.htm
this last one shows some of the rock carvings found in and around the red sea crossing area

there are lots of sites both religious and secular that site this evidence. I googled red sea crossing moses, and exodus egypt and there are many.

There are many flood evidence sites as well, but those, as you know, are almost all biblcal sites. Scientific evidence sites on the flood are usually biblically based. They are interesting though. :)

Answer 7

The idea that all revealed truth is to be found in "66 books" is not only not in Scripture, it is contradicted by Scripture (1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 1 Timothy 3:15, 2 Peter 1:20-21, 2 Peter 3:16). It is a concept unheard of in the Old Testament, where the authority of those who sat on the Chair of Moses (Matthew 23:2-3) existed. In addition to this, for 400 years, there was no defined canon of "Sacred Scripture" aside from the Old Testament; there was no "New Testament"; there was only Tradition and non-canonical books and letters. Once Scripture was defined from the many competing books, Bibles were hand-copied and decorated by monks, were rare and precious, so precious they had to be chained down in the churches so that they would not be stolen.

In the 16th c., Luther, reacting to serious abuses and clerical corruption in the Latin Church, to his own heretical theological vision (see articles on sola scriptura and sola fide), and, frankly, to his own inner demons, removed those books from the canon that lent support to orthodox doctrine, relegating them to an appendix. Removed in this way were books that supported such things as prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12; 2 Maccabees 12:39-45), Purgatory (Wisdom 3:1-7), intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14), and intercession of angels as intermediaries (Tobit 12:12-15).


Protestants claim the Bible is the only rule of faith, meaning that it contains all of the material one needs for theology and that this material is sufficiently clear that one does not need apostolic tradition or the Church’s magisterium (teaching authority) to help one understand it. In the Protestant view, the whole of Christian truth is found within the Bible’s pages. Anything extraneous to the Bible is simply non-authoritative, unnecessary, or wrong—and may well hinder one in coming to God.

Catholics, on the other hand, recognize that the Bible does not endorse this view and that, in fact, it is repudiated in Scripture. The true "rule of faith"—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly

Answer 8

The Christian God was very careful to prove Himself when He had the Bible written. He wanted to make sure you would recognize him as a God when he acted. What he did is predict the future. No person on earth, no medium or psychic, can claim the one hundred percent prediction rate of God. God gave names, dates, and places so we can check out history and verify his work. He even gave us the very words someone would say centuries before the fact!

By taking this route, God would not have to appear and prove himself over and over again to new groups of people.

Now if you wanted everyone to know that you, as God, were going to come as a human being, you would explain what you were like so you would be recognized. You would put in the city of your birth, where you grew up, what kinds of deeds you would do, your temperament, your purpose, even how you would die.

God did all that in the Old Testament. It was all in written form four hundred years before Jesus came. The New Testament gospels follow Jesus and point out some of the places where He fulfilled the prophecies.

Let me give you an amazing example of prophecy.

“Daniel 11, written in the 6th century B.C., gives an amazingly thorough account of Alexander’s Grecian kingdom, divided first into four competing factions after his death. It predicts details of the struggle between the Ptolemy and Seleucid empires for a period of 160 years, right down to the advent of the Roman Empire. That is why the skeptics used to claim that the book of Daniel could not have been written before 164 B.C., but now we have proof of a much earlier writing text.

“The prophet Isaiah (44:28) gave the name of a king not yet born and of a kingdom not yet instituted and of an event that would not take place for another 150 years. He predicted that a king named Cyrus would commission the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem. Cyrus did come to the throne in Persia, and in the first year of his reign in 538, he issued a decree that the temple in Jerusalem should be rebuilt. (See 2 Chronicles 36:22-Ezra 1:1-3. This prophecy described in the Bible is confirmed by the discovery of a Babylonian inscription.)

“Daniel actually gave the time when Christ would come into the world and die. Daniel (9:24) predicted that Messiah would be cut off (die) 483 Hebrew years after the issuing of the Persian decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem. Artaxerxes Longimanus issued that decree on March 5, 444 B.C. (Neh. 2:1-8), granting the Jews permission to rebuild Jerusalem’s city walls. This, too, is confirmed by archeological discoveries. Four hundred eighty-three prophetic years (360 days to a year) and seven days later, Jesus was crucified as predicted. How could a prophet accurately predict the date of Messiah’s death hundreds of years before it took place, unless he was the ‘voice’ of God as he claimed?”

Thanks to the Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran, we know with certainty the above prophecies date before the occurrence of actual prophesied events regarding Jesus.

He has proven His existence perfectly and wonderfully. The Christian God is the true God.

Answer 9

Using the Bible as proof is all they have and it is not proof of any thing. It is only writings like Harry Potter books don't prove there is magic so We would expect some evidence some History written by record keepers of the date. All we have is written material some written as many as a 1000 years after the incidents.

Answer 10

interior the 1800's, it grew to become into between the super 3 that pushed the theory mainstream Christianity had fallen into apostasy. The Mormons, JWs and Christians Scientists all claimed to have got here across the the authentic roots that something of Christendom has lost. Hellfire and brimstone grew to become right into a huge subject remember of the situations. observe how each and each of those responds in a manner that downplays or basically eliminates the theory.

Answer 11

Yes, exactly!
The only evidence that anyone has is the bible. A book written by a bunch of men that had nothing else to do, other than sit around drinking wine. I think its a joke and quite frankly, an insult.

Christianity is just a cult, like any other....some call them religions.

I only have another 50 or so years left in my life and I have more important, real things to devote my heart, love, time and energy to.
My faith is with Me and the people who share time with me during my life.
I have all the evidence I need to conclude that God is not real......NONE. No evidence.