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.
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.
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.
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?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.
It makes it likely that the believer will provide confirmaion bias...as you have just demonstrated.
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.Of course you think not. That's because you desperately want it to be true.
It is extra biblical yes but it is not unbiased.
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.
[/indent]
Nazareth did not exist in the 1st century CE
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.
Is the historical Jesus the one you are proposing or are you proposing Jesus The Christ??
You have no idea what you're talking about, and the inherent vagarities
of your worthless post belie this in a most obvious manner.
A worthy response from our scholarly Snowball!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
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 who was 'cut off' is considered to be the High priest Onias, removed by the Seleucid monarch. That this is the right 'messiah' (which refers to any Anointed one King or High priest) because the rest of the events fit well with the history of the time.
You will probably be aware that the Daniel timescale had to be 'interpreted' in order to make it fit.
My assertion that Luke took the 'rejection at Nazareth' ball and ran miles with it has considerable merit and your argument that Matthew and Mark BOTH ignored totally the announcements of messiahship and the attempt by his families' neighbours to murder him is, I would suggest, the one that has no merit whatsoever.
I would concur that I haven't explained clearly why I can see that the prophecies were fiddled, but in fact a quick check of the Gospel versions with the OT original will answer that one.
But this is, as I said, about Jesus and his 'sacrifice'.
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.
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.
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?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.
It makes it likely that the believer will provide confirmaion bias...as you have just demonstrated.
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.Of course you think not. That's because you desperately want it to be true.
It is extra biblical yes but it is not unbiased.
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.
[/indent]
Nazareth did not exist in the 1st century CE
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.
Is the historical Jesus the one you are proposing or are you proposing Jesus The Christ??
Reply your post because what it replied to, I couldn't pull together.
A 'Cambrian explosion' of Evidence to support the truth of the gospels. However there is a very good case against their being reliable. The Luke example is just one of many and the excuses that something really important wasn't mentioned by the others doesn't mean it was invented wears damn' thing when it happens again and again.
Pretty much everything can be explained and and backed up by evidence. Paul's supposed endorsement of the resurrection which actually only makes sense as a Spiritual (imaginary) resurrection and actually contradicts the gospel account.
Our pals here have rejected this but - as we have seen - not with evidence but by explaining the evidence away. I cannot allow myself, by the way, to be cowed by Scholarly opinion. I have read a marvellous book on Matthew but which reverted to blinkered denial about the two donkeys. i know (to the best of my knowledge) that consideration of the life and character of Jesus is based on the assumption that the Gospels are reliable. If so...and I'm sorry if this seem arrogant, but that is a fatal error that sinks all he scholarship before it starts.
I respect the opinions of scholars of course, but I want to know what they are. I don't accept them just because they sat a test.
We are way off topic but perhaps the original topic was too narrow. We could look at Onias III as the messiah who was cut off and the reasons to date the prophecy to the year before the Maccabean war.
We can look at the prophecies and how they fiddle the OT text to work.
We can even look at the problem of a 1st c Nazareth. However, we have had a taste of the desire for discussion. "you are ignorant, and I have nothing further to say," and the waving away of the Luke invention.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-01-2016 at 02:02 PM..
Why are Christian answers to simple questions like political answers, in such the the answer is so convoluted, inter twisted, out-da-bum, it's like W...T...H...was that? All said, the original question never actually gets answered in the end anyways. The questioner is expected to nod in agreement out of politeness, if only for social consideration.
The sole purpose of political speak is to assuage any inclination of questioning, to prey off of the intellectual insecurities of the audience, and to lead through confusion. Leading through confusion, a cheap psychological trick where one portrays knowledge only he can understand in the hopes others will place trust in him to understand things beyond their own reasoning. In a Christian world, nothing but a soothsayer reinvented really.
If one can't explain it in one sentence, it probably never made sense; or you're being lied to.
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.
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.
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?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.
It makes it likely that the believer will provide confirmaion bias...as you have just demonstrated.
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.Of course you think not. That's because you desperately want it to be true.
It is extra biblical yes but it is not unbiased.
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.
[/indent]
Nazareth did not exist in the 1st century CE
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.
Is the historical Jesus the one you are proposing or are you proposing Jesus The Christ??
You know Rafius, the cure for ignorance is knowledge. But there is no cure for stupidity. And to reject the testimony of the church fathers because they were believers is just plain stupid.
I made a point of showing that the apostolic church fathers were contemporaries of the apostles, and that some of them personally knew the apostles. And so no, their testimony about the apostles is not from the Bible, but from personal knowledge of the apostles.
And I made a point of saying that it is the historical Jesus that most scholars recognize as having existed. It is that same historical Jesus which you deny existed, and so you do indeed 'have a problem' with that Jesus. You have denied the historical existence of both Jesus and the apostles.
