Poll: If you are a Trump supporter, do you consider him to be a “good Christian?”

[BigO95]

Let's look at the Josephus writing for instance.


". . . he [Alexander the Great] gave his hand to the high priest and, with the Jews running beside him, entered the city.
Then he went up to the temple, where he sacrificed to God under the direction of the high priest, and showed due honour to the priests and to the high priest himself.And, when the book of Daniel was shown to him, in which he had declared that one of the Greeks would destroy the empire of the Persians, he believed himself to be the one indicated; and in his joy he dismissed the multitude for the time being, but on the following day he summoned them again and told them to ask for any gifts which they might desire. . .”

 

[BigO95]

Two things to note here: first, Josephus clearly regarded Daniel to be the author of the book of Daniel, “the book of Daniel . . ., in which he had declared . . .” Second, Josephus placed this event in 332 BC, so Josephus believed that the book of Daniel had been written by then.

 

[Septic]

The bible is an accurate historical book. I would trust it over the writings of Josephus any day.

A Visual Representation of Biblical Contradictions

Today, most Christian theologians will say that the Bible should not be interpreted literally as many fundamentalists do, but allegorically, with emphasis on morals and parables. That’s fine …

sciencebasedlife.wordpress.com

 

[MercyPercy]

I've studied the history and it is indeed accurate.

1. Daniel was not mentioned in Sirach (dated 200-175 bc) unlike pretty much every other Jewish prophet/notable figure known at that time
2. No references or discoveries of the TEXT until the second century BC
3. Accurate knowledge of 2nd century bc regional politics and historical events up to 164 bc, but nothing after then... almost like he couldn't predict the future
4. Linguistics do not imply a 600 bc authorship

Among many other signs the second half (and probably the first half) of the book was not dated to when you believe it was.

 

[BigO95]

A Visual Representation of Biblical Contradictions

Today, most Christian theologians will say that the Bible should not be interpreted literally as many fundamentalists do, but allegorically, with emphasis on morals and parables. That’s fine …

sciencebasedlife.wordpress.com

It seems like most folks who call themselves believers today don't resemble at all what the bible describes a believer to be. So it's no wonder the majority of these so called theological professors simply don't believe the bible. As far as I can tell they need to get born again.
However, there are still a lot of people that are very well studied and very brilliant minds that know the bible to be correct.
Satan is the god of this world and his followers will certainly try their best to discredit the bible. As a Christian, if we don't have a bible, we don't have anything.

 

[BigO95]

1. Daniel was not mentioned in Sirach (dated 200-175 bc) unlike pretty much every other Jewish prophet/notable figure known at that time
2. No references or discoveries of the TEXT until the second century BC
3. Accurate knowledge of 2nd century bc regional politics and historical events up to 164 bc, but nothing after then... almost like he couldn't predict the future
4. Linguistics do not imply a 600 bc authorship

Among many other signs the second half (and probably the first half) of the book was not dated to when you believe it was.

Did you not read what I just posted? Josephus said that Alexander the great read the book of Daniel. 332 bc.
There's you historical proof from a very reputable historian.

 

[Orangeslice13]

I can believe it if they're Jewish. Of course, that also means it's probably been encoded in triplicate and hidden away so that only the Jews know what that history actually is.

That sounds like something we’d do

 

[PEPPERJAX]

I've studied the history and it is indeed accurate.

I was studying history while you were still swimming around in a sack.

 

[BigO95]

I was studying history while you were still swimming around in a sack.

Just how old of fella are you?

 

[hog88]

Just how old of fella are you?

He's Methuselah.

 

[PEPPERJAX]

Just how old of fella are you?

Just turned 15.

 

[BigO95]

He's Methuselah.

He's so old when God said," let there be light, " he said, "wow!!!"

 

[hog88]

He's so old when God said," let there be light, " he said, "wow!!!"

Now that is funny.

 

[MercyPercy]

Did you not read what I just posted? Josephus said that Alexander the great read the book of Daniel. 332 bc.
There's you historical proof from a very reputable historian.

Josephus was born after Jesus died and like many historians throughout time has gotten other things wrong about events that took place hundreds of years before he was born. That's not historical "proof". Plato wrote about Atlantis but that doesn't mean it was real. It's a piece of evidence you can use in your favor to support your interpretation of events but it is in no means a "proof" unless you have a qanon understanding of the word.


Wait a minute..

 

[BigO95]

Josephus was born after Jesus died and like many historians throughout time has gotten other things wrong about events that took place hundreds of years before he was born. That's not historical "proof". Plato wrote about Atlantis but that doesn't mean it was real. It's a piece of evidence you can use in your favor to support your interpretation of events but it is in no means a "proof" unless you have a qanon understanding of the word.


Wait a minute..

