PR
You've for some reason not mentioned the other decrees or the 360 day
year yet (in your original post).
Steve Jones:
I still don't understand Paul's point. The above is a quote from Newman,
not my own words.
Paul Robson 27 Nov:
I notice you quote voluminously. This is presumably so when it is shown
to be codswallop, you can abandon it.
Okay. Here's my $1,000,000 question.
Are both apologists honest ? Are the 360 day year and the 6 out of 7
counting both correct ? If not, which is wrong and why ?
Steve Jones:
Once again I explained why I didn't mention "the other decrees or the 360
day year" in my "original post".
Paul Robson 27 Nov:
The fact that you can make an excuse doesn't enhance your credibility.
>SJ>One cannot help but note with interest that on this analysis the
"Anointed
>One" is "cut off" precisely when Jesus is crucified!
Paul Robson 27:
Odd. In Part 2 you claim there is no claim of exactness.
>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"!
Paul Robson:
It's hardly surprising multiple calculations can hit that large a target.
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 ;-)
Steve Jones:
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".
Paul Robson:
Not really. It is debatable whether current Christianity is what Jesus had
in mind. I hope not.
Steve Jones:
>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*.
Paul Robson:
Well, you claim not exact earlier.
>PR>Given that we don't know when Jesus was crucified, this is absurd. The
>interpretation is, to be kind, tortuous.
SJ:
It is not "absurd"
Paul Robson:
You say it works out to the day despite not knowing which year it is ? This
is
absurd.
SJ 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.
Paul Robson:
And there are umpteen other interpretations that apologists don't
push. Why do you think this is ?
SJ: 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".
SJ:
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."
Paul Robson:
But you want to say "there is a reasonable interpretaton that works out
to the exact day" just because it sounds impressive, then.
Incidentally, have you looked at the thread title recently ?
I ask because you originally said
"some ingenious ways of getting around it (apart from outright
`head-in-the-sand' denial)."
I'm interested that you think looking at what the text of the Bible said
fits this ; or that not accepting 360 day years or conveniently missing
1 in 7 years fits this. Given that you are now claiming this is "reasonable"
"possible" etc. don't you think the existence of several other combinations
makes your original claim somewhat er... wrong ?
The other minor detail you've forgotten is YOU wrote
"In Daniel 9:25-27 there is a prediction that works out to the very year 27
AD when Jesus began his public ministry:"
Now you appear to be claiming it works out to within about 3 years
of the crucifixion.
You said you'd be quite happy to work it through ; but you seem to have
half a dozen different calculations going here.
SJ:
But it is interesting that there is at least one reasonable interpretation
that
works out to the day.
Paul Robson:
No it isn't. The apologist spent more time fixing it, that's all. I can only
presume you mean Anderson here. He cheats even more. His calculations
are wrong incidentally. I'll get my friend the dreadful head in the sand
closed minded committed Christian Paul Smith to send you his
list of days if you like.
SJ:
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.
SJ:
Again Paul produces no evidence for his assertions.
Paul Robson:
This is common sense. It is not that far from your alleged "Scientific
Method"
in #2 either. Or maybe I should say it is a "reasonable interpretation". I
cannot believe you really don't think apologists work like this. You don't
really think they found the "possible" 360 day or 6/7 year calculation FIRST
do you hahahahahahaha.
SJ:
PR>This is how the Gospel "prophecies" were put together.
SJ:
So Paul asserts. But where is his *evidence*. Paul's whole argument is
from his personal incredulity that Jesus really could be the Messiah.
Paul Robson:
Not really. if you looked at the composition of the Bible you might see
what I mean.
>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.
SJ: 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:
Paul Robson:
I agree that is the most likely span. However, there are other calculations.
I'm amazed you don't know them. The Pilate argument is important but
not decisive.
SJ:
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.
Paul Robson 27 Nov:
Odd that his behaviour the rest of the time bears no resemblance to
that in the Gospels. Basically he was a complete bastard, Philo and
Josephus portray him as detestable, no kindliness.
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:
[snip]
Paul Robson:
I don't disagree with this. However, it does raise questions about the
reasonableness of exact day claims.
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.
SJ:
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.
Paul Robson:
No, you don't get it. The person of Christ appears to have been
insignificant.
