Creation predictions

[redleghunter]

Some quite learned and reputable persons have concluded on what seem to them to be reasonable grounds, that the Book of Daniel was composed in the 2nd century BC.

That has been the prevailing scholarly critical view. What is now challenging the prevailing view is what I posted reference the Daniel DSS discoveries. It's amazing not all the discoveries have been published.

The below is general information and not directed at the quote above:

Yet it seems the Jesus mythicists use what they can to promote their view. That is what we see on the internet a lot on these chat sites. The "Jesus is a myth" view and not a historical figure. Yet even Bart Ehrman, a former Christian New Testament scholar and now avowed agnostic says this on his blog:

As many of you know, this past October I had a public debate with Robert Price on the question of whether Jesus actually existed. To my knowledge Robert is the only “mythicist” (one who thinks Jesus is a complete myth) who actually has a PhD in the relevant field of New Testament studies. For years I’ve been asked by people to debate a mythicist; I’ve always resisted, in part because I’ve thought that by doing so I would lend credibility to their view, which, in my judgment, is not credible.
Bart Ehrman & Robert Price Debate – Did Jesus Exist?

Again, Bart is not an Evangelical nor a Traditional Christian. He frequently debates Christian theologians challenging them to the veracity of the early church beliefs and writings but as a New Testament and early Christianity scholar confirms the actual flesh and blood existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

Now a more expanded view from the skeptic Bart Ehrman from the introduction of his book "Did Jesus Exist?"

Every week I receive two or three e-mails asking me whether Jesus existed as a human being. When I started getting these e-mails, some years ago now, I thought the question was rather peculiar and I did not take it seriously. Of course Jesus existed. Everyone knows he existed. Don’t they?

But the questions kept coming, and soon I began to wonder: Why are so many people asking? My wonder only increased when I learned that I myself was being quoted in some circles—misquoted rather—as saying that Jesus never existed. I decided to look into the matter. I discovered, to my surprise, an entire body of literature devoted to the question of whether or not there ever was a real man, Jesus.

I was surprised because I am trained as a scholar of the New Testament and early Christianity, and for thirty years I have written extensively on the historical Jesus, the Gospels, the early Christian movement, and the history of the church’s first three hundred years. Like all New Testament scholars, I have read thousands of books and articles in English and other European languages on Jesus, the New Testament, and early Christianity. But I was almost completely unaware—as are most of my colleagues in the field—of this body of skeptical literature.

I should say at the outset that none of this literature is written by scholars trained in New Testament or early Christian studies teaching at the major, or even the minor, accredited theological seminaries, divinity schools, universities, or colleges of North America or Europe (or anywhere else in the world). Of the thousands of scholars of early Christianity who do teach at such schools, none of them, to my knowledge, has any doubts that Jesus existed. But a whole body of literature out there, some of it highly intelligent and well informed, makes this case.

These sundry books and articles (not to mention websites) are of varying quality. Some of them rival The Da Vinci Code in their passion for conspiracy and the shallowness of their historical knowledge, not just of the New Testament and early Christianity, but of ancient religions generally and, even more broadly, the ancient world. But a couple of bona fide scholars—not professors teaching religious studies in universities but scholars nonetheless, and at least one of them with a Ph.D. in the field of New Testament—have taken this position and written about it. Their books may not be known to most of the general public interested in questions related to Jesus, the Gospels, or the early Christian church, but they do occupy a noteworthy niche as a (very) small but (often) loud minority voice. Once you tune in to this voice, you quickly learn just how persistent and vociferous it can be.

Those who do not think Jesus existed are frequently militant in their views and remarkably adept at countering evidence that to the rest of the civilized world seems compelling and even unanswerable. But these writers have answers, and the smart ones among them need to be taken seriously, if for no other reason than to show why they cannot be right about their major contention. The reality is that whatever else you may think about Jesus, he certainly did exist.
Bart Ehrman on the Historical Evidence of the Existence of Jesus of Nazareth

 

[Speedwell]

That has been the prevailing scholarly critical view. What is now challenging the prevailing view is what I posted reference the Daniel DSS discoveries. It's amazing not all the discoveries have been published.

Yet it seems the Jesus mythicists use what they can to promote their view. That is what we see on the internet a lot on these chat sites. The "Jesus is a myth" view and not a historical figure. Yet even Bart Ehrman, a former Christian New Testament scholar and now avowed agnostic says this on his blog:

As many of you know, this past October I had a public debate with Robert Price on the question of whether Jesus actually existed. To my knowledge Robert is the only “mythicist” (one who thinks Jesus is a complete myth) who actually has a PhD in the relevant field of New Testament studies. For years I’ve been asked by people to debate a mythicist; I’ve always resisted, in part because I’ve thought that by doing so I would lend credibility to their view, which, in my judgment, is not credible.
Bart Ehrman & Robert Price Debate – Did Jesus Exist?

