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

[Toke]

So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.

And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;

Are you saying he just brandished it in a menacing but yet somehow non-violent manner?

 

[zooterkin]

Righteous anger, yes, but from the verses you mentioned we know of no one who got physically hurt from Christ's actions. Looks like he made a point that the money changers would always remember without being physically hurt.

The verses you quoted don't say anything about people being injured, they mention violence. Driving people and animals out with a whip, and overturning tables is violent.

ETA: Toke had beaten me to it, over the page.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Are you saying he just brandished it in a menacing but yet somehow non-violent manner?

Perhaps it was like: "You don't want to sell me an ox. You want to go home and rethink your life".

 

[dafydd]

The verses you quoted don't say anything about people being injured, they mention violence. Driving people and animals out with a whip, and overturning tables is violent.

ETA: Toke had beaten me to it, over the page.

Am I supposed to believe that the moneylenders just stood there and let him do it? In real life they would have leathered him and chucked him out.Just another fairy story.

 

[Belz...]

DOC, you're hopeless. Just three words and you can't even punctuate them correctly.

Four words, actually.

 

[Toke]

Am I supposed to believe that the moneylenders just stood there and let him do it? In real life they would have leathered him and chucked him out.Just another fairy story.

I am pretty sure they would not dirty their hands with him, moneylenders have people for that. [/nitpick]

 

[Lothian]

Righteous anger, yes, but from the verses you mentioned we know of no one who got physically hurt from Christ's actions. Looks like he made a point that the money changers would always remember without being physically hurt.

Righteous anger? Please explain why he drove out with a whip the people selling goods?

My local Cathedral has a substantial shop & cafe. Would I be righteous to take a whip and drive out the retail mongers? Or is this just another thing like slavery that God has changed his mind on.

 

[dafydd]

I am pretty sure they would not dirty their hands with him, moneylenders have people for that. [/nitpick]

Yes,they would just have called security.

 

[paximperium]

Are you saying he just brandished it in a menacing but yet somehow non-violent manner?

My hypothesis is that Jesus was running around naked swinging his cord acting like a madman. The laughing moneylenders could not stop laughing long enough to stop him so they just went home.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Are you saying he just brandished it in a menacing but yet somehow non-violent manner?

My hypothesis is that Jesus was running around naked swinging his cord acting like a madman. The laughing moneylenders could not stop laughing long enough to stop him so they just went home.

I just read that out of context and misinterpreted the bolded terms as euphemisms. The only way I can think of to get the resulting image out of my head is to share it with the rest of you.

Dave

 

[Simon39759]

Then your opinion should kill the idea that Isaiah chapter 53 (that helped convert Jewish lawyer Jay Secular) referred to the nation of Israel and was not a prophecy of Jesus because the chapter says this:
From Gateway -- Isaiah 53 (KJV)

1Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?
2For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
3He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
8He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
9And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
10Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
11He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
12Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+53&version=KJV

The book cited in post #1 talks of this issue. From memory it says something similar to the paragraph below.
The part bolded above - (he had done no violence) - could not be the nation of Israel, because the nation of the Jews was constantly at war, some of which they started. Also the Old Testament prophets were constantly saying how sinful the nation had become so the statement above that (deceit was not his mouth) would not apply to the nation. Also the statement he made (intercession for the transgressors) would not apply to Israel.

Cute.
Of course, you assume that the whole 'prophecy" would be:
a) exact and honest about Israel having been violent in the past.
b) be referring to the whole history of Israel and not just at this one point in time.
c) be accurate and not having a bit of poetic hand waving; exageration thrown in.

Then your opinion should kill the idea that Isaiah chapter 53 (that helped convert Jewish lawyer Jay Secular) referred to the nation of Israel and was not a prophecy of Jesus

As I said, it's not just a opinion but a fact based rational examination of the "prophecy".
Also, this is a false dichotomy: "If it is not referring to Israel; it must be about Jesus". Well, no, it could conceivably be about a number of things...

Sure, my fact based examination does indeed "kill" the idea that it is a factual description of the whole history of Israel (but, he, the Bible is not inherent, literal or anything like flawless). It also kills the idea that it is referring to Jesus with any degree of reliability.

Indeed, I did a rather long winded analysis of the whole "prophecy" back in October.

