Christians- How do you know Jesus and the Bible are true?

[joelr]

Notice your "personal opinion". How do you know it was fiction and not prophetic?

Psalm 22 and Its Fulfillment in Jesus Christ - Bible Central

biblecentral.info

No... it was very prophetic.

Dude?? It's not my personal opinion? Yes it's prophetic WHEN YOU CHANGE WORDS??????? Later Christian scribes changed the Hebrew into words that sounded more like a crucifixion.
And again, you source a non-historian. It's so telling how you avoid Hebrew specialists. I linked to Dr Joel Baden who is a Hebrew specialist .

ALSO, Mark wrote the crucifixion narrative to FIT psalm 22 because he USES IT VERBATIM??????? That demonstrates he's making a narrative that exactly fits? Embarrassing. Well, if you care about what is true.
Not only do they change words to make it fit even better, Mark used the Psalm verbatim demonstrating Mark had no actual narrative, because he was MAKING IT UP.

Wait, it gets better.......you linked to a NT PhD, HA HA HA HA HA HA, I thought they were "post hole diggers, Or is it just when someone else uses them? Ugg, cringe.




HELLO - ??????

ACTUAL HEBREW​		King James
For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evildoers have enclosed me; like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet.	כִּי סְבָבוּנִי, כְּלָבִים: עֲדַת מְרֵעִים, הִקִּיפוּנִי; כָּאֲרִי, יָדַי וְרַגְלָי:	For dogs have compassed me, the assembly of the wicked have enclosed me; they pierced my hands and my feet.

oh wow, they didn't actually say pierced my hands, you were lied to by apologists. Great that you are still sourcing them.



"Notice that the English translation from the original Hebrew does not contain the word “pierced.” The King James version deliberately mistranslated the Hebrew word kaari (כָּאֲרִי) as “pierced,” rather than “like a lion,” thereby drawing the reader to a false conclusion that this Psalm is describing the Crucifixion. The Hebrew word כָּאֲרִי does not mean pierced but plainly means “like a lion. The end of Psalm 22:17, therefore, properly reads “like a lion they are at my hands and my feet.” Had King David wished to write the word “pierced,” he would never have used the Hebrew word kaari. Instead, he would have written either daqar or ratza, which are common Hebrew words in the Jewish Scriptures. These common words mean to “stab” or “pierce.” Needless to say, the phrase “they pierced my hands and my feet” is a not-too-ingenious Christian contrivance that appears nowhere in Tanach.

Bear in mind, this stunning mistranslation in the 22nd Psalm was not born out of ignorance. Christian translators were well aware of the correct meaning of this simple Hebrew word. They fully understood the meaning of the word כָּאֲרִי and deliber- ately twisted their translations of this text. The word kaari can be found in many other places in the Jewish scriptures and they correctly translated כָּאֲרִי “like a lion” in all places in Christian Bibles where this word appears with the exception of Psalm 22—the Church’s cherished “Crucifixion Psalm.”

For example, the identical word kaari is also found in Isaiah 38:13. In the immediate context of this verse King Hezekiah is singing a song for deliverance from his grave illness.In the midst of his supplication he exclaims in Hebrew “שִׁוִּ֤יתִי עַד־בֹּ֙קֶר֙ כָּֽאֲרִ֔י” Notice that the last word in this phrase (moving from right to left) is the same Hebrew word kaari that appears in Psalm 22:17. In this Isaiah text, however, the King James Version correctly translates these words “I reckoned till morning that, as a lion…” As mentioned above, Psalm 22:17 is the only place in all of the Jewish Scriptures that any Christian Bible translates kaari as “pierced.”

It must be noted that the authors of the New Testament were not responsible for inserting the word “pierced” into the text of Psalm 22:17. This verse was tampered with long after the Christian canon was completed. Bear in mind, during the latter half of the first century, when the New Testament writers were compiling their Greek manuscripts, Psalm 22:17 was still in pristine condition; thus, when the authors of the New Testament read this verse, they found nothing in the phrase “ like a lion they are at my hands and my feet” that would advance their teachings. As a result, Psalm 22:17 is never quoted in the New Testament. Missionaries, who insist that the Christian translation of this verse reflects the original words of King David, must wonder why there was not one New Testament author who deemed this supposed allusion to the crucifixion worthy of being mentioned in his writings."

