Alright.

As an atheist, or rather "non-believer in God" (I consider myself spiritual in other ways), I think the whole thing about Jesus "dying for humanities sins" is simply ridiculous.

Even if I know (hope) that most Christians know that this event is a metaphore, something to learn from, I do not understand:
a metaphore for what?

A metaphore that humanity, in all its stupidity, violence and greed is allowed to carry on with its atrocities because son of God got mutilated by humans themselves? And he did because they were responsible for various sins?

To me, it's a very strange way of seeing things. A kind of a strange Catch 22 or something.

Please...explain.

I agree it is a metaphor. However even the message in that is corrupt from the "original", so then what is one to believe, save literally!? In which case certainly explains the real lives lost to an entity formed from what is believed to inhabit the realms of myth, legend, fable or personification. Religion is a global cult of immense proportions, proclaiming jurisdiction over the three facets of wo/man; body, mind, spirit.

One does not have to believe in the god of those institutions. However one can not escape the power and influence contained by the minds that authored the stories that gave life to the institutions and have kept them alive since the dawn of human days.
Thing is, we can discuss the why behind it all. Story tellers and believers. And yet, to the end of our own lives we shall never otherwise escape this world inhabited by faith. Whether we "believe" or not for even agnostics realize, something is responsible for all this. And what ever that is, it to had a genesis as did we being born to ask the question;

What's the point!?

If you recall, God breathed life into Adam. He also created him. Then it could be well said that Eternal Life abides only in God. So to sin is to disobey God, and to disobey God is to seperate yourself from God and eternal life. So the penalty for sin is death, i.e. eternal seperation from God's eternal life. So that must be payed for by blood (which is a tangible source of life.) However, animal sacrfice was only looking forward to Christ's sin offering on the cross. Christ, whose blood had everlasting life, atoned for our sins and delivered us from seperation from God. I hope that explains it.

Jesus dying for your 'sins' is just another story in a book full of them...a book with no proof that it is real except that it itself says so and all it does is tell you what you shouldn't do and because some dude 2000 years ago did this and that? come on personally I am at the mother goose idea of life it's must friendlier.......and with far less rules that are impossible to follow and will far less painful consequences....

In short no one can explain the story because no one has anymore information or insite into the bible then the bible itself.....which as a fact can not be proven.....i recommend to living while you can and not worrying about fiction.....except the easter bunny (i like him)

This is one of the most moronic things I have ever read. Though people do say this quite a bit. King Solomon wrote the book of Proverbs, he was a real man - Fact. The Book of proverbs is in the Bible - Fact.

Research a bit before jumping to conclusions about it all.

Yes, Bluefinger is correct about the issue at hand.

Proverb comes from a experience man.. and solomon in period of time; he talk more about vanity!

AshKatNah:




I wonder if you will share this same sentiment come judgment day!

So the fact that there's some proven facts in the Bible validates the whole thing?

If you're familiar with the historical fiction genre of writing, you'll know that the author takes facts and blends them with fictional characters and situations. When I read a historical fiction book, I am aware that the presence of facts does not mean the entire thing is true; Only those portions of it. It's easy to extend that line of thought to view the Bible.

Stephen King is a real man as well does that make everything he rights fact? Everything written is written by a real person that does not make it true.....anything written with the purpose of telling others how to behave and what is going to cause you pain and everlast torture is not exactly something that is logical now is it?

Prove to me that the bible is true in anyway and i'll admit that perhaps i may have been wrong.....I won't be holding my breath.....until then if believers would admit that there is nothing except faith to say that the bible is real it wouldat least be a start.......real people being the ones who wrote it means nothing....or did you have dinner with the authors last night? lol didn't think so

I beleive in God the Father Almighty creator of Heaven and Earth and in Jesus Christ his only son Our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, Born of the Virgin Mary and condemned by Pontius Pilot. Crucified, died and buried. He descended into hell. On the third day he arose from the dead and ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almight; for thence he shall come again to judge the living and the dead.I believe in the Holy Spirit the Holy Chruch the communion of Saints, the forgivness of sins, the resurrection of the body and life everlasting... Amen

Thats what the catholics say as a prayer in mass

Why did Jesus need to die? I'll use a little analogy. Imagine you are driving your friends car down the road. You're driving over the speed limit. You get caught by a speed camera and a fine/demerit points get sent to the address of the owner of the car, your friend. The fine is yours, yet your friend willingly pays the fine for you, out of Love.

