The Historical and Archeological evidence for Christianity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-06-2011, 01:12 PM
RE: The Historical and Archeological evidence for Christianity
(19-06-2011 12:03 PM)The Man Wrote:  Things like this keep me holding on to the religion.

Myst32 is correct. Von Raad dates Daniel to over 200 years after it was supposed to be written and Isaiah is actually written by three seprate authors over a long period of time. Just remember that when there is a prophecy in the Old Testament that it was definitely written long after it claimed to be written.

"Do what though wilt shall be the whole of the Law." - The Book of the Law
"There is no God but man" - Liber OZ

Light and Nature

Tweet!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2011, 03:50 PM
RE: The Historical and Archeological evidence for Christianity



"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2011, 09:56 PM
 
RE: The Historical and Archeological evidence for Christianity
(21-06-2011 12:54 PM)myst32 Wrote:  
(19-06-2011 12:03 PM)The Man Wrote:  Hello everyone. Before we start things off,I want to clarify that I'm not defending Christianity .I just simply want everyone's opinon on all the evidence Christianity has to back it up.I wish to be free of the religion,but I keep running across all this evidence for it,like the prophecies in the book of Daniel.I read somewhere that it's all in the dead sea scrolls,which means it was written earlier than skeptics thought.The popular theory,at one point,was that the prophecies where written during the Maccabean wars.With the discovery of the dead sea scrolls,this theory seemed debunked due to the fact that there wasn't a sufficient amount of time alotted between the wars and writings of the scrolls for the book to be canonized,which supposedly took a long time. So the only other dating I've seen is the dating which corresponds to when it was written in the Bible.The prophecies in Daniel are pretty dang specific too.

Things like this keep me holding on to the religion.

A couple things about biblical prophecies...

First, they are "for their own time". The authors were not talking about 3000 of 4000 years in the future. For example, all the prophecies from Jesus second coming have to do with "the son of man"... Jesus thought he and his followers would be alive for the end times ( Mark 9:1). Only later, after all the apostles were dead, was this "re-interpreted" to be his second coming.

Second, the bible has a dismal record of prophecies coming true. Look at Isaiah 19:5-7 for example... he states the Nile would dry up... this has not happened... Should we still consider it valid? In 5000 years if the Nile dries up should we say "Wow, Isaiah was correct!!"?

Since you are interested in Daniel specifically here is what Paul Tobin from his book "The Rejection of Pascal's Wager" (worth the $$$ you should get it) has to say about the book of Daniel and when it was written.. All his work is referenced but to keep it short I left them out, get the book if you want more info. I placed in bold the part that contains the evidence that it was written around 167 BCE....



DANIEL: PROPHESYING THE PAST

The book of Daniel consists of twelve chapters of which only the first half, the narrative portion, concerns us here. Like the book of Jonah, its pretence at being an historical work is foiled by the author’s poor knowledge of history. The book of Daniel is so filled with historical errors and inaccuracies that most mainstream biblical scholars now conclude that Daniel was written very much later than the period it pretends to be (6th century BCE). Let us look at some of these mistakes:


Mistake # 1

Daniel 1:1-2 In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon to Jerusalem, and besieged it. The Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with part of the vessels of the house of God; and he carried them into the land of Shinar to the house of his god: and he brought the vessels into the treasure house of his god.

The passage is filled with historical errors and anachronisms.

• The name of the reigning king of Judah during the siege is wrong. II Kings 24: 8-13 showed that it was during the reign of Jehoiachin, Jehoiakim’s son, that Nebuchadnezzar laid siege on Jerusalem.

• The third year of Jehoiakim’s reign would be 606 BCE. Nebuchadnezzar was not yet king of Babylon at that time! Nebuchadnezzar only become king in 605 BCE, the fourth year of Jehoaikim’s reign.

• The use of the term Shinar is an anachronism. The name was used to refer to Sumeria during the time of Abraham. During the exilic period, around the time the book of Daniel was supposed to have been written, the correct term was Chaldea, not Shinar.

• The correct spelling for the neo-Babylonian king was Nebuchadrezzar. We noticed that books that were actually written during the exilic period such as Jeremiah (25:9) and Ezekial (26:7) got this spelling right at least some of the time. Daniel always incorrectly spells the name with an “n” rather than “r”.


Mistake # 2

Daniel 5:1-2 Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand. Belshazzar, while he tasted the wine, commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels which Nebuchadnezzar his father had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem; that the king and his lords, his wives and his concubines, might drink from them.

This innocent looking passage is simply loaded with historical errors.

• Belshazzar, or more correctly Bel-shar-utsur (“Bel, Protect the King”) was never a king. He was a crown prince but never became king of Chaldea, for the kingdom collapsed during the reign of his father.

