What is meant by claims of inspiration in the Bible? (crucifixion, Gospel)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Have you studied the 70 weeks of Daniel and their promise of the Messiah from the going forth of the word to build the temple till Messiah the Prince to be exactly so many years, which was written many many years prior to Christ coming and which He fulfilled?
Yes It was written in 165 BCE by an anonymous writer, and the errors it contains help prove that it was not written in the 6th entury BCE by Dnaiel as many have been led to believe.
It also seems odd that all the "Messaih" stories come later as embellished myths long after Jesus was dead. Up to 100 years later. When writing a gospel 100 years later, a lot of facts can be made up and embellished to make any "prophecy" seem true.
But then again they were written as allegory and symbolic myth anyway and were written for a first century audience as such.
Yes It was written in 165 BCE by an anonymous writer, and the errors it contains help prove that it was not written in the 6th entury BCE by Dnaiel as many have been led to believe.
It also seems odd that all the "Messaih" stories come later as embellished myths long after Jesus was dead. Up to 100 years later. When writing a gospel 100 years later, a lot of facts can be made up and embellished to make any "prophecy" seem true.
But then again they were written as allegory and symbolic myth anyway and were written for a first century audience as such.
I don't know where you are getting your myths from concerning the Bible but they are wrong on all counts. It is too bad you have taken their bait, hook, line and sinker. But that's o.k., you won't always believe that way.
I don't know where you are getting your myths from concerning the Bible but they are wrong on all counts. It is too bad you have taken their bait, hook, line and sinker. But that's o.k., you won't always believe that way.
RESPONSE:
Maybe from a reliable history book?
For those who don't want to play lets pretend:
http://endtimepilgrim.org/70wks3.htm "We are looking at a time-line of 69 x 7 = 483 biblical years or 476.067 of our solar years. We will place it's beginning day on an edict and look to see it it will terminate on a day that is auspicious as the day of "Messiah the Prince". A time line beginning in 538 B.C. will run out of days in 538-476 = 62 b.c. This is decades before the birth of Christ."
The trick to interpreting the 70 weeks is to select events close enough to the Daniel's story to make the 70 weeks seem plausible and then rationalizing away the errors.
Last edited by ancient warrior; 06-25-2012 at 12:22 PM..
Reason: typo
http://endtimepilgrim.org/70wks3.htm "We are looking at a time-line of 69 x 7 = 483 biblical years or 476.067 of our solar years. We will place it's beginning day on an edict and look to see it it will terminate on a day that is auspicious as the day of "Messiah the Prince". A time line beginning in 538 B.C. will run out of days in 538-476 = 62 b.c. This is decades before the birth of Christ."
The trick to interpreting the 70 weeks is to select events close enough to the Daniel's story to make the 70 weeks seem plausible and then rationalizing away the errors.
In the book "The Coming Prince" Sir Robert Anderson got it right. He got it right to the very day when Christ rode into Jerusalem and they were proclaiming Him the Prince or King.
You can read it here for free: http://books.google.com/books?id=E4d...prince&f=false
Interesting event, but again, it probably never happened. Outside of synoptic gospels written 60 to 100 year after the fact, there is no other record of this momentous occasion. Interesting, because the Romans especially would have taken notice that a prince or king was being crowned.
The facts I mention are based on historical and academic evidence. They are not based on myth and fear.
I have chosen to follow a path of reason, based on evidence, as opposed to a myth based on an invisible daddy, two naked people with a talking snake in a garden, a contradictory bronze-age document, and a fear and desperation for acceptance and salvation from something that does not even exist anyways.
Sir Robert Anderson fails to take into consideration any outside sources, choosing to lok within a limited scope for self validation. He fails to take note of the allegorical teachings of the Bible, or to understand that the prophecies of Daniel were not penned by daniel, any more than the Bible was penned by the aforementioned invisible daddy in the sky. He fails to look at the greater picture and see the overall source.
Still, people will cling to the Bible out of fear or desperation or ignorance. The first two I cannot quell but I can help with the third by educating people and teaching people to think and use reason when looking at the context of any ancient works.
I would say back to the OP that from my point of view, no it is not "God breathed" or "God Inspired" and with this understanding, we may have divergent definitions of "god" or "god inspired"
I see though that many people feel a need to revere some ancient writing although it fails on every moral, historic and theological account, at least on the surface. However, I can see allegorical stories and hero myths retold within it, collected in one convienent volume. Does that make it "God Inspired"? again, no it does not. it is only God inspired if the individual wishes to label it as such, and since by my definition it is not, but again that is a relative statement based on my insight, knowledge, reason and learning. I choose not to accept it as such because I see evidence that it is not what I am told by others that it appears to be. However to some it may appear as such. So long as those who accept it can understand that I do not and probably never will then there is no issue.
I still find it interesting that those of us who have read it, and know the most about it from various academic and scholarly points of view, are overwhelmingly the one's who do not believe in it.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,476,450 times
Reputation: 12187
Jesus and several (if not all) of His apostles believed in OT events such as the Garden of Eden origin of mankind and a worldwide flood which have been scientifically discredited.
well, people believe what they are told from birth and myth is powerful because people do not question it.
And Jesus , all the other Essenes and such were jews who would have been presented these stories from the time they were young. Much like kids today believe in santa Claus or the Easter bunny, until they are shown it is not true, they beleive it because they are taught it.
SO yes they would have believed these myths as many other superstitious, bronze age people would believe.
They also believed that evil spirits caused diseases, that the earth wa the center of the universe around which the stars rotated, they had no scientific understanding of the world around them, and they used myth not only to define morals but to attempt to explain and answer curiosity such as "where did man come from ?" Superstition filled the void that we do not have in our lives thanks to science.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,476,450 times
Reputation: 12187
Quote:
Originally Posted by LargeKingCat
well, people believe what they are told from birth and myth is powerful because people do not question it.
And Jesus , all the other Essenes and such were jews who would have been presented these stories from the time they were young. Much like kids today believe in santa Claus or the Easter bunny, until they are shown it is not true, they beleive it because they are taught it.
SO yes they would have believed these myths as many other superstitious, bronze age people would believe.
They also believed that evil spirits caused diseases, that the earth wa the center of the universe around which the stars rotated, they had no scientific understanding of the world around them, and they used myth not only to define morals but to attempt to explain and answer curiosity such as "where did man come from ?" Superstition filled the void that we do not have in our lives thanks to science.
And if Jesus was just a good man I would be ok with that. But He claimed to have been part of the God head at the time of the creation, a creation which in the literal 6,000 years ago is not remotely possible. So either Jesus was crazy, a liar, or not someone of divinity. Wouldn't a God who created the world be aware of all the scientific laws that He put in place??
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