The fine has to be paid, there's no getting around that. For Christians who have accepted Jesus' death as payment of that fine, then the payment is made, and the debt nullified.

Know what I mean.

The Apostles Creed.

Like I've stated, it seems most people are Christian to save themselves from eternal damnation. This doesn't play in with the whole philosophy of Jesus, where he showed the example of being selfless, worrying about your fellow neighbor before yourself.

I will say this though, I hope to at least have a conversation with the "man" before I'm eternally tormented. I have a few things to say face to face, as I've already tried relaying the message to him, I just don't think he's getting it or hearing it.

It's OK though, most people I talk to tell me they're going to heaven when they die, I'm guessing it's going to be pretty overcrowded in heaven, so I'll go ahead and take one for the team to allow some vacancy in paradise.

Plus, a lot of people telling me I'm going to hell make me happy about it. I don't really want to hang out with them for all eternity.

Peace

Well to take human form you are going to die, so I think we are set
up for a non dieing existance.
Cause:
God created angels first and when He announced our existence things
went bad for the opposition.
That ment a different world for humans.
Humans would know nothing except for God's intervention, our own thoughts or those of angels or devils.
God's intervention was Jesus as our teacher, Thomas Jefferson clipped
out all bible stories except the words of Jesus, and thus knew about
death of his human body was necessary.

God had to tell us and died for it.

Well that is one way of looking at how sin, a bad thing, will not deter
us from from heaven, no more death, cause Jesus told us so.

PM me if spelling error, I did spell check but must have pressed ignore.
Only the initial quick reply has spell check.

Thats it LOL I caouldnt recall the name of it


It goes a lil something like this...

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.



The third day He arose again from the dead.(according to the scriptures)

He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
His kingdom will have no end

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Amen. man I still remember that prayer lol

I see it in three parts, you left out the hell part, if its still in there.
I was on a band forum and some moms were on and did not like
the h word in a song the band sang.

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.


He decended into hell and on
The third day He arose again from the dead.
(according to the scriptures)
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
His kingdom will have no end

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.



I think I got that right. Thats the best part, Jesus brought up all the good
people and some roamed around Jerusalem as the undead freaking
out people.

That is really very immature.

The answer seems obvious. To put it quite simply, he would have died for our sins because he felt it was the right thing to do. What he was preaching might not have been entirely true, but he believed in it so much that he died for it.
Was his death necessary? No.
Was it effective? Yes.

Because of what he did, he will live on as a kind of god himself.

Fictional or not, the story is so famous and has convinced so many that it hardly matters anymore. People will believe what they wish, regardless of how contradictive or factless it is.

No of course it doesn't validate the whole thing. But it validates a lot if you would take time to find out who exactly Solomon was.

Also, the apostle's creed is also said by other people besides Catholics. Though some might find it contradicting with the line "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Catholic Church" though here the word catholic means universal.

Edit: Jesus says he has always been around since he is God Himself and vice versa. Think of it as a man with three heads. The heads being Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit. Though He came here as a man, seperating Himself from God and the Holy Spirit temporarily.

I wonder if your assumption of a judgement day is correct? Furthermore I wonder why you take such an attitude towards another person when your own religion makes it clear that judgement is not yours.

You have your own beliefs and are entitled to them but so are others entitled to their beliefs.

Bigotry is not good. But knowing what you are talking about is proper.

The fact is that Solomon appears only in the OT, there is no mention of him in any other place. Isn’t it strange that Christians can offer evidence of any of their great heros (Abraham, Isaac, Joseph, Moses, David, Solomon, or Jesus) other than from their book of mythology. None of these folks are mentioned anywhere else or left writings (no, Moses did not write the first five books of the OT – at least according to Christian epigraphers) or inscriptions. This is strong evidence that these folks were about as real as was Zeus, Hercules, Apollo, etc.


I wonder what sentiment you will have on judgment day, when the Creator asks you why you followed such an obviously false religion!

