† RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST, PROOF OF.

Status
Not open for further replies.

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,381
Sydney, Australia.
✟244,844.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Yep. Eyewitness testimony without corroborating evidence is worthless.
May I disagree?

The role of an eyewitness can be extremely important within the legal system, as eyewitness testimony and eyewitness identification often play a major role in the prosecution of a criminal defendant. At times the courts are left to rely solely on eyewitness accounts because there is no other physical evidence.

The jury decides the guilt of the defendant and eyewitness testimony is powerful and direct evidence.
 
Upvote 0

Theo Barnsley

Active Member
Jan 4, 2019
137
87
29
Auckland
✟21,150.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Engaged
Good enough for a court of law but not for you?
A court of law requires 'eye witness evidence'. Hearsay evidence is not allowed & will be dismissed straight away. It is not known if ANY of the accounts in the New Testament are eyewitness accounts.

None of the gospel writers even CLAIM to be eyewitnesses, & they were all written anonymously. The names Mathew, Mark, Luke & John were all given to the gospels by the Church at a much later date. They were all also written 40 to 70 years after jesus supposed death, so it is unlikely that any of the writers were disciples of Jesus (the average lifespan back then was only about 40 years. A lot of people did live older than this, however, this was the exception, not the norm).

The fact that the Gospels were written so long after Jesus apparent death also means that practically nobody who might have seen Jesus would still be alive to either confirm or deny what was being written.

So NOT ONE of the Gospel accounts would be admitted in a court of law as evidence.

The Gospels arent even 4 independent accounts. It has long been recognised that both Mathew & Luke used Mark as their source, & then rewrote it with their own imbellishments. Lukes account was basically a rewrite of Mathew, putting his own spin on the stories that Mathew added to Mark, which is why accounts of the virgin birth etc varies so much.

The Gospel of John had jesus saying & doing stuff that apparently NONE of the other gospel writers had seen or heard, so much of the gospel of john has no corroboration at all!
 
Upvote 0

HitchSlap

PROUDLY PRIMATE
Aug 6, 2012
14,723
5,468
✟281,096.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
May I disagree?
Of course.

The role of an eyewitness can be extremely important within the legal system,
I suppose that depends if you're a witness for the defense, or prosecution.
How reliable is eyewitness testimony?
Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts

as eyewitness testimony and eyewitness identification often play a major role in the prosecution of a criminal defendant.
Unfortunately, yes.

At times the courts are left to rely solely on eyewitness accounts because there is no other physical evidence.
Which has proved to be detrimental to an already imperfect legal system.

[see above links]

The jury decides the guilt of the defendant and eyewitness testimony is powerful and direct evidence.
If your freedom was at stake, would you prefer DNA evidence that would exonerate you under the fingernails of a murdered victim, or an eyewitness placing you at the scene?
 
Upvote 0

Bungle_Bear

Whoot!
Mar 6, 2011
9,084
3,513
✟254,540.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
The Jews are not God so no, they are going to fly without the airplane. You view on God and the Bible is very immature. I know of no Christians who interpret the Bible the way you do. 2000 years of Christianity and no one reads into things as you do. This is always a clear indicator that you have neither read nor studied the Bible. We humans are not God. Christianity is monotheism and not pantheism.


You clearly didn't read the post. All the proof a person needs to know is there.

Verse 3 is the key to understanding Isaiah chapter 60. If you can't understand that Isaiah 60:3 you cannot understand any of the chapter.

Verses 3 is about how the gentile nations and their kings will become great nations who come to the light of the risen Messiah. This prophecy only fulfilled with what many historians would refer to as Christendom.
I've asked you 3 times now when the Jewish Messiah came, and you've failed to answer every time.

The Jews will say that the Messiah hasn't come yet (Jesus didn't fulfill many supposed Messianic prophecies), so your claims of fulfilled prophesy with regards to Isaiah 60 are wrong.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: HitchSlap
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,381
Sydney, Australia.
✟244,844.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
A court of law requires 'eye witness evidence'.
That was the point I made.
Hearsay evidence is not allowed & will be dismissed straight away.
Yes but why mention that?
It is not known if ANY of the accounts in the New Testament are eyewitness accounts.
I rely on the Luke-Acts account, the author was definitely a travelling companion of the apostle Paul. So we have a direct witness of the resurrected Christ in Paul and the author of Luke-Acts, is an associate of Paul.

