• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Apologetics

You do love those adjectives with high emotiional content. What you are lacking is tangible and objective physical evidence.

Ramoss, move on and spare me your bluster.
 
Ramoss, move on and spare me your bluster.

And here we have the technique of providing distraction, rather than providing actual evidence. Of course, since no tangible or objective evidence has ever been presented, that is an expected diversion.
 
Why does Christianity have/need Apologetics?

Because this....

5569b09c85eb771724c3f53517adf0218ec0a04067f5ade235943e1339bf66ea.jpg



...is what Christianity bids one to accept as so!!! When that's the line one must accept to ascribe to a belief system, that system better have apologists because without them, there's no way anyone'd believe that crap.
 
So, you're saying the Gospel authors are liars? Prove it.

Writers of fiction arent liars, they just have an overactive imagination and a desire to sell books... ;)
 
Writers of fiction arent liars, they just have an overactive imagination and a desire to sell books... ;)

So a bunch of guys write the same fiction accounts, then are martyred for it.

Perfect analysis, PoS!
 
So a bunch of guys write the same fiction accounts, then are martyred for it.

Perfect analysis, PoS!

Wait, are you saying that the actual apostles wrote the gospels? Even biblical scholars admit that the authors were anonymous.
 
So a bunch of guys write the same fiction accounts, then are martyred for it.

Perfect analysis, PoS!

" Christianity did not become a major religion because of the quality of it's truth, but by the quantity of it's violence." - Michael Sherlock -
 
What was the reason Jerusalem and the Israelites were sacked in 70 AD, as Jesus foretold some 40 years earlier?

Actually, reduced to writing after the fact. An anachronism.


OM
 
I've done my homework, just not the assignment you were given.

No, you haven't done your homework. You didn't know when Daniel was written, you think the resurrection isn't real, etc., etc.

You're still lost in the woods.
 
Logicman: You didn't know when Daniel was written.


2nd century BC.

Here's a whole array and examples of information on why Daniel isn't 2nd century: The Date of the Book of Daniel

In addition,

The Jewish Historian JOSEPHUS [Antiquities, 11.8.5] mentions that Alexander the Great had designed to punish the Jews for their fidelity to Darius, but that Jaddua (332 B.C.), the high priest, met him at the head of a procession and averted his wrath by showing him Daniel's prophecy that a Grecian monarch should overthrow Persia. Certain it is, Alexander favored the Jews, and JOSEPHUS' statement gives an explanation of the fact; at least it shows that the Jews in JOSEPHUS' days believed that Daniel was extant in Alexander's days, long before the Maccabees.

And that's 332 BC and Daniel had to have been written even earlier than that for the Book of Daniel to have been in circulation.

What's more, linguistic studies of the verbiage found in Daniel indicates it coincides with the Aramaic of the fifth and sixth centuries BC.

"In fact, J. A. Montgomery points out that the "the very language of the story [of Daniel (4:30)] is reminiscent of the Akkadian" found on the Grotefend Cylinder. ["The Book of Daniel," ICC. Vol. 23 (1927): 243] The point here is that in the Akkadian "the verb normally falls at or near the end of the sentence" whereas in the normal Aramaic of Palestine it would not. [Kitchen (1965): 76] This point "proves that the Aramaic of Daniel (and Ezra) belongs to the early tradition of Imperial Aramaic (seventh-sixth to fourth centuries BC) as opposed to later and local Palestinian derivatives of Imperial Aramaic ..." [Kitchen (1965): 76; Soggin, 409] "

"A "linguistic analysis indicates that in morphology, vocabulary, and syntax" of the Aramaic of Daniel is considerably earlier (on the order of several centuries) than that of Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen) and the Targum of Job (11QtgJob) which date from either the late 3rd or 2nd century B.C.. [Archer (1985): 23 and (1974) 471; see also Vasholz, (Dec 1978): 315-321; and his Ph.D. dissertation A Philological Comparison of the Qumran Job Targum and its Implications for the Dating of Daniel. (Univ. of Stellenbosch, 1976); and his "The Aramaic of the 'Genesis Apocryphon' Compared with the Aramaic of Daniel," New Perspectives on the Old Testament. Edited by J. B. Payne (1970): 160-169; Kutscher, "The Language of the 'Genesis Apocryphon,'" Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls. 2nd edition, (1965): 1-35; Kutscher, "Dating the Language of the Genesis Apocryphon," Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 76 (1957): 288-92. More information on the Job Targum can be found in: T. Muraoka, "The Aramaic of the Old Targum of Job From Qumran Cave XI," Journal of Jewish Studies, vol 25 (1974) and S. A. Kaufman, "The Job Targum From Qumran," JAOS vol 93 (1973)] Collins notes that the Aramaic of the Qumran community was only in use between 200 B.C. and 200 A.D.". Therefore, since the Aramaic of Daniel is several centuries older than that of the Qumran community then Daniel had to have been written around 600-400 B.C.."

