A Question about Christ [W 77, 186]

[Logicman]

Re: A Question about Christ [W 77]

I''ll see your fundamentalist blog, and raise you an encyclopedia

DANIEL, BOOK OF - JewishEncyclopedia.com

I'll see your (in that article) liberal Jewish Encyclopedia and raise you JESUS GOD, etc.

Jesus confirms Daniel is a Prophet

The Lord Jesus Christ spoke of Daniel "the prophet" (Matthew 24:15; Mark 13:14).

Now why would Jesus say Daniel is a prophet if he's just writing history?


What you have to believe if Daniel didn't write the Book of Daniel

The (critics of Daniel) cannot believe in miracles and predictive prophecy which involve nothing but a simple faith in a wise and mighty and merciful God intervening in behalf of his people for his own glory and their salvation; BUT THEY CAN BELIEVE that a lot of obstreperous and cantankerous Jews who through all their history from Jacob and Esau down to the present time have disagreed and quarreled about almost everything, or nothing, could have accepted, unanimously and without a murmur, in an age when they were enlightened by the brilliant light of Platos philosophy, and Aristotles logic, and the criticism of the schools of Alexandria, a forged and ficticious document, untrue to the well remembered facts of their own experience and to the easily ascertained facts concerning their own past history and the history of the Babylonians, Medes, Persians, and Greeks of whom the author (of the book of Daniel) writes. R.D. Wilson, Studies in the Book of Daniel, pages 268, 269

The Sanhedrin of the second century B.C. was composed of men of the type of John Hyrcanus; men famed for their piety and learning; men who were heirs of all the proud traditions of the Jewish faith, and themselves the sons of successors of the heroes of the noble Maccabean revolt. And yet we are asked to believe (by the critics of Daniel) that these men, with their extremely strict views of inspiration and their intense reverence for their sacred writings.used their authority to smuggle into the Jewish Canon a book which, ex hypothesi, was a forgery, a literary fraud, and a religious novel of recent date. R. Anderson, Daniel in the Critics Den, pages 104-105

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: A Question about Christ [W 77]

I'll see your (in that article) liberal Jewish Encyclopedia and raise you JESUS GOD, etc.

Jesus confirms Daniel is a Prophet

The Lord Jesus Christ spoke of Daniel "the prophet" (Matthew 24:15; Mark 13:14).

Now why would Jesus say Daniel is a prophet if he's just writing history?


What you have to believe if Daniel didn't write the Book of Daniel

The (critics of Daniel) cannot believe in miracles and predictive prophecy which involve nothing but a simple faith in a wise and mighty and merciful God intervening in behalf of his people for his own glory and their salvation; BUT THEY CAN BELIEVE that a lot of obstreperous and cantankerous Jews who through all their history from Jacob and Esau down to the present time have disagreed and quarreled about almost everything, or nothing, could have accepted, unanimously and without a murmur, in an age when they were enlightened by the brilliant light of Platos philosophy, and Aristotles logic, and the criticism of the schools of Alexandria, a forged and ficticious document, untrue to the well remembered facts of their own experience and to the easily ascertained facts concerning their own past history and the history of the Babylonians, Medes, Persians, and Greeks of whom the author (of the book of Daniel) writes. R.D. Wilson, Studies in the Book of Daniel, pages 268, 269

The Sanhedrin of the second century B.C. was composed of men of the type of John Hyrcanus; men famed for their piety and learning; men who were heirs of all the proud traditions of the Jewish faith, and themselves the sons of successors of the heroes of the noble Maccabean revolt. And yet we are asked to believe (by the critics of Daniel) that these men, with their extremely strict views of inspiration and their intense reverence for their sacred writings.used their authority to smuggle into the Jewish Canon a book which, ex hypothesi, was a forgery, a literary fraud, and a religious novel of recent date. R. Anderson, Daniel in the Critics Den, pages 104-105

None of that actually answers the points made by the Jewish Encyclopedia. That position is a very much of a minority position these days. There is a reason that the Book of Daniel was put into the Writings, rather than the prophets, and that is because they knew it was not written by Daniel.