This necessarily implies that the author of Luke-Acts no doubt, directly met other witnesses of the resurrected Christ.

The author of Luke-Acts does not need to be a witness himself, merely that the author can record accurately what was reported to him.
None of the gospel writers even CLAIM to be eyewitnesses, & they were all written anonymously.
We don't know whether any of the accounts of the life of Jesus were written by eyewitnesses.
So we can't speculate either way.

Except perhaps the author of Luke-Acts, which both tradition and the majority of scholars agree was Luke.
The names Mathew, Mark, Luke & John were all given to the gospels by the Church at a much later date.
I am aware of that already and I do not refer to these accounts as 'gospels'.
They were all also written 40 to 70 years after jesus supposed death, so it is unlikely that any of the writers were disciples of Jesus (the average lifespan back then was only about 40 years. A lot of people did live older than this, however, this was the exception, not the norm).
One of the problems with any generalization is that parts of any one of these accounts may very well have been written much earlier. Then bundled together into a larger account (a gospel). It is usually a good idea to avoid making too many assumptions.
The fact that the Gospels were written so long after Jesus apparent death also means that practically nobody who might have seen Jesus would still be alive to either confirm or deny what was being written.
We do not really know the date of authorship of any specific account. It is not wise to assume a late authorship, we will probably never know.
So NOT ONE of the Gospel accounts would be admitted in a court of law as evidence.
I accept the authenticity of the Luke-Acts account and I expect most folk would also.
The Gospels arent even 4 independent accounts. It has long been recognised that both Mathew & Luke used Mark as their source, & then rewrote it with their own imbellishments. Lukes account was basically a rewrite of Mathew, putting his own spin on the stories that Mathew added to Mark, which is why accounts of the virgin birth etc varies so much.
What you may be missing in your conjecture is that the accounts of the resurrection, described in the three accounts are wildly different. This lends strong support to the idea that the accounts are not in fact copies.
The Gospel of John had jesus saying & doing stuff that apparently NONE of the other gospel writers had seen or heard, so much of the gospel of john has no corroboration at all!
You may need to read the so called gospel of John, because John is recording what the other accounts missed.
 
Upvote 0

FEZZILLA

Well-Known Member
Jun 24, 2003
1,031
131
53
Wisconsin
✟16,495.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
A court of law requires 'eye witness evidence'. Hearsay evidence is not allowed & will be dismissed straight away. It is not known if ANY of the accounts in the New Testament are eyewitness accounts.

None of the gospel writers even CLAIM to be eyewitnesses, & they were all written anonymously. The names Mathew, Mark, Luke & John were all given to the gospels by the Church at a much later date. They were all also written 40 to 70 years after jesus supposed death, so it is unlikely that any of the writers were disciples of Jesus (the average lifespan back then was only about 40 years. A lot of people did live older than this, however, this was the exception, not the norm).

The fact that the Gospels were written so long after Jesus apparent death also means that practically nobody who might have seen Jesus would still be alive to either confirm or deny what was being written.

So NOT ONE of the Gospel accounts would be admitted in a court of law as evidence.

The Gospels arent even 4 independent accounts. It has long been recognised that both Mathew & Luke used Mark as their source, & then rewrote it with their own imbellishments. Lukes account was basically a rewrite of Mathew, putting his own spin on the stories that Mathew added to Mark, which is why accounts of the virgin birth etc varies so much.

The Gospel of John had jesus saying & doing stuff that apparently NONE of the other gospel writers had seen or heard, so much of the gospel of john has no corroboration at all!
The Gospels have been well understood to be eyewitness accounts of the life of Christ for 2000 years. The Gospel of John includes information and sermons from Christ not included in the first three Gospels. Traditionally, Matthew has always been the first written account which is why the Gospels are written in the specific order they're in. I trust ancient tradition any day of the week over a modern atheist spin.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

HitchSlap

PROUDLY PRIMATE
Aug 6, 2012
14,723
5,468
✟281,096.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The Gospels have been well understood to be eyewitness accounts of the life of Christ for 2000 years.
Then you're making my point for me, as all there are irreconcilable differences between the gospels.
The Gospel of John includes information and sermons from Christ not included in the first three Gospels. Traditionally, Matthew has always been the first written account which is why the Gospels are written in the specific order they're in. I trust ancient tradition any day of the week over a modern atheist spin.
There are no extant original manuscripts, all we have are fragments of copies of copies of copies. The authors are all anonymous, as they weren't signed, and authorship was designated decades later. Mark was likely written first, and didn't include a virgin birth narrative. Both Matthew and Luke copied heavily from Mark, and what wasn't copied have irreconcilable discrepancies. John's account is vastly different from the "synoptics," and almost describes another Jesus entirely.

