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

[DOC]

Isaiah 53 for one, which is supported by the historical person, Jesus.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=142542

And here are some others, with several supported by the historical person Jesus.

http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-reliability-bible

Got any that are evidenced by anything outside the bible.

Many claim Jesus is the fulfillment of Isaiah 53, And there is a lot of evidence for Jesus outside the bible:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4967314#post4967314

 

[paximperium]

Many claim Jesus is the fulfillment of Isaiah 53, And there is a lot of evidence for Jesus outside the bible:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4967314#post4967314

What do you call an argument using an "authority" that is not an authority but is despised for being incompetant and dishonest?

 

[wollery]

Many claim Jesus is the fulfillment of Isaiah 53, And there is a lot of evidence for Jesus outside the bible:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4967314#post4967314

I said evidence.

 

[Lothian]

Many claim Jesus is the fulfillment of Isaiah 53, And there is a lot of evidence for Jesus outside the bible:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4967314#post4967314

Let me give you some examples from Geisler's book (pg. 223) cited in post # 1 of this thread. All of the following facts were derived collectively from the 10 "Non-Christian" sources. These sources include such people as Josephus, Tacitus, Celsus etc.
...
8) Darkness and an earthquake occurred when he died.

Remember these are all facts that can be found in "Non-Christian" independent sources.

Can you provide me with evidence of this "fact" from a "Non-Christian" independent source.


Thanks

 

[arthwollipot]

No.

What a surprise.

 

[six7s]

What do you call an argument using an "authority" that is not an authority but is despised for being incompetant and dishonest?

InDOCtrination

 

[DOC]

(3) the current "unproven" life from non-life scientific theory.

(3) a liar, since you've been shown that this is not only wrong, but you've been shown it repeatedly so that you can only repeat this claim if you are willfully misrepresenting history.

There is no proof unicellular organisms such as bacteria came from non-living chemicals- none.

 

[DOC]

I said evidence.

And I just gave you 10 pieces of historical evidence for the life of Christ from non-Christian sources. Sorry they didn't have CNN or film back then. Or even newspapers since paper wasn't invented yet.

 

[paximperium]

There is no proof unicellular organisms such as bacteria came from non-living chemicals- none.

Besides being wrong, let's assume you are correct.
So? What's YOUR "theory" and how is that "proof" of anything?

 

[paximperium]

And I just gave you 10 pieces of historical evidence for the life of Christ from non-Christian sources. Sorry they didn't have CNN or film back then. Or even newspapers since paper wasn't invented yet.

So that's a continued no on evidence.

 

[wollery]

And I just gave you 10 pieces of historical evidence for the life of Christ from non-Christian sources. Sorry they didn't have CNN or film back then. Or even newspapers since paper wasn't invented yet.

Not one of them written within Jesus supposed lifetime, or by anyone who met him.

By any standard of evidence, that's nothing more than hearsay and rumour.

 

[AdinDraco]

There is no proof unicellular organisms such as bacteria came from non-living chemicals- none.

1. So? This is not proof of what it could have been since it's not a dichotomy.

2. Not necessarily true - there are many theories being developed and actual experiments showing amino acids forming from base conditions.

3. So? (again) If we never find out exactly how life began is not evidence for anything else (especially since that anything has no evidence).

This entire statement is irrelevant and non-evidence for anything, especially the OP.

 

[paximperium]

By any standard of evidence, that's nothing more than hearsay and rumour.

Bolded by me. I don't believe DOC understands those words.

 

[amb]

Isaiah 53 for one, which is supported by the historical person, Jesus.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=142542

And here are some others, with several supported by the historical person Jesus.

http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-reliability-bible

DOC, they may not have been an historical Jesus. Outside of the gospels, there is precious little evidence the man ever existed. If he did, he was no more than a fire and brimstone preacher just like John the Baptist who he may have been a pupil or follower of.
So please stop saying ''the historical Jesus.

 

[paximperium]

So please stop saying ''the historical Jesus.

Bolded by me. I don't think DOC understands that word.

 

[Hokulele]

Many claim Jesus is the fulfillment of Isaiah 53...

If they are claiming that, they are wrong.

As a native Hebrew speaker, who happened to have read the OT and NT through, I'd like to add something.

The prophecy in Isaiah 53 say "Hineh ha'alma hara ve'yoledet ben": "behold, the young woman will conceive and bear a son". It is often said, correctly, that the word "alma" (lit. "young unmarried woman") does not necessarily mean "virgin". But that isn't nearly the only problem.

From various untranslatable grammatical and contextual reasons in the original Hebrew, it is obvious the writing could only mean "someone who is a young woman now (at the time of the prophecy, ca. 600 BC or so) will in the future have a son, which..." (etc.); much like I could point to a six-year-old and say "she will be a good mother" if I see her taking care of her younger brother.

It does NOT, and COULD NOT, mean that, hundreds of years later, there will exist someone who would still be a virgin (or unmarried, for that matter) when she has a son, any more when I look at a six-year-old and saying, "This six year old will be a good mother", I could possibly mean that, hundreds of years from now, a miraculous child will exist who would be a good mother when she's six years old.

