Argument for God's existence.

[Ed1wolf]

You obviously don’t know how to use a dictionary. From the same source:

1. • direct the motion or positioning of (something).
     "the groove in the needle guides the thread"
2. 2.
   direct or have an influence on the course of action of (someone or something).

Natural selection obviously has a direct influence on the changes that occur within a population over time. So it is in fact perfectly reasonable to describe selective pressures as the guide for evolution. You can’t just ignore specific uses of a word because they’re inconvenient for your argument.

I am talking about big picture guidance. The environment guides natural selection, and nothing guides the environment if there is no God. So again ultimately evolution is unguided.

ga: Great. Now demonstrate how this system couldn’t have evolved from a slightly simpler system, which itself evolved from a simpler system, which itself evolved from an even simpler system, which... etc. You’d be the first to do so.

No, since you are the one that believes in it, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how it could have evolved from simple to complex especially given that even trilobite eyes are just as complex as modern insects.

ga: I’ll reiterate: you don’t understand evolution. At least read up on what it actually is before you go around arguing that it’s impossible. There’s no shortage of books and online resources to help you with this. You’re completely without excuse.

I do understand evolution I have studied it for over 30 years. And I didn't say it was impossible, only extremely unlikely.

 

[gaara4158]

I am talking about big picture guidance. The environment guides natural selection, and nothing guides the environment if there is no God. So again ultimately evolution is unguided.

That’s nonsense. If you’re going to say that, I’ll just turn around and say if there is a God guiding the environment, there’s nothing guiding God so ultimately even with a god everything is unguided.

In reality, the environment is guided by natural forces like physics and chemistry.

No, since you are the one that believes in it, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how it could have evolved from simple to complex especially given that even trilobite eyes are just as complex as modern insects.

Not how this works. You’re claiming it’s impossible, so you’re the one with some explaining to do. But if you’re truly interested in how it could have evolved, there is no shortage of scientific literature exploring the topic. I would encourage you to look into that rather than continually demand a bunch of laymen explain it to you.

I do understand evolution I have studied it for over 30 years. And I didn't say it was impossible, only extremely unlikely.

Of course it’s unlikely. But there’s so much evidence for it, it’s actually the most likely explanation for biodiversity on Earth. And if you studied evolution for 30 years, it must have been entirely from sources that don’t actually support it because you’re seemingly unaware of some very basic concepts in evolution you should have learned on day 1. I’d hate to think you studied something in earnest from reputable sources and came out with this botched an understanding of it. That would be horrific.

 

[HitchSlap]

No, it LOOKS like reality supports the Christian Worldview.

Well, if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

 

[Ed1wolf]

I'm not going to sift through literally 100's of posts to squabble over details. Moving forward, I want to take a differing approach...

1. If macroevolution was demonstrated 'true', to your satisfaction, would you feel you have no choice but to then denounce Christianity?

For me, this is not the only reason I now harbor doubt. There exists other reasons; but it sure was a crushing blow for starters.... And as you just stated, demonstration in macroevolution may not sway your faith anyways. And if this is so, then there may exist no reason to address macroevolution any further; as this is a debate arena. And to debate topics, which carry no possible swaying merit, if successfully disputed, appears/seems fruitless moving forward.

No, it would not cause me to denounce Christianity, as I stated earlier, disproving the BB theory could probably disprove Christianity. I would be glad to debate evolution if you want.

cv: If such is the case, then please disregard question/point number 2...

2. You stated 'God could very well have created humans using that method'. Thus, I ask...

Under evolutionary theory, 'Adam' would still have parents, and would not be 'created'.

No, he would still be created in an ultimate sense if God used super-natural selection processes rather than purely natural selection. IOW God guided evolution to create homo sapiens.

cv: Furthermore, The Bible states Adam was 'created' first, then Eve. The Bible states God used 'parts' from Adam to 'make' Eve. Furthermore, this seems to present a claim, in direct opposition to the later discovery of 'mtEve'? Since you claim to know quite a bit about evolutionary theory, and since this thread is to demonstrate the existence for a God, maybe you could enlighten all of us as to how God would have made (this) process work (evolution)? But I will tell you, seems as though you are going to need to jump through a great many hoops to make this 'claim' fit such a profile....

