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.
The messiah in Daniel can be demonstrated to be one - a High priest - before Jesus' time. The passage in Luke can be demonstrated to be his own invention because Matthew and mark refer to the same event 'is this nt the carpenter's son' (and variants) but mention nthing of the astonishing events that Luke records, and put it in a different chronological context.
The fact that the Messiah would die is prophesied in Daniel 9:26 and Isaiah 53.
Daniel 9:26 "Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.
To be ''cut off'' is an idiom for being killed.
The fact that He would offer Himself up for our sins and die is prophesied in Isaiah 53. In Isaiah 53:8 the phrase, 'cut off' is again used of the suffering servant which refers to Jesus as both Jesus (Luke 22:37) and the apostle Philip (Acts 8:26-35) confirmed.
When Jesus stood up in the synagogue and read from the prophecy of Isaiah 61, He read only a portion of it. The portion that He read He stated to have been fulfilled in His reading of it. He didn't read the remainder of the prophecy because it was to be fulfilled upon His return.
Luke 4:17 And the book of the prophet Isaiah was handed to Him. And He opened the book and found the place where it was written, 18] “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, 19] to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” 20] And He closed the book, gave it back to the attendant and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on Him. 21] And He began to say to them, "Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing."
The portion of Isaiah 61 that Jesus read was verses 1-2. The remainder of the prophesy, from verse 3 onward will be fulfilled at the second advent of Jesus when He establishes His Millennial kingdom.
The reason that the Messianic prophecies don't make a distinction between what was to be fulfilled at Jesus' first advent and what is to be fulfilled when He returns is because our present dispensation of the church was not revealed in Old Testament times. It was kept under wraps as stated in Ephesians chapter 3. Since there was no indication in the Old Testament that the age of Israel would be interrupted and put on hold for the insertion of the church age, the Messianic prophecies did not make a distinction between the two advents of Jesus and that some things would be fulfilled at His second advent.
TRANSPONDER has already dealt with this. Thank you TRANSPONDER.
Quote:
This chart by Clarence Larkin, ''The Mountain Peaks of Prophecy,'' demonstrates that the fact that there would be two advents of Jesus was hidden from the Jews but is known to the church.
Clarence Larkin! LOL! Oh please!
Quote:
No, Jesus wasn't a failure. He accomplished what He came to accomplish at His first advent. And He will accomplish what remains to be accomplished when He returns.
There is no second coming. Live with it. Christianity made it up to account for the fact that their Jesus DID NOT fulfil the Messianic prophecies
Quote:
But you won't understand any of this because you don't even believe that either Jesus or the apostles existed historically. Until and unless you come to realize that they did exist, it is pointless to even discuss any of this with you.
There is every point actually. You could start with providing verifiable evidence for those characters. Can you? You could also allow the Jews to interpret their own prophecy rather than high-jacking it for yourselves and insisting that you know better.
The messiah in Daniel can be demonstrated to be one - a High priest - before Jesus' time. The passage in Luke can be demonstrated to be his own invention because Matthew and mark refer to the same event 'is this nt the carpenter's son' (and variants) but mention nthing of the astonishing events that Luke records, and put it in a different chronological context.
No, it can not refer to anyone other than Jesus. Daniel 9:26 which speaks of the Messiah being cut off, which happened in either A.D. 30 or 33, also speaks of the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem which occurred in A.D. 70. Since it is a matter of historical fact that Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed by the armies of Titus in A.D. 70, that part of the prophecy of Daniel 9:26 which occurred after the first 69 weeks of the prophecy had been fulfilled can't refer to any other period of time. It follows then that the Messiah being spoken of was also cut off in the same time frame between the 69th and 70th weeks of the prophecy.
The 70 weeks (of years) prophecy began with the fourth decree of Artaxerxes Longimanus in 444 B.C. to rebuild Jerusalem's city walls (Neh. 2:1-8). This is the decree referred to in Daniel 9:25. The first 69 weeks of years was completed with the triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem mounted on a colt in fulfillment of Zech. 9:9. There remains 1 week of years (7 years) to be fulfilled in the prophecy. That remaining week of years is the still future Tribulation period.
And yes, the 70 weeks prophecy refers to weeks of years. No other period of time works. Again, the destruction of the temple and of Jerusalem which was prophesied in Daniel 9:26 happened in A.D. 70 which was hundreds of years after the beginning of the prophecy in 444 B.C.
