Reflectorites
[continued]
>>SJ>The "sevens" of Daniel 9 (open translated "weeks") most likely refer to
>>the recurring seven-year sabbatical cycle for land use, 31 since
>>sixty-nine weeks of days would have run out before Daniel's prophecy
>>could even have been circulated, and these weeks of years were an
>>established institution in Israel. Using these cycles as units of
>>measurement, the sixty-ninth such cycle (7 + 62),
>>measured from the starting point of 445 B.C., spans the years A.D. 28-35.
>PR>Nope, he hasn't mentioned it. Surprise.
>S>I am not sure what Paul means here. Perhaps he can clarify it?
>PR>You've for some reason not mentioned the other decrees or the 360 day
>year yet (in your original post).
I still don't understand Paul's point. The above is a quote from Newman,
not my own words.
Once again I explained why I didn't mention "the other decrees or the 360
day year" in my "original post".
>SJ>One cannot help but note with interest that on this analysis the "Anointed
>One" is "cut off" precisely when Jesus is crucified!
>PR>Well, I thought Jesus Ministry lasted four years, and most crucifixion
>dates are 32-33AD (though every date between 20 and 60 seems to
>have been pushed at some time).
>SJ>I have always thought of it as being ~ 3 years. But really one year doesn't
>matter.
>PR>It does if you are claiming "precisely".
Within a 7-year time frame *is* "precisely"!
>SJ>So the only Jew claiming to be Messiah
>PR>Really ?
>SJ>Paul cuts my sentence in two in order to make a cheap point! I clearly
>don't mean that Jesus is "the only Jew" who ever claimed "to be Messiah".
>The New Testament itself mentions a couple of false Messiah's and
>Jesus predicted there will be more.
>PR>Yes, sorry :)
Apology accepted.
>SJ>But Jesus is the only person claiming to be the Messiah who founded
>a world religion.
>PR>Pot luck. Unless you include LRH I suppose ;-)
I assume that "LRH" is L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology. I note
Paul's :-) and assume he is conceding the point that "Jesus is the only
person claiming to be the Messiah who founded a world religion".
>SJ>who has inaugurated a world
>religion of predominantly Gentile adherents was cut off precisely when
>Daniel predicted!
>PR>Odd definition of precise.
>S>This is quibbling. There is one reasonable interpretation that works out to
>the *day*.
>PR>Given that we don't know when Jesus was crucified, this is absurd. The
>interpretation is, to be kind, tortuous.
It is not "absurd" or "tortuous". It is one possible interpretation. As long as
Jesus' crucifixion fell within the seven-year period of the 69th seven that
would be OK. In the case of the 360-day year interpretation that would be
within 30-37AD +/- 1 because of the mid-year 445-444BC terminus ad
quo. In the case of the Sabbath year cycle it would be 28-35AD.
All the years I have ever seen are within that period, clustering around 30-
33AD (see below).
PR>You don't really believe Steve, that someone sat down , took the facts,
>worked it out and said "Wow ! It comes out to 33 AD".
I have already said "that I personally don't claim it that it *has* to be to the
exact day. Anytime in the 69th `week' 7-year period would do."
But it is interesting that there is at least one reasonable interpretation that
works out to the day.
PR>I'll tell you what happened. Apologists have looked at the passage and
>said "How can we convert this to a prophecy ?". Well, we can't use
>that and that, because it doesn't quite work out, but let's use this and
>add this factor in, and hey it works.
Again Paul produces no evidence for his assertions.
PR>This is how the Gospel "prophecies" were put together.
So Paul asserts. But where is his *evidence*. Paul's whole argument is
from his personal incredulity that Jesus really could be the Messiah.
>SJ>But anytime within the seven years of Daniel's 69th `week'
>would be "precise".
>PR>Well, actually it's a fib, given that as any
>>fule kno we don't know when Jesus was crucified.
>SJ>According to Encyclopaedia Britannica it was about 30AD:
>[snip quote EB]
>PR>And according to umpteen other calculations its everything from
>about 16AD to about 45AD.
Paul give no evidence for this assertion either. But it could only be between
26-36AD because that is the span of the reign of Pontius Pilate:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/3/0,5716,61523+1+60010,00.html
ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA
[...]
Pilate, Pontius
d. AD 36
Roman prefect (governor) of Judaea (ad 26-36) under the emperor
Tiberius; he presided at the trial of Jesus and gave the order for his
crucifixion.
[...]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
PR>The truth is we don't know. But by
>*far* the most common quoted dates are 32/33AD.
For good reason. First, Jesus began his public ministry after John the
Baptist had begun his, in 28 or 29AD:
"Jesus began His ministry after John the Baptist had begun his,
therefore not earlier than the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius (Lk.
iii. 1). ... Since Augustus died on 19 August 14, the second year of
Tiberius' reign began on 1 October 14 in the Syrian calendar, on 1
Nisan 15 in the Jewish calendar. Consequently in Lk. iii. 1 the
fifteenth year of his reign means either 27 (1 Oct.) -28, or 28 (1
Nisan)-29. The latter is the more likely.... Lk. iii. 21 indicates that
there was some time between the call of the Baptist and the baptism
of Jesus..." (Ogg G., "Chronology of the New Testament," in
Douglas J.D., et al., eds., "The New Bible Dictionary," 1967,
p.223).
Second, the end of Jesus' ministry was some time into Pilate's reign:
"Jesus was crucified when Pontius Pilate was procurator of Judaea
(all four Gospels, Tac., Ann. xv. 44, and possibly Jos., Ant. xviii. 63
f.), therefore in one of the years 26-36. ... From Lk. xiii. 1 and xxiii.
12 it may be inferred that Pilate had already been procurator for
some time before the crucifixion, and therefore that it can hardly
have taken place so early as 26 or 27." (Ogg G., 1967, p.224).
Third, the NT evidence is that the length of Jesus' ministry was no longer
than three years, and most probably was three years:
"To know the length of Jesus' ministry is more important than to
know when it began or ended. There are three principal theories as
to its length. (i) The one-year theory. ... (ii) The two-year theory. ...
(iii) The three-year theory. Its earliest known supporter was Melito
of Sardis. But its wide acceptance in post-Nicene times and
throughout the Middle Ages must be put down mainly to the
influence of Eusebius. He rejected the literal interpretation of the
word 'year' in the phrase 'the acceptable year of the Lord' and
showed convincingly that only a ministry of fully three years
satisfied the requirements of the Fourth Gospel. In our time this
theory also commands a large following. ... According to the first of
the above-mentioned theories, the first and last Passovers of Jesus'
ministry were those of 29 and 30, according to the second those of
28 and 30, according to the third those of 30 and 33." (Ogg G.,
1967, pp.224-225).
>PR>Not really. It depends what you mean. Christians are significant, but
>>Christ himself is not as a person.
>SJ>Is Paul here saying that the person Jesus never existed?:
>PR>No. Read it again. Of course, a cynic would suggest this is a diversion
>tactic.
Sorry, I read it wrong. But now I don't know how Paul can justify his claim
that "Christ himself is not" ["significant"] "as a person".
Christianity is unique among all religions built on the person of Jesus. If He
turned out to have never existed, or not to have risen from the dead, then
Christianity would collapse. I personally would cease being a Christian.
PR>Steve Jones: (quoting)
>ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA Jesus Christ Non-Christian sources ...
SJ>These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents
>of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus
Paul does not comment on this?.
>PR>No. Christianity was insignificant for a long time
This is false as I have pointed out in another post. But I don't want to
repeat my evidence as that will create multiple posts on the same topic.