Some basic irreconcilable differences (aka contradictions):

Birth of Jesus cannot both be during Herod's / Quirinius' reign.
Genealogies of Jesus differ.
Jesus wasn't named Immanuel, as stated in Isaiah.
Judas was hung / fell on his sword.
Virgin birth based on ignorance of word "alma" in Isaiah. (think about that for a second... a central tenant of Christianity based on a mistranslation... oops).
No record of Herod killing babies under two years old.
Matthew, again, misunderstands Hosea, and has Jesus fleeing to Egypt, while Luke makes no mention of this at all.
Matthew (again!), has Jesus riding into Jerusalem on two donkeys at the same time.
Matthew, Mark and Luke have the "last supper" on the first day of Passover, but John has it one day before.

I could go on if you like, there is no shortage of irreconcilable contradictions, but I think you're getting the idea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

FEZZILLA

Well-Known Member
Jun 24, 2003
1,031
131
53
Wisconsin
✟16,495.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
There are no extant original manuscripts, all we have are fragments of copies of copies of copies.

The printing press wasn't invented until much later. All ancients shared in the task of a Scribe to preserve writing. This, of course, is history 101.

Mark was likely written first, and didn't include a virgin birth narrative. Both Matthew and Luke copied heavily from Mark, and what wasn't copied have irreconcilable discrepancies. John's account is vastly different from the "synoptics," and almost describes another Jesus entirely.

Says the overly skeptical atheist. But early Christian tradition doesn't agree with modern day assumptions. Matthew was written first. John in no way describes another Jesus. Fragments of John's Gospel can be found in the 2nd century which means it was well circulated before being discarded and replaced by a new copy.

Some basic irreconcilable differences (aka contradictions):

Birth of Jesus cannot both be during Herod's / Quirinius' reign.
Genealogies of Jesus differ.

Isaac Newton was a master of chronologies and he said both accounts are the same but two different methodologies were used.

Jesus wasn't named Immanuel, as stated in Isaiah.

The prophecies are saying that God will be with us. Perhaps you need to do some more reading because its already interpreted for you in the Bible. Job 19:23-27 reveals Jesus' name if you read it in Hebrew.

Judas was hung / fell on his sword.

Wrong again! There is no verse that says Judas fell on his sword. Judas hung himself and the branch he hung himself with broke and his body fell in a ravine where his guts ripped open. This is a well know fact in Israel to this day.

Virgin birth based on ignorance of word "alma" in Isaiah. (think about that for a second... a central tenant of Christianity based on a mistranslation... oops).

Hebrew: young woman. Greek: virgin. They both mean the same thing. A young woman of Israel was a virgin.
No record of Herod killing babies under two years old.

The Gospels record it. Herod didn't want to record it in hopes it would be forgotten.
Matthew, again, misunderstands Hosea, and has Jesus fleeing to Egypt, while Luke makes no mention of this at all.

Matthew (again!), has Jesus riding into Jerusalem on two donkeys at the same time.

Passage please

Matthew, Mark and Luke have the "last supper" on the first day of Passover, but John has it one day before.

Passage please

I could go on if you like, there is no shortage of irreconcilable contradictions, but I think you're getting the idea.

Oh please go on. But remember to supply passages because you made up the Judas skepticism. Judas is not mentioned as falling on his sword.
 
Upvote 0

HitchSlap

PROUDLY PRIMATE
Aug 6, 2012
14,723
5,468
✟281,096.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The printing press wasn't invented until much later. All ancients shared in the task of a Scribe to preserve writing. This, of course, is history 101.
Which is exactly why all four gospels disagree and vary wildly from each other when they don't agree.



Says the overly skeptical atheist.
I'm not sure why you consider Bruce Metzger to be an "overly skeptical atheist," but whatever floats your boat, I guess.

But early Christian tradition doesn't agree with modern day assumptions.
You'll need to do better than handwave away critical historical methods that all scholars use to determine why Mark was written first.

Matthew was written first.
*sigh
Was Mark the First Gospel Written?

