• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hokulele said:
Thanks for answering. Your answer hinges on the actual existence of flying saucers, and that that is what was seen (known as begging the question). In other words, since the existence of flying saucers is under scrutiny, it cannot be stated as fact that flying saucers were what were seen. You seem to understand this with your parenthetical comment regarding claims versus reality.

If you were to have said that one could not assume that it was truly a flying saucer seen by those people (weather balloons, anyone? ;)), that would avoid a conclusion based on false premises.

This is basically the logical flaw in the OP, as was pointed out all the way back in post #3. This entire thread is based on a false premise and is essentially a 200 page example of begging the question and circular reasoning (using the premise to prove the premise). I posted a section of Geisler's book referenced in the OP somewhere in the first 10 pages or so (I can dig up a link if you would like), and it was a classic example of circular reasoning.
Click to expand...

Ah, I think I see what you were asking. I went down a slightly different route because I was assuming that it wasn't necessarily a flying saucer and was concentrating on a completely different question, that is, what the claims were. In retrospect I went completely past what (in hindsight) was the obvious problem and went for something I perceived as a more subtle distinction and possibly handed the claimants an assumption that I shouldn't have. Thank you for the exercise - I'm still trying to get the basic fallacies straight in my mind and the subtler aspects can still make my head hurt. :)
 
DOC said:
You probably mean the Jewish Talmud as a source for Jesus.

Here is what the Jewish Talmud says from the article:

The Historical Jesus -- Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ
Select chapters by Gary R. Habermas
Click to expand...

The article is wrong. The Talmud does not reference Jesus at all.
 
DOC said:
There is No Proof that Life came from Non-life {or in other words from non-living chemicals}. There are only theories.
Click to expand...
So, we have people who believe that live can’t come from non-living chemicals, they say that there is a need for a so-called god for that to happen. They think that it is too hard, too complicated for life to come about on its own. So their simple answer to life is a so-called god. But if life is too complex to happen, how do they explain how that so-called god came into being, well that a simple answer too, I always was. Now they can believe in that simple answer and they see no flaw in it. Something has to be more complex when what it makes, a human is way more complex than anything it has made so far, and so this so-called god of theirs would have to be way more complex than life and humans that it made. And it came into being a finish produce, and that is not a problem with them. Well they don’t even what to learn how it could happen without a so-called god, because that would take a lot of time, a lot of study and a lot of thought, it is easier for them just to think on a simple level, and too have a universe that is simple too, it is so easy, no thought required and all you need is a book to point to.

And Doc, look up what a Scientific Theory means before you talk about it.

Paul


:) :) :)
 
Last edited:
Cleon said:
The article is wrong. The Talmud does not reference Jesus at all.
Click to expand...
Surely DOC has not been repeating the words of another without checking the veracity of the article? I am amazed.
 
DOC said:
"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, “He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward ad plead on his behalf.” But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!(39)
Click to expand...

OK, so we go from stoning to hanging, neither of which supports the NT writers. OK, so Galatians says hanging - the rest doesn't. And even if you neglect that, there's still a glaring problem. My bible-fu may be rusty, but I'm damned if I can remember a 40-day hiatus in the execution process mentioned in any of the gospels.

And if the herald went out before he was arrested, this causes even more problems. I know that the story goes that Jesus knew he was going to be arrested, but according to this account, everyone would have known for many weeks. I can just imagine him standing in Gethsemane when the crowd arrives; "You guys took your :rule10ing time..."

DOC said:
Here we have another brief account of the death of Jesus. These two references to Jesus being “hanged” certainly provide an interesting term to describe his death. But it should be noted that the New Testament speaks of crucifixion in the same way. Jesus is said to have been “hanged” (Greek kremámenos in Gal. 3:13)...

From this passage in the Talmud we learn about (1) the fact of Jesus’ death by crucifixion and (2) the time of this event, which is mentioned twice as occurring on the eve of the Jewish Passover. We are surprisingly told (3) that for forty days beforehand it was publicly announced that Jesus would be stoned. While not specifically recorded in the New Testament, such is certainly consistent with both Jewish practice and with the report that this had also been threatened on at least two other occasions (John 8:58 59; 10:31 33, 39). It is related (4) that Jesus was judged by the Jews to be guilty of “sorcery” and spiritual apostasy in leading Israel astray by his teaching..."
Click to expand...

"Not specifically recorded?". How can you miss a detail like this in all four gospels?

And why do you believe this supports your position in the slightest?
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, “He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward ad plead on his behalf.” But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!(39)
Click to expand...
Um.... You know that the gospels have Jesus being crucified ON passover. not the day before, right?