Your assertion that because only Luke mentions Jesus' reading of the prophecy in Luke 4:17-21, it therefore could not be true, has no merit whatsoever. Each Gospel writer chose what to include in his Gospel account, and what to exclude. The four Gospel accounts were not meant to be carbon copies of each other. Each Gospel writer had his own emphasis and tailored his Gospel account accordingly.
The messiah in Daniel can be demonstrated to be one - a High priest - before Jesus' time. The passage in Luke can be demonstrated to be his own invention because Matthew and mark refer to the same event 'is this nt the carpenter's son' (and variants) but mention nthing of the astonishing events that Luke records, and put it in a different chronological context.
You have no idea what you're talking about, and the inherent vagarities
of your worthless post belie this in a most obvious manner.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,916,433 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
..............
Your assertion that because only Luke mentions Jesus' reading of the prophecy in Luke 4:17-21, it therefore could not be true, has no merit whatsoever. Each Gospel writer chose what to include in his Gospel account, and what to exclude. The four Gospel accounts were not meant to be carbon copies of each other. Each Gospel writer had his own emphasis and tailored his Gospel account accordingly.
Do you not find it intriguing that the further one got away from the Gospel writer's day of the crucifixion, the more detail is included? Luke has more detail than Mark, and Matthew even more detail than Luke. I won't even get into the synoptic/John issue at this point. Not only that, Mark didn't appear before Paul's writings, and borrow heavily from that.
Intriguing that more detail comes the further away from the events described, don't you think?
TRANSPONDER has already dealt with this. Thank you TRANSPONDER.
Clarence Larkin! LOL! Oh please!
There is no second coming. Live with it. Christianity made it up to account for the fact that their Jesus DID NOT fulfil the Messianic prophecies
There is every point actually. You could start with providing verifiable evidence for those characters. Can you?
Transponder hasn't dealt with anything and I have already replied to him.
And despite your condescending dismissal of Larkin, your eye-rolling, and your entirely unsupported assertion that there will be no second coming of Jesus, the Scriptures state that Jesus will indeed come again. And I live with that knowledge.
That the apostles existed historically is confirmed by the apostolic church fathers who speak of them.
The church father Polycarp (c. A.D. 69-C. A.D. 155) lived during the lifetime of at least some of the apostles. In his letter to the Philippian Church Polycarp mentions Paul and the rest of the apostles.
''I exhort you all, therefore, to yield obedience to the word of righteousness, and to exercise all patience, such as ye have seen [set] before your eyes, not only in the case of the blessed Ignatius, and Zosimus, and Rufus, but also in others among yourselves, and in Paul himself, and the rest of the apostles. [This do] in the assurance that all these have not run in vain, but in faith and righteousness, and that they are [now] in their due place in the presence of the Lord, with whom also they suffered. For they loved not this present world, but Him who died for us, and for our sakes was raised again by God from the dead.'' [Bolding mine]
THE EPISTLE OF POLYCARP TO THE PHILIPPIANS, Chapter 9.
Church records that existed into the time of Tertullian record that Polycarp was placed in the church of Smyrna by the apostle John, and that Clement was ordained by Peter.
''But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst Of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,--a man, moreover, who continued stedfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter.'' [Bolding mine]
TERTULLIAN, THE PRESCRIPTION AGAINST HERETICS.,Chapter 32
Irenaeus, who had in his youth seen and heard Polycarp, stated that Polycarp was instructed by the apostles.
''But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true.''
Irenaeus, in the same letter also speaks of the apostle John being still alive into the reign of Trajan.
''Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.''
Clement of Rome (? - c. A.D. 99) speaks of both Peter and Paul being pillars of the church.
:2 Let us take the noble examples of our own generation. Through jealousy and envy the greatest and most just pillars of the Church were persecuted, and came even unto death.
5:3 Let us place before our eyes the good Apostles.
5:4 Peter, through unjust envy, endured not one or two but many labours, and at last, having delivered his testimony, departed unto the place of glory due to him.
5:5 Through envy Paul, too, showed by example the prize that is given to patience:
The apostolic church fathers then confirm the historical existence of the apostles, and the apostles speak of Jesus. But perhaps you will say that the testimony of the apostolic church fathers can't be trusted because they were believers. But, so what? Since when did being a believer make it impossible to provide accurate information, or to tell the truth? Were the church records which records Polycarp and Clement being placed in their respective churches by the apostles John and Peter faked? I think not. Was Polycarp lying about having heard the apostles? Again, I think not. No. What we have is extra-biblical attestation to the existence of the apostles who in turn testified of Jesus.
