What evidence is there for a biblical jesus? (page 3)

Jeffro

You’re welcome to misinterpret sufficiently vague writings as ‘prophecy’ but it contradicts your premise that you wouldn’t ‘put your life on the line for hearsay’ if it came down to it. Unless you aren’t serious about your beliefs anyway. 🤷‍♂️

Touchofgrey

Vidqun

Maybe the gospel authors used verses from the old testament to make this jesus figure seen important and fit into what Paul said about jesus as he claims to have seen the resurrected jesus as a spirit being.

Can you provide independently verified evidence of a miracle worker called jesus?

WTWizard

This thing that they call "jesus" is nothing more than the archetype of the perfect slave. Follow that, and you become a perfect slave. Nothing more, nothing less. This hyper-abomination provided no ransom, no real guidance, no nothing in the form of salvation.

Vidqun

24 "Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place.
25 Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.
26 And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed. (Dan. 9:24-26 ESV)

The above is a firm favorite of mine. Note, it describes the fate of Jerusalem. No matter whether you appoint an early or late date to the authorship of Daniel, it happened just like that. It also discusses "an anointed one," the Messiah, to be cut off with nothing for himself. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Then it discusses the destruction of the city: "And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator" (Dan. 9:27 ESV).

This coincides with the Roman invasion and the destruction of the city and temple, whereas the Roman Empire will receive its just deserts in due course. If you work on the chronology of seventy sevens since the reconstruction of Jerusalem, you come up with (70 x 7) = 490 years, the time Jesus are supposed to enter Jerusalem. What a coincidence!

Jeffro

The above is a firm favorite of mine. Note, it describes the fate of Jerusalem. No matter whether you appoint an early or late date to the authorship of Daniel, it happened just like that. It also discusses "an anointed one," the Messiah, to be cut off with nothing for himself. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Then it discusses the destruction of the city: "And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator" (Dan. 9:27 ESV).
This coincides with the Roman invasion and the destruction of the city and temple, whereas the Roman Empire will receive its just desserts in due course. If you work on the chronology of seventy sevens since the reconstruction of Jerusalem, you come up with (70 x 7) = 490 years, the time Jesus are supposed to enter Jerusalem. What a coincidence!

Entirely wrong from start to finish. The book of Daniel (2nd century BCE) refers to events up to and during the reign of Antiochus IV Epihanes. This is very well understood by scholars. The motif was reused in the gospels to refer to different events that the Romans were involved in, but Daniel has nothing to do with the first century or with anything happening now. There were seven ‘weeks’ from 587 BCE to 539 BCE for the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon, and there were a separate 62 ‘weeks’ from 605 BCE (the start of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, the gold head of the statue) until 171 BCE when the priest Jason was ‘cut off’ and Antiochus appointed Menelaus, but 3.5 years later (the ‘half of the week’) Antiochus desecrated the temple and banned Jewish worship (168 BCE). Then at the end of that ‘week’ (165 BCE), the temple was rededicated and Antiochus died not much later.

In the botched Christian reinterpretation, Jesus died at the ‘half of the week’, but that’s not when Daniel says the messiah is cut off, Daniel instead says it is the leader bringing destruction on Jerusalem who puts an end to sacrifice at the ‘half of the week’ (which precisely fits Antiochus’ actions). This is conveniently ignored by Christians, as is the fact that their supposed start of the period doesn’t match the reign of Artaxerxes either.

Vidqun

Interesting interpretation, but no cigar. Problem is, neither Jerusalem nor the temple were destroyed by Antiochus III Epiphanes. He profaned it but never destroyed it. And since when is the High Priest referred to as "an anointed one." Don't they use such a phrase in the anointing of a king? And the fact that the Aramaic used in Daniel is what is called Reichsaramaisch or Official Aramaic, originating from Babylon. How on earth would a Maccabean Jew master this ancient diplomatic language?

And funnily enough, no mention is made in the book of Antiochus' Hellenization program. What is mentioned is a prophecy, indicating the uprising and demise of the Maccabees, again quite accurate: "In those times many shall rise against the king of the south, and the violent among your own people shall lift themselves up in order to fulfill the vision, but they shall fail." (Dan. 11:14 ESV).

Then I see you did touch on Nebuchadnezzar as the golden head of the statue. Why don't you continue and explain to us the relevance of the different metal layers of the statue? The same goes for the four beasts of Dan. 7. You'll see in connection with these your Maccabean dating falls seriously short.

Contemporary scholars refer to the contents of Daniel as quasi-prophecy, by they almost always revert back to the prophecies of Daniel, the quasi- falling by the wayside. Daniel was also a contemporary of Ezekiel and is mentioned by him. Perhaps you should also put a Maccabean dating on the book of Ezekiel.

The "botched Christian reinterpretation" is right on the money. Jesus started his ministry in the 69th week (7 years + 62 years). At half the week he was cut off. After his death and resurrection, the temple sacrifices would be worthless and cancelled out. He would continue the Old Covenant for Jew and Samaritan for a full week, i.e., seven years. Afterwards the Gentiles, Cornelius and family being the first, would be invited to join the Christian congregation. Actually it's brilliant!

FreeTheMasons

And since when is the High Priest referred to as "an anointed one."

Vidqun

מָשִׁ֖יחַ Anointed, anointed one (ASV and RSV similar). This word used as adjective and noun occurs about forty times in the OT, primarily in 1-2 Sam and Ps. While it may designate an office such as the high priest (Lev 4:3), מָשִׁ֖יחַ is almost exclusively reserved as a synonym for "king" (melek, q.v.) as in poetry where it is in parallel position with king (1 Sam 2:10; 2 Sam 22:51; cf. Psa 2:2; Psa 18:50) (TWOT). Striking are the phrases "the Lord's anointed" or equivalents such as "his anointed" referring to kings (HALOT). The word messiah almost always refers to the king. The fact that the High Priest is sprinkled with olive oil doesn't make him a messiah.

FreeTheMasons

Originally Jehovah did not give Israel a human king.

If you remember correctly, the Mosaic Law arrangement at first didn't have one. God knew they'd want one eventually anyway, but that was not the way the Law was designed.

He made a provision for them because they were foolish, and He was patient with them.

The anointed priests were assigned to help the nation understand God's Word.

What evidence is there for a biblical jesus?

Share this