Yahzi

No, they aren't.

Proving God's existance is as easy as proving my dog's existance. I can convince you I have a dog, without recourse to prophecy. In fact, you don't even need to speak my language to understand my proof.

Why can't anybody prove God exists in the same way I canprove my dog exists?

azuresky

Asha'man,

You write "I'm sorry, proof by encyclopedia is awfully damn weak. You are effectively using the argument by popularity, which is horribly, horribly wrong..."

I must disagree with you on the above point, Asha'man. In "Critical Thinking" by Moore and Parker it is stated, "The informational claims made by experts are the most reliable of such claims, provided they fall into the area of expertise." The individual writers of various encyclopedia articles are experts in their fields. They gather precise information and then essentially present it to the world. Encarta is a world-famous encyclopedia and well-respected. It is not silly to believe their claim that "today scholars generally agree that Jesus was an historical figure..."

I respect that you do not believe Jesus was the Christ. The evidence simply doesn't convince you. However, the main point I was trying to make was that I believe the prophecy in Daniel to be true. Why exactly do you think this particular prophecy failed?

psychedelicbeats

i feel that christ is what's best of an example of what God really is, just like all of the other theist religions. to be honest, i don't see god figuratively. i use my abstract views of God by saying God is faith.

i am theist!

1veedo

Do you mind italicizing anything that you quote please?According to this book I read some time ago (my parents gave it too me when I announced I was an atheist), the wise men saw celestial objects. At 6 BC, several things in the night sky were going on. There are more reasons that they think his birth, if we use the Bible’s premise, would be 6 BC (I don’t remember all of them). This isn’t surprising though, the calender was formed long after his death.What I was trying to point out was this:Now I don’t know who Daniel is so I cant really say much about it. Is there a link you can give us? Maybe you should go back and check out Doherty’s website. You seem to think that because scholars say he walked on this planet they believe (or can prove, some may believe) he rose from the dead or performed miracles. I can tell you right now, if you come up with such evidence, I’ll convert

– 1veedo

Javaman

I've read several translations of Daniel 9 but have not read any critiques of it (theistic or otherwise). Could you, azuresky, paraphrase the prophecy as you see it? I may be misinterpreting this passage but, if the death of the Anointed One is predicted, are the consequences as depicted in verses 26 and 27 supposed to have happened or is this another "second coming" thing? Be gentle, I haven't completed a linear, cover-to-cover reading yet.

Javaman

My Hebrew is nonexistant so could someone help with verse 26 which, I think, reads as a literal "flood." Other translations are different: "... like a flood" or "outpouring."

Edited to add:
Are there any BC&H folks lurking or should I seek some out?

Wayne Delia

Believe in what? Believe that you are omniscient, or that you know the future? Why should that deserve any respect? Here are two common counter-examples:

1) There are people among us who possess knowledge of the near future. They collectively make hundreds of thousands of predictions daily, for events and conditions in the next few days. Those of the male persuasion are called weathermen. Do you believe?

2) (True story, actually) Yesterday, while in Potsdam, NY recolonizing the Beta Chi chapter of Phi Kappa Sigma at Clarkson University, several alumni and fellow Red Sox fans and I cheered the Sawx taking it to the Yankees, winning the 2nd of 3 games 3-2 in extra innings. I noticed that the Bostons left many runners on base, in fact they were futile when runners were in scoring position. Assessing the chances of Sunday's game, I said that the Red Sox would not score many runs, probably only two, because they're having trouble getting runners in, but they'd win 2-0 because Pedro would be deadly for seven innings. Turned out that's pretty much exactly what happened. Do you believe?

WMD

azuresky

Well, so much for the Daniel prophecy. At the particular moment I'm writing this, most people seem more interested in discussing evidence for the historical existence of Christ rather than Daniel--so, I'll oblige and talk about this instead. Perhaps one day we'll come back to Daniel 9.

Sorry if I don't reply to everyone's posts. It is becoming very overwhelming simply keeping up with everyone! Too many posts!

The funny part is, most of us probably know beforehand the evidence the other is going to offer. We've all been down this road before. Nevertheless...

Here are the secular sources for the existence of Christ:

1. Josephus (yes the Testimonium Flavianum was interpolated by Christians, nevertheless, an Arabic version was found without the Christian additions. Scholars had speculated at one time how the Testimonium would read if Christians hadn't inserted fictional words. When the Arabic version was discovered without apparent interpolations, it agreed almost entirely with the predictions advanced by the scholars. Also, the mention of Jesus in Antiquities 20.9.1 is almost universally accepted as genuine).

2. Mara bar Serapion (c. A.D. 73) asks his son "For what advantage did...the Jews [gain] by the death of their wise king...?"

3. Tacitus [c. A.D. 110] explains that the word "Christian" is a derivation from Christus "who was sentened to death by the governor, Pontius Pilate, during the reign of Tiberius.

4. Pliny the Younger, in a letter to Trajan [A.D. 110], asserts that Christians assemble to sing a "hymn antiphonally to Christ as God" and to "partake of a meal".