See above about super natural selection. God could have used a specific gene from the first male human to produce the first female homo sapiens. Maybe all the other males prior to him had to mate with Neanderthals or something similar.

 

[cvanwey]

No, it would not cause me to denounce Christianity,

Then there appears no need to discuss this topic any further.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Again, if you are of the notion that evolutionary theory does not lend credence to your argument for God, one way or another, then disregard all below...

You might want to re-read my related response again:

"Example in animals: A cat hears a noise and runs, but it was just a glass falling to the ground.

My point being species with the cognitive ability to infer danger, or even intention, seem to do so. And it helps many survive. And the ones that do so, flourish, while the ones which don't, have a high tendency to die off.

And of course intentional agency is not the ONLY reason species can/will survive. However, the ones that invoke agency thrive, while the ones that don't, not-so-much..."

This can even be said for the common 'house fly.' Avoiding perceived on-coming danger preserves life. The ones that don't, more likely die off.

It demonstrates evolution by natural selection....

Google:

"The mechanism that Darwin proposed for evolution is natural selection. Because resources are limited in nature, organisms with heritable traits that favor survival and reproduction will tend to leave more offspring than their peers, causing the traits to increase in frequency over generations."

Furthermore, The Bible leaves no mention of bacteria. So I will not address 'bacteria.'

Yes some animals though relatively small population animals, like intelligent mammals, excepting humans are able to infer intention. House flies dont PERCEIVE danger, they just unthinkingly or instinctively react to certain stimuli that allows them to avoid death and they thrive far more than humans. And they definitely cannot infer intention. I never claimed that the bible directly references bacteria, though indirectly when it refers to crawling creatures on the earth, I mentioned bacteria because they are the most thriving creature on the planet and yet they cannot perceive danger or intention. So this plainly is a problem for evolution and natural selection since given that huge success of bacteria it is unlikely that it would select for the ability to infer intention. In fact, it is unlikely that that natural selection would select the mind to discover truth, but rather just to discover things that help the mind to survive. So how can you determine truth with a mind produced by random processes and selected only for survival?

 

[cvanwey]

Yes some animals though relatively small population animals, like intelligent mammals, excepting humans are able to infer intention. House flies dont PERCEIVE danger, they just unthinkingly or instinctively react to certain stimuli that allows them to avoid death and they thrive far more than humans. And they definitely cannot infer intention. I never claimed that the bible directly references bacteria, though indirectly when it refers to crawling creatures on the earth, I mentioned bacteria because they are the most thriving creature on the planet and yet they cannot perceive danger or intention. So this plainly is a problem for evolution and natural selection since given that huge success of bacteria it is unlikely that it would select for the ability to infer intention. In fact, it is unlikely that that natural selection would select the mind to discover truth, but rather just to discover things that help the mind to survive. So how can you determine truth with a mind produced by random processes and selected only for survival?

Post #2165

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
There are many extrabiblical sources that refer to many things in the bible including the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the most important event in human history.

cv: Please provide such claimed 'extra-Biblical' sources for Christ's 'resurrection'?

The Arabic version of Josephus which most scholars agree is probably the most accurate. One of the strongest is the ancient pre-NT creed that Paul quotes in I Corinthians 15:3-7, which many non Christian scholars believe was composed only 3-5 years after Christ's death and resurrection. There is also James' martyrdom because of his belief in the resurrection that is recorded in Josephus, Hegesippus, and Clement of Alexandria. James would have been unlikely to die for something he knew was not true.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
There will be no end until Christ returns to earth, because most humans do not want the Christian God to exist. So there will always being those trying to rationalize Him away

cv: I'm not one of them... I tried to believe in Him for decades. But after reading the Bible's claims, verses human discovery, I later had no choice but to have much doubt, to say the least.

Did you have a biblical view of God, and not just your pre-supposed expectations? IOW did you have a completely open mind to what God could be like and not some false expectations, such as that He will answer every prayer the way you wanted Him to answer them?

cv: I now honestly think He doesn't exist postmortem? Hence, why humans will never truly see any such 'second coming.' Do you have any evidence of His continued existence; which might actually convince me of His mere continued presence beyond any natural human death?