Also, the Yeshu lived ~100 years before jesus' time.
John Hyrcanus was a successful king and soldier. During a banquet celebrating his victories in 93 BCE, some Pharisee rabbis offended him and he was convinced by Sadducee leaders to try to kill every Pharisee rabbi [Hyman, vol. II pp. 691-692, 766]. Some rabbis, such as R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah and his student Yeshu, fled to Alexandria outside of John Hyrcanus's reach [Hyman vol. II pp. 647, 692].
Click to expand...
http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesusnarr.html


It's funny how much You'll stretch these accounts to fit your own view.
But, let's pretend that the Talmud DOES refer to jesus.

This is what it says abour Yeshu:
"R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah] left and arrived at a particular inn and they showed him great respect. He said: How beautiful is this inn [Achsania, which also means innkeeper].

[Yeshu] said: Rabbi, she has narrow eyes. [R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah] said to him: Wicked one, this is how you engage yourself? "

The Older Rabbi compliments the Inn for being beautiful. Yeshu, retorts by refering to the innkeeper's lovely looks. (the word for inn and innkeeper being the same). The Rabbi Rebukes Yeshu for coming onto a married woman. In other words, This character that is being claimed to be jesus is actually a bit of a womanizer.


I wonder why DOC doesn't mention this point.
 
joobz said:
This is what it says abour Yeshu:
"R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah] left and arrived at a particular inn and they showed him great respect. He said: How beautiful is this inn [Achsania, which also means innkeeper].

[Yeshu] said: Rabbi, she has narrow eyes. [R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah] said to him: Wicked one, this is how you engage yourself? "

The Older Rabbi compliments the Inn for being beautiful. Yeshu, retorts by refering to the innkeeper's lovely looks. (the word for inn and innkeeper being the same). The Rabbi Rebukes Yeshu for coming onto a married woman. In other words, This character that is being claimed to be jesus is actually a bit of a womanizer.


I wonder why DOC doesn't mention this point.
Click to expand...
Don't be silly. Everyone knows Jesus was gay.
 
amb said:
I'm of the opinion that perhaps the Jesus of the n/t had no existence. Of course that's just my opinion along with many more. But if this guy did exist and was put to death by the Romans, the link following explains why a part of the story was told as it was.

http://atheism.about.com/od/biblegospelofmark/a/mark15d.htm?nl=1
Click to expand...


That's interesting although, they do miss the inconstancy between the accounts of Jesus' last words between the gospels.

But, more to the point, it does not prove that the whole story was fictitious, more than fictitious elements were added to the core to expend and it and for metaphorical/symbolic purposes.
 
DOC said:
The Jewish Talmud refers to Yeshu which is Hebrew for Jesus.
Click to expand...

It was also an incredibly common name at the time. The Yeshu of the Talmud is not the Christian Jesus. If you note, their stories are completely different.
 
Last edited:
Paulhoff said:
So, we have people who believe that live can’t come from non-living chemicals, they say that there is a need for a so-called god for that to happen. They think that it is too hard, too complicated for life to come about on its own. So their simple answer to life is a so-called god. But if life is too complex to happen, how do they explain how that so-called god came into being, well that a simple answer too, I always was...
Click to expand...


The origin of life was touched on way back in the thread. I could go into depth about this but a Randi staff member said it was off topic. I might refer you to these threads:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120745

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95977

Now back to this thread.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
The Jewish Talmud refers to Yeshu which is Hebrew for Jesus.

http://www.direct.ca/trinity/yehoshua.html

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5299298#post5299298
Click to expand...



Dude, stop mentioning the JewishTalmud. There is only one Talmud.

Also; Yeshu was one of the most common name in first century Palestine. It's like finding a book referencing "Bob". That's absolutely no indication that it is referencing "Jesus; founder of Christianity that some dudes called the Messiah".
In fact, these references clearly have nothing to do with cross-boy and just about every Rabin seem to reject them as treating about your Jesus. Most of these accounts, for example, deal with Yeshu ben Pandera (note that the name, Jesus, son of Pandera, is incompatible with the Gospels' tradition) that clearly lived in the 2nd century CE.


Also, you know that the Talmud was started in 200 CE, right? And that most of the "references to Jesus" are much older than that? It is not independent contemporary evidences we are taking about.
All that would prove is that the Jewish writers were aware of the Christian tradition, hardly an impressive feat as Christianity was the official Religion of the Roman empire by the time most of these accounts were written.
 
paximperium said:
Yup. So?
Ah, so existence of some random person called Jesus is evidence for Jesus. I think my good old gardeners Jesus and Moses(their real names) is even better evidence.
Click to expand...

Yes, but were your gardeners ever hanged on a tree on the eve of the Passover?
 
DOC said:
Yes, but were your gardeners ever hanged on a tree on the eve of the Passover?
Click to expand...

The Christian Jesus was not. Unless, of course, the New Testament isn't actually true.

ETA: This site, which you've already ignored, goes into detail about why the Yeshu story of the Talmud does not refer to the Christian Jesus. Read it and learn something, or continue to embarrass yourself.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom