The evidence without the assumption of no supernatural events, points to a time of writing before the Temple destruction otherwise the traditional methods would not have come up with the early dates they did.
Interestingly the gospel with a traditional dating method giving a late date is the gospel that has not got the prophecy of the temple destruction.
If you want to assume the gospels are lies until archaeology shows otherwise that's your decision.
The modern methods are not necessarily more accurate and necessitate ignoring all the evidence to the contrary. The older methods actually did not assume that God was doing miracles or prophesying, they just used the evidence available in the texts and other historical documents etc. BUT the newer methods do use the assumption that prophecy is not true.
What is the internal evidence besides someone claiming such? We must avoid circular reasoning, saying that a book is true because it says it is true, otherwise we would accept anything. When it comes to ancient methods, they did not have the technology to date items and determine whether information was reliable or not, so they had to use tradition and word of mouth, which is understandable. These days we have technology and methods that can actually date items and information, which makes our methods superior.
One cannot determine whether the gospels are lies though. We can only come to most likely conclusions based on information we have. One shouldn't accept claims that people make though without evidence in this day and age, so there has to be outside evidence to show that the gospels are true. Otherwise we might as well believe anything we wish. We need a consistent standard.
You also haven't demonstrated which method is more reliable. You are just making statements about others without showing how they come to their conclusions. Please do so.
The supernatural cannot be taken into account because by definition those events would not be able to be examined as they don't follow natural processes. If we had to take the supernatural into account we would come to infinite possibilities because there is no standard to examine anything on. In addition there is no proof of miracles that can be examined, so claiming the supernatural is pointless.
Please show this evidence that you keep speaking of. And bare in mind that you cannot use the prophecies themselves, except what they say, because that would be circular reasoning.
Yes context is important in understanding scripture but Isa 9 is a Messianic prophecy and that is part of the context of the Isa 7 prophecy.
Some people might just say that Matthew was using the Septuagint which is translated "virgin" but the link between Isa 7 and Isa 9 does seem to be there imo.
It is there because you wish it to be. You are proof texting and ignoring the immediate context.
They certainly see the OT different to how I do and they translate Isa 9:6,7 in different ways to eliminate the Divine element for the child. They also change the plain understanding of the child ruling on the throne of David forever to something more in tune with their beliefs. But some Jews have seen the passage as Messianic.
OK. Please demonstrate that they intentionally changed the understanding of verses to suit their agenda?
Maybe I see that because I know some of the history. Before the Emmanuel prophecy God is saying that the Kings will not invade and conquer Judah, just trust God. Ahaz tells Isaiah that he will not ask for a sign because he had already made up his mind about asking Assyria for help. After the Emmanuel sign is given the prophecies turn to destruction and bad times for Judah because of Assyria.
Yet Isaiah 7 is about giving Ahaz hope? That doesn't seem to match what you are saying.
Traditionally the Psalm is a Psalm of David and that is written at the opening of the Psalm.
Polycrates it seems was first executed and then his body suspended/crucified as an example. The method used for crucifixion was probably not nailing the hands and feet.
Do you really want to say that the Psalm is written by someone describing a Persian crucifixion and then putting it in the Hebrew sacred poems list? Would that eliminate it as being prophetic of Jesus crucifixion?
Emphasis on "probably". And yes I do want to say that the psalmist possibly took the idea of crucifixion from a contemporary source, if that is indeed what the Psalmist was talking about. And no, that in itself would not eliminate it from being prophetic about Jesus.
What is it, someone describing a crucifixion or not about crucifixion at all?
The point is that it describes what the gospels say happened to Jesus, who is known to have been crucified. But of course for a skeptic nothing of this matters because the gospels were written to fit the OT bits and pieces taken out of context anyway. Not that I'm saying you are a skeptic, but there is a sliding scale I guess after belief and it is all sceptical of the truth of the gospels and has to explain them away in some cases.
It may be hard to read Psalm 22 and pick out necessarily a crucifixion but if one knows what happened to Jesus it would be easy to see that the Psalm is about Him.
Just a note, we are all skeptical. You are a skeptical of other religions for instance. Being a skeptic is something we should all strive to be, but skeptic and skeptical are two words meaning two different things.
I contend with you on these matters because you aren't providing explanations that demonstrate that your interpretation of things is the only way. You aren't eliminating the possibility that the gospels could have taken bits and pieces out of context. The OT texts that you are using aren't explicitly stating your conclusions and on further examination the context doesn't match. You have to rely on assumptions and eisegesis rather than exegesis to come to your conclusions, which is the reason why many OT scriptures do not come to your conclusions when examined in isolation from the NT claims. You are reading into the text that which is not obviously there.