Ragnar said:

I have a question mainly for NoJC, but anyone else feel free to respond: What makes you believe the ancient Jewish texts are any better than the Christian texts?

There are a few reasons I have, but I'd like to differentiate between Biblical texts and nt texts.
There is a set standard for the Biblical Texts, and that standard is the Masoretic Text. The text of the Torah (the Five Books of Moses) is set in stone. Of all of the Torah Scrolls in every Jewish community - even those separated from the rest of the Jewish communities by distance of borders, every Torah Scroll is exactly like every other community's Torah Scroll, except for Yemini Scrolls, and they differ by only 8 (eight) letters. Every difference reflects a regional dialect, but do not change the meaning of the passages in which the occur.
OTOH, there are so many variants among the scrolls of the books of the nt that there are thousands of variant readings, many change the meanings of the texts, and some of these are significant.

Whenever you refute something in the NT, you simply use older sacred texts as your evidence. To me, saying this old dead guy was wrong because it doesn't mesh with what this older dead guy said doesn't really make sense.

A good question.
The nt story claims to be based upon the older writings. If that were true, it would be prudent to examine those older documents, to see if they actually say what they are claimed to say, so that we can determine if the nt actually IS based on the older documents.
Iff the nt actuually reflects on a correct understanding of the older documents, then all's well and good. But if the nt reflects a perverted text, then the nt is also necessarily perverted. In carpentry, you measuure twice, cut once. If you cut a board wrong, or an angle on a board, then the project gets progressively more off-kilter. If the nt uses incorrect renderings of the Hebrew Scriptures (such as the Septuagint is), then it is only the nt, not the Hebrew Scriptures, that is going wrong.

Why do you believe the writers of the OT had some link with a god, and yet at the same time are able to see the folly inherent in the NT?

National Revelation. An ENTIRE NATION of people heard God speak at Sinai. No other religion has that kind of rock-solid foundation. All others claim one guy heard from or spoke to God. If you want to believe him, that's on you.

What other independent evidence is there to support anything in the ancient Hebrew texts, other than more ancient Hebrew texts?

Archeology.

You stated that the Jesus of the NT was really alive a hundred years before the NT said he was. Okay, if this person seems to have been mentioned in older texts, then I can accept that. But then you also said that you believe he did perform miracles. I'm also assuming that you believe stories such as Moses splitting the sea are true. You seem like a rational person, so what causes you to accept these stories as true, if it is not mere faith?

Miracles happen, and so they (by themselves) prove nothing other than that miracles happen, and therefore there IS a God. They do NOT show WHO that God is.

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."
- Ayn Rand

I have "Anthem," "Atlas Shrugged," "Fountainhead," and "The Virtue of Selfishness." I've read them twice, twice, once, and a half a time. The phylosophy is REAL dry, but she could tell a story.

I read just recently a writing on a certian site (I forgot to bookmark it - argh!  but am confident that I can locate it again) that the reason that people come against the Messiah/Christ of the NT is because they don't realize that Jesus didn't always quote from the strict Hebrew texts that the Jewish people use today.

What I mean is that people criticize Jesus for his sayings because they cannot find it in Torah or other Hebrew accepted writings.  Or the sayings may sound the same but not word for word as one would expect (I wonder if that is a  logical argument?)  Anyways, the author of that particular site points out that Jesus made at least 35 quotes from other sources than the accepted Hebrew scriptures.

I guess this author was making non-sense of the idea that just because Jesus quotes are not found where one would expect it, then this makes the NT writings unworthy and unacceptaable and a lie?

Just thought to drop in a thought. :D