PR>that's why there is no
>response, or no commentary on dead people walking around in Jerusalem,
What "response, or no commentary" could there be? Only Matthew records
that:
Mt 27:52-53 "The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy
people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the
tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and
appeared to many people."
and no further implications are drawn from it. Matthew does not even
claim it was a fulfillment of prophecy. The only reason for it being
recording therefore seems to be that it was reported by eyewitnesses as
actually having happened. If it was false, Matthew would hardly have
included it because: a) it could be easily refuted; and b) there was no
advantage to be gained. It is consistent with the evidence that not long
afterwards 3,000 Jerusalem Jews became Christians in one day (Acts 2:41).
PR>and nothing on Jesus despite the Gospel claims of his fame spreading far
>and wide.
The "Gospel claims of his [Jesus'] fame spreading far and wide" was in
respect of Judea and surrounding countries only (e.g. Mt 4:24; Mk 1:28;
Lk 4:14) and the word [Gk. akoe] rendered "fame" in the AV is literally
"news" and is so rendered in the NIV.
PR>Please note: there is a vast difference between the "existence of Jesus"
>which almost everyone accepts,
But not everybody. Some atheists like Frank Zindler (and Chris) claim that
Jesus never even existed.
PR>and the existence of the persion described in the NT.
Of *course* there is a difference between "the person described in the NT"
and the "existence of Jesus" as recorded by non-Christian sources. If non-
Christians believed what the NT described Jesus as they would probably be
Christians (this is precisely the objection to the Josephus quote below being
fully genuine).
But there is no "difference" at all in respect of the "existence of Jesus".
Both non-Christian and Christian sources say that Jesus existed. The best
non-Christian description of Jesus with possible Christian interpolations is
found in Josephus:
"In a disputed text, Josephus gives a brief description of Jesus and
his mission:
`Now there was about this, time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful
to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works,-a teacher
of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him
both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the]
Christ and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men
amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him
at the first did not forsake him. For he appeared to them alive again
the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten
thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of
Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day,
[Antiquities 18.3.3]'
This passage was cited by Eusebius in its present form
(Ecclesiastical History 1.11) and the manuscript evidence favors it.
Yet it is widely considered to be an interpolation, since it is unlikely
that Josephus, a Jew, would affirm that Jesus was the Messiah and
had been proven so by fulfilled prophecy, miraculous deeds, and the
resurrection from the dead. ... It may be that a tenth-century Arabic
text (see McDowell, 85) reflects the original intent:
`At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his
conduct was good and [he] was known to be virtuous. Many
people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples.
Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who
had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They
reported that he had appeared to them three days after his
crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the
messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.'
In this form it does not affirm that Josephus believed in the
resurrection but only that his disciples "reported" it. This would at
least reflect an honest report of what his immediate disciples
believed. Bruce observes that there is good reason for believing that
Josephus did refer to Jesus bearing witness to his date, reputation,
family connections to James, crucifixion under Pilate at the
instigation of the Jewish leaders, messianic claim, founding of the
church, and the conviction among his followers of the resurrection."
(Geisler N.L., "Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics,"
1999, p.254)
SJ>, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end
>of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.
>...
>PR>You also should be aware that Enc. entries on this are written by Christians.
First, I am not "aware" of that. For all I know it could have been written by
a non-Christian historian. Some of them seem to be.
Second, even if it was "written by Christians", so what? Paul's criteria
would then be that if it was "written by Christians" it must be wrong!
PR>That's why the "opponents never doubted...." argument appears, no doubt.
Paul presents no evidence for his "no doubt".
At all times Paul works from his basic philosophical *assumption* that
Christianity must be false, brushing aside any evidence that it might be true,
and he then presents his conclusion as though it was an empirical finding!
PR>Christians have a hard time grasping the insignificance of Christianity in
>the first 100 years or so.
Personally it would not worry me in the slightest if Christianity was
insignificant "in the first 100 years or so". But I have produced evidence in
a previous post that it was significant enough that only 30 years after
Christ's death (i.e. Nero in 64AD blaming the fire of Rome on Christians),
and Paul has produced no evidence for his assertions.
>PR>It is only his effects that are significant.