A Closer Look at the “Crucifixion Psalm” - Outreach Judaism

Question: Dear Rabbi Singer, I am a Lutheran living in Switzerland and have been reading your web page with interest. I admire your commitment to your faith, yet I am perplexed as to why you so assuredly reject Jesus Christ as your messiah. He came not only for the gentiles, but for the Jews as

outreachjudaism.org

Mark 15.24: “They part his garments among them, casting lots upon them.”

Psalm 22:18: “They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon them.”

Mark 15.29-31: “And those who passed by blasphemed him, shaking their heads and saying, ‘…Save yourself…’ and mocked him, saying ‘He who saved others cannot save himself!’ ”

Psalm 22.7-8: “All those who see me mock me and give me lip, shaking their head, saying ‘He expected the lord to protect him, so let the lord save him if he likes.’ ”

Mark 15.34: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

Psalm 22.1: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

On top of these links, Mark also appears to have used Psalm 69, Amos 8.9, and some elements of Isaiah 53, Zechariah 9-14, and Wisdom 2 as sources for his narratives. So we can see yet a few more elements of myth in the latter part of this Gospel, with Mark using other scriptural sources as needed for his story, whether to “fulfill” what he believed to be prophecy or for some other reason.
Earlier in Mark (chapter 5), we hear about another obviously fictional story about Jesus resurrecting a girl (the daughter of a man named Jairus) from the dead, this miracle serving as another obvious marker of myth, but adding to that implausibility is the fact that the tale is actually a rewrite of another mythical story, told of Elisha in 2 Kings 4.17-37 as found in the OT, and also the fact that there are a number of very improbable coincidences found within the story itself. In the story with Elisha, we hear of a woman from Shunem who seeks out the miracle-working Elisha, finds him, falls to his feet and begs him to help her son who had recently fallen gravely ill. Someone checks on her son and confirms that he is now dead, but Elisha doesn’t fret about this, and he goes into her house, works his miraculous magic, and raises him from the dead. In Mark’s version of the story (Mark 5.22-43), the same things occur. We hear about Jairus coming to look for Jesus, finds him, falls to his feet and begs him to help him with his daughter. Someone then comes to confirm that she is now dead, but Jesus (as Elisha) doesn’t fret, and he goes into his house, works his miraculous magic, and raises her from the dead.

 

[Brian2]

Science does not do things in that way. "Since we do not understand, it is God". Science will need evidence to accept God, soul, heaven, hell, judgment and deliverance. It also will need to know when exactly that will happen. In the various theories about universe, the time line is clearly mentioned up to the Planck's instant. Saying "Jesus is coming, Jesus is coming" will not satisfy science.

True, and atheists know that, but claim to want scientific answers for God when they know the answers/evidence for God are not scientific.
Why is that?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Atheist simply discard claims without evidence. So there goes your God, soul and all the related phenomena.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Not their dying from pneumonia or being tried and executed for murder or sabotage, but being martyred for the cause.

But they weren’t. They have a tendency to be melodramatic and like Karens and sovereign citizens, they make what happened to be something it’s not.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

And as far as we know, each of them was prepared to die for what they said they were witnesses to

They weren’t. Why do you skip over all the times they run off? Even Jesus flees a few times. They aren’t exactly jumping at the chance to die.

 

[Brian2]

Because historians understand how to see trends. Only in the

Mediterranean region did savior demigods and mystery religion theology arise. Not in Persia, India, China, and it started BEFORE Christianity. All of the local religions were Hellenized, got savior demigods who were dying/rising Gods under a supreme God, they all had baptism, not the Jewish kind but specific to the mystery religions (including Christianity), all had communal meals and on and on......

Many were before Christianity which is definitely a Jewish version of this trend.