John in no way describes another Jesus.
This isn't even a radical notion, John is known as the 'maverick gospel.' (I'm assuming this is all new to you, so I'll do my best to bring you along slowly.)

The Story Of The Storytellers - The Gospel Of John | From Jesus To Christ | FRONTLINE | PBS

Isaac Newton was a master of chronologies and he said both accounts are the same but two different methodologies were used.
lol

The prophecies are saying that God will be with us.
"14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

It's pretty clear what his name is. This is one of those prophecies that believers have to equivocate to accept. Not my problem.

Perhaps you need to do some more reading because its already interpreted for you in the Bible. Job 19:23-27 reveals Jesus' name if you read it in Hebrew.
Nope.

Wrong again! There is no verse that says Judas fell on his sword. Judas hung himself and the branch he hung himself with broke and his body fell in a ravine where his guts ripped open. This is a well know fact in Israel to this day.

How did Judas Iscariot die? Why two biblical stories can\'t both be right, and why it matters

(it's been a while since I've the Judas passages, and the passage Judas falling headlong - no sword involved.)

Hebrew: young woman. Greek: virgin. They both mean the same thing. A young woman of Israel was a virgin.
Is "Virgin" the Correct Translation of Isaiah 7:14?

You need to ask yourself why an omniscient god would have his author use a confusing word, at best, for such an important teaching underpinning Christianity.

The Gospels record it.
Actually, only Matthew's account has the massacre of the innocents.

Herod didn't want to record it in hopes it would be forgotten.
Do you have a source for this?

Massacre of the Innocents - Wikipedia

Matthew, again, misunderstands Hosea, and has Jesus fleeing to Egypt, while Luke makes no mention of this at all.
Flight into Egypt - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Theo Barnsley

Active Member
Jan 4, 2019
137
87
29
Auckland
✟21,150.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Engaged
The Jews are not God so no, they are going to fly without the airplane. You view on God and the Bible is very immature. I know of no Christians who interpret the Bible the way you do. 2000 years of Christianity and no one reads into things as you do. This is always a clear indicator that you have neither read nor studied the Bible. We humans are not God. Christianity is monotheism and not pantheism.

You clearly didn't read the post. All the proof a person needs to know is there.

Verse 3 is the key to understanding Isaiah chapter 60. If you can't understand that Isaiah 60:3 you cannot understand any of the chapter.

Verses 3 is about how the gentile nations and their kings will become great nations who come to the light of the risen Messiah. This prophecy only fulfilled with what many historians would refer to as Christendom.

But there are also overlapping prophecies that also take place beginning in the first century and reaching fulfillment in the 20th century. I have all these prophecies listed in the OP. Because of the Jews disobedience to God after all the miracles done in the sight of all Israel, God told Moses that a time will come when He will no longer put up with their disobedience and they shall be scattered from one end of the earth to the other. This was told to Moses before the Jews entered into the promised land. This scattering of the Jews from one end of the earth didn't take place until the Jews decided to kill God the Son. It wasn't long afterword and God abandoned Israel and gave them over to their enemies -- the Romans. The Romans came in and slaughtered a multitude of them and many were taken as slaves to work the mines in Egypt. This was the beginning of a prolonged plague God placed on the Jews for their constant disobedience. It didn't matter if Jesus' death was part of human restoration, or that prophecy also declared the Jews would reject and kill their Messiah. Its their act of disobedience God warn the Hebrews about through Moses. All the plagues of madness, famine etc. all came true.

But God also told Moses that He would restore His people and return them from all parts of the earth back to Israel. Again this prophecy is covered in the OP. But this return back to Israel will not happen until the prolonged curse is lifted. Meanwhile, the Gentile Christian nations are rising to power and becoming great nations. The nations that did not come to Christ became third world nations and required much charity from the Christian nations just to keep up with Christendom. Soon Christians would invent air travel (the airplane) and God would show mercy to His people after the Holocaust and return them to their homeland where Christian would show compassion to the and help rebuild their infrastructure. But these Jews would be traveling long distances by land, sea and air. To prove God's seal of Authority God blessed the works of Israel and turned it from a dry rocky desert wasteland to a lush green oasis. All this was fulfilled in 1948.

My knowledge of prophecy does not come from me alone but by the spirit of God Who opens my eyes to understand it. Verse 8 is about how airplanes would return the Jews back to Israel in 1948. That is what the prophecy is speaking of.