So you're saying that we should trust historians of today rather than someone who was living a lot closer to the time it actually happened. And a very well thought of historian at that. oOoOO okay
Well it certainly appears that you simply don't want to believe and with that, I really can't help you.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Couple of questions on this subject I’m trying to stay out of.

-who were those guys who just appeared in the gospels bringing gifts to the messiah?
-what religion were they following?
-what prophecy did they have that brought them there?
-would fishermen have known anything about Zoroastrian religion and randomly decide to include them in the story?
-why would there be a prophecy about a Jewish king in an Iranian religion.

Ok that’s more than a couple. But like I said to louder. This one is probably too complex for a message board

 

[MercyPercy]

So you're saying that we should trust historians of today rather than someone who was living a lot closer to the time it actually happened. And a very well thought of historian at that. oOoOO okay
Well it certainly appears that you simply don't want to believe and with that, I really can't help you.

You have yet to provide enough evidence to reach your conclusion. If it's just faith, that's fine. But it ain't history, bigO.

 

[LouderVol]

I've studied the history and it is indeed accurate.

Ready to break down how Rome is a successor of Alexanders empire? Explain who their ten kings are?

 

[jvol1]

That sounds like something we’d do

Bible code - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The subject of meanings hidden within the text of the bible is interesting. It's obviously problematic for literalists if the manifest meanings of the text have been subordinated to some sort of latent code. It could be an explanation for some the repeated passages, etc. In the old testament.

 

[creekdipper]

Septic can't spell.

That's a fact.

 

[LouderVol]

Let's look at the Josephus writing for instance.


". . . he [Alexander the Great] gave his hand to the high priest and, with the Jews running beside him, entered the city.
Then he went up to the temple, where he sacrificed to God under the direction of the high priest, and showed due honour to the priests and to the high priest himself.And, when the book of Daniel was shown to him, in which he had declared that one of the Greeks would destroy the empire of the Persians, he believed himself to be the one indicated; and in his joy he dismissed the multitude for the time being, but on the following day he summoned them again and told them to ask for any gifts which they might desire. . .”

why did you question Josephus earlier to only quote him now?

 

[creekdipper]

To be candid, I am a believer who attends church and faith is far more challenging than logic. I actively pursue faith daily. I don't have to do that with logic or evidence.

Respectfully have to disagree.

What may seem logical now may seem less so when presented with good counterarguments or more (or different) evidence. And evidence may be incomplete, tainted, or manipulated.

In other words, we place a certain amount of faith in both logic and evidence. For instance, I'm sure many people have been shocked to discover that their romantic partner/spouse doesn't share the feelings that once seemed to exist even though all the evidence seemed to confirm a strong relationship. And I've seen many unchallenged "logical" arguments crumble once faced with a much stronger argument. Happrnd all the time.

 

[LouderVol]

It seems like most folks who call themselves believers today don't resemble at all what the bible describes a believer to be. So it's no wonder the majority of these so called theological professors simply don't believe the bible. As far as I can tell they need to get born again.
However, there are still a lot of people that are very well studied and very brilliant minds that know the bible to be correct.
Satan is the god of this world and his followers will certainly try their best to discredit the bible. As a Christian, if we don't have a bible, we don't have anything.

the bible isn't a history book. its a book of faith. nothing discussed recently here with Daniel have regarded faith items, only the acclaimed historical nature of such texts.

would it really shake your faith if the dates were slightly off? if things didn't happen 100% as written in whatever current version of the bible best fits your world view?

if that is the case I suggest it might be you who needs to put God before a book.

 

[PEPPERJAX]

Respectfully have to disagree.

What may seem logical now may seem less so when presented with good counterarguments or more (or different) evidence. And evidence may be incomplete, tainted, or manipulated.

In other words, we place a certain amount of faith in both logic and evidence. For instance, I'm sure many people have been shocked to discover that their romantic partner/spouse doesn't share the feelings that once seemed to exist even though all the evidence seemed to confirm a strong relationship. And I've seen many unchallenged "logical" arguments crumble once faced with a much stronger argument. Happrnd all the time.

That's why you have to remain creative in the sack.

 

[creekdipper]

I had someone once tell me that that little voice, your conscience is what separates us from animals. It's what lets us know right from wrong and while following it might not always lead to the most enjoyable or profitable outcomes you never regret it in the long run.

I tend to believe that.

I've talked to many nonbelievers who are convinced that it's so just responses to evolutionary traits. They deny that "evil" exists as an actual force and is only a term invented as a euphemism for "something that causes adverse effects for someone." It's just faulty wiring, at least so far as the effect goes against what the majority of a particular group believes. Many of the same folks who rely upon evolutionary biology to determine morality also say that standards are constantly evolving in lieu of absolute truth or universal standards.