The way you put it makes it sound clear cut, but it takes and lot of creativity and determination to see those savior demigods who died and rose again etc.
The stories no doubt came before Christianity but without saying that the OT was basically made up in the Exile, the prophecies about the Jewish Messiah who would die as savior and rise again are very old indeed, probably before most other Mediterranean stories that you claim are the same type (but which actually are not)

There is evidence Mark used those sources.
There is clear evidence Mark uses ring structure, chiasmus, Markan sandwiches, and other fictive writing devices
There is no evidence one of the many savior demigods existed,
there is evidence none of them existed

Your evidence that Mark used the sources you mention comes from the presumption that Jesus is not real, that the gospel was made up, that it was inspired as fiction by some sources. IOW it is biased scholarship, circular reasoning.
But there is evidence Jesus existed even if none of the others did.
The things in the writing of Mark which you call fictive writing devices also sound like they could be memory things used by Jesus so that His teaching would be remembered and easily passed on.

Sorry, this is an excerp from Dr Carriers work. "We" means other scholars. It is in fact a solid fact that Luke is a bad historian.
Everything here is true, nothing here is opinion. A top historian is telling you Luke does not do proper history. That is a fact.

"Proper history"? is that with a bibliography or something?

Luke is the first gospel to overtly represent itself as history. He adds superficial details as local color, attempts to date some events and includes a vague preface. He creates a resurrection narrative engineered to answer skeptics of Matthew's account, a tactic that "requires" his story to be true. This count is known to be a fabrication. No prior Gospel, or Paul, had ever heard of the peculiar and convenient details that suddenly make their first appearance in Luke, such as that Peter double-checked the womans claim that the tomb was empty and handled the burial shroud, or that Jesus showed disciples his wouonds and made sure the disciples touched him and fed him food to prove he wasn't a ghost, or that resurrected Jesus actually hung out and partied with dozens of his followers for over a month before flying into the clouds of heaven.
So we know Luke is making things up to sell a fake history, for purposes of winning an argument against doubters (both with and within Christianity, as his opponents included, for example, Christians with very different ideas about the nature of the resurrection).

Luke lets us know that he got his information from witnesses and those who had been there from the beginning.
And really I don't think you or anyone can say with certainty that "know" things which he says are not true when that is really no more than speculations based on the presumption that Luke made stuff up.
The extra bits that Luke adds (personal touches) have been said to reflect witness accounts, but some how you manage to need these things to be in other gospels or Paul or they are just lies.

Despite pretense at being a historian, preface and all, Luke's methods are demonstrably nonhistorical: he is not doing research, weighing facts, checking them against independent sources, and writing down what he thinks most likely happened. He is simply producing an expanded and redacted literary hybird of a couple of previous religious novels, each itself even more obviously constructed according to literary conventions rather than historiographical. Unlike other historians from Luke's era, he never names sources, explains why we are to trust them, or how he chose what he chose to include or exclude. In fact Luke does not even declare any critical method at all, but rather insists he slavishly followed what was handed to him - yet another claim we know to be a lie (since we have 2 of his sources and can confirm he freely altered them to suit his own agenda).

He tells us his sources.
You are the one who claims he slavishly followed what was handed to him,,,,,,,,,,,, then you say that claim is a lie.

There is no "early church":? The first canon was the Marcionite canon and now unknown. Paul had a different OT. 1/2 of Christianity is the 2nd century was Gnostic.
Gospel names didn't arise until late 2nd century. There is no "early church". There were groups, some thought Jesus was a man only, some thought he was only a spirit, some thought Yahweh was a different God than the NT God.

The early church fathers gave us quotes from what they considered authentic writings. This was before any "official" canon was done.
The main determination of the books seems to have been the apostolic proximity.

 

[Brian2]

Yes it is fiction. First, stop pretending to know anything about scholarship. You don't read, watch or engage in any of it.
You constantly make incorrect statements about it.
Peer-reviewed books are working with what is known to be facts. They have no supernatural bias. It is not their fault there is no evidence for anything supernatural.

I don't have to be a big reader of scholarship to see the sort of reasoning in it.
It is anti supernatural and presumes that from the start (using the same naturalistic methodology that science does)
It presumes supernatural in scriptures is not true and works from there.