What does all this have to do with Christ' resurrection from the dead? Isaiah 1 & 2 are about mankind's redemption through Christ' resurrection. Isaiah 60:3 is about the gentile nations and kings coming to the light of Christ. And this prophecy does not include all prophecies about Christ' first coming as a man on earth. The prophecies I have listed pertain to events that happen after the resurrection and some of them reach fulfillment in the 20th century.

All of this is better referenced in the OP.

You know of NO christian who interpret the bible the way I do? So now you claim to be able to read the mind of all christians? You also seem to be claiming to khow how christians have interpreted the bible through 2000 years of history!

Since there are 1000's of Christian denominations & sects throughout the world, who all interpret the bible differently, you are making some very big & totally untestable claims. However that seems to be stock in trade for all your arguments to date.

The so called 'plane prophecy' reads
“Who are these that fly like clouds,
and like doves to their windows?"

Planes dont fly anything like clouds, & they definitely dont fly to peoples windows, unless they are crashing into a building. I could make the claim that Isaiah was a prophecy about the planes crashing into the world trade centre, because then the planes DID fly into windows!

Also Isaiah never mentions Jesus crucifiction or resurrection of Christ ANYWHERE! jesus never fulfilled any of the prophecies of what the Messiah was supposed to fulfill, which is why the Jews till this day still reject jesus as the Messiah.

As I said, you should spend time learning how to read & understand prophecy. All we have are your claims that the prophecy means what YOU say it does, & your only evidence that you are interpreting it properly is your claim that in Isaiah he prophesied the aeroplane, which can be interpreted in a myriad of ways, the least likely being what you say it is.

You also CLAIM that god is guiding you. This is a claim anybody can make, & those who do normally do so because they lack any supporting evidence for their claims.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Theo Barnsley

Active Member
Jan 4, 2019
137
87
29
Auckland
✟21,150.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Engaged
The Gospels have been well understood to be eyewitness accounts of the life of Christ for 2000 years. The Gospel of John includes information and sermons from Christ not included in the first three Gospels. Traditionally, Matthew has always been the first written account which is why the Gospels are written in the specific order they're in. I trust ancient tradition any day of the week over a modern atheist spin.
They have been well understood to be eyewitness accounts because the church & christian apologists WANT you to believe that. As we well know, the church & christian apologists all have very good reason to LIE, & often shamelessly do.

Our understanding of theology & ancient literature has also improved a lot in the last 2000 years! Practically no HONEST theologian these days believes that the gospels are eyewitness accounts, & none of the authors of the gospels even CLAIM that they are eyewitness accounts.

There are even some Christian apologist theologians who are honest enough to say that the gospels are very unlikely to be eyewitness accounts.
 
Upvote 0

FEZZILLA

Well-Known Member
Jun 24, 2003
1,031
131
53
Wisconsin
✟16,495.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
They have been well understood to be eyewitness accounts because the church & christian apologists WANT you to believe that. As we well know, the church & christian apologists all have very good reason to LIE, & often shamelessly do.

Our understanding of theology & ancient literature has also improved a lot in the last 2000 years! Practically no HONEST theologian these days believes that the gospels are eyewitness accounts, & none of the authors of the gospels even CLAIM that they are eyewitness accounts.

There are even some Christian apologist theologians who are honest enough to say that the gospels are very unlikely to be eyewitness accounts.
Actually its the other way around. Atheists are liars and I catch atheists in lies all the time.

Our understanding of ancient literature has not improved but very sadly declined. I would even go as far as to say the people of the classical era of history had more than twice the mental discipline than what we've seen in the 21st century.

I'm an Anglican which is the oldest of all English denominations. Our history and traditions go back as far as the 3rd century when Britain was first Christianized. In the 16th century our church broke away from the RCC and joined the Protestant movement. All the best translations of the Bible in English come from the Anglican Church. We still hold to traditions that go back to the 1st century of Christ. We also know that Matthew was the first Gospel written. So I really don't care what these modern theologian have to say on the matter because our traditions came from godly men who knew it was a grave sin to lie, especially in the priesthood. So the early church has it right.

I have several books written by top theologians from this century and they all say the Gospels are eyewitness accounts. But even if the said otherwise it wouldn't matter because their opinion would be at odds with tradition and that would make them heretics.
 