To answer the original question, Jesus probably died for humanity’s sins for the same reason that Mithra, Krishna, Osiris, etc died for humanity’s sins long before he was thought up by Paul.


evidentally he doesn't

The Testament of Solomon is another thing written by Solomon. The temple of Solomon is revered as the most holy place in Judaism. The fact was he was real, or his temple would never have been around, and other people can testify to it, whether they be religious or not.

I didn't say he did know what he is talking about. Most Christians don't. Either do most Satanists though either, or atheists or agnostics.

Show one mention of him anywhere other than in the bible or religious mentions by Jews.

Whew, thank the Creator that I am none of those!

Why did Jesus die for our sins ... He didn't. Nor did he intend to.

Biblical scholars (and many theologians) know that Jesus never intended to be a sin-sacrifice, resurrect, nor start a new religion. There are clues--obvious ones--in the Gospels and the Sayings Gospel Q for this. Jesus' self-understanding was that he (a descendant of David) and John the Baptizer (descendant of the priestly line) were to be apart (Two Messiahs as we see them in 1QSa) of the end of the age and God's coming kingdom. That ended on the cross with Jesus' famous cry that God had forsaken him. He obviously expected a divine intervention at the last moment ... one that would save his life and usher in the kingdom.

The death and resurrection of Jesus ... You'll notice in the Gospels that the disciples are shocked by both of these events. Why, if Jesus had told them that these things must happen? They should have been ecstatic, but they weren't. They were so shocked and disappointed that they returned to their former lives for a period of time. And even when they decided to continue the movement ... why did the disciples remain devout Jews, attend synagogue, and follow the holy days--particularly the Day of Atonement!--if they knew Jesus was THE sin-sacrafice for all of humanity? Answer? Jesus did not expect to die nor to be resurrected. These are the creation of Paul (who never knew Jesus, and had a falling out with the original disciples because of his twisted theology), the evangelists and much theological editing.

As for Paul ... He is a figure that has always troubled me--even during my fifteen years as a Christian--and must be read with a hefty grain of salt. He was a man of extremes and a pronounced ego (“Hebrew of Hebrews”). He was a persecutor, torturer, and murderer. He then pulls a 180 and becomes a fanatical defender of a new Jewish sect--and one who claims it's perfectly fine to lie in order to forward the faith no less (“To a Jew I became a Jew ...”)! Finally he’s a man whose views of Jesus brought him into direct conflict with, not only the original disciples, but eventually with his closest ally, Barnabas!

... For the post-Easter community this title was important as qualifying him for the messianic role he assumed after his exaltation.

The use of “Rabbi” and “my Lord” in addressing Jesus during his earthly ministry did not denote majesty: these were titles of respect accorded a charismatic person. However, as the conviction grew among his followers that he was the final emissary of God, these terms would acquire a heightened meaning.

In sum, we find in the Synoptics only limited evidence for an explicit Christology in Jesus’ self-understanding, and such evidence as there is is critically suspect. He was more concerned with what God was doing in him than who he was, especially in any metaphysical sense. But what God was doing through him in his earthly ministry provided the raw materials for the christological evaluation of Jesus after the Easter event...

... Critical scholarship regards the predictions by Jesus of his own resurrection (Mark 8.31; etc.) as creations of the post-Easter community after the event. Since, however, Jesus’ preaching of the kingdom implied resurrection, there can be no question that he foresaw the corporate resurrection of God’s people as lying beyond his own death (Mark 14.25). But there is nothing in his authentic preaching to suggest that he expected an individual resurrection for himself.--REGINALD H. FULLER, Molly Laird Downs Professor of New Testament at Virginia Theological Seminary

Sean

Solomon in the Qur'an

Main article: Sulayman
See Similarities between the Bible and the Qur'an

Solomon also appears in the Qur'an, where he is called Sulayman (Sulaiman or Suleiman)(Arabic: سليمان). The Qur'an refers to Solomon as the son of David, as a prophet and as a great ruler imparted by God with tremendous wisdom, favor, and special powers just like his father, David. Solomon was said to have under his rule not only people, but also hosts of hidden beings (i.e., jinn). Solomon is said to have been able to understand the language of the birds and ants, and to see some of the hidden glory in the world that was not accessible to common human beings.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Solomon

Let's see, the Koran was written about 1500 years after Solomon supposedly lived. That means they were taking the Jewish mythology as evidence. That's like saying that the Bible is true because the Bibles says it is true. Give me so real evidence that Solomon ever lived. Something like a mention in a letter from one king of that period to another, or a contemporary inscription that mentions his name, not another religions book of mythology. You won't be able to give any evidence of his existence, Christian scholars have been trying to show any evidence of his or David's existence for decades. They grasp at straws, but never come up with anything.

The ruins of his temple still exists.

so says you?

like you are doing now? Logic doesn't really apply here, because none of us were there to see it. And if you are wondering why that stuff hasn't happened lately, I could only say, "Open your eyes a bit more."

True. And proverbs are super helpful. Thus it is not a foolish thing to be religious especially since one of the wisest men to ever live was religious.

Oh and thanks.

also from a the responce on metaphors, I meant that the animal sacrfices were metaphors of Christ't actual sacrifice. Just incase anyone didn't catch on.

Are you serious? A biblicial metaphor is used only once or twice, not throughout, the story of Jesus was written literally, because he was said to have literally performed amazing feets, therefore his story altogether is metaphorical.

As for other statements, let's consider these possibilities:

Okay, so let's say that Paul "created" the whole story of Jesus' existence, but exactly why would he do this? Why would anyone create not an idol-like figure, but a real living and breathing human being? Why would ANYONE of the apostles and disciples have made this tale strictly to believe in it soon after?

Another thing, if Jesus' story is just made up, why are there other stories just like his? He cannot possibly be a metaphor, because his story is in the Pagan religion as well! And according to Paganism, there god saviors were not metaphors, but literal persons as well.

Now let's see, there's Erkies, Mythras, Dionysus, and Osyrius, all of which have the birth of the virgin, testify to the local citizens, suffer brutal attacks and torment through an aganozing painful death, and finally, the resurrection on the third day.

Perhaps we will never know the exact timing of Jesus' lifetime, that's why we would consider his existence to be fanatical and fantasized, but really, I have also mentioned this, but I got word that the gospels weren't written 60 years after Jesus supposedly lived, but 6! People and so-called scholars got the wrong idea and confused it with Jesus' prediction of destroying the temple, which actually occured 70 years later, it was ironically assumed that the gospels were written around this time, it is also another possibility that the disciples passed on the scripture, and passed down from generation to generation, I mean, there are tons of explanations!

Case and point, it does not make sense to accuse any of the gospels and records of Jesus' existence as just being "made -up" sure, you could say it's the same thing as someone else making a religious holy idol like Hinduism, but we are talking about a living man! How does someone make this up, believe in it, and then try to confuse people by spreading a false record? That right there is a load of babbling, come on people, think.

Huh? You're using pagan gods to prove the existence of Jesus? Mithras, Dionysus and Osiris all pre-date Jesus. You forgot Krishna. You might want to study up on your pagan gods. And, who is Erkies???

who was that directed to?

if it was directed to my earlier statement, I was only emplying that the ANIMAL SACRIFICES of the OT was only symbolic of CHRIST'S SACRIFICE. Thus I was being literal about Jesus Christ. Just in case you didn't understand me.

Don't worry about it Bluefinger, I wasn't directing it to you, I was saying that to the person that started this thread and the people who have discussed the subject.




That's just it, this goes without mentioning Jesus is mentioned in the Old Testament , and you should also remember the various world calenders, it's also very very possible that old time calenders could have died out somewhere along time.

Erkies is another Pagan god, not sure of the specifics, but you should be able to find out about him by doing a search.

also, did you know that the book of Daniel fortold how long it would take for the Messiah to come, when the timeline was to start, and how it would end. Its true. Daniel 9 says it all. Guess who falls into the time frame of the Messiah? You guessed it, Jesus Christ!

What????

BTW, Erkies is nowhere to be found.

Well, whatever way he wanted to put it, he was being executed by the will of some government's force (Pontius Pilot). In so he selfly proclaimed that he is dying for our sins.

All in all Jesus Christ was probably executed because some wacko just wanted to kill him cuz someone was on a power trip?

am i wrong?

Um...excuse me?

His dying on the cross was a way to stop direct sacrifices to God. It also enabled God to show how much he loved his people by sacrificing his own son for the sins of humans. Just because he sacrificed his son for our sins does not give human beings carte blanche to go around commiting evil thinking that they have a free ticket to heaven. You have to have faith to have your sins resolved. But who am I to question the mind of God. I guess one day we will all find out for ourselves.

Those ruins you refer to are the ruins of the temple built by Herod in the 1st century BCE. If you aren't familiar with history, you should research before you post. No known ruins of the supposed temple of Solomon exist and even if there are older ruins under the present Herodian remains, they weren't necessarily from Solomon, quite possibly they were from the post-exilic period or even the ruins of another Semitic god's temple, after all we only have the word of the bible that the worship of Jehovah was a monolithic affair that precluded the worship of other gods in pre-exilic times!

you are right and wrong. Pontius didn't want a rebellion. The wackos on a power trip were the Pharisees, who did not want the Messiah to take the kingdom that they were getting rich off yet. However, all this was in God's hands. If God did not allow it, it wouldn't have happened. So easy it was for Jesus to say one word and give sight to the blind, how much easier would it be for God to slay all thos opposed to him with just one word? And if Jesus can give sanity back to a man just by staring in his eyes, imagine the insanity God can cause when he needs to fulfill a purpose. I think people place God in the position of a helpless diety somewhere locked in the box. That isn't the truth.

ONLY once or twice? Where?



No, it was not. The Gospels are works of literature, written decades after his death. They are faith documents, midrash, written so that people might believe.



Huh?! You just stated his story was literal.



Why? He was a bloody nut! Paul never knew Jesus. He stated that he had received his gospel, not from men [disciples], but from the resurrected Jesus, visions, divine revelation. He turned the historical Jesus into something very different from what the original disciples knew--which brought him into direct conflict with them.



Like Apollonius of Tyana? Hercules? Mithras? Osiris et al? These were living and breathing peoples ... weren't they? The ancients believed they were. Oh, and Apollonius was real and performed the exact same things that Jesus supposedly did ... before he did them!



This can be said of every religious figure that has ever existed! And we don't really know the words of the original disciples, for their words were not written down. And Paul was not an original disciple, so he contributes little in this regard.



You just shot yourself in the foot! Early Church Fathers freely admitted that their God [Jesus] was very similar to other Pagan gods ...

"When we say that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter." [Justin Martyr, First Apology, 21]



Why do you insist on showing your own God to be nothing more than fiction?!



Born 4-6 CE and died around 30 CE give or take. Some say 4 BCE-- 29 CE.



What?



NOT from a scholar, you didn't?! The Gospels were all written within the 1st century, with the possible exception of John--which could date to as late as 135 CE. The years 70-95 CE are consensus. Paul's epistles were written in the 50's CE. And where did you obtain this information?



Again, provide your source. And it's not assumed! They were!



Remember the time in which these events were supposedly happening. Stories were passed on orally from generation to generation. By the time they were written down, they had been all sorts of additions and distortions etc. Perfectly normal for stories to take on a life of their own. Happens today.

From Professor Richard Hooker, Washington State University:

... During this time, the life and sayings of Jesus circulated in an oral form through Christian teachers and public speakers. This oral material included stories and sayings attributed to Jesus, but they did not exist in any systematic, organized, or universal form. These sayings and stories would be used by teachers and speakers as they fit the particular occasion or subject of the moment. A public speaker would use a saying attributed to Jesus as an occasion to lecture or discuss some aspect of Christianity or morality with his audience. What the speaker talked about largely determined what the speaker chose to remember about the life and sayings of Jesus.

At the same time that these stories and sayings were circulating haphazardly around the early Christian world, another set of stories about Jesus were being created. When Paul reinvented Christianity as a religion of a dead and risen God, Christians soon found themselves having to legitimate Jesus of Nazareth as deserving that status. The very first thing that needed to be accounted for was the death and resurrection of Jesus. The history of Jesus' death, called the Passion ("suffering"), and the resurrection are probably the oldest strata of the stories surrounding Jesus.

But the early Christians needed more than the Passion and Resurrection to legitimate Christ as having divine status. So the early Hebrew teachers of Christianity turned to the prophetic and messianic tradition of Judaism and began to develop proofs of Christ's divinity by aligning events in Jesus's life with older prophecies. This process also included configuring the humbly born Jesus of Nazareth as a descendant of King David through his father, Joseph, since the messianic prophecies were clear that the Messiah would come from the line of David...

SOURCE
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/CHRIST/CHRIST.HTM



Yes, you could! People have been making up gods from the get-go because it was a way of understanding a complicated and brutal world. It helped to explain things. This is true of Jesus as well.

From Jesus to Christ: The Story of the Storytellers
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...religion/story/

Sean

Daniel has nothing to do with predicting the coming of Jesus.

From Jews for Judaism:

Christian commentators prefer to start the Seventy Weeks countdown with 444 or 445 B.C.E. because it brings their calculations closer to the time period in which Jesus died (30/33 C.E.). A far better starting date is the decree of Cyrus (537 B.C.E) upon which all subsequent grants of approval were based (Isaiah 44:28). A correct reading of the passage and some simple arithmetic dispels any attempt to claim 444 B.C.E. as a starting date and Jesus' death in 30/33 C.E. as a terminus.

First, the seven weeks and the sixty-two weeks are really two separate periods and speak of two separate "anointed" ones. Second, even if we were to count 483 years from 444 B.C.E. we get to the year 38 C.E. Jesus is crucified in the period ranging from 30 to 33 C.E. But, the text of Daniel 9:26 says, "And after the sixty-two weeks an anointed one shall be cut off." This shows that if we use 444 B.C.E. as a starting date the alleged second "anointed one" was "cut off" in the period following the year 38 C.E. (that is, "after the sixty-two weeks"). There would be no connection to anyone "cut off" prior to that year. Thus, there is no reference here to Jesus.

SOURCE
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq118.html

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq-da.html

Jews know far more about their own Messiah than Christians.

Sean

Okay, please list your sources and their proof that the gospels were written around A.D. 70, please. You take a scholar (who isn't yet a professor) and make him out to be the smartest person in the world. Yet people are constantly revising when they find new stuff, so does that make the scholars 100 % right or even more right than someone who studies the stuff just as much, yet doesn't go to college. If you think a degree is required for you to know what you are talking about, then your understanding is sadly limited.

well lets gather the decrees together and see what they say. Then you can DETERMINE for yourself instead of jumping off the boat because of what someone who claims knowledge said. If you can't look things up for yourself, then what right do you have to refute anyone else's information?

Ezra 1:1 ¶Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying,
2 Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, The LORD God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah.
3 Who is there among you of all his people? his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and build the house of the LORD God of Israel, (he is the God,) which is in Jerusalem.

The first decree here is made by CYRUS, but HE DID NOT decree the rebuilding of Jerusalem. He decreed THE REBUILDING OF THE TEMPLE in Jerusalem. So this discredits the date 537 B.C. from matching that of Daniel 9. So the Jews are wrong here. Later, accusations were made that stopped the building of the Temple in Jerusalem, but the decree to rebuild the city was not made yet.

The second decree here is made by Darius.

Ezra 6:1 ¶Then Darius the king made a decree, and search was made in the house of the rolls, where the treasures were laid up in Babylon.
2 And there was found at Achmetha, in the palace that is in the province of the Medes, a roll, and therein was a record thus written:
3 In the first year of Cyrus the king the same Cyrus the king made a decree concerning the house of God at Jerusalem, Let the house be builded, the place where they offered sacrifices, and let the foundations thereof be strongly laid; the height thereof threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof threescore cubits;
4 With three rows of great stones, and a row of new timber: and let the expenses be given out of the king's house:
5 And also let the golden and silver vessels of the house of God, which Nebuchadnezzar took forth out of the temple which is at Jerusalem, and brought unto Babylon, be restored, and brought again unto the temple which is at Jerusalem, every one to his place, and place them in the house of God.
6 Now therefore, Tatnai, governor beyond the river, Shetharboznai, and your companions the Apharsachites, which are beyond the river, be ye far from thence:
7 Let the work of this house of God alone; let the governor of the Jews and the elders of the Jews build this house of God in his place.
8 Moreover I make a decree what ye shall do to the elders of these Jews for the building of this house of God: that of the king's goods, even of the tribute beyond the river, forthwith expenses be given unto these men, that they be not hindered.
9 And that which they have need of, both young bullocks, and rams, and lambs, for the burnt offerings of the God of heaven, wheat, salt, wine, and oil, according to the appointment of the priests which are at Jerusalem, let it be given them day by day without fail:
10 That they may offer sacrifices of sweet savours unto the God of heaven, and pray for the life of the king, and of his sons.
11 Also I have made a decree, that whosoever shall alter this word, let timber be pulled down from his house, and being set up, let him be hanged thereon; and let his house be made a dunghill for this.
12 And the God that hath caused his name to dwell there destroy all kings and people, that shall put to their hand to alter and to destroy this house of God which is at Jerusalem. I Darius have made a decree; let it be done with speed.

Still, this was only concerning the house of the LORD, but not the city. Daniel 9's decree that starts the timeline starts with the DECREE TO REBUILD JERUSALEM THE CITY, not just ht Temple.

The third decree was made by ArtaXerxes, still only concerning the Temple.

Ezra 7:7 And there went up some of the children of Israel, and of the priests, and the Levites, and the singers, and the porters, and the Nethinims, unto Jerusalem, in the seventh year of Artaxerxes the king.
8 And he came to Jerusalem in the fifth month, which was in the seventh year of the king.
9 For upon the first day of the first month began he to go up from Babylon, and on the first day of the fifth month came he to Jerusalem, according to the good hand of his God upon him.
10 For Ezra had prepared his heart to seek the law of the LORD, and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and judgments.
11 ¶Now this is the copy of the letter that the king Artaxerxes gave unto Ezra the priest, the scribe, even a scribe of the words of the commandments of the LORD, and of his statutes to Israel.
12 Artaxerxes, king of kings, unto Ezra the priest, a scribe of the law of the God of heaven, perfect peace, and at such a time.
13 I make a decree, that all they of the people of Israel, and of his priests and Levites, in my realm, which are minded of their own freewill to go up to Jerusalem, go with thee.
14 Forasmuch as thou art sent of the king, and of his seven counsellors, to enquire concerning Judah and Jerusalem, according to the law of thy God which is in thine hand;
15 And to carry the silver and gold, which the king and his counsellors have freely offered unto the God of Israel, whose habitation is in Jerusalem,
16 And all the silver and gold that thou canst find in all the province of Babylon, with the freewill offering of the people, and of the priests, offering willingly for the house of their God which is in Jerusalem:
17 That thou mayest buy speedily with this money bullocks, rams, lambs, with their meat offerings and their drink offerings, and offer them upon the altar of the house of your God which is in Jerusalem.
18 And whatsoever shall seem good to thee, and to thy brethren, to do with the rest of the silver and the gold, that do after the will of your God.
19 The vessels also that are given thee for the service of the house of thy God, those deliver thou before the God of Jerusalem.

The fourth decree came again from ArtaXerxes, but to Nehemiah concerning rebuilding Jerusalem.

Nehemiah 2:1 ¶And it came to pass in the month Nisan, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes the king, that wine was before him: and I took up the wine, and gave it unto the king. Now I had not been beforetime sad in his presence.
2 Wherefore the king said unto me, Why is thy countenance sad, seeing thou art not sick? this is nothing else but sorrow of heart. Then I was very sore afraid,
3 And said unto the king, Let the king live for ever: why should not my countenance be sad, when the city, the place of my fathers' sepulchres, lieth waste, and the gates thereof are consumed with fire?
4 Then the king said unto me, For what dost thou make request? So I prayed to the God of heaven.
5 And I said unto the king, If it please the king, and if thy servant have found favour in thy sight, that thou wouldest send me unto Judah, unto the city of my fathers' sepulchres, that I may build it.
6 And the king said unto me, (the queen also sitting by him,) For how long shall thy journey be? and when wilt thou return? So it pleased the king to send me; and I set him a time.
7 Moreover I said unto the king, If it please the king, let letters be given me to the governors beyond the river, that they may convey me over till I come into Judah;
8 And a letter unto Asaph the keeper of the king's forest, that he may give me timber to make beams for the gates of the palace which appertained to the house, and for the wall of the city, and for the house that I shall enter into. And the king granted me, according to the good hand of my God upon me.

Thus was the decree to rebuild the CITY OF JERUSALEM in the 20th year or ArtaXerxes, which brings us to, 457 B.C.

483 years from then brings us to A.D. 27, supposebly when Jesus was baptized (his ministry lasted three and a half years) and ended in A.D. 31. Thus was he cut off, but not for himself. Now, how come the Jews claim that Jesus was not the Annointed One yet it was prophecied that the Messiah would come into the second temple (concerning the words of Ezekiel)? Notice also that the Bible never fortold of a third temple. There is reasoning behind this, and logic can not make part of it. God gave the first instructions of the tabernacle to represent that which was really in heaven. Thus was David given directions that Solomon would follow. Then was the new temple nothing like that of Solomon's, even after all Herod did. Still in yet, the Messiah was fortold to come and deliver the Israelites from the Gentiles (rome being the fourth kingdom according to Daniel 7) still and yet they claim the Messiah hasn't come. They make no sense of the Davidic covenant either, which claims that there should not fail a king from the line of David to sit on the throne of Israel. Yet Herod (Not even an Israelite) stole the throne. Why do you think he tried to kill Jesus? Because the throne rightly belonged to Jesus. Think for yourself what all this means. Look it up, don't take my word for it.

I did.

Here's another ...

From Jesus to Christ
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...religion/story/



To whom are you referring? Richard Hooker, General Education 110x World Civilizations to 1500, Washington State University? If I made a mistake, please enlighten me. I will be happy to correct it.

WSU
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/110/110SCHED.HTM



Oh brother! I did LOOK IT UP FOR MYSELF!!!!! I went straight to the people who know a hell of a lot more than you ABOUT THEIR OWN TEXT AND MESSIAH!



I have ... and that's why after fifteen years I'm no longer a Christian.



Not at all ... but it does aid tremendously in understanding the subject in its entirety. And you are the last person to be lecturing anybody on the correct understanding of history! Your teacher is Jesus and the Holy Spirit, remember--not logic and critical reasoning.

By the way ... Does the HS speak to you audibly or through revelation?

What's the value in a historical approach to the Bible?

Harold W. Attridge, The Lillian Claus Professor of New Testament Yale Divinity School, responds:

I think we're, in some ways, forced to engage in a historical critical study of scripture by the problems of scripture itself. That is, the discrepancies that we see in scripture that make it difficult for us to construct a simple and coherent historical narrative out of the data of the text, which after all, are faith statements and calls to belief in Christ. At the same time, I think we're encouraged to engage in this kind of historical critical study because it enriches our understanding of the world within which Jesus operated, within which scriptural figures in general operated and with which they were interacting. We can't, for instance, understand what it means to proclaim the kingdom or reign of God unless we understand it was that proclamation was made in the context of an imperial power that had certain implications for human existence.

I think too, by a historical, critical understanding of scripture we can both enrich our own appropriation of the teachings of scripture and also sort through some problematic elements in scripture. And I think unless we adopt a historical critical attitude toward our Biblical tradition we may miss appropriate scripture. For instance, if we apply too readily or accept without some sort of critical perspective some of the controversial statements within the gospel tradition about the Jews, I think we're being unfaithful to our Biblical tradition. But in order to understand those we have to put them into some sort of historical context. So we're invited to engage in historical critical study by the problems of scripture itself, encouraged to do so by the payoff of such study for understanding and enriching our appropriation of scriptural material, and I think absolutely forced to do so by the problematic elements of scripture which can only be understood within the historical context.

Sean

REASON # 1 why the gospels are very late 1st Century CE - early to mid 2nd Century CE documents:

Give a valid year for the birth of Jesus that agrees with both gospels and with recorded history. If you can't, it is a sign that the gospels are pure mythology.

4 B.C.