You don't expect historical scholars to suddenly start writing books about how Islam is the true religion and all true. Or Mormonism has been found to be the new and correct updated Christainity. And when you look at their work they say " Well, we didn't believe it until we looked at the Quran or Joseph Smith's writings.......and we saw.......THEY SAID IT HAPPENED!!!!!! They say, very clearly, IT IS TRUE. Also they say they are the only truth and others will bring a painful doom. We now know because it says so."

Why does acceptance of the supernatural mean those people believe everything that claims to be from God?
I don't expect scholars to make a decision one way or the other about the truth of scriptures. You seem to think that the anti supernatural bias of scholars is enough to say that no scriptures are true.

You ideas on this matter are absurd. Your book has no more compelling evidence beyond they say so. Yet you would not expect this to work for Islam, but for some reason you expect scholars to read one bunch of claims and say, wow it must be true.
It's so hypocritical.
There is no evidence.
Also, there is MASSIVE evidence that every single little thing in Christianity is either Greek or Persian myth, added to Judaism. All of the other religions also encountered and were defeated by the Greeks. They ALL got savior demigods, who rose, underwent a passion, provided followers with a good afterlife, members became a brotherhood,

all use baptism and communion(communal meals).

That is called evidence. Evidence it is just another myth.

They use baptism and communal means so none of them is true. Hmmm.
You don't know what I believe about Islam etc but presume it is hypocrisy.
Your "MASSIVE" evidence is really very thin when it is realised just how inventive your scholars have to be to see similarities in most cases.
When you realise that the idea that the Bible was invented in Exile is BS.
When you realise that your scholars are starting with the idea that Jesus is non existent and working to try to show that to be true.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

The stories no doubt came before Christianity but without saying that the OT was basically made up in the Exile

I don’t believe that they were all made up during the Exile. The story of King Josiah pretty much admitted that they maybe had a law book (found conveniently when Josiah needed a national story to unite the people) and little else. It’s emphasized that the people didn’t know about Moses. So, some of the scripture could date to the monarchy period, maybe even the judges period.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Luke lets us know that he got his information from witnesses and those who had been there from the beginning.

And the second they told him about things for which they were not present, Luke should have called them out.

 

[Kenny]

HELLO - ??????

ACTUAL HEBREW​	King James	That's
For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evildoers have enclosed me; like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet.	כִּי סְבָבוּנִי, כְּלָבִים: עֲדַת מְרֵעִים, הִקִּיפוּנִי; כָּאֲרִי, יָדַי וְרַגְלָי:	For dogs have compassed me, the assembly of the wicked have enclosed me; they pierced my hands and my feet.

oh wow, they didn't actually say pierced my hands, you were lied to by apologists. Great that you are still sourcing them.

That, imv, is because you don't want it to be the same so you don't dig.

I like Hebrew scholar John Gill's exposition on it:

they pierced my hands and my feet;
by nailing them to the cross, which, though not related by the evangelists, is plainly suggested in ( John 20:25 John 20:27 ) ; and is referred to in other passages of Scripture, ( Zechariah 12:10 ) ( Revelation 1:7 ) ; and clearly points at the kind of death Christ should die; the death, of the cross, a shameful and painful one. In this clause there is a various reading; in some copies in the margin it is, "as a lion my hands and my feet", but in the text, "they have dug" or "pierced my hands and my feet"; both are joined together in the Targum, "biting as a lion my hands and my feet"; as it is by other interpreters F3; and Schultens F4 retains the latter, rendering the preceding clause in connection with it thus,

``the assembly of the wicked have broken me to pieces, as a lion, my hands and my feet.''