Upvote 0

FEZZILLA

Well-Known Member
Jun 24, 2003
1,031
131
53
Wisconsin
✟16,495.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
The so called 'plane prophecy' reads
“Who are these that fly like clouds,
and like doves to their windows?"

Planes dont fly anything like clouds, & they definitely dont fly to peoples windows, unless they are crashing into a building. I could make the claim that Isaiah was a prophecy about the planes crashing into the world trade centre, because then the planes DID fly into windows!

You could not make the claim that the prophecy is about 911 because there is nothing in the context that remotely suggest that. If you deviate from the context you are misreading the prophecy. Isaiah lived in 700 B.C. and there were no airplanes back then. God speaks to Isaiah, showing him a vision of the future. Isaiah never seen a plane before which is why he used clouds and birds to describe it. Also, if you have a Sword Study Bible all words of God are in red and all Isaiah chapter 60 is God speaking to Isaiah and Isaiah records the words and vision he sees of the future. Isaiah had no idea that we modern people would call it an airplane.

Also Isaiah never mentions Jesus crucifiction or resurrection of Christ ANYWHERE! jesus never fulfilled any of the prophecies of what the Messiah was supposed to fulfill, which is why the Jews till this day still reject jesus as the Messiah.

How do you know? Have you ever read all 66 chapters of Isaiah? Also, the Jewish priests who had Jesus crucified remembered what Moses wrote about cursed is the man who hangs from the tree. They accused Jesus of blasphemy for claiming to be God. The punishment for blasphemy according to the Law was stoning. But the Jewish priests wanted to make Jesus a curse. And this is why it was the Jews God cursed for 2000 years also according to the Law.

As I said, you should spend time learning how to read & understand prophecy. All we have are your claims that the prophecy means what YOU say it does, & your only evidence that you are interpreting it properly is your claim that in Isaiah he prophesied the aeroplane, which can be interpreted in a myriad of ways, the least likely being what you say it is.

You also CLAIM that god is guiding you. This is a claim anybody can make, & those who do normally do so because they lack any supporting evidence for their claims.

You have not even come close in refuting the interpretation. Not even close. Again, the key verse of the chapter is verse three which very thoroughly completes its fulfillment with the discovery of America. But verse 3 begins fulfillment long before that point and can be argued that it was fulfilled in the year 800 A.D. with the crowning of king Charlemagne. Verse 8 fulfills sometime after verse 3 is fulfilled. Verse 10 is about the return of the Jews back to Israel.
 
Upvote 0

Theo Barnsley

Active Member
Jan 4, 2019
137
87
29
Auckland
✟21,150.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Engaged
Actually its the other way around. Atheists are liars and I catch atheists in lies all the time.

Our understanding of ancient literature has not improved but very sadly declined. I would even go as far as to say the people of the classical era of history had more than twice the mental discipline than what we've seen in the 21st century.

I'm an Anglican which is the oldest of all English denominations. Our history and traditions go back as far as the 3rd century when Britain was first Christianized. In the 16th century our church broke away from the RCC and joined the Protestant movement. All the best translations of the Bible in English come from the Anglican Church. We still hold to traditions that go back to the 1st century of Christ. We also know that Matthew was the first Gospel written. So I really don't care what these modern theologian have to say on the matter because our traditions came from godly men who knew it was a grave sin to lie, especially in the priesthood. So the early church has it right.

I have several books written by top theologians from this century and they all say the Gospels are eyewitness accounts. But even if the said otherwise it wouldn't matter because their opinion would be at odds with tradition and that would make them heretics.
I will presume that you only read books that support YOUR world view, so your knowledge has an extremely narrow & definitely biased scope.

So if I am supposed to believe that the 'age' of a tradition is supposed to prove that the views of your church are correct, I will HAVE to, (by your logic), defer to the Jewish belief that Jesus was a false prophet & NOT the messiah, because their traditions go back much further than the Anglican tradition!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Theo Barnsley

Active Member
Jan 4, 2019
137
87
29
Auckland
✟21,150.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Engaged
You could not make the claim that the prophecy is about 911 because there is nothing in the context that remotely suggest that. If you deviate from the context you are misreading the prophecy. Isaiah lived in 700 B.C. and there were no airplanes back then. God speaks to Isaiah, showing him a vision of the future. Isaiah never seen a plane before which is why he used clouds and birds to describe it. Also, if you have a Sword Study Bible all words of God are in red and all Isaiah chapter 60 is God speaking to Isaiah and Isaiah records the words and vision he sees of the future. Isaiah had no idea that we modern people would call it an airplane.

