The Evidence War

[chrispalasz]

Please take the time to read this entire post.

This thread is created for posts that:

1. Show evidence supporting the view that Christianity holds the Truth about God and humanity.

2. Show evidence supporting the view that Christianity does not hold the truth about God and humanity.

Evidence posted must be according to one of the two definitions, or it will not be deemed sufficient as evidence. All debate arising from posted evidence should be addressed using counter-evidence [counter-evidence defined as evidence that goes against or attempts to falsify or discredit evidence already posted].

Evidence, on this thread, is defined as follows:

1. Of or having to do with a material object that demonstrates, makes clear, or ascertains the truth of the very fact or point in issue;

2. A matter of record, or writing, or by the testimony of witnesses, enabling one to pronounce with certainty; concerning the truth of any matter in dispute.

[samuelbb7]

You got me on luke. the writer of acts is apparent from style and phrasing and words chosen to be the same writer of acts. Which is from Luke the doctor .

What "inference" points to the authorship of John?

Jhn 21:20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?
Jhn 21:23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what [is that] to thee?
Jhn 21:24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

As for the prophecy in Daniel, the language is rather vague. Who is "the prince"? And "the people of the prince" who will destroy the city? What "flood" is he talking about? I don't see any explicit references to Jesus, the crucifixion, or the resurrection. Also, what are "weeks of years"? Where did you find that concept? It is not at all clear to me that your interpretation is the one intended by the writer.

The Messiah the prince in verse 25 is pretty plain. Also the Messiah in vs 25 is plain. JESUS is the Messiah. Now the prince who came to destroy the city and the people are Romans who destroyed the city in 70 AD. Cut off is a euphismam for killed. Correct it does not say crucified. But the aramaic is 70 week of years and also the bible use a day for a year in prophetic times quite often.

Num 14:34 After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, [even] forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, [even] forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise.

Eze 4:6 And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year.

Now the Bible says the messiah would be pierced. :Zec 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for [his] only [son], and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for [his] firstborn.


Lastly this is the common meaning of the prophecy known by many.

[Dilettante]

Thank you SpinyNorman (by the way, my favorite skit is "Four Yorkshiremen", closely followed by "The Argument sketch"). I used the word "autograph" as a verb, but with the sense of "written by their own hand".

Just one question...if those originals, as is generally believed, no longer exist...can we really know for sure they were free of errors?

[Dilettante]

Samuelbb7,
Thanks for the references. However, don't you think John 21:24 sounds like it was written later by someone else? Who does "we" refer to? It seems to me that it is an epilogue by someone else, or he would say "I am" and "I know". Also, what do you figure Jesus meant when he said he wished that John "tarry till I (Jessus) come"? Is he implying that John would not die or that John's testimony (assuming John the disciple and John the author are the same person) would not die?

About the prophecy, what you say makes sense, although the flood is still unaccounted for and if the destruction of the Temple took place during the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans (AD 66-73) then the prince would have to be the notorious Emperor Nero. He wasn't exactly a prince at the time, but since he was relatively young I guess it could be interpreted that way.

[samuelbb7]

You are welcome

The term flood here is I believe used metaphoircal for a great number of soldiers. JESUS warned about this event.

Mat 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

Mar 13:14 But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:

Another important prophecy is Isa 53:1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?


Isa 53:2 For 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.


Isa 53:3 He 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.


Isa 53:4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.


Isa 53:5 But 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.


Isa 53:6 All 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.


Isa 53:7 He 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.


Isa 53:8 He 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.


Isa 53:9 And 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.


Isa 53:10 Yet 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.


Isa 53:11 He 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.


Isa 53:12 Therefore 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.

[SpinyNorman]

Dilettante,

Yes I believe we can be confident in the accuracy of the translations today even thought the original writings are lost to time.

When scribes set down to make copies they followed STRICT copy rules. If there was the slightest error thes WHOLE COPY was destroyed.

Also the original writings were not copied one at a time. It wasn't a case of using one copy then recopying it when that one wore out. Copies were made in groups. And each finished copy had to be checked numerous times.

And even if that isn't enough, we have VERY early manuscripts, some complete and some fragmentary. Even using the EARLIEST of these documents, which are little more than pieces, they always match up with our current bible. There are minor inconsistencies with numbers or spelling, but in NO CASE have there been any errors found in any key doctrinal or theological passages.

[samuelbb7]

I just got to go see the Dead Sea Scrolls last month. One of the main reason they were so important is that they were copies of the Jewish bible a thousand years older then any other known copy. The big news was the lack of differences. While some minor ones were found. A few misspelled words here and there but 98% the same.

The other major impact was that Judaism was a little more diverse then many had thought. Christians welcomed the impact since it confirmed much of what they had been saying for generations.

[SpinyNorman]

Has this thread exausted???

[samuelbb7]

maybe if no one posts then it dies.

[chrispalasz]

Plus there's another thread up... and it's pretty much identicle:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... .php?t=698

[samuelbb7]

That has been around for awhile. I guess I could jump in at this late date.