>SJ>Indeed! So here we have a prophecy hundreds of years before that on a
>reasonable set of assumptions
>PR>A reasonable set of assumptions ? Hundreds of years ? Surely you don't
>believe Daniel is 6th century BC ?
From the predictive standpoint it would not matter if Daniel was not "6th
century BC" (that's why I said "hundreds of years"). I own a copy of the
Septuagint (LXX) which was written in the third century BC and the book
of Daniel, including his "seventy weeks" prophecy is in that.
Indeed, so clear are Daniel's predictions that it has been an article of faith
among anti-supernaturalistic radical liberal critics that Daniel's prophecies
must have been written after the event. But this fails in the case of Dan
9:24-27 because its fulfillment is after the LXX.
But in any case even a leading liberal OT Introduction concluded on
linguistic grounds that Daniel was "fourth or even fifth century":
"Language. The linguistic evidence has not always been given its
proper weight in dating the book. Scholars have long been aware
that the language of Daniel is earlier than the second century. ...All
evidence ... points to a date earlier than the second century. The
historical data of all chapters, from Babylonian to Ptolemaic and
Seleucid, indicate an earlier date. The linguistic evidence, both
Hebrew and Aramaic, suggests a date possibly in the fourth or even
fifth century. " (La Sor W.S., et al., "Old Testament Survey, 1987,
p.666).
Note that there is no requirement that Daniel actually wrote the OT book
of Daniel, i.e. in its final form as it is in the Bible. The book of Daniel does
not say that Daniel wrote it, so an unknown "fourth or even fifth century"
editor could have collected Daniel's "6th century BC" writings and included
them in one book which bore Daniel's name.
>SJ>predicts the period of Jesus public ministry
>and death, and in a nutshell what Jesus did: "to finish transgression, to
>put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting
>righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy"
>(Dan 9:24).
>PR>Does it ever occur to you that this might be why they tortured this passage?
There is no torturing of this passage, all Newman did was quote it:
Dan 9:24 "Seventy 'sevens' are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish
transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting
righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy."
But maybe that qualifies as torturing it to Paul?
PR>It's working backwards !
I am not sure what Paul means by this.
>SJ>Non-Christians are free to reject this but if Jesus in fact was who He
>claimed to be, then they will be held accountable for that rejection. And
>they certainly can't claim they didn't have *any* evidence!
>PR>Ah, we're stuck so we're onto threats of hell again.
I said nothing about "Hell". But I did say that "if Jesus in fact was who He
claimed to be, then they [non-Christians] will be held "*accountable* for
that rejection".
If Jesus was in fact who He claimed to be, does Paul think that non-
Christians will *not* be held accountable for rejecting His claims?
>SJ>As Pascal wisely observed in the tagline (paraphrasing), there is enough
>evidence for Christians to know that their faith is reasonable, but not
>enough for them to avoid being mocked by unbelievers. And there is not
>enough evidence to force those unwilling to believe, but there is enough
>evidence to leave them without excuse. That is IMHO *exactly* as it should
>be!
>PR>So, are you a Catholic ?
No. I am an evangelical Protestant.
PR>Of course, one of the reasons people are "unwilling" to believe these
>"prophecies" is because the apologist always presents this kind of calculation as the
>only one that works ; they never mention the multiple starting points, ending points
>(birth of Jesus, ministry start, crucifixion), the flexibility in the ending
>points, the (at least) 3 different counting methods and so on.
>
>It's just presented as a single accurate calculation.
This is simply not the case. McDowell, Newman, Geisler and Archer all
point out there are alternative starting points and calculations.
Maybe Paul will state which "apologist" he has in mind?
PR>And it's a misdirection at best, a lie at worst.
See above. Unless Paul produces *evidence* to support his claim then it is
neither.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not
designed, but rather evolved." (Crick F.H.C., "What Mad Pursuit: A
Personal View of Scientific Discovery," [1988], Penguin: London, 1990,
reprint, p.138)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Nov 26 2000 - 16:58:34 EST