 

[Logicman]

Re: A Question about Christ [W 77]

None of that actually answers the points made by the Jewish Encyclopedia. That position is a very much of a minority position these days.

I already told you the reason you like that - because it seeks to invalidate predictive prophecy. And since you and most liberal Jews are anti-supernaturalists, you trot out that illogical piece.

The following, well-researched article provides any number of reasons why your late-dating of Daniel is wrong. The Date of the Book of Daniel

There is a reason that the Book of Daniel was put into the Writings, rather than the prophets, and that is because they knew it was not written by Daniel.

See, that's another one of your poorly researched claims.

The present position of the Book (of Daniel) in the Hebrew Canon is not its original position. We have it on the authority of the Jewish historian Josephus that that at the close of the first century A.D. the Canon of the Old Testament books was differently arranged from that at present accepted among the Jews; and it is also evident from the writings of the Early Fathers that a change must have been made in the arrangement of the Jewish Canon between the middle of the third and the end of the fourth century A.D. - Charles Boutflower, In and Around the Book of Daniel, pages 276-277.

Josephus in Contra Apionem 1:8 writes, We have but twenty-two (books) containing the history of all time, books that are justly believed in; and of these, five are the books of Moses, which comprise the laws and earliest traditions from the creation of mankind down to his death. From the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes, King of Persia, successor of Xerxes, the prophets who succeeded Moses wrote the history of the events that occurred in their own time, in thirteen books. The remaining four documents comprise hymns to God and the practical precepts to men.

Daniel was included in those 13 books.

Professor R.D. Wilson states: All the direct evidence, then, that precedes the year 200 A.D., supports the view that Daniel was in the earliest times among the Prophets. Thus Origen, at A.D. 250, and Jerome, at A.D. 400, both of whom were taught by Jewish Rabbis and claim to have gathered their information from Jewish sources, put Daniel among the Prophets and separate the strictly prophetical books from those which are more properly called historical. R. D. Wilson, Studies in the Book of Daniel, page 49.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: A Question about Christ [W 77]

I already told you the reason you like that - because it seeks to invalidate predictive prophecy. And since you and most liberal Jews are anti-supernaturalists, you trot out that illogical piece.

The following, well-researched article provides any number of reasons why your late-dating of Daniel is wrong. The Date of the Book of Daniel



See, that's another one of your poorly researched claims.

The present position of the Book (of Daniel) in the Hebrew Canon is not its original position. We have it on the authority of the Jewish historian Josephus that that at the close of the first century A.D. the Canon of the Old Testament books was differently arranged from that at present accepted among the Jews; and it is also evident from the writings of the Early Fathers that a change must have been made in the arrangement of the Jewish Canon between the middle of the third and the end of the fourth century A.D. - Charles Boutflower, In and Around the Book of Daniel, pages 276-277.

Josephus in Contra Apionem 1:8 writes, We have but twenty-two (books) containing the history of all time, books that are justly believed in; and of these, five are the books of Moses, which comprise the laws and earliest traditions from the creation of mankind down to his death. From the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes, King of Persia, successor of Xerxes, the prophets who succeeded Moses wrote the history of the events that occurred in their own time, in thirteen books. The remaining four documents comprise hymns to God and the practical precepts to men.

Daniel was included in those 13 books.

Professor R.D. Wilson states: All the direct evidence, then, that precedes the year 200 A.D., supports the view that Daniel was in the earliest times among the Prophets..Thus Origen, at A.D. 250, and Jerome, at A.D. 400, both of whom were taught by Jewish Rabbis and claim to have gathered their information from Jewish sources, put Daniel among the Prophets and separate the strictly prophetical books from those which are more properly called historical. R. D. Wilson, Studies in the Book of Daniel, page 49.

