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

[John Jones]

Actually there is more, there are 2 Url's that talk of fulfilled prophecy,

Look at the subject line.

Citing the bible as proof of the bible doesn't work.

I know you've been told that many dozens of times.

 

[Lothian]

You must live outside the US because in the US much of chapter 11 of Geisler's book is given in that link.

So it is the same lack of evidence as in your OP

 

[Akhenaten]

I claim that your ability to read the minds of 200+ posters could win the Million dollar Randi Challenge.

It's not mind reading DOC, just reading all the posts in the thread, which I doubt you have done. I compiled a spreadsheet listing all contributors to the thread and their point of view with respect to your ability to convince them.

Here is a link

Why do you now pretend not to know this? Are you able to refute my analysis?

Do you have any evidence that the New Testament writers told the truth?

 

[Lothian]

Actually there is more, there are 2 Url's that talk of fulfilled prophecy,

This is not evidence that the NT is true.

Imagine that today I predict that there will be a man who can bring the dead back to life. Say in 10 years time someone writes a book claiming their friend can bring the dead back to life.

How can my prophesy now, be evidence for the future zombie maker?

Prophesies are not evidence.

 

[Akhenaten]

You must live outside the US because in the US much of chapter 11 of Geisler's book is given in that link.

The cycles between your repetitions of the same nonsense are getting shorter. Implosion seems a risk.

 

[DOC]

I was confused because DOC claims to have linked an article showing the identification Yeshu/Jesus, although he's being very coy about posting it up again.

Here is the link I posted, and some of what it says about Yeshu {Hebrew for Jesus} and the Talmud.

The Historical Jesus
Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ

by Gary Habermas

"It is interesting that there is no explanation as to why Jesus was crucified (“hanged”) when stoning was the prescribed punishment. It is likely that the Roman involvement provided the “change of plans,” without specifically being mentioned here.
Another early reference in the Talmud speaks of five of Jesus’ disciples and recounts their standing before judges who make individual decisions about each one, deciding that they should be executed. However, no actual deaths are recorded.(41) From this second portion we can ascertain only (6) the fact that Jesus had some disciples and (7) that some among the Jews felt that these men were also guilty of actions which warranted execution.

There are various other references to Jesus in the Talmud, although most are from later periods of formulation and are of questionable historical value. For instance, one reference indicates that Jesus was treated differently from others who led the people astray, for he was connected with royalty.(42) The first portion of this statement is very possibly an indication of the fact that Jesus was crucified instead of being stoned. The second part could be referring to Jesus being born of the lineage of David, or it could actually be a criticism of the Christian belief that Jesus was the Messiah. Another possible reference to Jesus states that he was either thirty three or thirty four years old when he died.(43) Many other allusions and possible connections could be mentioned, such as derision of the Christian doctrine of the virgin birth(44) and references to Mary, Jesus’ mother,(45) but these depend on questions of identification of pseudonyms and other such issues.

http://www.garyhabermas.com/books/historicaljesus/historicaljesus.htm

 

[Paulhoff]

I've already given one.

Give me a need for a so-called god. What does it explain. And don't say that it always was, that explains nothing.

Paul

 

[DOC]

This is not evidence that the NT is true.

Imagine that today I predict that there will be a man who can bring the dead back to life. Say in 10 years time someone writes a book claiming their friend can bring the dead back to life.

How can my prophesy now, be evidence for the future zombie maker?

Prophesies are not evidence.

I (and many others) look at the NT and see fulfilled OT prophecy. That makes it more likely in our minds that the NT is true -- more so then if we didn't see fulfilled prophecy. If some others don't see that fulfilled prophecy then so be it.

 

[Paulhoff]

I (and many others) look at the NT and see fulfilled OT prophecy. That makes it more likely in our minds that the NT is true -- more so then if we didn't see fulfilled prophecy. If some others don't see that fulfilled prophecy then so be it.

Jesus does not fulfill the prophecy of the OT, that is why the Jewish people are still waiting.

Paul

 

[Cleon]

Here is the link I posted, and some of what it says about Yeshu {Hebrew for Jesus}

You don't know Hebrew.

In fact, people usually use the Hebrew name "Y'shua" for "Jesus," though the actual Hebrew name of the Christian Jesus (if he existed) is unknown. "Yehoshua" is another possibility.

 

[zooterkin]

I (and many others) look at the NT and see fulfilled OT prophecy. That makes it more likely in our minds that the NT is true -- more so then if we didn't see fulfilled prophecy. If some others don't see that fulfilled prophecy then so be it.

So, what has convinced you that prophecy is real? You obviously think it is more significant than lucky guesses, or retrofitting events to fit vague statements. How did the people making the prophecies know what to say, and why is it significant that they did so?

 

[zooterkin]

Here is the link I posted, and some of what it says about Yeshu {Hebrew for Jesus} and the Talmud.

The Historical Jesus
Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ

by Gary Habermas

"It is interesting that there is no explanation as to why Jesus was crucified (“hanged”) when stoning was the prescribed punishment. It is likely that the Roman involvement provided the “change of plans,” without specifically being mentioned here.
Another early reference in the Talmud speaks of five of Jesus’ disciples and recounts their standing before judges who make individual decisions about each one, deciding that they should be executed. However, no actual deaths are recorded.(41) From this second portion we can ascertain only (6) the fact that Jesus had some disciples and (7) that some among the Jews felt that these men were also guilty of actions which warranted execution.

