aa5874

Please read (KJV) Matthew 1.18. Then read (KJV)Luke 1.35. After that, read all the church writers of antiquity? You seem to be having problems translating Greek to English. I suggest you read these passages in English.

Please read the book of Daniel chapter 9.

And when do you think the Gospels were written?

aa5874

But, what did the Jews think about the Messiah as written in Daniel?

Josephus, the Jew, made commentaries on the book of Daniel and this is found in Antiquities of the Jews 10.11.7 And see also Wars of the Jews 6.5.4.

Jeffrey Gibson

Why, especially since the issue is what Matthew and Luke originally said in Greek, not what the English word was that some English Renaissance translators used in their translation of what they originally said?

And how does the 1611 KJV text of Mt. 1:18 and Lk. 1:35 tell me what the Greek text iof these verses are and whether or not the Greek word for "ghost" (do you know what it is?) is used in Mt. 1:18 or Lk 1:35?

Also, you seem to be unaware of the fact that a variety of English translations including The New KJVdisagree with the KJV renderings of Mt. 1:18 and Lk. 1:35. So how does reading these passages in English prove that Matthew and Luke spoke of Jesus' conception being something that occured through the agency of a "ghost"?

More importantly, how does this show that being being born of a "virgin", let alone through the agency of a "ghost", is something that every NT writer who proclaims Jesus to have been/as the Christ, says? How does it demonstrate that it Is something that Mark -- who most definitely proclaims Jesus to be the Christ -- says about Jesus?

I have. I find there (in 9:25-26) a reference to a עַד מָשִׁיחַ נָגִיד: i.e., a high priest (and specifically Jeshua, the son of Jehozadak, who was a high priest during thes period spoken of in Dan. 9:25) -- since the first term of this expression (which is anarthrous) is an epithet of kings, priests (cf. 2 Mac. 1:10), and prophets, but is never an O.T. name of the Messiah; and the second, which qualifies the first, is used elsewhere in Daniel (cf. 11:22) of a chief among officials, esp. in the temple personnel -- who will be "cut off" (כרת) i -- i.e., "destroyed/put to death" -- but nothing concerning a divinely appointed and empowered deliverer.

Certainly after the composition of the book of Daniel -- whose date of composition you have yet to say anything about despite the fact that I asked you to.

But in case you missed my question, let me ask it again:

You say that the Book of Daniel was composed "hundreds of years" before the Gospels. How may years is "hundreds"? When specifically (i.e. in what year or years BCE) do you think the book of Daniel was composed?.

Jeffrey

bacht

Should we ask if there was no "Jerusalem crowd" before the revolt? Were they added to the developing Jesus mythology later to provide a back-story? Where did the author of Acts get his material if not from fragments of early tradition?

aa5874

That is like asking me where did Joseph Smith, of Mormonism, get the angel Moroni and the golden plates from.

In order for me to accept any thing in the NT to be true or likely, [b]it must corroborated or written about by some other credible source external of the NT and church writers.

What "Jerusalem crowd" are you talking about? Why must there be a "Jerusalem crowd", when the letter writer claimed over 500 people saw Jesus after he was resurrected, and that some of that very 500 hundred were alive when he wrote his letter?

LogicandReason

aa there seems to be some dualism in your argument above...if you operate by the rational statement above in red...then how can you quote the same unproven NT in the next question?

aa5874

So that people can see what is written in the NT. To show that it is not credible or is implausible, fictitious, chronologically erroneous and at times, incoherent.

bacht

It's not impossible that the whole Christian movement didn't start until after the revolt. Maybe all the gospel characters were simply invented, and the Paulists reacted with epistles attacking the HJ mythology and Judaizers.

aa5874

It is certain that many events surrounding the gospel characters, that were claimed to be witnessed, were invented. Unless, there are other independent sources that corroborate or mention the gospel characters, I must consider that these gospel characters were indeed inventions, inlcluding Jesus, Peter and Paul.

LogicandReason

OK...I see...if 'virgin births' and 'resurrections' don't make that point I'm not sure what else we need to prove your point.