Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

[wollery]

As a secular Jew, and a good friend of one of the world's foremost Talmudic scholars, let me just say, DOC, you are wrong, the vast majority of Jews know that the Jewish concept of the Messianic prophecies is that he would be a human king, and that Jesus failed to meet the criteria laid out in the Jewish prophecies.

Trying to claim anything else is just farcical.

 

[X]

Nothing, it just seemed odd to me that Hokulele, an atheist, should speak on how the Jews would disagree with me. She should let the Jews speak for themselves on how they feel about my posts. Then since she spoke in such a way I assumed she was raised Jewish. If she wasn't raised Jewish, then state so and let's move on. And why should me stating a fact that Sigmund Freud was godless and a Jew bother people. You have to seriously ask yourself that question.

I am an atheist, and do not belong to any religion However, I can say that with regard to Jesus' divinity:
- Sikhs would disagree with you.
- Hindus would disagree with you.
- Scientologists would disagree with you.
- Zoroastrians would disagree with you.
- Muslims would disagree with you.
- Rastafarians would disagree with you.
- Jainists would disagree with you.
- Confucianists would disagree with you.

Hokulele was simply stating a fact.
You tried using Jewish scripture as a prediction of Jesus, to show Jesus was divine.
Hokulele pointed out that Jews, who use that scripture, do not see it as evidence of Jesus' divinity.
She showed that your claim of evidence was unfounded, because it rested entirely on your preconceptions. And that other people, with different preconceptions, would not find it convincing at all.

In regards to your statement about Freud being a godless Jew; trhat wasn't what got people riled.
It was where you said Hokulele must be a godless Jew like Sigmund Freud.
It's the comparison to Freud, used as a dismissal of her very valid point.
And your continuing misrepresentation of what you said and what Hokulele's post actually said are very dishonest indeed.

ETA: Have you ever heard of "Jews for Jesus"

And your point is. . . . What, exactly?

 

[Ducky]

Well I am happy for your mom, but there are tons of single moms who have to work and take care of their kids (with very little help if any) which leaves very little time or energy for school. I would bet the majority of single moms struggle to try to go to college. I myself got pregnant before even thinking about college and I was a full time waitress for many years.

They also manage to finish college if they choose to.

Was your mom ever a single mom? Did she get her degree before she became a mother??

Irrelevant. But for your edification my mother got her masters and PhD while raising kids.

 

[Hokulele]

And your point is. . . . What, exactly?

Heh. Here is one Jewish response to the whole Jews for Jesus issue.

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/

 

[paximperium]

Irrelevant. But for your edification my mother got her masters and PhD while raising kids.

But that's soooooo hard. If you spent time in college, thinking and all that studying, KK would have to stop going to Church.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

No, I'm just pointing out that a least one former Jew has interpreted Isaiah 53 differently then the person above that came in here and said (without evidence) that the chapter is symbolic and refers to the Israelites.

What sort of evidence would you like?

That interpretation was Rashi's, not mine. Being versed in biblical matters I assume you know who Rashi is?

I sometimes attend Tanakh reading/interpretation at a local synagogue. I am not Jewish (actually I am Presbyterian by heritage), but my wife (a complete non-believer, by the way) is, so we started attending some of their services a while ago, but my real interest is in Jewish interpretation of scripture, not the services themselves. They have fantastic Sunday schools on a variety of topics.

I can put you in touch with the Rabbi, who could tell you directly many of the Jewish interpretations of that piece of scripture. Would you like me to do so? I have her e-mail right here. I could also put you in touch with Amy-Jill Levine who teaches at Vanderbilt. I've e-mailed her a few questions in the past and heard her talk on this very subject. Would you like to discuss it with her as well?

If you think for a second that there is only one Jewish interpretation, then I can only conclude that you have never spoken to any group of Jews.

Or let me ask you this: Would you really like to compare Tanakh interpretation of Rashi against that of Jay Sekulow? I mean, really?


ETA:

Oh, and sorry, but just let me add -- you are evading the original question with all this. You seemed to be claiming that there was support not for Jesus as Messiah in prior scripture, but that Jesus was divine. The suffering servant passages in Isaiah don't even refer to the Messiah (unless one wants to define Messiah in a Markan sense -- as one who must suffer and die) as most Jews viewed him (and most Jews at the time probably didn't even think in terms of a Messiah). There is not a smidge of evidence in that passage --even if you wanted to believe that it prophesied the coming of Jesus (which it doesn't) -- that Jesus was divine. There is simply nothing there about divinity.

Oh, and if it was known that Isaiah 53 referred to the coming Messiah, would you care to explain Peter's repsonse to Jesus when Jesus told him that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer and die? I mean, Peter had just confirmed that he knew Jesus was the Messiah. So, if it was known that Isaiah 53 referred to the Messiah, how is it that Peter did not know that Jesus had to suffer and die?

 

[DOC]

Thomas Jefferson.

I've already talked about this in the Jefferson thread but since you brought him up I'll just repeat it:

I know Jefferson wasn't a mainline Christian, but he thought of himself as a Christian if we are to believe his own words. Jefferson was speaking intellectually about Christ's overall teachings. Jefferson had a bias about the supernatural. From memory Jefferson basically said Christ never considered himself more than just a prophet or teacher. Jefferson would be wrong about this since according to the bible Christ said he existed before Abraham and Issac.

Also Jesus claimed or implied he was the Christ or the Messiah in all 4 gospels. Jefferson would be wrong to conclude that Jesus just thought of himself as a prophet or teacher according to the gospels.

ETA: But the fact that Jefferson didn't think Jesus was divine didn't keep him from attending Church almost every Sunday for seven years while president as I mentioned in the Jefferson thread.

ETA: And it also didn't keep him from spending the time and energy to cut out 990 verses of the bible and put them in a booklet with 83 pages.

 

[Hokulele]

Which is all completely in agreement with my point. There are/were Christians who do not/did not believe in Jesus' divinity. Thank you.

 

[Simon39759]

Also Jesus claimed or implied he was the Christ or the Messiah in all 4 gospels. Jefferson would be wrong to conclude that Jesus just thought of himself as a prophet or teacher according to the gospels.

How many repetitions of this statement does it requires to make to make it true?

 

[joobz]

But the fact that Jefferson didn't think Jesus was divine ...

So at least you admit the truth.

ETA: And it also didn't keep him from spending the time and energy to cut out 990 verses of the bible and put them in a booklet with 83 pages.

True. He did spend hours and hours fixing the bible. He thought it was extremely important that people didn't believe in nonsense like Jesus being divine, resurrecting, turning water into wine, walking on water and all of the other silly stuff you seem to think is real.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I've already talked about this in the Jefferson thread but since you brought him up I'll just repeat it:

I know Jefferson wasn't a mainline Christian, but he thought of himself as a Christian if we are to believe his own words. Jefferson was speaking intellectually about Christ's overall teachings. Jefferson had a bias about the supernatural. From memory Jefferson basically said Christ never considered himself more than just a prophet or teacher. Jefferson would be wrong about this since according to the bible Christ said he existed before Abraham and Issac.

Also Jesus claimed or implied he was the Christ or the Messiah in all 4 gospels. Jefferson would be wrong to conclude that Jesus just thought of himself as a prophet or teacher according to the gospels.

ETA: But the fact that Jefferson didn't think Jesus was divine didn't keep him from attending Church almost every Sunday for seven years while president as I mentioned in the Jefferson thread.

ETA: And it also didn't keep him from spending the time and energy to cut out 990 verses of the bible and put them in a booklet with 83 pages.

Jefferson thought of himself as a cultural Christian. He was not a believer in Jesus' divinity.

There are plenty of cultural Jews who do not attend services. Some do attend services and still do not believe in the existence of God.

Arguing that Thomas Jefferson was a believer (which is what most mean when they say Christian) is ignorant. Completely ignorant.

 

[temporalillusion]

Not to mention that Pat Robertson is a false prophet so I'd be wary of his authority and those who choose to be around him.

As to Christians who do not believe Jesus was divine, early church writings show there were groups who thought Jesus was fully human, and you can even see how some NT scriptures were changed over time to combat this view.

 

[DOC]

And it also didn't keep him {Thomas Jefferson} from spending the time and energy to cut out 990 verses of the bible and put them in a booklet with 83 pages.

True. He did spend hours and hours fixing the bible. He thought it was extremely important that people didn't believe in nonsense like Jesus being divine, resurrecting, turning water into wine, walking on water and all of the other silly stuff you seem to think is real.

Of course, this is false; if he thought it was extremely important that people not believe in such things he never would have been a habitual church goer for seven years while president and he never would have given money for the construction of churches in Virginia as both were pointed out in my "Thomas Jefferson's admiration and financial support of Christianity" thread. Jefferson seemed to practice what some call Cafeteria Christianity: I'll take a little of this and a little of that.

 

[DOC]

Arguing that Thomas Jefferson was a believer (which is what most mean when they say Christian) is ignorant. Completely ignorant.

Well, I never said Jefferson believed Christ was divine, or he was a mainline Christian. But he did think of himself as a Christian. He was also very turned off by the clergy of his day, and he probably had some justification for that.

 

[DOC]

As to Christians who do not believe Jesus was divine, early church writings show there were groups who thought Jesus was fully human, and you can even see how some NT scriptures were changed over time to combat this view.

I assume you mean the "theory" that a small portion at the end of "one" gospel (Mark) was added. Even if this theory about one gospel is true, it doesn't mean the portion was added to combat any alleged view that Christ was human -- it simply could have been added to give additional information that the copyist thought would more fully describe what they knew
actually happened.

And even it this theory is true, there is good evidence that Christian churches were already in existence as far away as Rome and Cornith, and people were dying proclaiming Christ before this theorized small addition even could have occurred.

 

[wollery]

I assume you mean the "theory" that a small portion at the end of "one" gospel (Mark) was added. Even if this theory about one gospel is true, it doesn't mean the portion was added to combat any alleged view that Christ was human -- it simply could have been added to give additional information that the copyist thought would more fully describe what they knew actually happened.

And even it this theory is true, there is good evidence that Christian churches were already in existence as far away as Rome and Cornith, and people were dying proclaiming Christ before this theorized small addition even could have occurred.

Bolding mine.

Really? How did a copyist several decades (at least) after the fact know what actually happened?

 

[paximperium]

Bolding mine.

Really? How did a copyist several decades (at least) after the fact know what actually happened?

Well DOC has claimed that god reveals information even hundreds of years later so causal chains of evidence or even eyewitnesses are not needed, just "revealed truth".

Which begs the question of why is he even bothering to argue that"evidence for why the New Testament writer's told the truth." He might as well claimed that all the gospels are true because they are true...oh wait, he has done that before; nevermind.

 

[six7s]

all the gospels are true because they are true

Are they? Oh... OK... Well, yes, that makes as much sense as anything else, I s'pose

Thread closed, huh?

DOC, you win!

 

[six7s]

How did a copyist several decades (at least) after the fact know what actually happened?

Do I get $US1M if you don't get an honest answer?

 

[joobz]

Of course, this is false;

Nope.

The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.

The parts he removed were the parts he called "Dunghills" THings like Jesus resurrecting from the dead, turning water to wine, walking on water.... Really, anything that the christian faith relies on.

ETA:

Jefferson seemed to practice what some call Cafeteria Christianity: I'll take a little of this and a little of that.

Yup: He took the philosophy and left the magic. He took the diamonds and left the dunghills.
Dunghills=crap.
Jefferson called the ressurection a load of crap!