There are various other references to Jesus in the Talmud, although most are from later periods of formulation and are of questionable historical value. For instance, one reference indicates that Jesus was treated differently from others who led the people astray, for he was connected with royalty.(42) The first portion of this statement is very possibly an indication of the fact that Jesus was crucified instead of being stoned. The second part could be referring to Jesus being born of the lineage of David, or it could actually be a criticism of the Christian belief that Jesus was the Messiah. Another possible reference to Jesus states that he was either thirty three or thirty four years old when he died.(43) Many other allusions and possible connections could be mentioned, such as derision of the Christian doctrine of the virgin birth(44) and references to Mary, Jesus’ mother,(45) but these depend on questions of identification of pseudonyms and other such issues.

http://www.garyhabermas.com/books/historicaljesus/historicaljesus.htm

Show me where this Gary Habermas establishes that the Yeshu in the Talmud is the Jesus of the NT.

 

[pakeha]

Here is the link I posted, and some of what it says about Yeshu {Hebrew for Jesus} and the Talmud.

The Historical Jesus
Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ

by Gary Habermas

"It is interesting that there is no explanation as to why Jesus was crucified (“hanged”) when stoning was the prescribed punishment. It is likely that the Roman involvement provided the “change of plans,” without specifically being mentioned here.
Another early reference in the Talmud speaks of five of Jesus’ disciples and recounts their standing before judges who make individual decisions about each one, deciding that they should be executed. However, no actual deaths are recorded.(41) From this second portion we can ascertain only (6) the fact that Jesus had some disciples and (7) that some among the Jews felt that these men were also guilty of actions which warranted execution.

There are various other references to Jesus in the Talmud, although most are from later periods of formulation and are of questionable historical value. For instance, one reference indicates that Jesus was treated differently from others who led the people astray, for he was connected with royalty.(42) The first portion of this statement is very possibly an indication of the fact that Jesus was crucified instead of being stoned. The second part could be referring to Jesus being born of the lineage of David, or it could actually be a criticism of the Christian belief that Jesus was the Messiah. Another possible reference to Jesus states that he was either thirty three or thirty four years old when he died.(43) Many other allusions and possible connections could be mentioned, such as derision of the Christian doctrine of the virgin birth(44) and references to Mary, Jesus’ mother,(45) but these depend on questions of identification of pseudonyms and other such issues.

http://www.garyhabermas.com/books/historicaljesus/historicaljesus.htm

Thanks for the link, DOC.
I went around to the site and found it a highly speculative work , so full of 'could be's (as the quoted text shows) that its really difficult to take seriously.
The source doesn't resolve the problem of Jeshu's death being decreed by a Jewish court and announced by a herald during 40 days.
This obviously has nothing to do with the NT narrative of Jesus' passion, does it.
The author doesn't address the 5 disciple discrepancy, either.

It seems clear the Talmud has to be twisted out of shape to provide 'evidence' the NT writers were telling the truth.

 

[pakeha]

I (and many others) look at the NT and see fulfilled OT prophecy. That makes it more likely in our minds that the NT is true -- more so then if we didn't see fulfilled prophecy. If some others don't see that fulfilled prophecy then so be it.

How can it be possible to see a fulfilled prophecy in something written long after the event?
These sources really haven't the slightest value, DOC.
One could seriously argue about fulfilled prophecies when refering to an account written before the events described, but not when refering to an account written after the event.
It isn't evidence the NT writers were telling the truth.

 

[pakeha]

You don't know Hebrew.

In fact, people usually use the Hebrew name "Y'shua" for "Jesus," though the actual Hebrew name of the Christian Jesus (if he existed) is unknown. "Yehoshua" is another possibility.

In fact, according to the sources we've posted, Yeshu is an insult.

 

[Simon39759]

The 'fulfilled prophecies' are especially not convincing considering that we know that Jesus went out of his way to fulfill them.

We also have strong suspicion (to be generous) that the Gospels accounts were fictionalized to fulfill prophecies, for example, the whole story of the birth of Jesus.

 

[Lothian]

I (and many others) look at the NT and see fulfilled OT prophecy. That makes it more likely in our minds that the NT is true -- more so then if we didn't see fulfilled prophecy. If some others don't see that fulfilled prophecy then so be it.

Well, you are wrong and are applying faulty logic.

If 'A' predicts 'B' and 'C' claims to be 'B' that does not mean that 'A' is evidence that 'C' is 'B'.

Jesus may or may not* fulfil the prophesy. If he did the only proof would be that the prophesy was true. It can not work the other way. The prophesy can not ever prove Jesus.

Think of it this way. I predict that someone will be born at midnight on 1 January 2010 and I will give who ever can prove they are born at this time $1,000,000. Someone's subsequent claim to be born at that exact time is not more likely to be true just because I made the presiction. My prediction does not affect anything. My prediction is not evidence that any claimant was born at that time.

To pay out the money I need more than their simple unsubstantiated claim. Your arguments are that the claimant was born at that time because; they claim they were and I predicted that someone would be.

Neither their claim or my prediction is evidence that the claimant was born at that exact time specified in my prediction in the same way old testament predictions are not evidence of the new testament.



*He doesn't.

 

[six7s]

Here is the link I posted, and some of what it says about Yeshu {Hebrew for Jesus} and the Talmud.

The Historical Jesus
Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ

by Gary Habermas<snip/>
http://www.garyhabermas.com/books/historicaljesus/historicaljesus.htm

For crying out loud DOC! Have you no shame?

You repeatedly post inane waffle and pretend that it supports your so-called arguments

This thread is NOT concerend with the authenticity of claims that your messiah actually lived

Its about 'evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.'

If you haven't got any, then fairy nuff... we all make mistakes...

Have a bite of humble pie - its way more nourishing than the crap you expect us to swallow

 

[joobz]

I agree with Geisler's argument but it is not mine, he originated it.

which, in the context of this debate, makes it your argument.

You say I'm illogical

Yup.

 

[Hokulele]

And I would call Geisler's spew alogical.