• Nebuchadnezzar was not the father of Belshazzar. In fact there is no family relation at all between the two. Nebuchadnezzar died in 562 BCE leaving the kingdom to his son Amel-Marduk. Amel-Marduk, in turn was murdered by his brother-in-law Nergal-ashur-usur two years later. Nergal-ashur-usur reigned for only four years. After his death in 560 BCE, his son, Nebuchadnezzar’s grandson, Labashi-Marduk became king. There was a revolt, and Labashi Marduk was dethroned. The new king was Nabu-naido (“Nabu is glorious”), or in its Greek form, Nabudonius. Nabudonius was not related at all to Nebuchadnezzar. He was the last king of the Chaldean Empire, and Belshazzar was his son.

Mistake # 3

Daniel 5:30-31 In that night Belshazzar the Chaldean King was slain. Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old.

Again, another statement that is historically false.

• In the first place the Chaldean Kingdom, fell not to the Medes but to the Persians (in 538 BCE). The King who conquered Chaldea was Cyrus the Persian.

• There was no historical Darius the Mede who conquered Chaldea! However, there was a Persian named Darius who became king in 521 BCE, seventeen years after the fall of Babylon. Darius was a renowned king in antiquity and it is obvious that the author of Daniel erroneously thought he was the conqueror of the Chaldean Empire.

Mistake # 4

Daniel 9:1 In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, who was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans

Now, if he is referring to the historical Darius (the Persian) this is another false statement. The father of Darius was Hystaspes. Ahasuerus, based on Ezra 4:5-6, can be correctly identified with Xerxes I. But Xerxes I was the son of Darius, not his father!

Mistake # 5

Daniel 6:28 So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian.

This verse forms a fitting “tribute” to the author of Daniel’s monumental ignorance of history. The passage above clearly shows that he believed that the Chaldean empire fell first to the Median Empire and this, in turn, fell to the Persian. This is clearly unhistorical. History tells us that the Chaldean and the Median empires existed together and both fell to the Persians.

Dating the Book of Daniel

We mentioned above that scholars now know that the book of Daniel was written much later than the time it pretends to be. Indeed, the date of its composition can be quite certainly placed between 167 and 164 BCE. How do we know this? Let us sum up the evidence:

• First, as we have shown above, the book could not have been written in the 6th century BCE because it made errors that anyone living during that time would know to be false.

• Second, is this revealing statement from Daniel 9:2: I was studying the sacred books and thinking about the seventy years that Jerusalem would be in ruins, according to what the Lord had told the prophet Jeremiah.

The prophet Jeremiah lived during the fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar in 587 BCE. He was, therefore, a very near contemporary of Daniel. The time of the supposed Daniel was simply too soon for the book of Jeremiah to be considered scripture (which is another word for “sacred books”). In fact we know that the book of Jeremiah was only canonized, i.e. widely considered as “scripture”, around 200 BCE. Daniel could not have been written earlier than that.

• Daniel was very accurate in “predicting” events leading to and including the desecration of the Jerusalem temple by Antiochus in December 167 BCE.2
After this Daniel starts to go wrong again. Daniel 11:45 predicted that Antiochus IV would die “between the sea and the mountain on which the temple stands”, i.e. between Jerusalem and the Mediterranean Sea. Yet Antiochus IV died in Persia in 164 BCE.

To summarize, he made errors regarding events in the distant past (6th century BCE), was remarkably accurate in describing details of the events leading to the desecration of the temple in 167 BCE and then made errors about events after that. It is obvious that Daniel must have been written at a time after the temple desecration but before the death of Antiochus IV; in short between 167 and 164 BCE. These discrepancies in the book of Daniel have been pointed out by skeptics almost 2,000 years ago. Around the end of the third century CE a pagan critic named Porphyry called attention to the fact that Daniel’s prophecy stopped being accurate for events after the year 167 BCE. He rightly concluded that Daniel must have been written around that time. When Christianity became the dominant power in the Roman Empire, the “Christian thing” was done: Porphyry’s books were burned. It was only around the 19th century that biblical scholars began to accept Porphyry’s views as the correct one. So Daniel is a book written late in 2nd century BCE that tries to “dress itself up” as a work written four centuries earlier. Why did it adopt this pretence? The book pretended to be written in the 6th century BCE for a simple reason; by the time it came to be read many of the so-called “prophecies” would have already been “fulfilled”. This would lend credence to the book and add more weight behind the prophecies yet to be fulfilled. In a nutshell, the author of Daniel tried to fool his readers into believing that the book is of an ancient origin in order to have them believe his future prophecies.
The summary below on the book of Daniel, made by Robin Fox is apt:

"The book [of Daniel] has the familiar ingredients of a biblical success story: its hero probably never existed; he was credited with visions he never saw and actions he never did; ...while its dates and kings are incorrect and its setting is a fiction, posing as history. In short, the author of Daniel is a fraud."