Now, you are a mythicist. You don't believe that Jesus existed. But your unbelief in the existence of even the historical Jesus is not shared by the vast majority of scholars. As Bart Ehrman stated,
Despite this enormous range of opinion, there are several points on which virtually all scholars of antiquity agree. Jesus was a Jewish man, known to be a preacher and teacher, who was crucified (a Roman form of execution) in Jerusalem during the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate was the governor of Judea. Even though this is the view of nearly every trained scholar on the planet, it is not the view of a group of writers who are usually labeled, and often label themselves, mythicists.
[Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, Bart Ehrman, p. 12]
Now, Ehrman who describes himself as an agnostic with atheist leanings obviously doesn't believe that Jesus was who He claimed to be, but he recognizes, as do most scholars that Jesus existed historically, and wrote the above mentioned book to refute people such as yourself.
People who deny that there was an historical Jesus are simply parading their ignorance. And I will leave you with that.
Do you not find it intriguing that the further one got away from the Gospel writer's day of the crucifixion, the more detail is included? Luke has more detail than Mark, and Matthew even more detail than Luke. I won't even get into the synoptic/John issue at this point. Not only that, Mark didn't appear before Paul's writings, and borrow heavily from that.
Intriguing that more detail comes the further away from the events described, don't you think?
Not in the least. As I said, each Gospel writer had his own purpose for writing his Gospel account, and each writer emphasized different aspects of Jesus' ministry. But all four Gospel accounts were written during the lifetime of eyewitnesses who could confirm the truth of what had been written in the Gospels.
A very good argument can be made that the three synoptic Gospels were all written by the early 60's at the latest. The reason being that the Gospel of Luke was written after both Matthew and Mark were written, but before the book of Acts was written. Luke wrote both the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts. But since the book of Acts doesn't mention the deaths of Peter, Paul, and James the brother of Jesus, and doesn't mention the Neronian persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64, or the Jewish wars which led to the destruction of the temple and of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, this makes a strong case for an early writing of Acts, and therefore an even earlier writing of the synoptic Gospels although these omissions don't absolutely rule out a later dating.
I'll also mention that scholars recognize the existence of what are known as pre-Pauline traditions or creeds, such as the most famous one in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 which most scholars believe that Paul received from Peter and James when he met with them some three years after his conversion. In other words, what Paul passed on to the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 did not originate with him, but was a belief of the very early church.
Paul prefaces this pre-Pauline creed with his comments in 1 Corinthians 15:1-2, and then recites the formula.
1 Corinthians 15:1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2] by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
And then the formula, the pre-Pauline creed or tradition that was held by the church from the beginning.
1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4] and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5] and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6] After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7] then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles;
And the fact that Paul received this tradition, probably at the time that he met with Peter and James, doesn't negate or contradict the fact that Paul also said that he originally received the Gospel by means of a revelation from Jesus (Gal. 1:12), for it is a sure thing that when Paul later met with Peter and James, they didn't just talk about the weather.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,916,433 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Not in the least. As I said, each Gospel writer had his own purpose for writing his Gospel account, and each writer emphasized different aspects of Jesus' ministry. But all four Gospel accounts were written during the lifetime of eyewitnesses who could confirm the truth of what had been written in the Gospels.
A very good argument can be made that the three synoptic Gospels were all written by the early 60's at the latest. The reason being that the Gospel of Luke was written after both Matthew and Mark were written, but before the book of Acts was written. Luke wrote both the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts. But since the book of Acts doesn't mention the deaths of Peter, Paul, and James the brother of Jesus, and doesn't mention the Neronian persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64, or the Jewish wars which led to the destruction of the temple and of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, this makes a strong case for an early writing of Acts, and therefore an even earlier writing of the synoptic Gospels although these omissions don't absolutely rule out a later dating.........
Let's assume that the story of Watergate was started to be written by reporters 30-60 years after the events, but by reporters who talked to people who knew some of the actors of that Nixonian era.
How much sense does it make that the reporter who writes an article based on this she told him who knew the reporter was had more intimate detail knowledge than the first reporter who wrote an article 30 years after the fact? And don't forget we have TV, newsprint and radio now.