5. Suetonius [A.D. 120] claims that "Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome who, instigated by Chrestus, never ceased to cause unrest." According to the "Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels" from which I am quoting liberally, "Apparently Suetonius has confused "Chrestus", a name commonly held by slaves, with "Christus," a title with which he was probably not familiar.

6. Celsus (an early atheist who obviously rejected the divinity of Christ), believed that Jesus was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier and that he performed miracles through the power of magic.

7. Julius Africanus wrote that the first century Samaritan chronicler Thallus suggested that the darkness at the time of the crucifixion was caused by an eclipse of the sun.

8. There are various allusions to Jesus in the Talmud, though many experts believe that most of the references were written by those acquainted with the New Testament. Possible Jewish sources describing Jesus and contemporary with the life of Christ are speculated to have been lost during the destruction of Jerusalem and its archives in A.D. 70.

9. The Qur'an presents Jesus as a prophet, though this also is probably dependent on the New Testament.

Of course, there are also numerous early Christian references to Jesus such as those relating to the letters of Paul, the Book of Acts, the epistles of Peter, James, and John. We also have the writings of the early Apostolic fathers--Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp. Who could also forget the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, or the Shepherd of Hermas? Some of you may also recall that an early Christian writer challenged an atheist of his day to consult the official Roman records containing the account of the crucifixion. Unfortunately for me, I don't remember which ancient Christian historian wrote this. Can anyone offer me a little help on that one? I know the info is here somewhere in all my books!

Anyway, I'm eager to read the other responses to my posts, but unfortunately I do not have much more time today to respond today. I'm right in the middle of a grueling semester at school and need to study. Thanks!

azuresky

Hi Javaman,

In my opinion, as per my above post, Daniel was asserting that 490 years would elapse from 458 B.C. until sins would be forgiven in 33 A.D. The ruler, or Anointed One, who would forgive the sins would arrive on earth after sixty-nine sevens. Now, what one must understand is that the prediction of Daniel centers around the forgiveness of sins after 490 years. One might suggest that this author's recurrent motif is the number seven. There are seventy sevens in the number 490. The author has committed himself to this motif of "sevens", so he simply declares that the Anointed One will appear on earth to forgive sins one "seven" prior to the 490 years. He then asserts that the Anointed One will forgive sins after the 490 years, or in 33 A.D. He is not attempting to be accurate concerning the birth of Christ, for he chooses not to break out of his motif of sevens. He is simply concerned with the day sin will be forgiven in 33 A.D. Hope I'm making myself clear, though I apologize if I'm not.

Daniel next claims that after the Anointed One is cut off [killed], a ruler would come to destroy Jerusalem and the Temple. This war would last for seven years. During the middle of this war, or after 3.5 years, Daniel predicts that this particular ruler will "put an end to sacrifice and offering" at the Temple. Consulting our history books, we do find that after the crucifixion of Christ the Romans [specifically Titus] fought a vicious war against the Jews for seven years [A.D. 66-73]. During the middle of the war, as predicted, Titus "put an end to sacrifice and offering" by burning down the Temple [A.D. 70].

Weltall

Oooh goody, I've been wanting to see this pop up!
You're correct, we've seen this before. Don't worry, we won't bite too hard.
Stop right there. If a version has been found without the later insertions, why bother continuing? You can see that words have been inserted into the text that weren't written by the author.
It's not that hard, seeing as the entire reference breaks Josephus' flow noticably.
Then it's a pretty good sign that your 'supporting' verses were made up and that you have no evidence, isn't it?
Doesn't mean that it was YOUR Jesus. Given how much he wrote about other people named Jesus, you'd think the supposed miracle worker would get more than a passing mention.
All signs point to him simply parroting what was already known, he was no eyewitness.
Again, he wasn't an eyewitness, he was simply repeating what other people already knew. Doesn't prove that there was a historical figure behind the story.
See above.
Anyone who's looked into this more than I have want to comment?
If that's your definition of atheist you're missing the point, and wrong to boot.
Do tell me how this works to your advantage. Once you've accomplished that, tell me how a second century writer who is talking about a topic of common knowledge could be proof of a historical Jesus.
Doesn't prove anything. Also, anyone yet found proof outside the Bible for dead guys walking into town and being seen by many people? If you've got proof you'd be the first.
When you've got the soruce material to work with, it's easy to make a figure conform to earlier 'prophecies'. I don't think this dead horse needs to be beaten any further.
Funny how it works like that, isn't it?
:banghead: Ok, it mentions him. Considering that by the time it was written you'd have to be living under a rock to have NOT heard about Christianity, this proves absolutely zip.
Yeah, pity about all the contradictions in them...
[quote]We also have the writings of the early Apostolic fathers--Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp. Who could also forget the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, or the Shepherd of Hermas?[quote] Haven't read em, anyone else like to apply the shredder of reality to these?
Nice unbiased source there. While we're at it, care to explain why according to your story the Romans decided to change how their laws worked and have a couple of thieves crucified?
Don't worry about that, you're not the only student on these boards. Now how about I ask you one simple question. Can you provide me with any firsthand testimony for the existence of Jesus outside of the Bible? None of your quoted sources qualify and aren't admissible as proof.