agator

So, is the dispute whether Yahshua(Jesus) was ever alive, killed, crucified, or the date or whether he was raised?

Amaleq13

Please provide the specific references that you believe date the crucifixion with such specificity.

To my knowledge, there is no reliable extrabiblical proof of the crucifixion. Outside comments appear to be reactions to and repetitions of Christian claims rather than independent evidence.

Josephus would be invaluable except that the TF, as it stands, is clearly the result of Christian interference. Establishing what text, if any, was originally written is purely speculation.

That leaves Tacitus and Pliny as the earliest outside evidence but neither of them provide anything that would allow one to date the crucifixion with such precision.

The debate within Christian scholarship, to which I referred, is regarding the specific year of the crucifixion.

agator

I will address the other issues if that needs to happen but as far as the date: We need not look any further than the document in the British Museum in London. The Governor, Pontius Pilate, sent a letter to the Roman Emperor explaining the reason for crucifying Jesus, dating it two days after the event. Was this info ever posted here?
Yahshua, on the day upon which it was prophesized, rides into the city of Jerusalem. Four days later, the 14th of Nisan 33 A.D., that’s Friday, April 3rd on the Julian calendar, he was crucified, cut off, in Daniel’s words.

Amaleq13

Could you specifically identify this document? There are numerous letters attributed to Pilate that are recognized as late forgeries by both Christian and non-Christian scholars.

Angrillori

Which please?

I don't actually see any "proving" but a lot of asserting <insult deleted> Keep up the good work!

One would be ok.
But even if you managed to come up right even once or support your position, even once that wouldn't get you off the hook to support the other load of garbage you spew. Of course that point is moot since we're still waiting for #1.


Since it seems to be you who is disagreeing with modern scholarship, it behooves you to support how you know the state of biblical scholarship to be wrong. Daniel was written after the fact.

Did you know that the guys that wrote your High School (if you've made it to high school yet) history book, weren't actually alive when the events they wrote about happened? See where I'm going with this?

Did you know the Vampire Lestat never EVEN existed, much less lived in New Orleans in the 1800's? The fact that we have a book he claims to narrate that describes that time period well, doesn't make him real, nor does it make the author of that book a contemporary of the times described.

We're telling you that no one has.

And so far, pointedly, neither have you.

Pray tell, where, when? Offer it up! The entire world is waiting!

Oh, so you do know that there was a perfectly good word for "virgin" which the writer chose not to use, rather choosing the word which is defined as "young woman." Strange, you were making it sound like you actually believed the writer was referring to an actual virgin giving birth.

Interestingly enough, a list of times people wrongly-translated a word in order to support their own doctrine does not really help your case! Since you put the quotes up though, did you happen to notice how those verses all refer to an event happening at the time they were written, and not hundreds of years later? Did you notice that they were referring to a sign offered, very specifically to a then-extant king, and not to future generations?

I'm glad you took the opportunity to copy all those verses. Maybe you managed to read them.

agator

I am in conflict with modern scholars????? Pa lease. How many hundreds of scholars do you want me to provide links to that agree with my timeline. Do a google search for heavens sake.
Now then, I would like to know what you base your timeline by. Do you also subscribe that the book was written in 168 BC? :rolling:

Amaleq13

Comparing the number of scholars is probably not terribly helpful.

This site provides a pretty good summary of the argument for a later date and includes a link to Miller's argument for an earlier one.

Angrillori

Well, yes. And that answer wouldn't change even if you added a hundred more question marks.

Maybe not all scholars, but certainly those without a theological axe to grind. No one finds it surprising that a fellow that already believes that Daniel MUST be old, fails to conclude that it is new.

Yes, pa lease.

Any of them without a theological pre-disposition? Any of them veiwing the evidence from an unbiased standpoint?

Yes, that is good advice. I recommend you take it.

First, you have utterly failed to change the subject.

You've still failed to provide any confirmation of the date of Jesus' crucifiction. We're still waiting.
You've also failed to address the virgin/young woman dilemma, by anything more than pointing to others who chose to continue a mistranslation to support their theological position.

You don't win any points by dodging the issue. You made a claim: that we are ignorant for believing there is no confirmation on the date of Jesus' crucifiction. The opportunity for you to support that claim is obvious: provide that confirmation. Care to try?

I'm done responding until you manage to either put up or shut up. You shouldn't just make claims like that without being prepared to support them.

agator

I already addressed them, but I suppose the evidence in a musuem isn't good enough for you. It never is. Good luck

Amaleq13

I asked you to identify this alleged evidence and mentioned that there are several letters attributed to Pilate that are widely recognized as forgeries. I strongly suspect your "evidence" is one of these.