Jesus Sinned!

COn quotes from Sanhedrin, and Shabbos (I think he means Shabbat) part of the Mishna which dates to 200 C.E., and claims these are more reliable than the New Testament. How can that be when these documents were written long after all the eyewitnesses to Jesus were dead, and the New Testament was written while they were still alive? How can a non-contemporary account be more credible than a contemporary one? Ignatius died around 115 A.D. and he quoted Matthew, putting Matthew's gospel much closer to the time of the events than the Talmud which Con boasts as more reliable. The John Rylands papyrus fragment 52 of John's gospel is dated to the year 135 C.E., contains portions of John 18. This fragment was found in Egypt and a considerable amount of time is needed for the circulation of the gospel before it reached Egypt. This puts the author in the same generation of people who would have seen Jesus. Luke got his information from the witnesses. (Luke 1:1-4) But what's interesting is the claim in Sanhedrin 43a that Jesus practised magic. This actually supports the gospels as being very reliable, for it is recorded therein that Jesus' enemies could not deny that he did great miracles, so they resorted to saying he did it by the power of demons. (John 11:45-47; Matt 12:13-26; 9:32-34) This shows that Jesus is no myth borrowed from pagan religions, but was a real historical person who performed miracles; so much so, that not even his enemies could deny it. Instead of deny his existence, which the enemies of Christianity would have done in those early centuries were it true, they instead tried to explain his miracles as the work of demons. So Con's later sources are merely supporting the earlier NT accounts of Jesus' miracles. Such miracles whoed he had God's backing and was who he cliamed to be. But contrary to Con's assertions, the Talmud isn't very reliable at all. For one thing, the oral teaching which was circulating in Jesus' time and was eventually incorporated into the Talmud was an apostasy from the Torah which Jews were supposed to follow. Christ condemned the traditions of the Mishnah (early Talmud) and those who taught it (Scribes and Pharisees), because the Talmud nullifies the teachings of the Torah. Shmuel Safrai in The Literature of the Sages Part One (p.164), points out that in chapters 4 and 5 of the Talmud's Gittin Tractate, the Talmud nullifies the Biblical teaching concerning money-lending: "Hillel decreed the prozbul for the betterment of the world. The prozbul is a legal fiction which allows debts to be collected after the Sabbatical year and it was Hillel's intention thereby to overcome the fear that money-lenders had of losing their money." This contradicts Deuteronomy 15:1-2. The famous warning of Jesus Christ about the tradition of men that voids Scripture (Mark 7:1-13), is in fact, a direct reference to the Talmud, or rather, the forerunner of the first part of it, the Mishnah, which existed in oral form during Christ's lifetime, before being committed to writing. Note what the Talmud teaches: "If an ox of an Israelite gores an ox of a Canaanite there is no liability; but if an ox of a Canaanite gores an ox of an Israelite...the payment is to be in full." (Baba Kamma 37b) This contradicts Exodus 12:46. No wonder Jesus condemned it. Since my opponent believes these writings to be so much more "reliable" than then Bible, I suppose he believes that Jesus is in hell being boiled in hot excrement, as is recorded in the Talmud at Gittin 57a. Here is what Con is calling more reliable than the New Testament: Gittin 69a . To heal his flesh a Jew should take dust that lies within the shadow of an outdoor toilet, mix with honey and eat it. Shabbath 41a. The law regulating the rule for how to urinate in a holy way is given. Yebamoth 63a. States that Adam had sexual intercourse with all the animals in the Garden of Eden. Yebamoth 63a. Declares that agriculture is the lowest of occupations. Sanhedrin 55b. A Jew may marry a three year old girl (specifically, three years "and a day" old). Sanhedrin 54b. A Jew may have sex with a child as long as the child is less than nine years old. I could go on, but really, one can see the difference between the myths and weird traditions of the Talmud and the historical record of the Gospels. The New Testment writers always spoke in harmony with the prior teachings of Moses and other prophets which came before them. The anti-Christian hate speech of the Mishna is very unreliable and not supported by contemporary evidence dating to Jesus' time. These were simply vile accusations evemies of Christianity conjured up over a hundred years after Jesus died. Just to show how unhistorical this is, Gittin 57b claims that four billion Jews were killed by the Romans in the city of Bethar. Gittin 58a claims that 16 million Jewish children were wrapped in scrolls and burned alive by the Romans. (Ancient demography indicates that there were not 16 million Jews in the entire world at that time, much less 16 million Jewish children or four billion Jews). Con agrues against Jesus' claim to be God on the basis of Numbers 23:19, but this isn't saying God can't become a man, for the Old Testament has him becoming man many times as I've shown. It's saying he is not a sinful man so that he could lie. Jesus never lied, hence, no conflict here. Con claims Deuteronomy 32:31, 37 is talking about the Christian church, but the context shows it was talking about Israel's enemies in times of war not having a real god (a Rock) who could fight for them the way Yahweh did for his people and give them victory. (vss 28-29) Verse 38 mentions that their gods used to receive their drink offerings and sacrifices; that can't be describing Christians cause the Church doesn't have such things, teaching that all such things found fulfillment in Christ and since are abolished. (Col 2:14-16) The rest of the Scriptures Con produces basically argue that there is only one God and none like him, and I agree, this is the Christian understanding. Jesus was the one speaking in those verses, and indeed there is no other God like him. The Father and Holy Spirit are not "other gods" like him, for they are included in the one God. Since this debate isn't over Con's lack of understanding the Trinity, I won't go into it unless need be. Jeremiah 3:16 and 31:31-34 never use the word "renew" in relation to the old covenant. God doesn't say he's going to fix, or renew, the old covenant. He says he's going to make a "new" covenant, and says it will be "not according to" the former covenant he made with their forefathers. So it will be different. Con never bothered to reply to all the verses I gave him which clearly spell out the end of various aspects of the old covenant even though he had more than half the word space left. Hosea 2:11 "I will also cause all her mirth to CEASE, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts." He didn't reply to Amos 8:4-10 which gives the exact time the sabbath and new moon would be gone, so I think these arguments stand unrfuted. Con gave no Scripture to prove from the Hebrew text that the old covenant was "eternal" as he claims, so this is unproven. Con claims Jesus meant "hate" literally but gives no evidence for this or reason we should think he did. I gave two why we shouldn't; first, this was a common hyperbolic way of speaking in the ANE, and I gave examples to prove this, and second, Jesus predominantly taught love, so we can interpret this verse in the context of his wider teaching. Jesus is never recorded as picking up sticks like the man in Numbers 15, and Deuteronomy 5:21 gives the law against covetousness, nothing about sabbath or earing as Con cliams. Plucking a few ears of corn to eat isn't what the Bible calls "earing" anyway, and Jesus justified himself in Matthew 12. I suggest Con read it.