There is nothing in the context that even remotely suggests what you say it is either!

How do you know? Have you ever read all 66 chapters of Isaiah? Also, the Jewish priests who had Jesus crucified remembered what Moses wrote about cursed is the man who hangs from the tree. They accused Jesus of blasphemy for claiming to be God. The punishment for blasphemy according to the Law was stoning. But the Jewish priests wanted to make Jesus a curse. And this is why it was the Jews God cursed for 2000 years also according to the Law.

I havent, but plenty of Jewish Rabbi's have, & they interpret it nothing at all like you do! I think I would trust the Rabbi's interpretation over yours!

You have not even come close in refuting the interpretation. Not even close. Again, the key verse of the chapter is verse three which very thoroughly completes its fulfillment with the discovery of America. But verse 3 begins fulfillment long before that point and can be argued that it was fulfilled in the year 800 A.D. with the crowning of king Charlemagne. Verse 8 fulfills sometime after verse 3 is fulfilled. Verse 10 is about the return of the Jews back to Israel.

You do realise that people were living in America for thousands of years before Isaiah was written, and more thousands of years before 'Christopher Columbus' which is what you are probably referring to regarding the so called 'discovery'.
 
Upvote 0

Theo Barnsley

Active Member
Jan 4, 2019
137
87
29
Auckland
✟21,150.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Engaged
Says the overly skeptical atheist. But early Christian tradition doesn't agree with modern day assumptions. Matthew was written first. John in no way describes another Jesus. Fragments of John's Gospel can be found in the 2nd century which means it was well circulated before being discarded and replaced by a new copy.
It isnt atheists who say that Mark was written first, it is theological scholars.

You keep going on about early Christian tradition, as though it is supposed to prove something.
The very earliest christian tradition was that all christians had to become jews & follow jewish law, but then Paul, who wanted to preach to the gentiles, changed that, because he wasnt winning many converts.

There were also many other very early christian traditions, that didnt survive after the catholic church dominated the christian religion, & christianity became a roman state religion. Many pagan beliefs were adopted into the christian religion, which includes christmas & easter, which were originally pagan festivals.
Isaac Newton was a master of chronologies and he said both accounts are the same but two different methodologies were used.
Isaac Newton was a believer, as were the majority of people back then. He had the same blinkered & biased view that christians today have when looking at the biblical accounts. However any serious scholar can see that the two different chronologies can not possible be correct.
The prophecies are saying that God will be with us. Perhaps you need to do some more reading because its already interpreted for you in the Bible. Job 19:23-27 reveals Jesus' name if you read it in Hebrew.
No practising jew believes you!
Wrong again! There is no verse that says Judas fell on his sword. Judas hung himself and the branch he hung himself with broke and his body fell in a ravine where his guts ripped open. This is a well know fact in Israel to this day.
Nowhere in the bible does it say that the branch judas hung himself on broke & his body then fell into a ravine. That is just creative interpretation to try to reconcile the two differing accounts of his death.
Hebrew: young woman. Greek: virgin. They both mean the same thing. A young woman of Israel was a virgin.
NO, they don't mean the same thing. Again no Jew or scholar who can interpret the language correctly will agree that the Jewish meaning was for a virgin. there are other instances in the bible where the same word is used, & it clearly does not mean that she was a virgin!
The Gospels record it. Herod didn't want to record it in hopes it would be forgotten.
If this REALLY happened (the slaughter of all infants under 2) do you think that the jews of the day would have been quiet about it. They would have been protesting, as they did many times during the roman occupation. The only source is only ONE of the gospels, so again, no corroboration from any other source, not even the other gospels.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
A court of law requires 'eye witness evidence'. Hearsay evidence is not allowed & will be dismissed straight away. It is not known if ANY of the accounts in the New Testament are eyewitness accounts.
Yes; it's all basically hearsay. I've read that the earliest writings are Paul's, around the mid 50's C.E.; he didn't meet Jesus (pre-resurrection), and says almost nothing biographical about his life. The Gospels were probably written during the 90's C.E. onwards.
 
Upvote 0

FEZZILLA

Well-Known Member
Jun 24, 2003
1,031
131
53
Wisconsin
✟16,495.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
It isnt atheists who say that Mark was written first, it is theological scholars.

