beckrl
Junior Member
Posts: 59
|
Post by beckrl on Aug 14, 2020 15:25:43 GMT
In the book of Daniel it writes in the time Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon. It relates that king Nebuchadnezzar was to be removed from Babylon and be with the animals as well eat as they eat. When we look into history we find nothing about him leaving, but we do see that Daniel relates a son name Belshazzar as the son of Nebuchadnezzar. However history again doesn't , but in fact records a Belshazzar the son of Nabonidus the last king of Babylon. History also records that Nabonidus left Babylon as well having an illness. In this it appears that Daniel was confused concerning this time of Babylon kings. It as well might give some insight into the two written languages used in Daniel showing possible two different authors for it appears that the early chapters of Daniel got some of the historical detail inaccurate. For instance in later chapters such as chapters 10-11 gives great accurate detail while here in the 4th chapter seem to get the kings confused. Your thoughts Here is a link to some info about this.. www.ancient-origins.net/unexplained-phenomena/lost-years-nabonidus-last-king-neo-babylonian-empire-001992
|
|
|
Post by foxjj on Aug 14, 2020 20:35:21 GMT
The two languages of Daniel are; Hebrew chapter 1 to chapter 2:4 Aramaic chapters 2:5-7:28 Hebrew chapters 8-12 Therefore ch 4 was written in Aramaic as was ch’s 10 & 11 There is no evidence of more than one author. Remember although Daniel was Jewish, he was also an important official of the court therefore spoke the two languages. Just because there is no historic evidence of Nebuchadnezzar’s period of absence does not mean that it did not happen as records are controlled by those in charge. We have no reason to doubt the Biblical record because the running of the kingdom would have been carried on by officials such as Daniel. That Belshazzar was a descendant of Nebuchadnezzar there is no doubt because descendants often referred to a famous ancestor as father.
|
|
beckrl
Junior Member
Posts: 59
|
Post by beckrl on Aug 16, 2020 13:55:58 GMT
The two languages of Daniel are; Hebrew chapter 1 to chapter 2:4 Aramaic chapters 2:5-7:28 Hebrew chapters 8-12 Therefore ch 4 was written in Aramaic as was ch’s 10 & 11 There is no evidence of more than one author. Remember although Daniel was Jewish, he was also an important official of the court therefore spoke the two languages. Just because there is no historic evidence of Nebuchadnezzar’s period of absence does not mean that it did not happen as records are controlled by those in charge. We have no reason to doubt the Biblical record because the running of the kingdom would have been carried on by officials such as Daniel. That Belshazzar was a descendant of Nebuchadnezzar there is no doubt because descendants often referred to a famous ancestor as father. The mention of him being the son was about how Nebuchadnezzar was removed from his kingdom to live with the animals. Again you speak from omitting of history. While we do have history of Nabonidus having left his kingdom for a period of time to his son Belshazzar. While Nebuchadnezzar never has record of a son Belshazzar. It would have been very odd for belshazzar to think of a ancient king while his own father left and was ill for a period of time while belshazzar co-reigned until his return. I also noticed you sited chps 10 & 11 as Aramaic, but the only parts which are in Aramaic are from 2:4-7:28
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Aug 16, 2020 21:36:12 GMT
Jesus cited Daniel, which in my opinion is confirmation that the Lord affirmed the reliability of the book in every way. For that reason, it doesn't matter what secular sources say or don't say. Just my 2 cents.
|
|
|
Post by foxjj on Aug 16, 2020 22:26:51 GMT
Well said journeyman. The message of The Bible is life for all who believe in its message. If one continually finds fault, how can they believe and trust it’s message of salvation?
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Aug 17, 2020 11:18:03 GMT
The message of The Bible is life for all who believe in its message. If one continually finds fault, how can they believe and trust it’s message of salvation? That's the thing. People who doubt the scriptures are being influenced by demonic spirits. There was a group once who decided to evaluate what Jesus "really said". Some of the so called scholars in the group were so called Christians. It was determined by them that Jesus said very little of what statements are recorded about him in the New Testament. We should not be surprised. Satan appears as an angel of light.
|
|
|
Post by foxjj on Aug 17, 2020 16:11:04 GMT
Yes, I do remember that so called group of experts, the name escapes me just now. Members still show up on the Discovery channel as biblical experts spouting their confusion and lies.
