Evidence God exists Dan 9

[Subduction Zone]

Any site that tries to make Scripture a lie by insinuations, innuendos, slander, and leaping to conclusions for no real reason.

So not the sties that @sooda used.

Why don't you like her sites?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Except you cannot post the relevant quotes or defend them or link to them.

Now you know that is a false claim on your part. You lost the debate about Luke's census a long time ago. We can go over that again. Of course you are also ignoring Rule Number One. Since you deny evidence without ever refuting it you are unable to demand any. Sort of sucks doesn't it? You know the way to fix that. All you have to do is to learn what is and what is not evidence. Your constant fear of learning this simple concept is obvious to all of the lurkers that you appeal to. If there are any they must wonder why you don't at least try to learn.

 

[dad]

So not the sties that @sooda used.

Why don't you like her sites?

Feel free to lift points from the site and debate them. I already destroyed all the points raised in 'her' posts.

 

[dad]

Now you know that is a false claim on your part. You lost the debate about Luke's census a long time ago. We can go over that again..

I won. Cry me a river.

 

[sooda]

Feel free to lift points from the site and debate them. I already destroyed all the points raised in 'her' posts.

Darius the Mede is mentioned in the Book of Daniel as king of Babylon between Belshazzar and Cyrus the Great, but he is not known to history, and no additional king can be placed between the known figures of Belshazzar and Cyrus. Most scholars view him as a literary fiction, but some have tried to harmonise the Book of Daniel with history by identifying him with various known figures, notably Cyrus or Gobryas, the general who was first to enter Babylon when it fell to the Persians in 539 BCE.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I won. Cry me a river.

You know that is not true. And that is somewhat a pity.

I will make a deal. If you promise to be honest. If you promise to at least try to reason logically and rationally we can discuss how Luke screwed the pooch when he wrote his Nativity myth. That means no denying of evidence when presented. That means no denying logical arguments when given. And that means no sites that only lie for Jesus. Real historical sites are needed for evidence.

 

[sooda]

I won. Cry me a river.

Ignorance never wins. Ignorant people LOSE.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Feel free to lift points from the site and debate them. I already destroyed all the points raised in 'her' posts.

dad, if you can't be honest what is the point of debating? You used a site that lies for Jesus. You did not use a valid historical site. They relied on old papers the most recent being from the early 1960's. That alone tells us that they are relying on papers that have been largely refuted. And the most recent one tried to use the excuse that "Maybe Darius the Mede was Cyrus?" That is pretty weak tea. That itself is using an error to excuse an error, you can read his "defense" here:

https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/tp/notes-daniel/daniel_wiseman.pdf

Trying to find an excuse to believe is not finding evidence. You need to recognize the difference between the two.

 

[Milton Platt]

Ridiculous gossip and slander with no basis in reality. You might as well say they used knives so that they probably stabbed people to death.

Not at all. Having a knife does not give one a motive. The equivalent of your knife scenario would be to claim they lied because they owned a pen.

 

[dad]

Darius the Mede is mentioned in the Book of Daniel as king of Babylon between Belshazzar and Cyrus the Great, but he is not known to history, and no additional king can be placed between the known figures of Belshazzar and Cyrus. Most scholars view him as a literary fiction, but some have tried to harmonise the Book of Daniel with history by identifying him with various known figures, notably Cyrus or Gobryas, the general who was first to enter Babylon when it fell to the Persians in 539 BCE.

"A major assumption of negative higher criticism has been that the Book of Daniel was authored by an unknown writer of the Maccabean age (c. 164 b.c.) who mistakenly thought that an independent Median kingdom ruled by Darius the Mede followed the fall of Babylon and preceded the rise of Persia under Cyrus. Darius the Mede, however, is not depicted in the book as a universal monarch. His subordinate position (under Cyrus) is clearly implied in the statement that he “was made king (Heb. passive, homlak) over the realm of the Chaldeans” (9:1 KJV). Also, the fact that Belshazzar’s kingdom was “given to the Medes and Persians” (5:28) and that Darius found himself incapable of altering the “law of the Medes and Persians” (6:15) renders the critical view untenable."
Darius the Mede - Encyclopedia of The Bible - Bible Gateway


Whoever you thought Darius was seems to be wrong.

 

[dad]

Not at all. Having a knife does not give one a motive. The equivalent of your knife scenario would be to claim they lied because they owned a pen.

Sure, you could say they hated the Romans or Jews. You can make up whatever you like. Just because some people had education in the days of Jesus does not mean that they were con artists and deceivers and liars.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"A major assumption of negative higher criticism has been that the Book of Daniel was authored by an unknown writer of the Maccabean age (c. 164 b.c.) who mistakenly thought that an independent Median kingdom ruled by Darius the Mede followed the fall of Babylon and preceded the rise of Persia under Cyrus. Darius the Mede, however, is not depicted in the book as a universal monarch. His subordinate position (under Cyrus) is clearly implied in the statement that he “was made king (Heb. passive, homlak) over the realm of the Chaldeans” (9:1 KJV). Also, the fact that Belshazzar’s kingdom was “given to the Medes and Persians” (5:28) and that Darius found himself incapable of altering the “law of the Medes and Persians” (6:15) renders the critical view untenable."
Darius the Mede - Encyclopedia of The Bible - Bible Gateway


Whoever you thought Darius was seems to be wrong.

When you have to use non-historic sources you hurt your own claims. Why not do the extra work and see if you can find the sources that they quoted from?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure, you could say they hated the Romans or Jews. You can make up whatever you like. Just because some people had education in the days of Jesus does not mean that they were con artists and deceivers and liars.

But as we know with the case of the Nativity of Luke there was some con artistry going on.

 

[Bear Wild]

Did it occur to you that they should have, as Jesus did?

I am sorry but did you just imply that Jesus new the new testament?

 

[sooda]

I know. And that is somewhat a pity.

I will make a deal. If you promise to be honest. If you promise to at least try to reason logically and rationally we can discuss how Luke screwed the pooch when he wrote his Nativity myth. That means no denying of evidence when presented. That means no denying logical arguments when given. And that means no sites that only lie for Jesus. Real historical sites are needed for evidence.

The first two verses of Luke 3 contain three factual errors.

Pilate was a Prefect, not a procurator. Lysanias of Abilene died in 36 BCE; Caiaphas was the only high priest at this time.

Annas had been deposed years before. There was no tradition of dual high priests in any case. Annas and Caiaphas were never "co-" high priests.

 

[dad]

I am sorry but did you just imply that Jesus new the new testament?

What does that make Him, dishonest? He knew the OT. He also sent His Spirit to people as promised to write the NT, so I suspect He knew it also!