Those who know little about the origin of Matthew. The ancient church always wins these debates. Personally I never cared which was written first. But when I found out that Matthew was written first there was no purpose in entertaining a non-truth that Mark was written first. I think the ancient church knew more about these things then the out of touch modern church. And as for your atheist perspective on all this...I don't care.

You keep going on about early Christian tradition, as though it is supposed to prove something.

Absolutely. The ancient church is how you weed out all these false denominations with all their heretical pet-doctrines the early church never knew about.

The very earliest christian tradition was that all christians had to become jews & follow jewish law, but then Paul, who wanted to preach to the gentiles, changed that, because he wasnt winning many converts.

And yet Paul was called by Christ and approved by Peter. Isaiah 60:3 prophesied that the gentiles and their kings would become great nations who came to the light of our risen Lord. That prophecy cannot be logically disputed because it was fulfilled in what historians call Christendom. There are prophecies in Genesis which speak about the gentiles coming to Christ. So Paul's ministry is mentioned first in Genesis as well as Isaiah.

YThere were also many other very early christian traditions, that didnt survive after the catholic church dominated the christian religion, & christianity became a roman state religion. Many pagan beliefs were adopted into the christian religion, which includes christmas & easter, which were originally pagan festivals.

That's a false claim made by atheists who reject history. For the first 1000 years of Christianity the was only one universal faith. Romans also had the human right to accept Christ as their Savior as many Roman citizens became Christians during Jesus's ministry on earth and after His resurrection. It should be no surprise to see Rome go from a pagan nation to a Christian nation. The whole reason why Emperor Constantine built Constantinople was because he wanted to build a new Roman city that did not have a pagan history behind. So he dedicated Constantinople to his new found faith. So Romans have a right to be saved just like any one else.

Isaac Newton was a believer, as were the majority of people back then. He had the same blinkered & biased view that christians today have when looking at the biblical accounts. However any serious scholar can see that the two different chronologies can not possible be correct.
b

So you would prefer atheists to take over Christian doctrine just as the Nazis did? The Nazi took orthodox Christian Germany and turned it into liberal occultism just as we see happening today which is why I stick to traditional Christianity over this mindless liberal evil which only leads to mass murder. But I'm sure you're ok with that since you reject true orthodoxy.

No practising jew believes you!

I don't care. I used to debate Jews a lot some years back. Its an easy debate. You just don't know their history well enough to debate them. But I don't debate Jews anymore because its not the right way to witness to them. I prefer debating muslims but they are such bad debaters its impossible to hold conversation with them. I actually understand Islam and the Qur'an better than I understand Christianity and the Bible. Islam is not hard to solve if you're willing to take the time to read the Qur'an a couple times through with reliable tafsirs. The hard part about studying Islam is reading through the entire Sunnah which is multiple volumes of books. So I have no problem debating muslims. But atheists neither study Christianity or Islam and yet they have all these unfounded opinions about both.


Nowhere in the bible does it say that the branch judas hung himself on broke & his body then fell into a ravine. That is just creative interpretation to try to reconcile the two differing accounts of his death.
Go to Israel and ask to see the place where Judas hung himself. Both Jews and Christians have tradition going way back which you will have confirmed in Israel. I gave the correct answer and that answer will not change.

NO, they don't mean the same thing. Again no Jew or scholar who can interpret the language correctly will agree that the Jewish meaning was for a virgin. there are other instances in the bible where the same word is used, & it clearly does not mean that she was a virgin!

You are arguing something you know nothing about which is so typical of atheists. The Greek Septuagint was translated by scholarly Jews. The Hebrew young woman translates to Greek virgin. All Jews who were young and unmarried were virgins.
Genesis 1:1 (KJV)

If this REALLY happened (the slaughter of all infants under 2) do you think that the jews of the day would have been quiet about it. They would have been protesting, as they did many times during the roman occupation. The only source is only ONE of the gospels, so again, no corroboration from any other source, not even the other gospels.

Protesting against Herod, a Roman plant? You have got to be kidding, right? Herod was a corrupt and lawless king who had more power than the people. You seem to think that 1st century Judea was a place of Antifa style protests. If Herod lost control the Romans had his back. You simply do not know the subject you are debating and want to debate from a strict 21st century perspective.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Status
Not open for further replies.