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Aug 17, 2020 21:35:06 GMT
Yes, I do remember that so called group of experts, the name escapes me just now. Members still show up on the Discovery channel as biblical experts spouting their confusion and lies. I can't remember their name either, but it was a combination of professing believers and people of non Christian beliefs. It's stunning to me that any believer would listen to any unbeliever about the reliability of the Christian faith. It wouldn't surprise me if the "ancient origins" link in the op was something like that.
|
|
|
Post by foxjj on Aug 17, 2020 22:24:24 GMT
The name of the group was the Jesus seminar which was founded in 1985 and headed up by Robert Funk who was an academic calling himself a biblical scholar. He approached the Bible with a strongly skeptical view of orthodox Christian belief. Members of the Seminar used votes with colored beads to decide their collective view of the historicity of the deeds and sayings of Jesus of Nazareth. According to the Seminar, Jesus was a mortal man born of two human parents, who did not perform nature miracles nor die as a substitute for sinners nor rise bodily from the dead. They produced a new translation of the New Testament with five gospels. The Fifth gospel been the gospel of Thomas.
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Aug 18, 2020 0:16:36 GMT
The name of the group was the Jesus seminar which was founded in 1985 and headed up by Robert Funk who was an academic calling himself a biblical scholar. He approached the Bible with a strongly skeptical view of orthodox Christian belief. Members of the Seminar used votes with colored beads to decide their collective view of the historicity of the deeds and sayings of Jesus of Nazareth. According to the Seminar, Jesus was a mortal man born of two human parents, who did not perform nature miracles nor die as a substitute for sinners nor rise bodily from the dead. They produced a new translation of the New Testament with five gospels. The Fifth gospel been the gospel of Thomas. Yes, the Jesus seminar, which seemed to have nothing to do with Jesus. On a personal note, I don't belive Jesus's sacrifice was meant for substitution. I believe it was meant to produce a heart of repentance.
|
|
|
Post by foxjj on Aug 18, 2020 2:52:03 GMT
If the sacrifice of Jesus was not a substitution sacrifice, then the the sacrifices of the law are still in effect. Remember how Isaiah 53:4-7 foretold the substitutionary sufferings of Messiah? 4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. 7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
In this prophecy, we see how Messiah will be the Passover lamb. For He will be the ultimate substitution sacrifice not only for the Jewish people but also for humankind. As it quotes in the final verse (12), “For he bore the sin of many, and made intersession for the transgressors.” It is interesting that situated outside the town of Bethlehem where Jesus was born, was the Migdal Eder, “the tower of the flock,” In these fields of Bethlehem the sheep that would be sent to the Temple for sacrifice were reared.
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Aug 18, 2020 10:24:57 GMT
If the sacrifice of Jesus was not a substitution sacrifice, then the the sacrifices of the law are still in effect. Remember how Isaiah 53:4-7 foretold the substitutionary sufferings of Messiah? 4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. 7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. In this prophecy, we see how Messiah will be the Passover lamb. For He will be the ultimate substitution sacrifice not only for the Jewish people but also for humankind. As it quotes in the final verse (12), “For he bore the sin of many, and made intersession for the transgressors.” It is interesting that situated outside the town of Bethlehem where Jesus was born, was the Migdal Eder, “the tower of the flock,” In these fields of Bethlehem the sheep that would be sent to the Temple for sacrifice were reared. He "bore" mankinds sins, because what was done to him by sinners was sinful. He was hated, persecuted, abused, by people. Look at this, suffering wrongfully....when ye do well, and suffer for it....because Christ also suffered for us 1Pet.2:19-21 I've read (and misread) Psalm 53 many times. Dying "for" sinners doesn't mean "in place of" them. It means for their welfare. Even the OT sacrifices which prefigured Christ weren't substitutionary. They were for the pirpose of believing by faith that God forgives the repentant, epple who confess and forsake their sins. I was taught and believed in substituionary sacrifice. I was taught and believed wrongly. Substitution for sin is forbidden, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. Deu.24:16
|
|
|
Post by foxjj on Aug 18, 2020 16:20:21 GMT
You do surprise me in not believing in the substitution sacrifice of Jesus on our behalf which has been the bedrock of The Christian Faith. It is this belief that separates us from all other faiths. I would argue that many of the O T sacrifices we substitution one of the more obvious was the story of Abraham and Isaac: “And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering? 8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together. 9 And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood. 10 And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. 11 And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. 12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me. 13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son. 14 And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen.” (Genesis 22:7-14 (KJV)