In the Targum, in the king of Spain's Bible, the phrase, "as a lion", is left out. The modern Jews are for retaining the marginal reading, though without any good sense, and are therefore sometimes charged with a wilful and malicious corruption of the text; but without sufficient proof, since the different reading in some copies might be originally occasioned by the similarity of the letters (y) and (w) ; and therefore finding it in their copies, or margin, sometimes (wrak) , and sometimes (yrak) , have chose that which best suits their purpose, and is not to be wondered at; however, their "masoretic" notes, continued by them, sufficiently clear them from such an imputation, and direct to the true reading of the words; in the small Masorah on the text it is observed that the word is twice used as here pointed, but in two different senses; this is one of the places; the other is ( Isaiah 38:13 ) ; where the sense requires it should be read "as a lion": wherefore, according to the authors of that note, it must have a different sense here, and not to be understood of a lion; the larger Masorah, in ( Numbers 24:9 ) ; observes the word is to be found in two places, in that place and in ( Psalms 22:16 ) ; and adds to that, it is written (wrak) , "they pierced"; and Ben Chayim confirms F5 this reading, and says he found it so written it, some correct copies, and in the margin (yrak) ; and so it is written in several manuscripts; and which is confirmed by the Arabic, Syriac, Ethiopic, Greek, and Vulgate Latin versions; in which it is rendered, "they dug my hands and my feet"; and so took it to be a verb and not a noun: so Apollinarius in his metaphrase; and which is also confirmed by the points; though taking (yrak) for a participle, as the Targum, that reading may be admitted, as it is by some learned men F6, who render it "digging" or "piercing", and so has the same sense, deriving the word either from (rak) or (rwk) , which signify to dig, pierce, or make hollow; and there are many instances of plural words which end in (y) , the (m) omitted, being cut off by an apocope; see ( 2 Samuel 23:8 ) ( 2 Kings 11:4 2 Kings 11:19 ) ( Lamentations 3:14 ) ( Ezekiel 32:30 ) ; and either way the words are expressive of the same thing, and manifestly point to the sufferings of Christ, and that kind of death he should die, the death of the cross, and the nailing of his hands and feet to it, whereby they were pierced. This passage is sometimes applied by the Jews F7 themselves to their Messiah.
F7 Pesikta in Yalkut, par. 2. fol. 56. 4.

 

[Brian2]

And the second they told him about things for which they were not present, Luke should have called them out.

Witnesses and those who were there from the beginning witnessed and heard stuff that they did not witness from others who did witness. With some things only Jesus or John, James, Peter and Jesus were there.
No history is witnessed by historians usually.

 

[Brian2]

I don’t believe that they were all made up during the Exile. The story of King Josiah pretty much admitted that they maybe had a law book (found conveniently when Josiah needed a national story to unite the people) and little else. It’s emphasized that the people didn’t know about Moses. So, some of the scripture could date to the monarchy period, maybe even the judges period.

Almost the same as being made up during the Exile, just a slightly earlier date.
And of course the same connotations are applied.
What the story tells us is interpreted as a big lie and historians make up their own version of what happened and why, and this skeptic speculation becomes the alternative facts.

 

[Brian2]

They weren’t. Why do you skip over all the times they run off? Even Jesus flees a few times. They aren’t exactly jumping at the chance to die.

No they weren't running to their enemies and asking to be killed. So?

 

[Brian2]

Atheist simply discard claims without evidence. So there goes your God, soul and all the related phenomena.

No, atheists discard claims without scientific evidence.
There is evidence but atheists want scientific evidence, and interestingly when science is used to study the scriptures of religions, any supernatural stories are ignored as being lies because science does not know if spirits exist. So the scriptural evidence is not good for science and atheists therefore say that evidence is lies and not really evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, atheists discard claims without scientific evidence.
There is evidence but atheists want scientific evidence, and interestingly when science is used to study the scriptures of religions, any supernatural stories are ignored as being lies because science does not know if spirits exist. So the scriptural evidence is not good for science and atheists therefore say that evidence is lies and not really evidence.

You may have a minor point. Atheists discard claims without reliable evidence. There is not even any evidence for God that is strong enough to make it into small claims court. So yes, we ignore laughably weak evidence. Guilty as charged.

 

[Brian2]

1) We can't know if they had the chance to recant.
2) They may have recanted, and been killed anyway
3) it's a story, no historian of the time backs any of this up, we only know of 2 apostles fate, the gospels are not history, they are fictive stories
4) Martyrdom in Judaism is a big concept and it's not surprising it ended up in the Gospel story.