Now let's go back to the campfire stories of the Bronze Age. How accurate do you really think those are? Do you not find it incredible that stories of walking zombies in Jerusalem would not be wide spread and ubiquitous? Do you find it not incredible that stories of a massive earthquake would not be ubiquitous in every one of the Gospels?
Only Matthew deals with the earthquake and the zombies walking around, "seen by many". If so many saw those zombies, then would not all the Gospels be able to reference them? And if not, how reliable are they?
Regardless, the prophesies were not fulfilled, and spinning that the Jews didn't understand them is rather presumptuous.
Transponder hasn't dealt with anything and I have already replied to him.
Yes he has ...and very adequately.
Quote:
And despite your condescending dismissal of Larkin, your eye-rolling, and your entirely unsupported assertion that there will be no second coming of Jesus, the Scriptures state that Jesus will indeed come again.
Of course the do! As I said, they invented the second coming to account for the fact that your man-god did not fulfil the Jewish prophecy for their Messiah. Your problem is that whilst YOUR scriptures say it...the Jewish scriptures do not...and they are the important ones, not yours. Common sense should be telling you that such an important event as the Messiah being killed and coming back to life couldn't fail to be mentioned in the prophecy.
Quote:
That the apostles existed historically is confirmed by the apostolic church fathers who speak of them.
I have already dealt with this. T%he church fathers, like you were believers. They got their information, like you, from the Bible and other religious works.
Quote:
The church father Polycarp....
As I said, I have already dealt with this when you posted it before. It is simply the church confirming that what it believed was true. Do you have anything OUTSIDE of the Bible and other religious documents?
Quote:
The apostolic church fathers then confirm the historical existence of the apostles, and the apostles speak of Jesus. But perhaps you will say that the testimony of the apostolic church fathers can't be trusted because they were believers.
That is exactly what I would say....and it is exactly what you would say if we were discussing the existence of gods and I presented evidence from an atheist. It is confirmation bias and inadmissible.
Quote:
But, so what? Since when did being a believer make it impossible to provide accurate information, or to tell the truth?
It makes it likely that the believer will provide confirmaion bias...as you have just demonstrated.
Quote:
Were the church records which records Polycarp and Clement being placed in their respective churches by the apostles John and Peter faked?
It wouldn't be the first time. Heed the words of one of your beloved church fathers...
'It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode of treatment.' Eusebius.
Quote:
I think not.
Of course you think not. That's because you desperately want it to be true.
Quote:
Was Polycarp lying about having heard the apostles? Again, I think not. No. What we have is extra-biblical attestation to the existence of the apostles who in turn testified of Jesus.
It is extra biblical yes but it is not unbiased.
Quote:
Now, you are a mythicist. You don't believe that Jesus existed. But your unbelief in the existence of even the historical Jesus is not shared by the vast majority of scholars. As Bart Ehrman stated,
Despite this enormous range of opinion, there are several points on which virtually all scholars of antiquity agree. Jesus was a Jewish man, known to be a preacher and teacher, who was crucified (a Roman form of execution) in Jerusalem during the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate was the governor of Judea. Even though this is the view of nearly every trained scholar on the planet, it is not the view of a group of writers who are usually labeled, and often label themselves, mythicists.
You have the wrong Jesus my friend. The Jesus that most most scholars have no problem with accepting could have existed is not YOUR Jesus The Christ, son of a god and miracle worker. The Jesus that Ehrman is referring to was an itinerant, rebel rabbi/teacher that wandered around the area protesting about the establishment and was likely executed for sedition by the Romans.
Quote:
[Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth,
Nazareth did not exist in the 1st century CE
Quote:
Now, Ehrman who describes himself as an agnostic with atheist leanings obviously doesn't believe that Jesus was who He claimed to be, but he recognizes, as do most scholars that Jesus existed historically, and wrote the above mentioned book to refute people such as yourself.
Fine...I have no problem with that 'Jesus' either...but that is not the Jesus you are arguing for is it? The one you are arguing for is Bible Jesus, Jesus The Christ, son of the Hebrew war god Yahweh.
Quote:
People who deny that there was an historical Jesus are simply parading their ignorance. And I will leave you with that.
Is the historical Jesus the one you are proposing or are you proposing Jesus The Christ??
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.