Besides the historical evidence mentioned above, millions still claim to have a personal relationship with Him that occurs everyday. And that He has done many good things for them. Such as He has healed many people I have prayed for.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
He does not provide overwhelming evidence for Himself because He wants people to exercise faith and trust and utilize their free will.

cv: This response appears bogus. The Bible presents many 'events' where He clearly demonstrated His existence. I just now doubt such events of the supernatural were indeed 'factual.'

The resurrection is one of the most historically backed events that have occurred especially compared to other 2000 year old events. The documentary evidence for Christ's resurrection is less than 5 years after the event while the documentary evidence for the Gallic Wars is more 900 years after the events.

cv: However, even if God presented to me perfect knowledge of His mere existence, there might be just as much of a chance that I would decide to reject His presented offering, verses accept it.... Knowledge of His existence does not appear to ruin freewill.

You mean if He proved that He existed to you with 100% certainty, you would still not believe He exists? That is very strange and very unlikely for the rest of humanity. For most humans if that occurred they would immediately believe in Him without a doubt, thereby not allowing for faith. And only faith can provide spiritual growth which is one of His main purposes for the universe because faith is what will destroy evil forever which is His primary purpose for creating the universe.

 

[cvanwey]

The Arabic version of Josephus which most scholars agree is probably the most accurate. One of the strongest is the ancient pre-NT creed that Paul quotes in I Corinthians 15:3-7, which many non Christian scholars believe was composed only 3-5 years after Christ's death and resurrection.

Josephus is an interesting claimed source for the Bible. Many decades after Jesus' apparent death, Josephus wrote a piece entitled Tesimonium Flavianum. When this writing was first published, no mention of Jesus Christ was present. During these times, copy machines did not exist. So the arduous task existed for scribes to recopy previous written works over and over to preserve these texts. About 200 years after the original publication, an additional paragraph was added to Josephus's piece later classified as the 'golden paragraph.' It appeared to mention some minor specifics about a miraculous man people were following.

What is actually quite comical, is that believers will use this as evidence for Jesus Christ in some way? I've heard many cite 'Josephus' specifically. But without using much thought, one can quickly see the flaws in such attempted justification. Below are some, which are undisputed by anyone; including the many I've presented as such:

1) This piece does not even discuss a resurrection in any way.
2) The 'golden paragraph' was demonstrated to not appear until centuries after the original publication, indicating additions made by a later re-copiest. So basically, a forgery.
3) The piece was merely reports of what others claimed, and is nothing more than reporting what other people believed.
4) When one looks at the 'golden paragraph', it's literary style looks to not match any of the other text within the same book.

Why would anyone attempt to use such a writer in support of a resurrection? This appears nonsensical at best.

There is also James' martyrdom because of his belief in the resurrection that is recorded in Josephus, Hegesippus, and Clement of Alexandria. James would have been unlikely to die for something he knew was not true.

People die for probable untrue beliefs all the time. Look into history...

Did you have a biblical view of God, and not just your pre-supposed expectations? IOW did you have a completely open mind to what God could be like and not some false expectations, such as that He will answer every prayer the way you wanted Him to answer them?

Yes

Besides the historical evidence mentioned above, millions still claim to have a personal relationship with Him that occurs everyday. And that He has done many good things for them. Such as He has healed many people I have prayed for.

So do millions, invoking alternative belief systems. So?

The resurrection is one of the most historically backed events that have occurred especially compared to other 2000 year old events. The documentary evidence for Christ's resurrection is less than 5 years after the event while the documentary evidence for the Gallic Wars is more 900 years after the events.

You cannot use the Bible to prove the Bible. The 'church' crafted what we know today as the Bible. This proves a bias. Furthermore, as demonstrated above, the Josephus attempt proves to be a probable forgery. Please try again...

And I'm not disputing there was a man, or men, claiming to be the Messiah. Only the resurrection.... Because this is the only part which counts.... As Christians state and point out, time and time again:

"And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is worthless, and so is your faith."

You mean if He proved that He existed to you with 100% certainty, you would still not believe He exists? That is very strange and very unlikely for the rest of humanity.