So, your 2nd century theory is a bust.
 
LOL an anti-Muslim blog? Youre gonna have to do better than that. :lol:

Read the material, not who it's addressed to. The Muslims make many of the same lame arguments you guys do.
 
Read the material, not who it's addressed to. The Muslims make many of the same lame arguments you guys do.

Muslims also make many of the same lame arguments as YOU guys do. Fact is your religion and Islam are cut from the same cloth. You would know this to be fact if you did your homework properly.
 
Read the material, not who it's addressed to. The Muslims make many of the same lame arguments you guys do.

LOL that is ludicrous. First of all the names of the apostles were very common during that era- we're talking about tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people by that name, and this silly blog youve cited just somehow proves it? I guess that would also mean that the Gospel of Judas was indeed written by Judas and is all true then.

For example, the statements of the first entry on Matthew is pure foolishness. The blogger cites Papias as one of his supporting proofs, but Papias was born in 60 AD, decades after Jesus's supposed death, so how could he have possibly proclaim the gospels as having written by the apostles when he wasnt even around?

Its clear youre just using unsubstantiated and loony blogs to support your insane theories.
 
Here's a whole array and examples of information on why Daniel isn't 2nd century: The Date of the Book of Daniel

<snip for brevity>
So, your 2nd century theory is a bust.

Hardly, .. from DANIEL, BOOK OF - JewishEncyclopedia.com

h
The Book of Daniel was written during the persecutions of Israel by the Syrian king Antiochus Epiphanes. This assertion is supported by the following data: The kingdom which is symbolized by the he goat (viii. 5 et seq.) is expressly named as the "kingdom of Yawan"—that is, the Grecian kingdom (viii. 21) the great horn being its first king, Alexander the Great (definitely stated in Seder "Olam R. xxx.), and the little horn Antiochus Epiphanes (175-164). This kingdom was to persecute the host of the saints "unto two thousand and three hundred evenings and mornings" (viii. 14, R. V.); that is, "half-days," or 1,150 days; and Epiphanes did, in fact, profane the sanctuary in Jerusalem for about that length of time, from Kislew 15, 168, to Kislew 25,165 (I Macc. i. 57, iv. 52). The little horn described in Dan. viii. 9-12, 23-25 has the same general characteristics as the little horn in vii. 8, 20; hence the same ruler is designated in both passages. The well-known passage ix. 23-27 also points to the same period. The first and imperative rule in interpreting it is to begin the period of the seventy times seven units (A. V. "seventy weeks") with the first period of seven (ix. 25), and to let the second period, the "sixty-two times seven units," follow this; forif this second period (the sixty-two weeks) be reckoned as beginning again from the very beginning, the third period, the "one week," must be carried back in the same way. The context demands, furthermore, that the origin of the prediction concerning the rebuilding of Jerusalem be sought in Jer. xxv. 11-13 and the parallel passage, ib. xxix. 10. The "anointed," the "prince," mentioned after the first seven times seven units, must be Cyrus, who is called the anointed of the Lord in Isa. xlv. 1 also. He concluded the first seven weeks of years by issuing the decree of liberation, and the time that elapsed between the Chaldean destruction of Jerusalem (586) and the year 538 was just about forty-nine years. The duration of the sixty-two times seven units (434 years) does not correspond with the time 538-171 (367 years); but the chronological knowledge of that age was not very exact. The Seder 'Olam Zuṭa (ed. Meyer, p. 104) computed the Persian rule to have lasted fifty-two years. This is all the more evident as the last period of seven units must include the seven years 171-165 (see "Rev. Et. Juives," xix. 202 et seq.). This week of years began with the murder of an anointed one (compare Lev. iv. 3 et seq. on the anointing of the priest)—namely, the legitimate high priest Onias III.—and it was in the second half of this week of years that the Temple of the Lord was desecrated by an abomination—the silver altar erected by Antiochus Epiphanes in place of the Lord's altar for burnt offering (see I Macc. i. 54).