And you speak of bias. Everyone has bias to an extent. You have your bias as an atheist. People who believe in God have bias as well. The issue then is examining the evidence. You reject the existence of even an historical Jesus, as well as the existence of the apostles. You claim they weren't historical persons. But you've been shown by way of the apostolic church fathers that the apostles did exist. And you won't accept their testimony because they were believers. You operate from the standpoint of suspicious. You think that because the apostolic church fathers were believers their testimony can't be trusted, you think that they're lying, that there is some conspiracy on their part. Or that they were just plain stupid. But though you reject their testimony you have no valid reason for doing so.
Before the issue of whether Jesus was who He claimed to be can be examined it must first be established that an historical Jesus even existed. The historical evidence says that He did exist. The historical evidence also says that the apostles existed. And they were eyewitnesses to the ministry of Jesus and believed that they saw the risen Jesus, and were willing to suffer and even die for their belief.
Some people won't believe because they simply don't want to believe, and will therefore reject any amount of evidence. As I said, there is no cure for stupidity.
Last edited by Michael Way; 05-01-2016 at 04:26 PM..
The Messiah who was 'cut off' is considered to be the High priest Onias, removed by the Seleucid monarch. That this is the right 'messiah' (which refers to any Anointed one King or High priest) because the rest of the events fit well with the history of the time.
You will probably be aware that the Daniel timescale had to be 'interpreted' in order to make it fit.
My assertion that Luke took the 'rejection at Nazareth' ball and ran miles with it has considerable merit and your argument that Matthew and Mark BOTH ignored totally the announcements of messiahship and the attempt by his families' neighbours to murder him is, I would suggest, the one that has no merit whatsoever.
I would concur that I haven't explained clearly why I can see that the prophecies were fiddled, but in fact a quick check of the Gospel versions with the OT original will answer that one.
But this is, as I said, about Jesus and his 'sacrifice'.
Obviously there are those who don't believe that the prophecy refers to Jesus. But I have already explained why it does.
The prophecy does not refer to the High priest Onias. The prophecy states that the Messiah would be cut off after the 62 weeks (of years). That places the death of the Messiah long after the time that Onias lived. While there have been differences of opinion among scholars on exactly how the prophecy should be calculated, the prophecy fits the time of Jesus much better than it does for either Onias or anyone else. And again, the same prophecy, in the very same verse, which speaks of the Messiah being cut off, also speaks of the destruction of the temple and of Jerusalem which as we know, occurred in A.D. 70, a mere 37-40 years after the crucifixion of Jesus.
You may suggest whatever you wish. However, fact remains that each Gospel writer composed his Gospel account in accordance with his purpose for writing the Gospel account. The fact that only Luke recorded Jesus' reading of the prophecy of Isaiah 61 (post #30), does not make it an invention of Luke. Luke specifically stated that he compiled his Gospel account on the basis of careful investigation of eyewitnesses, and he expected what he wrote to be taken as fact. And again, he, as did the other Gospel writers, wrote within the lifetime of eyewitnesses who could verify that what he wrote was true. It would have made no sense to 'invent' any details which were known not to be true.
There are arguably scriptures about the prophecies of Jesus' death from the old Testament.
However, every successful sacrifice in the Old Testament was a burnt offering, and the Hebrew word used to describe the burnt offerings literally meant, to be carried away, up in smoke. There was literally nothing left, so why would Jesus' resurrection after his death not have negated the sacrifice. For it to count, according to Old Testament law, there should be nothing left but ashes.
A conundrum?
Another question that can easily be answered by opening a Bible. In this case to 1 Corinthians 15.
But I doubt Cupper you have any intent on actually wanting to know what it says do you?
Why are Christian answers to simple questions like political answers, in such the the answer is so convoluted, inter twisted, out-da-bum, it's like W...T...H...was that? All said, the original question never actually gets answered in the end anyways. The questioner is expected to nod in agreement out of politeness, if only for social consideration.
The sole purpose of political speak is to assuage any inclination of questioning, to prey off of the intellectual insecurities of the audience, and to lead through confusion. Leading through confusion, a cheap psychological trick where one portrays knowledge only he can understand in the hopes others will place trust in him to understand things beyond their own reasoning. In a Christian world, nothing but a soothsayer reinvented really.
If one can't explain it in one sentence, it probably never made sense; or you're being lied to.
There are arguably scriptures about the prophecies of Jesus' death from the old Testament.
However, every successful sacrifice in the Old Testament was a burnt offering, and the Hebrew word used to describe the burnt offerings literally meant, to be carried away, up in smoke. There was literally nothing left, so why would Jesus' resurrection after his death not have negated the sacrifice. For it to count, according to Old Testament law, there should be nothing left but ashes.
A conundrum?
There were No remains found of Jesus' physical body. God resurrected Jesus back to his pre-human spirit body.
- 1st Peter 3:18 B - Jesus was made alive in his spirit body. As with Moses, God disposed of the physical remains.
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.
