is there any independently verified evidence that a miracle worker called jesus existed and did the things that the bible said he did?.
the four gospels were written by unknown authors many decades after the so called events, so can't be considered as eyewitness accounts.
i think that there may have been a apocalyptic preacher who was executed by the romans and the story evolved from their.
Vidqun:
Jeffro, it's a case of the pot is calling the kettle black. I have clearly demonstrated your irrationality by you insinuating "destroy" means "corrupt," in order for you to fit it into your brand of theology.
Notice this common apologist tactic… personalise the issue and falsely imply that some novel interpretation is being asserted. Back in reality, the fact that the book of Daniel is about the Maccabean period is the mainstream view in biblical scholarship.
is there any independently verified evidence that a miracle worker called jesus existed and did the things that the bible said he did?.
the four gospels were written by unknown authors many decades after the so called events, so can't be considered as eyewitness accounts.
i think that there may have been a apocalyptic preacher who was executed by the romans and the story evolved from their.
peacefulpete:
The last section of book of Daniel was reinterpreted as referring to Rome prior to Christian usage.
Of course. Christianity didn’t start in a vacuum. But the key word is ‘reinterpreted’. When the original apocalyptic hopes in Daniel failed after the Maccabean period, it was reinterpreted. Just as Christians reinterpreted their end times beliefs after Jesus didn’t return within a generation.
is there any independently verified evidence that a miracle worker called jesus existed and did the things that the bible said he did?.
the four gospels were written by unknown authors many decades after the so called events, so can't be considered as eyewitness accounts.
i think that there may have been a apocalyptic preacher who was executed by the romans and the story evolved from their.
On the contrary, the same Hebrew term is translated ‘corrupted’ in various verses. It’s unremarkable that Christian translators render that particular verse in a way that favours a Christian interpretation though.
By the way, none of the Bible translators agree with you in this instance.
Wrong as usual. Young’s Literal Translation does not say the city would be destroyed at Daniel 9:26.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel%209&version=YLT
is there any independently verified evidence that a miracle worker called jesus existed and did the things that the bible said he did?.
the four gospels were written by unknown authors many decades after the so called events, so can't be considered as eyewitness accounts.
i think that there may have been a apocalyptic preacher who was executed by the romans and the story evolved from their.
To destroy or not to destroy? No Jeffro, your clarification does not work for me.
You’ve demonstrated yourself to be irrational and just ignore obvious problems pointed out to you. You don’t even care what the Bible actually says. So why would I care whether you agree? Luke isn’t Daniel. They are different books describing different events.
is there any independently verified evidence that a miracle worker called jesus existed and did the things that the bible said he did?.
the four gospels were written by unknown authors many decades after the so called events, so can't be considered as eyewitness accounts.
i think that there may have been a apocalyptic preacher who was executed by the romans and the story evolved from their.
It's not possible to build real faith without having the evidence first.
You're yet to provide any evidence. And you conveniently ignore that it claims that faith is supposedly "the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen", i.e. 'evidence'.
is there any independently verified evidence that a miracle worker called jesus existed and did the things that the bible said he did?.
the four gospels were written by unknown authors many decades after the so called events, so can't be considered as eyewitness accounts.
i think that there may have been a apocalyptic preacher who was executed by the romans and the story evolved from their.
Jesus was the one who had the angel give the vision of Revelation to John.
Jehovah is the one who gave Jesus the message to share.
Jehovah's Word never fails to take place.
🤦♂️
Those are all claims, not evidence. Revelation purports to be written by 'John', but does not specify which John. It is only church tradition that it is 'the apostle John'. Who actually wrote it is unestablished, and there is no reason to consider it reliable. It does contain references to some first-century events dressed as 'prophecy' in addition to hyperbolic claims typical of the apocalyptic genre, but it has nothing to do with anything happening now.
is there any independently verified evidence that a miracle worker called jesus existed and did the things that the bible said he did?.
the four gospels were written by unknown authors many decades after the so called events, so can't be considered as eyewitness accounts.
i think that there may have been a apocalyptic preacher who was executed by the romans and the story evolved from their.
🙄 okay then 🤦♂️
That definition of 'faith' is entirely useless. It asserts that 'faith' is itself 'evidence'. It is an irrelevant circular contrivance.
is there any independently verified evidence that a miracle worker called jesus existed and did the things that the bible said he did?.
the four gospels were written by unknown authors many decades after the so called events, so can't be considered as eyewitness accounts.
i think that there may have been a apocalyptic preacher who was executed by the romans and the story evolved from their.
When Watchtower (and the other religious institutions) are overthrown with a swift pitch, that will be evidence.
No, there could be any number of reasons why religious organisations could become defunct. And offering some hypothetical future event as 'evidence' isn't particularly compelling.
Jesus said it would happen. So it will happen.
You don't have any evidence that Jesus said it would happen, let alone that he would be necessarily correct. According to the 'gospels', which were written decades after Jesus' death and can't be regarded as reliable sources for anything Jesus said anyway, Jesus said his 'presence' would be within a generation of his ministry. That failed, so he's not reliable from the outset.
is there any independently verified evidence that a miracle worker called jesus existed and did the things that the bible said he did?.
the four gospels were written by unknown authors many decades after the so called events, so can't be considered as eyewitness accounts.
i think that there may have been a apocalyptic preacher who was executed by the romans and the story evolved from their.
vidqun:
Problem is, neither Jerusalem nor the temple were destroyed by Antiochus III Epiphanes. He profaned it but never destroyed it.
Earlier in this thread, I correctly pointed out that Daniel 9:27 does not say that Jerusalem would be destroyed. For completeness I will also add that although Daniel 9:26 says the city would be 'destroyed', the actual word used in the original text (Strongs H7843) means corrupted rather than destroyed in the sense of perished (Strongs H6), desolated (Strongs H2717), erased (Strongs H4871) or completely destroyed (Strongs H2763). See also Daniel 11:31; 12:11.
is there any independently verified evidence that a miracle worker called jesus existed and did the things that the bible said he did?.
the four gospels were written by unknown authors many decades after the so called events, so can't be considered as eyewitness accounts.
i think that there may have been a apocalyptic preacher who was executed by the romans and the story evolved from their.
That would take a miracle, considering the amount of opposition.
Islam is all around the world too.
