Quote:I know that they were written after but isn't that kind of self explanatory since his death was a fulfillment of prophecy.
Well no it wasn't, not even close. Perhaps go to the trouble of reading what the Jews actually believed about the Messiah and still do.
Quote:Also his death was what marked the actual start of the new law.
Umm,no,it wasn't:
Quote:Matthew 5:17-19
King James Version (KJV)
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
The Torah is an oral religious and political mythology of the Jews. Some of it was borrowed from other cultures, starting with their nasty little god.(Sumerian)
The Torah was not written down until the seventh century bce.
The earliest parts of the New Testament are the Epistles of Saul/Paul. it is reasonably certain that at least some of them are forgeries.Scholras tend to agree that the Epistles were probably written circa 50ce.
The Gospels are later, the earliest,that called 'Mark' about 70ce [at the earliest]
The Torah and the New Testament are religious texts, not history books. Neither set of books meet the standards demanded by historians for prime source documents.
One of the most basic demands made by historians is that evidence be contemporary with the events described. Neither the Torah nor the New Testament meets that simple demand. That means that no truth claims may be be made about ANY of those books. The very best one may do is speak of levels of credibility (none,mostly) and likelihood (most unlikely mostly)
Quote:Extraordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence (Carl Sagan)