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Aug 18, 2020 17:09:07 GMT
You do surprise me in not believing in the substitution sacrifice of Jesus on our behalf which has been the bedrock of The Christian Faith. It is this belief that separates us from all other faiths. I would argue that many of the O T sacrifices we substitution one of the more obvious was the story of Abraham and Isaac: “And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering? 8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together. 9 And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood. 10 And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. 11 And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. 12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me. 13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son. 14 And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen.” (Genesis 22:7-14 (KJV) Brother, substitution isn't the bedrock of the Christian faith. Faith which leads to repentance is the bedrock of Christianity, He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy. Pro.28:13 Abraham obeyed God because God previously promised him that his descendants would come from Isaac, so he believed that God would raise his promised son from the dead. In this way, he proved his faith in Christ, Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure. Heb.11:19 Jesus sacrificed himself because all have sinned and could not overcome death for that reason. The ram is a figure of one dying for Isaac, not as a substitute for him. Look at the scriptire I cited already. Here's more, Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you Jn.15:20 Jesus suffered for sinners at the hands of sinners who hated God. Look what says, That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; Phil.3:10 There would be no way Paul could make such a statement, unless Jesus's sufferings and death was unjust. God was pleased by his Son's faithfulness through the injustice his went through. He wasn't pleased that sinners abused his Son, When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons. Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? Mt.21:40-42
|
|
|
Post by foxjj on Aug 19, 2020 2:15:31 GMT
Journeyman, you wrote: “Jesus sacrificed himself because all have sinned and could not overcome death for that reason. The ram is a figure of one dying for Isaac, not as a substitute for him.” To me this speaks of first, that Jesus death was a substitute for the sins of humanity, and secondly, the ram died as a substitute for Isaac. The sacrifice of Jesus is also known as Atonement, and the understanding of this is sometimes understood as Substitutionary Atonement giving the understanding that Jesus sacrifice brought all who believe in that sacrifice, into right standing with God. The English word atonement has the original meaning of ‘at-one-ment,” In other words to be at one, or, in harmony with someone. Consequently, the death and resurrection of Jesus reconciled repentant sinners onto The Father as John 3:16-17 states: "God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." You also stated that at one time you believed in the substitution death of Jesus. So what changed your belief?
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Aug 19, 2020 12:27:14 GMT
Foxjj, I've been showing you what "changed my mind". Basically, rereading the scriptures without preconceived notions. I've cited scripture and you haven't addressed any of it.
When I said Jesus sacrificed himself because all have sinned, my point was that if Jesus hadn't risen from the dead, he would have passed into history as just another holy man. Christ being sinless and unjustly condemned by sinners, he proved death is powerless against him. Peter says,
Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God. 1Pet.1:21
It's Jesus's life that produces that faith by which we're saved. I understand what "atonement" means. We are brought into oneness with God this way,
For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. Psa.51:16-17
This is the way through faith in Jesus that atonement is received. In my opinion, theologians have made a mess of the gospel. Terms like "propitiation" have been misapplied to how God is appeased. God is viewed as needing retribution to forgive sin, instead of this,
let the wicked forsake his way,and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the LORD, that he may have compassion on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. Isa.55:7
Substitution has been read into the scriptures. It's not there.
|
|
|
Post by foxjj on Aug 19, 2020 16:16:32 GMT
Sorry do not agree that the theologians got it wrong as you wrote in the previous post. They are from all branches of Christianity who devoted their lives to studying and teaching Scripture. Like Paul and the other NT writers they understand the principle of blood sacrifices made in the old Covenant. Consequently, when Paul wrote those passengers that you quoted he did so with the understanding of Jesus’s substitutional blood sacrifice on behalf of our sin. Regarding your quote from Matthew. When we read the complete section we can see that Jesus was addressing the fact that the Jewish leaders had been unfaithful to the teaching of God’s prophets and had not recognized His Messiahship, consequently the Kingdom of God would now be offered to the Gentiles.