There are a bunch of very obsolete opinions in that. R.D. Wilson died before much archeological information was discovered that actually refutes his point. There is claims, tradition, and then there is actual evidence that can back up those claims and evidence. There is a lot of information we know today, through archeological discoveries, that show that the tradition is incorrect.

 

[Logicman]

Re: A Question about Christ [W 77]

There are a bunch of very obsolete opinions in that. R.D. Wilson died before much archeological information was discovered that actually refutes his point. There is claims, tradition, and then there is actual evidence that can back up those claims and evidence. There is a lot of information we know today, through archeological discoveries, that show that the tradition is incorrect.

Wrong again. You can't even address the arguments in the link.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: A Question about Christ [W 77]

Wrong again. You can't even address the arguments in the link.

Shrug. You are using obsolete information.. and also logical fallacies.

If you want to show it, start a different thread.

 

[Logicman]

Re: A Question about Christ [W 77]

Shrug. You are using obsolete information.. and also logical fallacies.

So, Ramoss' solution is to kick to the curb ancient testimonies and say they're 'obsolete'. That's good, Ramoss, LOL.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: A Question about Christ [W 77]

So, Ramoss' solution is to kick to the curb ancient testimonies and say they're 'obsolete'. That's good, Ramoss, LOL.

When it comes to people writing 400 years after things, and assume things that ahve been shown to be false, then yes.

I find it ironic upi said that I didn't address the items in the out of context quotes you did, since all that is addressed in the links that I had given previously.

I will also quote Daniel

Louis F. Hartman writes: "Having lost sight of these ancient modes of writing, until relatively recent years Jews and Christians have considered Dn to be true history, containing genuine prophecy. Inasmuch as chs. 7-12 are written in the first person, it was natural to assume that Daniel in chs. 1-6 was a truly historical character and that he was the author of the whole book.There would be few modern biblical scholars, however, who would now seriously defend such an opinion. The arguments for a date shortly before the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 164 are overwhelming. An author living in the 6th cent. could hardly have written the late Hebrew used in Dn, and its Aramaic is certainly later than the Aramaic of the Elephantine papyri, which date from the end of the 5th cent. The theological outlook of the author, with his interest in angelology, his apocalyptic rather than prophetic vision, and especially his belief in the resurrection of the dead, points unescapably to a period long after the Babylonian Exile. His historical perspective, often hazy for events in the time of the Babylonian and Persian kings but much clearer for the events during the Seleucid Dynasty, indicates the Hellenistic age. Finally, his detailed description of the profanation of the Temple of Jerusalem by Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 167 and the following persecution (9:27; 11:30-35) contrasted with his merely general reference to the evil end that would surely come to such a wicked man (11:45), indicates a composition date shortly before the death of this king in 164, therefore probably in 165." (The Jerome Biblical Commentary, vol. 1, p. 448)

 

[vesper]

Re: A Question about Christ [W 77]

An interesting question:

Why did Jesus come into the world?

A brief/simple question that could only be fully answered with those in a conversation well versed in the Scriptures.

 

[vesper]

Re: A Question about Christ [W 77]

So, Ramoss' solution is to kick to the curb ancient testimonies and say they're 'obsolete'. That's good, Ramoss, LOL.

Ancient testimonies or anything else G-d ordained through His people never become obsolete. In fact they can very much be a paradigm, a blue print of things to come. A wise man knows there are many facets to a diamond. One that only focuses on but a couple of those facets for whatever reason truly hurts himself.

 

[LesGovt]

Re: A Question about Christ [W 77]

But, yes, my sister has related a number of stories where her patients see or talk with someone not there. I'll have to ask her is anyone said anything about heaven specifically.

Glad to hear it.

 

[LesGovt]

Re: A Question about Christ [W 77]

A brief/simple question that could only be fully answered with those in a conversation well versed in the Scriptures.

Jesus was quite clear why He came. John 18 provides his words for why He came.