You're busted
 
Here's a whole array and examples of information on why Daniel isn't 2nd century: The Date of the Book of Daniel

In addition,

The Jewish Historian JOSEPHUS [Antiquities, 11.8.5] mentions that Alexander the Great had designed to punish the Jews for their fidelity to Darius, but that Jaddua (332 B.C.), the high priest, met him at the head of a procession and averted his wrath by showing him Daniel's prophecy that a Grecian monarch should overthrow Persia. Certain it is, Alexander favored the Jews, and JOSEPHUS' statement gives an explanation of the fact; at least it shows that the Jews in JOSEPHUS' days believed that Daniel was extant in Alexander's days, long before the Maccabees.

And that's 332 BC and Daniel had to have been written even earlier than that for the Book of Daniel to have been in circulation.

What's more, linguistic studies of the verbiage found in Daniel indicates it coincides with the Aramaic of the fifth and sixth centuries BC.

"In fact, J. A. Montgomery points out that the "the very language of the story [of Daniel (4:30)] is reminiscent of the Akkadian" found on the Grotefend Cylinder. ["The Book of Daniel," ICC. Vol. 23 (1927): 243] The point here is that in the Akkadian "the verb normally falls at or near the end of the sentence" whereas in the normal Aramaic of Palestine it would not. [Kitchen (1965): 76] This point "proves that the Aramaic of Daniel (and Ezra) belongs to the early tradition of Imperial Aramaic (seventh-sixth to fourth centuries BC) as opposed to later and local Palestinian derivatives of Imperial Aramaic ..." [Kitchen (1965): 76; Soggin, 409] "

"A "linguistic analysis indicates that in morphology, vocabulary, and syntax" of the Aramaic of Daniel is considerably earlier (on the order of several centuries) than that of Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen) and the Targum of Job (11QtgJob) which date from either the late 3rd or 2nd century B.C.. [Archer (1985): 23 and (1974) 471; see also Vasholz, (Dec 1978): 315-321; and his Ph.D. dissertation A Philological Comparison of the Qumran Job Targum and its Implications for the Dating of Daniel. (Univ. of Stellenbosch, 1976); and his "The Aramaic of the 'Genesis Apocryphon' Compared with the Aramaic of Daniel," New Perspectives on the Old Testament. Edited by J. B. Payne (1970): 160-169; Kutscher, "The Language of the 'Genesis Apocryphon,'" Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls. 2nd edition, (1965): 1-35; Kutscher, "Dating the Language of the Genesis Apocryphon," Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 76 (1957): 288-92. More information on the Job Targum can be found in: T. Muraoka, "The Aramaic of the Old Targum of Job From Qumran Cave XI," Journal of Jewish Studies, vol 25 (1974) and S. A. Kaufman, "The Job Targum From Qumran," JAOS vol 93 (1973)] Collins notes that the Aramaic of the Qumran community was only in use between 200 B.C. and 200 A.D.". Therefore, since the Aramaic of Daniel is several centuries older than that of the Qumran community then Daniel had to have been written around 600-400 B.C.."

So, your 2nd century theory is a bust.

Sorry, no; pure fiction (and overly ironic that Josephus would resort to circular logic in inventing a false history to corroborate a fictional biblical narrative). Chapters 7 thru 12 (Alexander appears in Chapter 8) were composed and reduced to writing during the Maccabean period. I’m sure you can dig up quite a few more apologists to confirm your bias.



OM
 
Sorry, no; pure fiction (and overly ironic that Josephus would resort to circular logic in inventing a false history to corroborate a fictional biblical narrative). Chapters 7 thru 12 (Alexander appears in Chapter 8) were composed and reduced to writing during the Maccabean period. I’m sure you can dig up quite a few more apologists to confirm your bias.



OM

I see you and your wannabe theological student Ramoss skimmed right over all that evidences presented and kicked them to the curb.

Your loss.
 
I see you and your wannabe theological student Ramoss skimmed right over all that evidences presented and kicked them to the curb.

Your loss.

Why, one should kick nonsense to the curb. And, nonsense is not evidence.
 
Back
Top Bottom