This is why there is so little about him outside the Gospels,. and all that
there
is is late. Given some of the claims in the NT about Jesus fame, one would
expect more notice to have been taken.
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
Steve Jones:
Paul does not comment on this?.IT'S HERE CAN'T YOU READ vv
>PR>No. Christianity was insignificant for a long time
Steve:
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.
Paul Robson:
I must have missed it. I have claimed (though some of it might be
w/DNAUnion!)
that Jesus was insignificant until about 100AD.
PR>that's why there is no
>response, or no commentary on dead people walking around in Jerusalem,
Steve Jones:
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).
Paul Robson:
Well, how come no-one else bothered to note this occurrence. That is the
refutation ! Incidentally, Christians make claims of large numbers of
conversions
all the time. It amuses me that you uncritically accept this as "evidence".
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.
Steve Jones:
Hmmm... certainly don't trust the NIV :) Still, no reports, no-one bothered
to write anything down who wasn't a believer. Dead bodies came to life ;
well who cares, happens all the time.
PR
>Please note: there is a vast difference between the "existence of Jesus"
>which almost everyone accepts,
Steve:
But not everybody. Some atheists like Frank Zindler (and Chris) claim that
Jesus never even existed.
Paul Robson:
Didn't think Frank was a Jesus absolutist. Must check that one. Can't comment
on Chris, of course. I don't agree.
PR>and the existence of the persion described in the NT.
Steve:
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.
Paul Robson:
No it doesn't ! It didn't appear until Eusebius quoted it and didn't appear
again for about another 50 years or so. It wasn't quoted by the Church
Fathers, despite their using Josephus.
Steve Jones:
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.'
Paul Robson:
Yep, this would fit the Q Jesus pretty well.
Steve Jones:
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."
Paul Robson:
Not really. At best it is "just what Christians said" ; i.e. it is severalth
hand. It is rather difficult to conclude anything very much from this.
Steve Jones:
(Geisler N.L., "Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics,"
1999, p.254)
Paul Robson:
Nuff said.
Steve Jones:
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.
Steve Jones:
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.
Paul Robson:
I think it highly unlikely.
Steve Jones:
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!
Paul Robson:
No, that it is merely "pushing a line". For example "Why didn't they refute
the claims ?" is not coming from someone who knows anything about the
early history of the Church ; it is an apologists argument.
PR>
That's why the "opponents never doubted...." argument appears, no doubt.
SJ
Paul presents no evidence for his "no doubt".
PR
The para is in itself "evidence".
SJ
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
No, actually it is an empirical finding. There is nothing about Christianity
in
the early years, it was nothing beyond a minor cult existing on the edge
of society. There were many then, as there are now. The fact that their
claims were not rebutted does not make them true.
PR>Christians have a hard time grasping the insignificance of Christianity in
>the first 100 years or so.
SJ
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.
Paul Robson:
This was, of course, written in 114AD. It is questionable whether Nero
did this. Christians are mentioned, occasionally, before this ; a reasonable
interpretation of Suetonius wrt Claudius time states their existence.
Steve omits to mention that Tacitus feels the need to explain to his
readers what Christians are. This hardly suggests they are significant.
>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 ?
Steve Jones:
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.
Paul Robson:
I agree. You just said "hundreds of years". I was just interested to see if
you believed in a 6th C. Daniel. Incidentally, the reason for Daniel's
dating is that it is so hazy about the "present" and more accurate
about the "future". Despite this quote (one wonders about the
quoting, as Daniel dating is nearly as bent as 69 weeks), you must be
aware that generally only fundie types date Daniel at 600BC.
>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?
Steve Jones:
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?
Paul Robson:
I'm amused you think it's as clear as you apparently do.
PR>It's working backwards !
SJ
I am not sure what Paul means by this.
PR
See earlier
>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.
Steve Jones:
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".
Paul Robson:
Oh, bullshit. "They will be held accountable" means "God will get you and
throw you into Hell".
Anyone else (other than Steve) think this is unfair ?
Steve Jones:
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?
Paul Robson:
In what way will they be held accountable. What's gonna happen ?
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 ?
SJ
No. I am an evangelical Protestant.
PR
You're stuffed then. You're supposed to be a Catholic, like Pascal.
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.
SJ
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
I will have to research this myself. Can you let me know which books you
are referring to here ? Many thanks, PSR
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 28 2000 - 02:47:49 EST