 

[vesper]

Re: A Question about Christ [W 77]

Jesus was quite clear why He came. John 18 provides his words for why He came throughout the Gospels.

John 18 is only one source. There are many. Unless you are ready to engage in the Scriptures He used during HIS time here on Earth identifying who he was which all came from the Old Testament then quoting New Testament Scriptures are secondary. The Old concealed Him the New revealed Him but unless you are learned enough to put the two together it is not as you state "quite clear" for many.

 

[LesGovt]

Re: A Question about Christ [W 77]

John 18 is only one source. There are many. Unless you are ready to engage in the Scriptures He used during HIS time here on Earth identifying who he was which all came from the Old Testament then quoting New Testament Scriptures are secondary. The Old concealed Him the New revealed Him but unless you are learned enough to put the two together it is not as you state "quite clear" for many.

I just thought that his exact words would be relevant.

 

[Daisy]

Re: A Question about Christ [W 77]

I just thought that his exact words would be relevant.

Jesus didn't make it difficult to understand...

 

[vesper]

Re: A Question about Christ [W 77]

I just thought that his exact words would be relevant.

His words are very relevant and I apologize if I came across as if they were not.

 

[LesGovt]

Re: A Question about Christ [W 77]

His words are very relevant and I apologize if I came across as if they were not.

I did not take it that you thought His words were not relevant. No apology is necessary.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that the prophecies tell us much about His coming. Jesus also said other things about His coming. I just happen to love the idea that He came to testify to the Truth.

He also said this about His coming: Matthew 5:17

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

 

[LesGovt]

Re: A Question about Christ [W 77]

Jesus didn't make it difficult to understand...

However, many people have difficulty understanding it.

 

[Daisy]

Re: A Question about Christ [W 77]

However, many people have difficulty understanding it.

I believe there's a reason for that, as well...only those who have the right heart condition will be open to Jesus' message, just as he said regarding Satan... “The reason why they were not able to believe is that again Isaiah said He has blinded their eyes and has made their hearts hard, so that they would not see with their eyes and understand with their hearts and turn around and I heal them.” John 12:39,40

 

[laska]

Re: A Question about Christ [W 77]

https://www.mormon.org/beliefs/plan-of-salvation

https://www.lds.org/topics/atonement-of-jesus-christ?lang=eng

 

[pillars]

Re: A Question about Christ [W 77]

I believe there's a reason for that, as well...only those who have the right heart condition will be open to Jesus' message, just as he said regarding Satan... “The reason why they were not able to believe is that again Isaiah said He has blinded their eyes and has made their hearts hard, so that they would not see with their eyes and understand with their hearts and turn around and I heal them.” John 12:39,40

So, basically, God create some humans and blinded them to the truth, so they would be condemned to eternal hell.

That doesn't seem quite right.

 

[Daisy]

Re: A Question about Christ [W 77]

So, basically, God create some humans and blinded them to the truth, so they would be condemned to eternal hell.

That doesn't seem quite right.

Not God...Satan...

 

[LesGovt]

Re: A Question about Christ [W 77]

Jesus tells the truth many times in the Bible.

Part 2

John 1:14
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

John 1:17
For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

John 3:21
But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.

John 7:18
Whoever speaks on their own does so to gain personal glory, but he who seeks the glory of the one who sent him is a man of truth; there is nothing false about him.

John 8:32
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

John 14:6
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

 

[it's just me]

Re: A Question about Christ [W 77]

So, basically, God create some humans and blinded them to the truth, so they would be condemned to eternal hell.

That doesn't seem quite right.

All right, let's hear your explanation.

 

[pillars]

Re: A Question about Christ [W 77]

All right, let's hear your explanation.

Human life evolved like all other life on this planet, which is why we share 90%+ DNA with other mammals. Hell is right here and right now and created by humans. If there is a higher power, he/she/it isn't an evil bastard who would create people knowing he was going to torture them forever.