Martyrdom in Judaism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

5) all fictional cults use techniques like stories of martyrdom to bring credibility, still not true
6) Islamic martyrdom


Our own Prophet Muhammad was also according to some narrations a martyr as well. However, perhaps the most prominent martyr in Islam is Hussain ibn Ali who was martyred in Karbala on the day of Ashura.

Gabriel Informs the Prophet of the Fate of Imam Hussain​

Narrations state that when Imam Hussain was born, the archangel Gabriel descended on the Prophet and told him what would ultimately happen to his second grandson. Therefore, he told him the story of Hussain’s sacrifice and his encounter with the tyrant of his time Yazid. Gabriel told the whole story of how Imam Hussain at Karbala and how he was left with only 72 companions and martyred innocently, and how his blood saved Islam. The Prophet wept a lot for Imam Hussain and so did Ali and Fatimah after hearing his story. The Prophet had said:
Hussain is from me and I am from Hussain. 1


Wow, Islam must be true

The Gospel stories are clearly fiction. Paul's death is not known in detail and Peter was killed by Nero who was looking to kill Christians.
This looks like a lot of made-up stuff and Paul never saw Jesus, just hallucinations, (not likely.)

The date of Paul's death is believed to have occurred after the Great Fire of Rome in July 64 AD, but before the last year of Nero's reign, in 68 AD.[2]

The Second Epistle to Timothy states that Paul was arrested in Troad[188] and brought back to Rome, where he was imprisoned and put on trial; the Epistle was traditionally ascribed to Paul, but today many scholars considered it to be pseudepigrapha, perhaps written by one of Paul's disciples.[189] Pope Clement I writes in his Epistle to the Corinthians that after Paul "had borne his testimony before the rulers", he "departed from the world and went unto the holy place, having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance."[190] Ignatius of Antioch writes in his Epistle to the Ephesians that Paul was martyred, without giving any further information.[191]

Eusebius states that Paul was killed during the Neronian Persecution[192] and, quoting from Dionysius of Corinth, argues that Peter and Paul were martyred "at the same time".[193] Tertullian writes that Paul was beheaded like John the Baptist,[194] a detail also contained in Lactantius,[195]Jerome,[196] John Chrysostom[197] and Sulpicius Severus.[198][full citation needed]

A legend later developed that his martyrdom occurred at the Aquae Salviae, on the Via Laurentina. According to this legend, after Paul was decapitated, his severed head rebounded three times, giving rise to a source of water each time that it touched the ground, which is how the place earned the name "San Paolo alle Tre Fontane" ("St Paul at the Three Fountains").[199][200] The apocryphal Acts of Paul also describe the martyrdom and the burial of Paul, but their narrative is highly fanciful and largely unhistorical.[201]

An important point is that the apostles were not dying for just a belief, it was for what they claimed to be witness to.

 

[Subduction Zone]

An important point is that the apostles were not dying for just a belief, it was for what they claimed to be witness to.

Which apostles? Paul never saw Jesus, he only had visions. The only other apostles that the Bible even records are James and Judas. Even Peter's death is just Church tradition and not history. Some of it is on very shaky ground. So to claim that all but John were martyred is a claim that probably cannot be supported.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. because science does not know if spirits exist. So the scriptural evidence is not good for science and atheists therefore say that evidence is lies and not really evidence.

Don't blame science. There is no evidence of that. Yeah, sure, it is not good enough, borders absolute falsehood.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Don't blame science. There is no evidence of that. Yeah, sure, it is not good enough, borders absolute falsehood.

Yeah, the joke is that absolute falsehood is not science.

 

[Brian2]

Don't blame science. There is no evidence of that. Yeah, sure, it is not good enough, borders absolute falsehood.

If you notice I don't blame science. That has it's rules and we can understand that they are rules for science.
I blame skeptics/atheists for saying the rules of science apply to everything and then roaming the world telling everyone that there is no evidence for God or for any religion.