No. I'm stating that KNOWING He exists does not ruin my freewill to follow (or) reject Him. But as it stands, I doubt mere existence of a postmortem Jesus. Thus, if I doubt He exists now, then accepting or rejecting His request becomes a mute point, right?

For most humans if that occurred they would immediately believe in Him without a doubt, thereby not allowing for faith. And only faith can provide spiritual growth which is one of His main purposes for the universe because faith is what will destroy evil forever which is His primary purpose for creating the universe.

But above, you stated: "millions still claim to have a personal relationship with Him that occurs everyday."

Following this logic, then He should never reveal Himself to anyone. Millions/billions are without 'faith' by God's choice. Furthermore, He would not have presented 2000+ years ago, and also in the OT.

My point is that presenting evidence of His mere existence does not appear to infringe upon your freewill in any way. So why play hide-and-seek with me, a person whom genuinely sought after Him for decades?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, it LOOKS like reality supports the Christian Worldview.

hs: Well, if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

And if all you are is atoms, then reality is nothing.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
I am talking about big picture guidance. The environment guides natural selection, and nothing guides the environment if there is no God. So again ultimately evolution is unguided.

ga: That’s nonsense. If you’re going to say that, I’ll just turn around and say if there is a God guiding the environment, there’s nothing guiding God so ultimately even with a god everything is unguided.

I am referring to the type of guiding that directs toward a goal. Since God is a person and has a will and is guided by His own will, He can guide things toward a goal and plainly is not unguided. Only persons can guide things toward goals. The environment is random and unguided in that sense, it is not working toward any goal.

ga: In reality, the environment is guided by natural forces like physics and chemistry.

No, see above. With your definition there is no difference between a guided missile and an unguided missile, they are BOTH guided, which of course is absurd. The laws of physics and chemistry are impersonal forces therefore cannot guide toward a specific goal, so that is why we say they are unguided. No scientist believes that they can guide things toward a specific goal.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, since you are the one that believes in it, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how it could have evolved from simple to complex especially given that even trilobite eyes are just as complex as modern insects.

ga: Not how this works. You’re claiming it’s impossible, so you’re the one with some explaining to do. But if you’re truly interested in how it could have evolved, there is no shortage of scientific literature exploring the topic. I would encourage you to look into that rather than continually demand a bunch of laymen explain it to you.

No, just like proving God you are the one claiming that something exists, ie a step by step process, so the burden is on you to provide evidence for its existence, I dont believe it exists so just like an atheist I dont have to prove a negative. And I have read much of the scientific literature on it and none of it can provide a realistic and adequate gradual step by step process where every step would be functional, and such as why trilobite type eyes have not evolved at all in 650 million years.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
I do understand evolution I have studied it for over 30 years. And I didn't say it was impossible, only extremely unlikely.

ga: Of course it’s unlikely. But there’s so much evidence for it, it’s actually the most likely explanation for biodiversity on Earth. And if you studied evolution for 30 years, it must have been entirely from sources that don’t actually support it because you’re seemingly unaware of some very basic concepts in evolution you should have learned on day 1. I’d hate to think you studied something in earnest from reputable sources and came out with this botched an understanding of it. That would be horrific.

No, the first 20 years were from the academic establishment the second 15 years was on my own and listening to biologists and scientists from both sides.

 

[gaara4158]

I am referring to the type of guiding that directs toward a goal. Since God is a person and has a will and is guided by His own will, He can guide things toward a goal and plainly is not unguided. Only persons can guide things toward goals. The environment is random and unguided in that sense, it is not working toward any goal.

Evolution has no goal. That’s fine.

 

[gaara4158]

No, just like proving God you are the one claiming that something exists, ie a step by step process, so the burden is on you to provide evidence for its existence, I dont believe it exists so just like an atheist I dont have to prove a negative. And I have read much of the scientific literature on it and none of it can provide a realistic and adequate gradual step by step process where every step would be functional, and such as why trilobite type eyes have not evolved at all in 650 million years.

It doesn’t matter if we can or can’t trace the exact succession of incremental changes that took place to form a modern human eye. All the evidence suggests that it indeed happened. Unless you can point to a structure in the eye that you can prove couldn’t have formed naturally, you haven’t presented anything that challenges evolution. I assume you’re wanting to challenge evolution with this line of argumentation, correct?