Again, Bart is not an Evangelical nor a Traditional Christian. He frequently debates Christian theologians challenging them to the veracity of the early church beliefs and writings but as a New Testament and early Christianity scholar confirms the actual flesh and blood existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

Now a more expanded view from the skeptic Bart Ehrman from the introduction of his book "Did Jesus Exist?"

Every week I receive two or three e-mails asking me whether Jesus existed as a human being. When I started getting these e-mails, some years ago now, I thought the question was rather peculiar and I did not take it seriously. Of course Jesus existed. Everyone knows he existed. Don’t they?

But the questions kept coming, and soon I began to wonder: Why are so many people asking? My wonder only increased when I learned that I myself was being quoted in some circles—misquoted rather—as saying that Jesus never existed. I decided to look into the matter. I discovered, to my surprise, an entire body of literature devoted to the question of whether or not there ever was a real man, Jesus.

I was surprised because I am trained as a scholar of the New Testament and early Christianity, and for thirty years I have written extensively on the historical Jesus, the Gospels, the early Christian movement, and the history of the church’s first three hundred years. Like all New Testament scholars, I have read thousands of books and articles in English and other European languages on Jesus, the New Testament, and early Christianity. But I was almost completely unaware—as are most of my colleagues in the field—of this body of skeptical literature.

I should say at the outset that none of this literature is written by scholars trained in New Testament or early Christian studies teaching at the major, or even the minor, accredited theological seminaries, divinity schools, universities, or colleges of North America or Europe (or anywhere else in the world). Of the thousands of scholars of early Christianity who do teach at such schools, none of them, to my knowledge, has any doubts that Jesus existed. But a whole body of literature out there, some of it highly intelligent and well informed, makes this case.

These sundry books and articles (not to mention websites) are of varying quality. Some of them rival The Da Vinci Code in their passion for conspiracy and the shallowness of their historical knowledge, not just of the New Testament and early Christianity, but of ancient religions generally and, even more broadly, the ancient world. But a couple of bona fide scholars—not professors teaching religious studies in universities but scholars nonetheless, and at least one of them with a Ph.D. in the field of New Testament—have taken this position and written about it. Their books may not be known to most of the general public interested in questions related to Jesus, the Gospels, or the early Christian church, but they do occupy a noteworthy niche as a (very) small but (often) loud minority voice. Once you tune in to this voice, you quickly learn just how persistent and vociferous it can be.

Those who do not think Jesus existed are frequently militant in their views and remarkably adept at countering evidence that to the rest of the civilized world seems compelling and even unanswerable. But these writers have answers, and the smart ones among them need to be taken seriously, if for no other reason than to show why they cannot be right about their major contention. The reality is that whatever else you may think about Jesus, he certainly did exist.
Bart Ehrman on the Historical Evidence of the Existence of Jesus of Nazareth

Nonw of that is directed at me, I hope.

 

[redleghunter]

Nonw of that is directed at me, I hope.

No, no info purposes only for all. Not addressed to you. I should have been clear and will edit.

 

[Major1]

LOL! I have a copy of that on my flash drive. But we are not talking about the divine inspiration of scripture, but about the history of the Book of Daniel. Our discussion might apply the rest of the Old Testament as well. The texts of the Bible all have authorship and histories which, in principle at least, are determinable by the the standard tools of literary scholarship, augmented by archaeology and other sciences. What do you make of that work? Some quite learned and reputable persons have concluded on what seem to them to be reasonable grounds, that the Book of Daniel was composed in the 2nd century BC. According to St. Jerome, similar conjectures were being floated even in his day. What if they were right?

Skeptics have historically tried to use the 165 BC date as it would tend to make the Book of Daniel look as if it had been written AFTER the events had taken place.

However, the dating system used in Judah in the fifth century B.C. was different than the one used in Babylon.

There is an interesting side note here. As 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered p.192 points out........
"no Jew writing centuries later would use a Babylonian calendar system that gave a year different from what Jeremiah wrote. Rather than being an early date of production in the book of Daniel, this confirms that Daniel was written in the fifth century rather than later."

When Critics Ask p.291-293 explains the details of the two calendar systems.........
"The "Nisan" calendar system Jeremiah (and the Assyrians) used started in Nisan (April). Jehoiakim because of Judah a few days after the new year, so the first [full] year would start the first day of the following year. Daniel used the "Tishri" calendar where the new year started in "Tishri" around October. The first [full] year of Jehoiakim’s reign started on that the first day of Tishri. The Babylonian invasion took place in the summer of 605 B.C.

Also, The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1328-1329 adds that the Babylonians did counted the part of a new king’s reign prior to the start of the new year as his first year, while the Jews did not.
See Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.284-285 for more info.