Tobin, Paul (2011). The Rejection of Pascal's Wager


Hope this helps....

myst

This helps a ton.Thank you,It's much appreciated.Gah I wish they taught us all this stuff at school....I wish everyone knew all of this.I wish that everyone had a fair chance to see both sides of the argument.
(21-06-2011 01:12 PM)Robertus_ Wrote:  
(19-06-2011 12:03 PM)The Man Wrote:  Things like this keep me holding on to the religion.

Myst32 is correct. Von Raad dates Daniel to over 200 years after it was supposed to be written and Isaiah is actually written by three seprate authors over a long period of time. Just remember that when there is a prophecy in the Old Testament that it was definitely written long after it claimed to be written.

Alright,I will.
(21-06-2011 03:50 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  


I wish I could watch this,but unfortuantely my speaker port on my computer is effed up.
Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2013, 12:32 PM
RE: The Historical and Archeological evidence for Christianity
(21-06-2011 12:54 PM)myst32 Wrote:  • The name of the reigning king of Judah during the siege is wrong. II Kings 24: 8-13 showed that it was during the reign of Jehoiachin, Jehoiakim’s son, that Nebuchadnezzar laid siege on Jerusalem.

I don't understand how this fits.
If Jehoachins's reign lasted from December 9, to March 597 BCE, how could Nebuchadnezzar lay reign over Jerusalem at Jehoachin's reign when Nebuchadnezzar did it 587 BC?.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2013, 09:31 PM
RE: The Historical and Archeological evidence for Christianity
I would suggest you start by reading this book by Yale professor of the Old Testament, John J. Collins.; specifically the chapter on the book of Daniel.

Daniel is generally accepted to have been written circa 167 BCE, during the time of the Seleucid crackdown and Judaism and the Maccabean revolt; hence its apocalyptic nature (the only book in the Hebrew Bible to have this genre) and the introduction of wholly new ideas to Judaism, which were incorporated in Christianity and Islam.

Professor Collins: ‘The idea of individual resurrection, which occurs in the Hebrew Bible for the first time in Daniel, introduced a kind of hope for the future that was radically new in the context of Jewish tradition, and that would have far-reaching consequences for the development of religion in the Western world.’

Manifest Insanity @ Amazon
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2013, 10:47 PM
RE: The Historical and Archeological evidence for Christianity
Frankly, I become quite befuddled when people mention "Archaeological evidence for Christianity".

I Really don't see how you can have archaeological evidence for the NT, there's not much for there to be evidence of, unlike the OT, there's no epic battles no grand miracles, just men talking, being executed, etc.

I Don't see how you can have "archaeological evidence" for the NT when it's on such a small scale.

I Will have My revenge on AlternateHistory.com, in this life or the next Evil_monster

~WrappedInShadows (AKA Me)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2013, 05:16 PM
RE: The Historical and Archeological evidence for Christianity
(19-06-2011 12:03 PM)The Man Wrote:  like the prophecies in the book of Daniel.I read somewhere that it's all in the dead sea scrolls,which means it was written earlier than skeptics thought.The popular theory,at one point,was that the prophecies where written during the Maccabean wars.With the discovery of the dead sea scrolls,this theory seemed debunked due to the fact that there wasn't a sufficient amount of time alotted between the wars and writings of the scrolls for the book to be canonized,which supposedly took a long time.

What does the original poster mean with this? Is there any truth to that about the dead sea scrolls that debunks the sceptical view about this?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2013, 08:24 PM
RE: The Historical and Archeological evidence for Christianity
(19-08-2013 05:16 PM)HorrorScheme Wrote:  
(19-06-2011 12:03 PM)The Man Wrote:  like the prophecies in the book of Daniel.I read somewhere that it's all in the dead sea scrolls,which means it was written earlier than skeptics thought.The popular theory,at one point,was that the prophecies where written during the Maccabean wars.With the discovery of the dead sea scrolls,this theory seemed debunked due to the fact that there wasn't a sufficient amount of time alotted between the wars and writings of the scrolls for the book to be canonized,which supposedly took a long time.

What does the original poster mean with this? Is there any truth to that about the dead sea scrolls that debunks the sceptical view about this?

It just seems strange to some that the book could be canonized within thirty years of the original writing, though many have adapted the theory and believe that the first couple of chapters were written BEFORE the 2nd century BC, and the rest after, somewhat solving this problem.

I Will have My revenge on AlternateHistory.com, in this life or the next Evil_monster

~WrappedInShadows (AKA Me)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2013, 07:37 AM
RE: The Historical and Archeological evidence for Christianity
So if I have understood this correctly:

1. Daniels prophecies were written around 167BCE, they were all actually about Cyrus, Antiochus Epiphanes, Onias III, correct?

2. The evidence for (most) of the timedating of daniel is that he got the history wrong in several occasions, and that future prophecies (after Onias III and all that) failed, correct?

3. Since I dont think that Jesus of the bible actually existed, is it safe to say that the new testament writers seeked inspiration from the old testament writtings, and therefore created Jesus so he would fit in a different interpertation of the seventy weeks?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: