If I Had Faked the Resurrection

Not projecting at all. Mithras, Sol Invictus, the Caesars, Gilgamesh, the Pharoahs, and Herakles would have been known to Yeshua (as a Middle Eastern man in a Greco-Roman world, or as your omniscient god-man). However, none of these characters were products of Hebrew civilization. Yeshua could very easily have thought himself to also be an anointed king, a god-man, or a man who would attain godhood on his death. Such belief would not, given the reliance on mythology in his time, necessarily been a sign of insanity (although the same would not be said of a modern man).

You're still projecting your worldview onto the Hebrews. Yes, they knew about pagan myths. You know about Christianity. So what?

I loved your "or as your omniscient god-man". Do you suppose an omniscient god-man would confuse Himself with fictitious god-men believed in by cultures other than the one He lives in, even though he's already a real god-man?

Yes, "in the right circumstances" absense of evidence can be evidence of absence. However, you have not demonstrated that such circumstances exist. For your point to be true, EVERY document written about the subject of Yeshua's divinity would have to be accounted for and in the possession of the Church, and a chain of custody would have to be available to show that no document had been tampered with, redacted or destroyed.

You couldn't even meet that for modern times, which is the reason for it. I suppose I could ask for every single document ever produced on the subject of the Roman census would have to be poduced, along with chains of custody. Instead, I'll simply repeat that several orthodox writers set out to refute every heresy they could find, that their writings do survive, and that none mention truely early rejectors of Christ's divinity.

The point is moot, anyway, since the Ebionites (which can be documented in fact, if not in name, to mid-first century Jerusalem as part of the Nazarenes; to the Jacobian church in AD70; and with Trajan in AD96.) did deny divinity in Yeshua, and their sect is well-documented.

No, they didn't exist. The Nazarenes recognized Christ's divinity, and also demanded adherence to the Mosaic law. Ebionites denied Christ's divinity and also demanded adherence to Mosaic law.

Using your argument, if a person is unconvinced that Yeshua was right (about his own divinity), does that only leave insanity or lying as options? I wouldn't think that you'd like that set of choices.

I'm not the one choosing between those two.

Others have responded very well to your answer to my question regarding your standard of judgment. Let me just respond to a couple of other things;

(there is no Roman evidence of the "census" referenced in the infancy tale of Yeshua, which makes the actual location of his birth an open question)

No offense intended, but the above statement is historically illiterate.

Dataman: Daniel gave the very year that the messiah would die (Chapter 9). You: "No, Daniel didn't. I read the chapter you have referenced, and nowhere does it say a year of the death of the "true messiah." Go back, read the chapter again, and till me which verse says the thing you claim.

25 "Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree [6] to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, [7] the ruler, comes, there will be seven 'sevens,' and sixty-two 'sevens.' It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. 26 After the sixty-two 'sevens,' the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. [8]

Calculate, FRiend. Calculate.

Later in the same chapter (Dn9:26) the writer says "the end thereof shall be with a flood." There was no flood when Yeshua died; ergo the prophecy isn't about him.

... or, "The end will come like a flood..."

If you are knowledgeable in Hebrew, and the above translation is incorrect, then please refute the translation, in which the obvious meaning is that of a metaphor.

Cordially,

If all these prophecies could apply to many "messiahs," why is Christ the only name known to the entire world? Where are all these other messiahs? Why did they fail?

You have extrapolated that "The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness" was the Baptist. Was he the only prophet to "cry out in the wilderness?" How many other messiahs had a voice "crying out his name in the wilderness?"

It matters not if there were a thousand voices crying in the wildernes saying "prepare the way of the Lord." The point of the prophecy was that there would be such a person announcing the Messiah. There was indeed such a person announcing the true Messiah. Do you have an example of another messiah who had a forerunner saying the same thing?

In the same chapter, (Is 40:28), KJV says "the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary." If that is equally as true as Is 40:3, then Yeshua proved himself not to be the true messiah or god-that-walks-the-earth when he said "It is finished", and died on the cross.

What is your authority for asserting that the cited verse applies to the Messiah? The context does not warrant it.

Is 53:12 is a vague passage, that could apply to many of the messiahs. ALL were rejected, and "a man of sorrow" (being executed or ignored would make any messiah a man of sorrow!) EVERY messiah who was executed suffered, and was despised by "others". "Carried our sorrows" is far too vague to be an identifier; anyone who takes on the troubles of others (like a clergyman) "carries the sorrows of others."

The Messiah, unlike a clergyman, bore the sins of everyone. Christ knew his mission. He knew he was to die. He said so many times as to the certainty and method of his death. His purpose was to suffer and die for us, not to suffer and die for himself. If the OT prophecies are fabulous, why create a messiah who will be rejected and killed by the same people he comes to save? Why not a conquering hero that will ride in on a cloud and wipe his enemies out?

Yeshua may have felt himself to be abandoned by Yahveh (my God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?), but abandonment is far from affliction or smiting.

I understand that this is your personal opinion. How could a human possibly understand what it was like to have God completely turn His back on someone? Some have said that is what Hell is like- the absence of God.

"Suffered silently like a lamb?" I DON'T THINK SO! Yeshua was reported to scream to the heavens, and to ask Yahveh why he was abandoned on the cross. There is also that cry, "It is Finished" when he died. No silence there!

Here is the original verse:

IOW, he let his opponents perform their deed. Scream? That word is not there in the Koine.

"Pierced for our transgressions" has been stated as a prophecy of the piercing of Yeshua's side by a Roman spear. If it was necessary to make the early Christians believe in Yeshua's divinity, this "piercing" could be easily inserted into the narrative. No body, no evidence, no way to prove the gospel writer wrong! Remember my 4th option (pious fiction)?

Tell me, do nails through the hands/wrists and feet count as piercing?

"Died with the wicked." It is your Christian belief that all people are wicked. Consequently, anyone who dies in the presence of another person would "die with the wicked," including every messiah that was executed or stoned to death by a mob. Right?

If "died with the wicked" means "died with Joe Sixpack," then the words are meaningless. In the same way, "born of a young woman" is not a sign whereas "born of a virgin" is most definitely a sign. Context is important. You cannot change the meaning of the word "wicked" because you (wrongly) tell me what my beliefs are. Your interpretation renders the meaning of "wicked" no different than the meaning of "good."

"Daniel gave the very year that the messiah would die (Chapter 9)." No, Daniel didn't. I read the chapter you have referenced, and nowhere does it say a year of the death of the "true messiah." Go back, read the chapter again, and tll me which verse says the thing you claim.

Since the answer is lengthy, let me refer you to another site your "flood" question is answered here as well.

Psalm 16 predicts his resurrection. No, it doesn't. Reread that psalm, and tell me exactly what part of it predicts a resurrection of Yeshua. There is no mention of resurrection, nor or returning from the dead, nor even of immortality.

Check out verse 10:

Neither wilt Thou allow Thy Holy One to undergo decay.

Ps 110 has always been a messianic psalm, yes, even to the Jews before Jesus. If you don't want to believe these things, just as you say-- that is your choice. You may certainly choose to reject the evidence as well. But do not pretend that no evidence exists.

Please cite contemporary Roman sources for an empire-wide census, ordered by Caesar Augustus and conducted in Judea by Herod Antipas, which would have required all subjects of Rome to travel to the hometowns of their ancestors.

In the first place, the text does not claim that Caesar Augustus required everyone in the Empire return to their hometown.

"Contemporary Roman sources" is a clever attempt to dodge the import of evidence that is available. Augustus had three censuses, the second of which was 8-4 B.C.:

Q: In Lk 2:1-2, when was the decree to be taxed?
A: There are two different answers, with the second one being more likely.
F.F. Bruce says that the Greek of Luke 2:2 could be translated "the census before" instead of "the first census" in The New Testament Documents : Are They Reliable. The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics p.430-431 mentions this, but prefers the second explanation.
Two censuses: Luke himself when writing this apparently was aware of the possibility of confusion about Quirinius, for verse 2 says "This was the first census…" implying there was more than one census under Quirinius.
According to Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.366, we know of a census at 7 B.C. Josephus mentions a census by "Cyrenius" about 6/7 A.D. (Antiquities of the Jews 17.13:5 written about 93-94 A.D.).
According to the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.319,414 Papyrus Oxyrynchus 225 (in Milligan, Greek Papyri p.44-47) says that a census was taken every 14 years. Suetonius and Tacitus show that Augustus had three censuses for example, the second of which was 8-4 B.C. [emphasis mine]

Q: In Lk 2:2, what do we know about Quirinius?
A: An inscription shows that Quirinius was governor of Syria starting in 6 A.D. (which is too late for Jesus’ birth). However, this was Quirinius’ second time as a governor. The first time was between 12 and 6 B.C., when he led a campaign against the Homanadensians in Anatolia. However, we do not know which province Quirinius was governor of the first time. There are two views:
Sir William Ramsay advocates that Quirinius was governor of Syria the first time. (Syria is adjacent to the mountains of Anatolia). While we have a complete record of the governors of Syria during this time and Quirinius is not mentioned until 6 A.D., Quirinius might have been a special, additional governor for this military campaign.
F.F. Bruce advocates that Quirinius was governor of probably Galatia. Galatia is in Anatolia. In his The New Testament Documents : Are They Reliable?, (IVP) p.86-87 F.F. Bruce mentions that many grammarians translate Luke 2:2 as "before" Quirinius was governor of Syria, not "while".
Tertullian (200-240 A.D.) in Against Marcion 4:19 says that the name "Quirinius" was substituted for "Saturninus". Historically, we know that Saturninus was governor of Syria from 8 to 6 B.C. ...
See The New Testament Documents : Are They Reliable? by F.F. Bruce (p.86-87) for a discussion of all these views, and Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.365-366 and When Critics Ask p.383-385 for more info...."

http://inerrancy.org/lk.htm#lk%202

Cordially,

"...And Luke does NOT place the 'worldwide census' at the time of the AD 6 tax...but rather puts it some time BEFORE the Syrian-based one in 7-5 BC...

But more accurately, Luke was probably not referring to a taxation census at all--simply a "registration". Registrations were normally associated with (1) taxation (above discussion); (2) military service (Jews were exempt) and (3) special government "ballots". We have conclusive evidence that an empire-wide (in decree, not necessarily execution, of course) registration occurred in the time frame described by Luke! Martin [CKC:89-90] summarizes the literary, archeological, and iconographic evidence for this:

" A sixth reason for placing the nativity of Jesus in 3 or 2 B.C. isthe coincidence of this date with the New Testament account that Jesus was born at the time when a Roman census was being conducted: "There went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the IRoman] world should be registered" (Luke 2:1). Historians have not been able to find any empire-wide census or registration in the years 7-5 B.C., but there is a reference to such a registration of all the Roman people not long before 5 February 2 B.C. written by Caesar Augustus himself: "While I was administering my thirteenth consulship [2 B.C.] the senate and the equestrian order and the entire Roman people gave me the title Father of my Country" (Res Gestae 35, italics added). This award was given to Augustus on 5 February 2 B.C., therefore the registration of citizen approval must have taken place in 3 B.C. Orosius, in the fifth century, also said that Roman records of his time revealed that a census was indeed held when Augustus was made "the first of men"--an apt description of his award "Father of the Country"--at a time when all the great nations gave an oath of obedience to Augustus (6:22, 7:2). Orosius dated the census to 3 B.C. And besides that, Josephus substantiates that an oath of obedience to Augustus was required in Judea not long before the death of Herod (Antiquities I7:4I-45). This agrees nicely in a chronological sense with what Luke records. But more than that, an inscription found in Paphlagonia (eastern Turkey), also dated to 3 B.C., mentions an "oath sworn by all the people in the land at the altars of Augustus in the temples of Augustus in the various districts." And dovetailing precisely with this inscription, the early (fifth century) Armenian historian, Moses of Khoren, said the census that brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem was conducted by Roman agents in Armenia where they set up "the image of Augustus Caesar in every temple.''. The similarity of this language is strikingly akin to the wording on the Paphlagonian inscription describing the oath taken in 3 B.C. These indications can allow us to reasonably conclude that the oath (of Josephus, the Paphlagonian inscription, and Orosius) and the census (mentioned by Luke, Orosius, and Moses of Khoren) were one and the same. All of these things happened in 3 B.C."

What this means is that we have very, very clear evidence of an empire-wide registration in the time frame required! (How much more data do you need?!)

[snip]

...A couple of concluding points:

That Augustus MIGHT HAVE issued a world-wide census decree (a record of which is only preserved in Luke's gospel) is ALTOGETHER reasonable and plausible. The data about Augustus' 'propensity' to count and tax is well known. For example, he documents, in his own records, how he counted the Roman nation some three times (Res Gestae Divi Augusti , 8--from Roman Civilization--SourceBook II: the Empire, eds. Lewis and Reinhold, p 12)., and increasingly levied detailed taxes throughout his reign--with the attendant increase in bribery and vice (see Gibbons' Rise and Fall). As vain as he was, it would not be surprising at all for this to have occurred.
It was also customary for the Roman empire to take a census when there was a change of local government (e.g. when Archelaus was deposed in AD 6, one of Quirinius' first tasks was to liquidate his estate and hold a census to determine the tribute load.) The implication of this pattern for our discussion is that when Varus became governor of Syria in 7 BC, one of his first acts would have been to take a census (the one which would have produced the trip from Nazareth to Bethlehem for Joseph/Mary.)
We KNOW Augustus instituted a 14-year census-cycle for EGYPT in 10/9 BC...(SourceBook II, above, p. 388)...Not only does this give us more confirmation that Augustus was a "countin' sorta guy'" but it may reflect a local execution of a 'worldwide decree' of Augustus.
To assert that Augustus did not make such a decree is an affirmative historical statement. And, "the burden of proof, for any historical assertion, always rests upon its author" (Hacket, Historians' Fallacies, Harper: 1970, p 63.).
And to argue that Luke was wrong because there was NO worldwide decree (because we don't have a record of the specific decree) is to make a common mistake in historical method--arguing from 'slim' silence (some silence-arguments can be made to work, though). Hacket again:
"evidence must always be affirmative. Negative evidence is a contradiction in terms--it is no evidence at all. The nonexistence of an object [read: "worldwide decree"-gmm] is established not by nonexistent evidence [read: "we can't find the decree so far"-gmm] but by affirmative evidence of the fact that it did not, or could not exist [e.g. a document that says it did not happen--gmm]" (above, p62)
And, in spite of the above methodological and background problems, we DO HAVE CONCRETE EVIDENCE of an empire-wide Augustian registration--literary, archeological, iconographic.
To summarize this section on the 'the missing census of 7/5 BC': I HAVE affirmative evidence and good arguments for such a census--
- Luke, a very, very, very reliable historian SAYS SO!
- Augustus was this 'type of person' with repeated, known actions along this line.
- These kinds of events occurred at major changes in ruling personnel--a situation that obtained in Palestine at the time Luke indicates.
- Parallel events occurred in other Roman-controlled areas, in roughly the same time (i.e. Egypt 10/9 BC).
- There is not a scrap of contrary data.
- Quirinius' participation is such an event (along with Varus) is not only possible, but highly likely.
- We have positive evidence of an empire-wide decree of Augustus within a year or two of the required date. "

From http://www.christian-thinktank.com/quirinius.html

Cordially,

1. When was the issuing of the decree to "restore and rebuild Jerusalem?" Please provide a citation for your answer.

2. If I use "seven 7s" to mean 7x7, and "sixty-two 7s" to mean 62x7, I arrive at this equation:

(7x7)+(62x7)= 563 years.

Do you have evidence of such a decree issued 563 years before the birth of Yeshua

In the first place, how does (7x7)+(62x7)= 563? In the second place, why do you interpret "coming" as refering to Jesus' birth?

Following is one sample out of many readily available explanations of the passage:

"Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Messiah comes, there will be seven sevens and sixty-two sevens. It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench but in times of trouble. After the sixty-two sevens, the Messiah will be cut off but not for himself. The people of the ruler to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary." Daniel 9:21-26 written 580 b.c.

This could very well be the greatest prophecy in the entire Bible. It is so powerful that some Jewish scholars are forbidden to even read this chapter. A decent amount of thought must be expended in order to understand the incredible significance. What follows is my interpretation.

This prophecy says that three things will occur:

1. A decree will be issued to restore and rebuild Jerusalem.

2. The Messiah will come and be killed.

3. A foreign ruler will come and destroy Jerusalem and the temple.

Here is the explanation of the sevens: seven sets of seven 7 x 7 = 49
sixty-two sets of seven 62 x 7 = 434

49 + 434 = 483

Once the decree was given to rebuild Jerusalem, there would be 483 years until Messiah was killed.

Here is the breakdown of the prophecy:

1. A decree would be issued to restore and rebuild Jerusalem. This prophecy was written after King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon (present day Iraq) destroyed Jerusalem in 586 b.c. Daniel had been taken captive to Babylon. About 50 years later, King Cyrus of Persia (present day Iran) conquered Babylon in 538 b.c. After another 70 years, a Persian King came to power named Artaxerxes I. He reigned from 464 b.c. to 425 b.c. He issued a decree well over 100 years after this prophecy was written:

It came to pass in the month of Nisan, in the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes, when wine was brought before him. I took the wine and gave it to the king. I had never been sad in his presence before. Therefore, the king said to me, "Why is your face sad, since you are not sick? This can be nothing but sadness of heart." I was very much afraid and said to the king, "May the king live forever! Why should my face not look sad when the city where my fathers are buried lies in ruins, and its gates have been destroyed by fire?" The king said to me, "What is it you want?" I prayed to the God of heaven and I said to the king, "If it pleases the king and if your servant has found favor in your sight, send me to the city in Judah where my fathers are buried so that I may rebuild it." It pleased the king to send me, so I set a time. I went to Jerusalem. Nehemiah 2:1-6, 11

The Encyclopedia says that King Artaxerxes' reign began in 464 b.c. This decree took place in the twentieth year of his reign which would be 444 b.c.

The 483 year period began in 444 b.c.

2. The Messiah will come and be killed. Not only does it tell us that the Messiah will come but also that he will be killed. Many Jews do not feel that Jesus is the Messiah because he was killed. We are told plainly that he will be cut off. Note Isaiah 53:8 where it says that the Lord's suffering servant would be cut off from the land of the living.

If 483 years are added to 444 b.c. (-444), the number comes to 39 a.d. The Messiah will be killed in 39 a.d.

However, there is one small problem. Jewish calendars have 360 days in a year (12 months of 30 days). Here is one example in Scripture:

They will trample on Jerusalem for 42 months. I will give power to my two witnesses and they will prophesy for 1,260 days, clothed in sackcloth. Revelation 11:1-3 (42 months x 30 days/month is 1,260 days)

Today, we use a Gregorian calendar to tell time. Gregorian calendars have 365 days in a year.

483 Jewish years need to be converted Gregorian years: 483 Jewish years x 360 days/year is 173,880 days.
173,880 days divided by 365 days is 476 Gregorian years.

483 Jewish years = 476 Gregorian years

Again, the decree was given in 444 b.c. 476 years from 444 b.c. (-444) is 33 a.d. (there was no year zero)

Using the Gregorian calendar, the Messiah was to be cut off in 33 a.d.

3. A foreign ruler would come and destroy Jerusalem and the temple. In 70 a.d., the people of the ruler to come, the Romans under emperor Titus, destroyed Jersualem and the temple. The Jews have not had a temple since this date almost 2,000 years ago.

The Messiah had to have come before 70 a.d.

This prophecy is amazing because it accurately predicts the time that the Messiah will be killed more than 500 years before it happened. It placed his arrival and death between two future events which have both been solidly documented in history. There is not a total agreement on some of the dates involved in this prophecy. However, what is not debatable is that Jerusalem will be rebuilt, the Messiah will come, the Messiah will be killed and then Jerusalem along with the temple will be destroyed."

From: http://www.anointed-one.net/daniel.html

Cordially,

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.