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.
Trans you state " Archelaus 'came into Judea' to claim his kingship, deposed Joazar and then left for Rome"
What rebellion was it that Joazar took part in BEFORE Archelaus left for Rome?
Also Josephus indicates that Archelaus was present in Judea at the death of Herod the great so it can hardly be said the Archelaus came into judea to claim his kingship as he was already there.
Ok. Now you are putting some points. I'll look at that.
And let me ask you - if you can substantiate an argument that Josephus is implying a second term of office for Joazar after Archelaus left forome, why couldn't that be true? And if Josephus really has got confused, what about it?
Then you concede that the Gospels are not historically accurate. That's a start.
Josephus mentions Hercules too. Do you accept the existence of Hercules as a real person?
No. The alleged site of early 1st century Nazareth has been the subject of extensive archaeological digging since the 1950's (and before) by Franciscan monks. To date they have found nothing other than artefacts from BCE and the end of the 1st to the early second century. Nothing has been found that indicates that there was a city/town/village there in the early first century.
Then I'll ask you again. Do you accept the existence of Agartha or Alfheim, Shangri-la and a thousand other cities that mythology claims existed? No remains of these places exist but, by your logic, we must accept their existence.
I'm not interested in 16th century Mexico. We are talking about 1st century Judaea.
Present them.
Alexander took over the entire Persian Empire and his death brought about a complete change in the Greek culture. You can’t deny the existence of a man who has SOLID evidence backing up his existence. Where is your SOLID evidence for your man-god?
See above
Daniel was written after the events. If you don't know that then you don't know much about the subject other than what you have scraped together from Bible apologist sites.
Then continue to live your life in ignorance and superstition. All your points have already been discussed in threads that have many hundreds of posts and go into your claims in fine detail. I don't intend repeating what I have already said before and if you can't be bothered to read it then continue in ignorance.
Can I leave our new participant to you? There are a lot of dodgy claims, irrelevancies and false reasoning there which I'm sure you can handle. One thing you might lay down first is that neither of us deny the existence of a Jesus, but we do say that the Gospel view of Jesus is a Christian fabrication. The 'Nazareth' argument is a bit of a sideline - it doesn't matter to gospel skeptics if the place really existed and Jesus lived there, but it does matte to those who argue for Gospel credibility if it didn't. I might also remark that five or 600 families (so I read) are required to justify a synagogue and Capernaum certainly merited one (no matter how big or small it was) while a Nazareth of 25 or so houses wouldn't.
Can I leave our new participant to you? There are a lot of dodgy claims, irrelevancies and false reasoning there which I'm sure you can handle. One thing you might lay down first is that neither of us deny the existence of a Jesus, but we do say that the Gospel view of Jesus is a Christian fabrication. The 'Nazareth' argument is a bit of a sideline - it doesn't matter to gospel skeptics if the place really existed and Jesus lived there, but it does matte to those who argue for Gospel credibility if it didn't. I might also remark that five or 600 families (so I read) are required to justify a synagogue and Capernaum certainly merited one (no matter how big or small it was) while a Nazareth of 25 or so houses wouldn't.
I could deal with him my dear old scroat but his statement declairing that he doesn t need to read what has already been discussed indicates that, like most god zombies, he knows everything already. He isn't interested in facts...only 'faith'
Trans you state " Archelaus 'came into Judea' to claim his kingship, deposed Joazar and then left for Rome"
What rebellion was it that Joazar took part in BEFORE Archelaus left for Rome?
Also Josephus indicates that Archelaus was present in Judea at the death of Herod the great so it can hardly be said the Archelaus came into judea to claim his kingship as he was already there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Ok. Now you are putting some points. I'll look at that.
And let me ask you - if you can substantiate an argument that Josephus is implying a second term of office for Joazar after Archelaus left for Rome, why couldn't that be true? And if Josephus really has got confused, what about it?
later..
Ok I had a read through Josephus, and you are right in that Archelaus deposed Joazar after he returned from Rome to Judea. But that seems to be the only time he did so. The Jewish war doesn't seem to deal with the appointment of High priests, so I don't see a conflict there, unless there are some backflashes in the chapters about Roman Judea.
So it looks to me as though Joazar is appointed by Archelaus (or perhaps Herod) and is then replaced by his brother Eleazar, who was soon replaced by Ben Sie. The dating is not made clear, but is during the time 4 BC, when Archelaus became ruler of Judea to 6 Ad when he was deposed and Judea became a Roman province.