It is a bit surprising, I know for a fact that you are aware as to how unconvincing I found the whole "prophecy" as you did, indeed [url="http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5248856#post5248856"]answer to it, ending in a bit of a hissy fit too:

Also at the end of post #1 in the above link is an explanation of some of them. I'm finished talking about Isaiah and how his writings pertain to Jesus in the NT. The bottom line is that some Jews (including Jay Sekulow who has argued several cases before the Supreme Court) have been converted because of Isaiah chapter 53.

I notice you broke that promise; I also notice that you bring back Isaish 53 as it was convincing and unchallenged.
Of course, suspicious people could think that you waited until the relevant post was buried under nearly 4 months of thread before picking it up as; hoping that by then, people would have forgotten about it and the dismembering it went through and how it was found that only about 22% of the statements it contained would seem to fit Jesus...
But that'd be a very dishonest attitude and I am sure, you'd shy away from such gross manipulations... You must have forgotten all about it; the thread erased from you brain by months of sex; drug and rock and roll Christian music.




Let me the, for your convenience, repost my reading of the "prophecy" and how little it fits the Jesus mythos:

Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?

Does not apply to Jesus, according to the common Christian reading, Jesus WAS God, so, he had no need to believe HIS OWN message or to see his own arm revealed to him.

He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.

Not really specific, everybody do grow up (including in a more metaphorical sense, when referring to a people). In fact, the more specific aspects do not apply well to Jesus, if you refer to John Crossan's excavating Jesus; Nazareth was "ideally situated (...) atop the Nazareth range, which separates the Nahal Zippori and Beit Netofah valley to the North from the much larger Jezreel valley to the south. The later was vast and fertile plain."

1 He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

2 He was despised and rejected by men,

Does not apply well to Jesus, not only there is no mention of him being unattractive anywhere in the Bible but the gospels do have plenty of account of him attracting people to him. Gathering crowd and attracting follower and being appreciated and popular among the populace rather than 'despised and rejected'.
There is account of people getting excited when he walks into their town and gathering around to listen to him and fighting for the honour of feeding him and giving him shelter.
The only people that have a problem with Jesus really seem to be a small minority with an agenda.

3 a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.

Does not apply well either. Sure, Jesus end of life was difficult and painful, but the expression 'familiar with suffering' implies a long series of sufferings (and sorrows) through his life rather than one violent episode at the end.
There is no evidence of that in the gospels.

4 Like one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Once again, it does not apply well as the Jesus from the Gospels was rather popular and esteemed indeed.

5 Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,

Maybe, I guess, although Jesus' sacrifice is considered to be about sins rather than 'infirmities and sorrows', but I am feeling generous.

6 yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.

Nope; does not apply, Jesus was never seen as being stricken by God. At worst, there is a period of doubt... for three days but, even then, he was not perceived as being stricken by God but martyred for him.

7 But he was pierced for our transgressions,

I'll give that to you too, although, one has to consider the term 'piercing' as purely metaphorical as the actual martyrdom was the crucifixion, not 'piercing'.

8 he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

Yep; he was martyred for our sins

9 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

Ok; our sins, his martyrdom, we get it already

10 He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;

Nope; does not match. Jesus did speak up, we even have two separate and conflicting list of what he said.

11 he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,

Still about Jesus being the sacrificial lamb

12 and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.

As mentioned, it does not fit as Jesus DID speak up.

13 By oppression and judgment he was taken away.

Yes; Jesus was innocent and got scarified for our sins.

14 And who can speak of his descendants?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was stricken.

Does not fit, because, what descendants?

15 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,

16 and with the rich in his death,

The closest from an actual prediction.
Of course, one has to mention the unlikely and convoluted series of event that lead to this event taking place. In fact, many have seen this part of the Gospels as being fictional, added there a posteriori, presumably to do some post-hoc matching with this particular prophecy.
After all, Jesus was alone in his tomb and not 'with the rich' and he never was dead anyway.
Most likely, this verse is a metaphor for the sacrificial lamb dying in shame and being vindicated by God after his death, a theme that become prevalent later in the prophecy.

17 though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.

Again: Jesus was innocent and got martyred.

18 Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering,

Again: Jesus was innocent and got martyred.

19 he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.

Does not fit, again, no descendant. And it is quite clear, here, that descendant is not mean in a metaphorical way.

20 After the suffering of his soul,
he will see the light of life and be satisfied;

Does not fit, this talk about somebody being vindicated and rewarded AFTER his death.
But Jesus is God; he knew of the plan all along. Also, he did not receive anything he already had from all eternity.

21 by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.

Again: Jesus was innocent and got martyred.

