What things did Jesus specifically prophesy about himself? As far as I can find, only two things – the sign of Jonah and the destruction and rebuilding of the temple. Both of which is a reference to his resurrection. If he did not resurrect, this would immediately falsify his claim as the Messiah and he would be a false prophet. Why would anyone make such a massive assertion that cannot be fulfilled by any human?
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Thu Sep 07, 2023 10:09 pm I’m not talking about what Jesus says. I’m talking about what Paul says. It’s Paul who claims that Jesus established the Jeremiah 31 covenant when it hadn’t been established
I think we need to go back a step for clarification.
Jesus resurrected from the dead before Paul wrote anything. As a matter of fact, Jesus rose from the dead before any NT book was written. So, what was written in the NT has no impact whether Jesus rose from the dead or not. It can testify to the event, but it cannot casually affect whether it happened or not.
We need to distinguish between Jesus’s resurrection and whether he is the Messiah. These are two completely separate discussions, though related.
If Jesus did not resurrect, then automatically he’s not the Messiah. If Jesus did resurrect, then he must either be the Messiah or a false messiah.
Since I’ve already presented my case Jesus resurrected from the dead, then I’m going to the next step of presenting the case he’s the Messiah. But it’s a non sequitur to argue he’s not the Messiah, therefore he did not rise from the dead.
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Tue Sep 19, 2023 10:36 pm You’re asserting that Jesus was the Messiah and that he was resurrected, so unless he didn’t have to be the Messiah to be resurrected, how are they separate issues?
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2023 10:07 pm There’s a difference between claiming that a prophecy of the Tanakh was fulfilled in the Tanakh and claiming that a prophecy of the Tanakh was fulfilled in some other scripture.
I’m just using your same logic about the accusation of circular logic. You claim me using the NT is circular logic. But using the OT to support the OT would likewise be circular logic. Neither is circular logic. Rather, they are consistent logic.
What makes the NT authoritative for Christians? Because it is the most reliable records we have of Jesus and his teachings. And what testifies to Jesus as being special? His resurrection. And of course we all know what I’ll say that backs up the claim of his resurrection.