No, the first 20 years were from the academic establishment the second 15 years was on my own and listening to biologists and scientists from both sides.

There aren’t two sides on evolution in the scientific community. It is fundamental to the study of biology. You have been listening to pseudoscience and religious propaganda from the side opposing evolution.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Then there appears no need to discuss this topic any further.

Why? Is that the only reason want to discuss the topic, just to make me want to denounce Christianity? Dont you ever want to discuss things just to learn what other people believe and why?

 

[Silmarien]

The resurrection is one of the most historically backed events that have occurred especially compared to other 2000 year old events. The documentary evidence for Christ's resurrection is less than 5 years after the event while the documentary evidence for the Gallic Wars is more 900 years after the events.

What are you talking about? We have the Commentāriī dē Bellō Gallicō, a firsthand account of the Gallic Wars by Julius Caesar himself. That didn't happen 900 years later.

 

[HitchSlap]

And if all you are is atoms, then reality is nothing.

I disagree. In fact, reality is everything.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
The Arabic version of Josephus which most scholars agree is probably the most accurate. One of the strongest is the ancient pre-NT creed that Paul quotes in I Corinthians 15:3-7, which many non Christian scholars believe was composed only 3-5 years after Christ's death and resurrection.


cv: Josephus is an interesting claimed source for the Bible. Many decades after Jesus' apparent death, Josephus wrote a piece entitled Tesimonium Flavianum. When this writing was first published, no mention of Jesus Christ was present. During these times, copy machines did not exist. So the arduous task existed for scribes to recopy previous written works over and over to preserve these texts. About 200 years after the original publication, an additional paragraph was added to Josephus's piece later classified as the 'golden paragraph.' It appeared to mention some minor specifics about a miraculous man people were following.

Please provide ONE mainstream scholar that believes that the entire text was added 200 years later. When was the section about His brother James added and what mainstream scholar claims that? James, who was initially a skeptic, died because he believed that Christ rose from the dead. That is more evidence for His resurrection. I notice you did not even deal with the Pre-NT creed which is even stronger evidence for His resurrection than Josephus.

cv: What is actually quite comical, is that believers will use this as evidence for Jesus Christ in some way? I've heard many cite 'Josephus' specifically. But without using much thought, one can quickly see the flaws in such attempted justification. Below are some, which are undisputed by anyone; including the many I've presented as such:

1) This piece does not even discuss a resurrection in any way.

I was primarily referring to the section about James who became convinced of the resurrection and died for belief in it. And no one disputes the James section of Josephus. In addition, the Jesus section refers to Him being crucified, and yet His religion still lived on according to the undisputed part of the text which implies that something major happened which other sources state was a resurrection.

cv: 2) The 'golden paragraph' was demonstrated to not appear until centuries after the original publication, indicating additions made by a later re-copiest. So basically, a forgery.

Again, name one mainstream scholar that believes the entire paragraph was added. Even if you can, the majority do not. Some believe that parts of it were added later but not the gist of it. And it is found in the oldest extant copies.

cv: 3) The piece was merely reports of what others claimed, and is nothing more than reporting what other people believed.

You do know that that is what 90% of history is dont you? And since Josephus was written around 95 AD there were probably still a few eyewitnesses alive.

cv: 4) When one looks at the 'golden paragraph', it's literary style looks to not match any of the other text within the same book.

No, it occurs in the oldest copies.

cv: Why would anyone attempt to use such a writer in support of a resurrection? This appears nonsensical at best.

See above.

 

[cvanwey]

Why? Is that the only reason want to discuss the topic, just to make me want to denounce Christianity?

Because the OP pertains to the 'argument for the existence of God". If evolution does not seem to argue for or against it, then we are steering too far away from the topic.

Dont you ever want to discuss things just to learn what other people believe and why?

Sure. But in this thread, I'm looking for arguments (you) believe which argue (for) the existence of a God. And if evolution is not in direct relation to this OP, then it's safe to move forward and/or on...

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
There is also James' martyrdom because of his belief in the resurrection that is recorded in Josephus, Hegesippus, and Clement of Alexandria. James would have been unlikely to die for something he knew was not true.

cv: People die for probable untrue beliefs all the time. Look into history...