I might guess that Archelaus returned when Varus had put down the revolts, then dismissed Joazar (as you said) and Eleazar and Ben Sie followed in short order. Vipsanianus was governor of Syria from 1 Bc so I suppose the revolts were done and dusted by then, Archelaus was back and had dismissed Joazar, and Eleazar and appointed Ben Sie.
To answer your question, it was these revolts that Archelaus accused Joazar of being involved in.
Just how Joazar got the job back I don't know, but perhaps the Jewish war or some other record says that he was deposed when Archelaus was removed from the throne. The point is that there till only seems to be two terms as High Priest for Joazar and nothing to show that Josephus is getting anything wrong.
Comments?
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-30-2016 at 11:33 AM..
I could deal with him my dear old scroat but his statement declairing that he doesn t need to read what has already been discussed indicates that, like most god zombies, he knows everything already. He isn't interested in facts...only 'faith'
We have enough facts to confirm our faith, but there has to be a certain
amount of faith otherwise we can't be saved.
The type of facts you want will be provided by the Antichrist, who will
deceive the great majority of latter-day "Jews" such as yourself into condemnation.
Daniel was written after the events. If you don't know that then you don't know much about the subject other than what you have scraped together from Bible apologist sites.
.
¿Was Daniel Written after the Destruction of The second Temple?
No. The evidence points to the 2nd c Bc - just before the Maccabean war. I suppose your point is that otherwse, how could it predict Jesus? our point would be - why should we think it does?
We have enough facts to confirm our faith, but there has to be a certain
amount of faith otherwise we can't be saved.
I don't know whether or not anyone has ever told you this but you don't have any facts at all...that's why what you have is called 'FAITH' my dear old thing. You see, where 'facts' are concerned, there is absolutely no need for 'faith' at all. Faith is the belief that something is true even though there is absolutely no verifiable evidence (facts) to support the believe,
Quote:
The type of facts you want will be provided by the Antichrist, who will
deceive the great majority of latter-day "Jews" such as yourself into condemnation.
I'm not a Jew. I'm Welsh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alonso_Castillo
¿Was Daniel Written after the Destruction of The second Temple?
No. The evidence points to the 2nd c Bc - just before the Maccabean war. I suppose your point is that otherwse, how could it predict Jesus? our point would be - why should we think it does?
Then I'll ask you again. Do you accept the existence of Agartha or Alfheim, Shangri-la and a thousand other cities that mythology claims existed? No remains of these places exist but, by your logic, we must accept their existence.
Instead of posting daft pictures, you would do better to educate yourself.
Authorship and date of composition
Once it is admitted that the Book of Daniel is the work of one single author, there naturally arises the important question: Is this sole writer the Prophet Daniel who composed the work during the Exile (586-536 B.C.), or, on the contrary, some author, now unknown, who wrote this inspired book at a later date, which can still be made out? The traditional view, in vigour chiefly among Catholics, is to the effect that the whole work, as found in the Hebrew Bible, should be directly referred to Daniel, whose name it bears. It admits, indeed, that numerous alterations have been introduced into the primitive text of the book in the course of ages. It maintains, nevertheless, that both the narratives (chaps. i-vi) wherein Daniel seems to be described by some one else as acting as recorded, and the symbolic visions (chaps. vii-xiu) wherein he describes himself as favoured with heavenly revelations, were written, not simply by an author who was contemporary with that prophet and lived in Babylon in the sixth century B.C., but by Daniel himself. Such difference in the use of persons is regarded as arising naturally from the respective contents of the two parts of the book: Daniel employed the third person in recording events, for the event is its own witness; and the first person in relating prophetical visions, for such communications from above need the personal attestation of those to whom they are imparted. Over against this time-honoured position which ascribes to Daniel the authorship of the book which bears his name, and admits 570-536 B.C. as its date of composition, stands a comparatively recent theory which has been widely accepted by contemporary scholars. Chiefly on the basis of historical and linguistic grounds, this rival theory refers the origin of the Book of Daniel, in its present form, to a later writer and period. It regards that apocalyptic writing as the work of an unknown author who composed it during the period of the Machabees, and more precisely in the time of Antiochus IV, Epiphanes (175-164 B.C.). http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04621b.htm
So people who subscribe to the stories of ignorant desert goat-herders and who believe that angels are real, think Daniel was written in the 6th century BCE - whilst modern scholars who have studied the history and linguistics of the work say that it was written in the 2nd century BCE.
I know where my money is going.
Last edited by Rafius; 12-01-2016 at 12:18 AM..
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.