22 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,

23 and he will divide the spoils with the strong,

Does not fit, once again, very clearly, the prophecy is about God rewarding a humble SERVANT after his death, giving him riches and honour he did not have before. Not about God self-pleasuring.

24 because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.

25 For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.

Again: Jesus was innocent and got martyred.



So; if you make the total, there is 25 statements in the prophecies.
12 do not match very well at all, in fact they are plainly contradicted by the Gospels account.
1 is less clear but does not seem to match very well either but in the most general sense.
12 do sort of match.


Of course, this thing is quite repetitive, so if we only count the same repeated statements once:
We have 6 statements that are wrong, the same one statement that is too vague to warrant consideration.
And TWO statements that seem to match: Jesus will be the sacrificial lamb and there will a game of musical-tomb played.

Even then, of this two statements, one his of dubious historicity and the second one is a reference to an old Jewish Religious concept, one that would have been very familiar to the disciple of Jesus.

So, what seems the most parsimonious explanation, that a prophet would be able to foresee Jesus, through a distance of 8 centuries, or that the disciples, trying to make sense of Jesus' death, would decide to read into the concept of a well established Jewish Religious tradition?

So, there you have it. In fact, reading it; it'd definitively seems to fit Harry Potter better than Jesus...

 

[Toke]

I just read that out of context and misinterpreted the bolded terms as euphemisms. The only way I can think of to get the resulting image out of my head is to share it with the rest of you.

Dave

A laughing madman swinging his tackle with one hand and brandishing a whip in the other?
No wonder security held back.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Cute.
Of course, you assume that the whole 'prophecy" would be:
a) exact and honest about Israel having been violent in the past.
b) be referring to the whole history of Israel and not just at this one point in time.
c) be accurate and not having a bit of poetic hand waving; exageration thrown in.

14 And who can speak of his descendants?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was stricken.

[Other detailed criticism snipped for space.]

Of course, I'm sure that the response about "descendants" will be that the word should be understood metaphorically, as referring to the church that would arise as a result of Jesus' martyrdom.

 

[Simon39759]

Of course, I'm sure that the response about "descendants" will be that the word should be understood metaphorically, as referring to the church that would arise as a result of Jesus' martyrdom.

Well, yes, that is the definition of apologetics: "Making up excuses for their original thesis"...

But then, please, don't point to me how incredibly accurate the prophecy was and how it is such an inescapable proof of how the New Testament writers told the truth...

And, especially, don't come back after a few months and hope everybody will have forgotten how weak your argument was when you first presented it; it makes you look pretty f****g dishonest.

 

[Toke]

Of course, I'm sure that the response about "descendants" will be that the word should be understood metaphorically, as referring to the church that would arise as a result of Jesus' martyrdom.

Metaphorically?
Does that mean Dan Brown is not one of the gospel writers?

 

[Elizabeth I]

Metaphorically?
Does that mean Dan Brown is not one of the gospel writers?

Ssssh, don't tell him!

 

[Lucian]

...that helped convert Jewish lawyer Jay Secular...

When did he change his name from "Sekulow" to "Secular"? After his conversion? How odd.

 

[kmortis]

When did he change his name from "Sekulow" to "Secular"? After his conversion? How odd.

It's just like Saul --> Paul. Sometimes you just need to break from the old when you get that Ol' Tyme Religion.

Chorus:
Give me that Old Time Religion,
Give me that Old Time Religion,
Give me that Old Time Religion ...
It's good enough for me!

We will worship Aphrodite,
'Though she's kind of wild and flighty -
We will see her in her 'nighty
And that's good enough for me!

...

We will worship Great Cthulhu,
We will worship Great Cthulhu,
And we'll feed him Mr. Sulu
'Cause that's good enough for me!

 

[joobz]

9And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

1.) Jesus lied about going to a feast in John 7:1-10
2.) Jesus lied about when he'd return in Matthew 16:28, Mark 9:1, Luke 9:27
3.) Jesus explains why he intentionally uses confusing/deceitful language as a means of keeping secrets in Matthew 13:10-17
4.) Jesus lies about the power of prayer and faith in Matthew 21:21-22, Mark 11:24-25

There may be more examples, but it is clear that Jesus was deceitful. Therefore, you've helped further prove that Isaiah 53 isn't a prophecy for jesus.


I ask again, Are you intentionally trying to disprove Chrsitianity? you are doing a very good job of it.

 

[Hokulele]

9And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence...

Unless you happened to own pigs or fig trees.