Yes, but not knowingly. And as Jesus' brother and a skeptic while Jesus was alive, he would more than most know the real truth of whether Jesus rose from the dead. Notice how in the "Elvis is still alive believers", NONE are relatives of Elvis.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Did you have a biblical view of God, and not just your pre-supposed expectations? IOW did you have a completely open mind to what God could be like and not some false expectations, such as that He will answer every prayer the way you wanted Him to answer them?

cv: Yes

Then you are one of the few atheists I have talked to where that is the case.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Besides the historical evidence mentioned above, millions still claim to have a personal relationship with Him that occurs everyday. And that He has done many good things for them. Such as He has healed many people I have prayed for.

cv: So do millions, invoking alternative belief systems. So?

Name another major religion where the founder was killed and then rose from the dead and people believe they are communicating with that founder.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
The resurrection is one of the most historically backed events that have occurred especially compared to other 2000 year old events. The documentary evidence for Christ's resurrection is less than 5 years after the event while the documentary evidence for the Gallic Wars is more 900 years after the events.

cv: You cannot use the Bible to prove the Bible. The 'church' crafted what we know today as the Bible. This proves a bias. Furthermore, as demonstrated above, the Josephus attempt proves to be a probable forgery. Please try again...

Who would you want to write your biography and you think would be most accurate? I bet you would say your family and friends. Well they are the ones that wrote about Jesus, therefore it is most likely to be the most accurate. Not some stranger that never knew you. And there is no evidence that the bible has had any major editing since the originals were written. So there was no "crafting' by the church. See my earlier post about Josephus being a forgery, only few extreme skeptics believe that. Most scholars do not believe that.

cv: And I'm not disputing there was a man, or men, claiming to be the Messiah. Only the resurrection.... Because this is the only part which counts.... As Christians state and point out, time and time again:

"And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is worthless, and so is your faith."

Yes that is correct and it is one the most historically well supported events in the Bible.

 

[cvanwey]

Please provide ONE mainstream scholar that believes that the entire text was added 200 years later.

Richard Carrier :0 You asked for one. I gave one. All kidding aside...

I stated text was added. And in this case, it was...

https://www.history.com/news/was-jesus-real-historical-evidence

"Mykytiuk agrees with most scholars that Christian scribes modified portions of the passage"

Anything added, after the fact, is essentially a forgery or mock up; as it was not written by Josephus. In this case, such was done so to 'validate' 'Jesus'. And now, Christians, including you, now want to use it for the exact intended purpose you are presenting... See below.

James, who was initially a skeptic, died because he believed that Christ rose from the dead. That is more evidence for His resurrection.

I've always found these martyrdom rationales fascinating...

-- Once convicted, it would not matter if he was lying, telling the truth, or fabricating his prior statements, he would still be executed. The story could still be told that he was killed for believing, even if he really didn't. Someone could have overheard him saying something, and tell authority, and he's punished regardless. People were killed for 'believing', or even thought to believe in the 'incorrect' thing; even when they didn't. Today, it still exists in more primitive areas. And it's fair to say these times were more 'primitive'...

-- If dying for a cause were the measure of veracity, then radical Muslim extremists are the clear winners.

I notice you did not even deal with the Pre-NT creed which is even stronger evidence for His resurrection than Josephus.

I haven't yet tried.... Once you admit that the Josephus document has been altered, in a direct attempt to substantiate Jesus, we can then proceed. But until then, we have documentation, where most scholars agree that such documentation was later altered, by CHRISTIANS, to 'prove' Jesus's validity.

Again, name one mainstream scholar that believes the entire paragraph was added.

I did.

Even if you can, the majority do not.

False, as seen above. Christians modified the document to taste. Please reconcile this conclusion, just as the historians have...

The rest of your argument, thus far, becomes a mute point.

Furthermore, the 'Josephus' passage is pivotal... If the Jesus story was already strong, on it's own, Christians would not find it necessary to use Josephus to 'validate' external sources for His actions. Furthermore, Christians would not have felt it necessary to add specific words to the writings of Josephus to 'strengthen' their beliefs. And it would not be one of your 'go-to' pieces of 'evidence'.