Matthew 21:33-46 (KJV) 33 Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country: 34 And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it. 35 And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. 36 Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise. 37 But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. 38 But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. 39 And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him. 40 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? 41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons. 42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? 43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. 44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. 45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them. 46 But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet.
|
|
|
Post by BlueSky on Aug 19, 2020 16:54:59 GMT
Foxjj, I've been showing you what "changed my mind". Basically, rereading the scriptures without preconceived notions. I've cited scripture and you haven't addressed any of it. When I said Jesus sacrificed himself because all have sinned, my point was that if Jesus hadn't risen from the dead, he would have passed into history as just another holy man. Christ being sinless and unjustly condemned by sinners, he proved death is powerless against him. Peter says, Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God. 1Pet.1:21 It's Jesus's life that produces that faith by which we're saved. I understand what "atonement" means. We are brought into oneness with God this way, For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. Psa.51:16-17 This is the way through faith in Jesus that atonement is received. In my opinion, theologians have made a mess of the gospel. Terms like "propitiation" have been misapplied to how God is appeased. God is viewed as needing retribution to forgive sin, instead of this, let the wicked forsake his way,and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the LORD, that he may have compassion on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. Isa.55:7 Substitution has been read into the scriptures. It's not there. Can’t fathom how you come to this conclusion brother. Interesting.
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Aug 19, 2020 17:58:14 GMT
Sorry do not agree that the theologians got it wrong as you wrote in the previous post. They are from all branches of Christianity who devoted their lives to studying and teaching Scripture. Like Paul and the other NT writers they understand the principle of blood sacrifices made in the old Covenant. Consequently, when Paul wrote those passengers that you quoted he did so with the understanding of Jesus’s substitutional blood sacrifice on behalf of our sin. Regarding your quote from Matthew. When we read the complete section we can see that Jesus was addressing the fact that the Jewish leaders had been unfaithful to the teaching of God’s prophets and had not recognized His Messiahship, consequently the Kingdom of God would now be offered to the Gentiles. Matthew 21:33-46 (KJV) 33 Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country: 34 And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it. 35 And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. 36 Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise. 37 But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. 38 But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. 39 And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him. 40 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? 41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons. 42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? 43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. 44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. 45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them. 46 But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet. I understand that many of the Jewish religious leaders, who devoted their lives to scripture study, rejected the Messiah. People who think teachers of the NT could never misinterpret what Jesus and the Apostles taught better think again.
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Aug 19, 2020 18:08:51 GMT
Foxjj, I've been showing you what "changed my mind". Basically, rereading the scriptures without preconceived notions. I've cited scripture and you haven't addressed any of it. When I said Jesus sacrificed himself because all have sinned, my point was that if Jesus hadn't risen from the dead, he would have passed into history as just another holy man. Christ being sinless and unjustly condemned by sinners, he proved death is powerless against him. Peter says, Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God. 1Pet.1:21 It's Jesus's life that produces that faith by which we're saved. I understand what "atonement" means. We are brought into oneness with God this way, For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. Psa.51:16-17 This is the way through faith in Jesus that atonement is received. In my opinion, theologians have made a mess of the gospel. Terms like "propitiation" have been misapplied to how God is appeased. God is viewed as needing retribution to forgive sin, instead of this, let the wicked forsake his way,and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the LORD, that he may have compassion on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. Isa.55:7 Substitution has been read into the scriptures. It's not there. Can’t fathom how you come to this conclusion brother. Interesting. I came to this conclusion because, along with what i already cited from scripture, Jesus said, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. Mt.18:32 Jesus didn't die as a substitute for sinners. He came to tell us that God is merciful, forgiving the repentant, and was murdered by those who said he was sinful. God never looked at his Son as sinful.
|
|