So the whole "does Alma mean virgin, or young unmarried woman?" discussion is besides the point. The whole prophecy could only refer to someone eventually born, in the normal way, to a woman who was a young unmarried woman, or a virgin, ca. 600 BC -- NOT to someone who will give birth, when still a virgin, hundreds of years later.

The whole Isaiah 53 thing is just the usual shoe-horning of vague prophecies into later events.

Okay, I may be new to DOC's apologetics, but how in the hell can one call prophecy that which is in the past tense? Not only is every verse of chapter 53 refering to attributes of the Jews who had maintained faith up to the point of Isaiah's writing, it is made abundantly clear that those Jews who at the time of Isaiah's writing had been faithful were the subjects of the verses in chapter 53.
Isaiah 51: 22, [this is god speaking],
. . . "Behold, I have taken from your hand the cup of staggering; the bowl of my wrath you shall drink no more. . . "

Really? After this no Jews ever faced any hardship or wrath?
Hell, even if it refers to Jesus (and it doesn't), it's still a great big lie.

Now, to get on track.
Here's a list of problems I see with the link you are trying to make.

1.) If Jesus does Fullfill Isaiah, where are his children?
Did Jesus do it with Mary?
2.) Why is the prophecy written in past tense?
3.) What kind of insane crazy person thinks that being born as a baby is unattractive?
4.) If he was "He was despised and rejected by men", why did Jesus have followers?
5.) If he was "Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not", why did he have followers?
6.) "he was led like a lamb to the slaughter," The Gospel account says otherwise. In fact, according to the story, Jesus knew full well why he was being killed. How can this be rectified?
7.) "and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth." And this too if false. The different gospels have jesus saying multiple things during his crusifiction. from "why have you forsaken me" to "Lord to your arms I commend my spirit." How do you explain this inconsistency?
8.) " though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth." This too is false. Jesus explained that the whole point of his parables were to keep others confused about his message.Matthew 13:11-15 That's rather deceitful, don't you think?
9.) "and he will divide the spoils with the strong". Yet, jesus said, "Blessed are the meek..." Seems that Jesus wasn't interested in the "strong". How can you explain this inconsistency without being blatantly dishonest in interpretations?
10.) "by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities". This is a very weird one. Why would God refer to Jesus as "his servant"? I though Jesus was his son/him? Stranger and stranger...

The metaphor also strongly implies the lamb was killed, Has the Jewish Nation ever been killed like Jesus was?

Are you kidding me? Do you know anything about Jewish history?


Have you bothered reading Isaiah, or did you pull this ridiculous argument off a website?

You do know that there are four songs of the servant of Yahweh and Iasiah 53 is simply the fourth?

Should we look at the others? How about the first?

Isaiah 42:

[1]
Behold my servant, whom I uphold,

my chosen, in whom my soul delights;
I have put my Spirit upon him,
he will bring forth justice to the nations.
[2] He will not cry or lift up his voice,
or make it heard in the street;
[3] a bruised reed he will not break,
and a dimly burning wick he will not quench;
he will faithfully bring forth justice.
[4] He will not fail or be discouraged
till he has established justice in the earth;
and the coastlands wait for his law.

Did Jesus not cry of lift up his voice? Or not make his voice heard in the street? Did he not fail until he had established justic in the earth?


Isaiah 42:

[18] Hear, you deaf;
and look, you blind, that you may see!
[19] Who is blind but my servant,
or deaf as my messenger whom I send?
Who is blind as my dedicated one,
or blind as the servant of the LORD?
[20] He sees many things, but does not observe them;
his ears are open, but he does not hear.

Jesus is blind and deaf? Really? Is that what you think?


You do realize that leading the blind to see and the deaf to hear is a frequent theme in Isaiah that the gospel writers stole?

Should we move on to the next song? It doesn't get any better.

DOC, in classic Old Testament prophecy, the history leading up to the issue is described, the issue is described, the required actions to correct the issue are described, then the expected punishment for failure to carry out those actions is described. Please explain how Isaiah fits this format and yet manages to support your point.

(Hint, it doesn't.)

 

[dafydd]

Doc believes evidence is anything that is in the bible.Isaiah got his name because one eye was 'igher than the other.

 

[Mojo]

There is no proof unicellular organisms such as bacteria came from non-living chemicals- none.

Isn't this a tad off-topic?

ETA: Using "tad" in the same sense as in Airplane II.

 

[DOC]

And I just gave you 10 pieces of historical evidence for the life of Christ from non-Christian sources. Sorry they didn't have CNN or film back then. Or even newspapers since paper wasn't invented yet.

So that's a continued no on evidence.

Historical evidence is evidence plain and simple.

 

[paximperium]

Historical evidence is evidence plain and simple.

Yes it is. So where was it again?
I don't believe anyone has seen you present any to support Jesus magic super duper powers.