Questions about Daniel's Seventy Week prophecy (Jews, believers, Jesus, evidence)

[LuminousTruth]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

LOL! Crickets! Look, they felt the need regarding other OT Scriptures - heck even vague ambiguous ones like YHWH calling his son out of Egypt being applied to Jesus.



That was before the death and resurrection and before the Holy Spirit was to guid them into all truth - or did you conviently forget that? Also, Paul was a scholar and when did it become Biblical doctrine that you had to be a scholar to have understanding of God's truth.

Nice try! Here come the rationalizations!

No, I didn't forget that part of the myth. I was simply stating the fact that according to the story, even after all of Jesus' soothsayings about his own death and resurrection, his very disciples didn't believe him. it's hard to believe he demonstrated any real magical abilities and then they would forget.

Paul wasn't as much a scholar as far as my knowledge of him goes, sure he apparently was a bounty-hunter, writer, and Pharisee. Doesn't mean much as to my opinion of his knack for skepticism or research.
Perhaps he did study the Torah as much as a Rabbi... likely so, but perhaps not.
From when he started to have visions of Jesus' ghostly apparitions, He never heard or saw Jesus while jesus was alive and supposedly predicting his own death and resurrection.

The Old Testament prescribes the characteristics that Rabbis needed to understand. But I'm sure you are right that most of the lay-people thought that they themselves had some understanding, as they do today.

Originally Posted by LuminousTruth

No, I didn't forget that part of the myth. I was simply stating the fact that according to the story, even after all of Jesus' soothsayings about his own death and resurrection, his very disciples didn't believe him. it's hard to believe he demonstrated any real magical abilities and then they would forget.

Paul wasn't as much a scholar as far as my knowledge of him goes, sure he apparently was a bounty-hunter, writer, and Pharisee. Doesn't mean much as to my opinion of his knack for skepticism or research.
Perhaps he did study the Torah as much as a Rabbi... likely so, but perhaps not.
From when he started to have visions of Jesus' ghostly apparitions, He never heard or saw Jesus while jesus was alive and supposedly predicting his own death and resurrection.

The Old Testament prescribes the characteristics that Rabbis needed to understand. But I'm sure you are right that most of the lay-people thought that they themselves had some understanding, as they do today.

[ancient warrior]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

Actually He was cut off by crucifixion.

Dan 9:26 After the sixty-two sevens, Messiah will be cut off, and there is no adjudication for Him. The city and the holy place shall be laid in ruins with the other governor's coming; then its end is by an overflow, and till the end of the war desolations will be decided."

Remember, friend, that one can get the exact date from when the word went forth to rebuild Jerusalem as Daniel stated and which Nehemiah fulfilled, to the exact day when Messiah as Prince/King would reveal Himself to Israel (which He fulfilled). Christ revealed Himself as King when He went into the city on a donkey. Then He was cut off. There was no adjudication for Him. Then Jerusalem was laid in ruins.

Prophecy is rarely ever to be read as if what comes next must happen within 1 second, 1 day or (insert time length here). But it does occur in God's timing.

Also it is a mute point on your part to state the text says "anointed one" rather than "Messiah." They both mean the same.

RESPONSE:

1. Sorry. Both the high priests and kings were "annointed" ones, but were not the messiah. Your logic is in error. There are a number of OldTestament p[assages refering to "an annointed" high priests.

For example:
Lev 7:35-36 "This is the portion allotted to Aaron and to his sons from the offerings made by fire to the Lord, once they have been brought forward to serve the Lord as priests; [SIZE=3]36[/SIZE]these the Lord commanded to be given them, when he anointed them, as a perpetual due from the people of Israel throughout their generations

Numbers 3: 2 " These are the names of the sons of Aaron: Nadab the firstborn, and Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar; these are the names of the sons of Aaron, the anointed priests, whom he ordained to minister as priests.

Zech 4: 14 "Then he said, ‘These are the two anointed ones who stand by the Lord of the whole earth.’

Etc., There are many OT descriptions of "anointed ones," high priests and kings in the Old Testament.

Daniel's account might well refer to the "annointed "Menelaus was High Priest in Jerusalem from 171 BC to about 161 BC. He plundered the Temple. And he was "cut off" that is driven out.

2. Jesus was not "cut off" when he rode into Jerusalem on one or two animals (pick the version you like). Read the passages that follow the reports of this incident.

Originally Posted by ancient warrior

RESPONSE:

1. Sorry. Both the high priests and kings were "annointed" ones, but were not the messiah. Your logic is in error. There are a number of OldTestament p[assages refering to "an annointed" high priests.

For example:
Lev 7:35-36 "This is the portion allotted to Aaron and to his sons from the offerings made by fire to the Lord, once they have been brought forward to serve the Lord as priests; [SIZE=3]36[/SIZE]these the Lord commanded to be given them, when he anointed them, as a perpetual due from the people of Israel throughout their generations

Numbers 3: 2 " These are the names of the sons of Aaron: Nadab the firstborn, and Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar; these are the names of the sons of Aaron, the anointed priests, whom he ordained to minister as priests.

Zech 4: 14 "Then he said, ‘These are the two anointed ones who stand by the Lord of the whole earth.’

Etc., There are many OT descriptions of "anointed ones," high priests and kings in the Old Testament.

Daniel's account might well refer to the "annointed "Menelaus was High Priest in Jerusalem from 171 BC to about 161 BC. He plundered the Temple. And he was "cut off" that is driven out.

2. Jesus was not "cut off" when he rode into Jerusalem on one or two animals (pick the version you like). Read the passages that follow the reports of this incident.

Yes! Also, Cyrus in Is.45:1 'Thus says the LORD to His anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have held...'

And here is another point - it is not clear, from grammar or context, why the pre-tribites have two distinct 'princes' - one in verse 26a and another in 26b. Nothing grammatically or contextually grants them this seperation. Once again special pleading is needed to make the 1st Jesus and the second antichrist. Also it is quite possible that verse 25's anointed one (a prince) is different than verse 26a's anointed one while 26b refers back to the anointed prince - annointed meaning being commissioned by God for a specific purpose and 'prince' meaning a ruler/king - you can be an anointed one w/out being a king. Anyway, there are a number of possible people and contexts, as noted, all have problems - so much for the power of prophecy.

Add to that a seperation between this distinction of now appoximately 2000 yrs - nothing but special pleading grants them that as well. If they are granted the privilege to put a gap in there then every other interpreter is granted wiggle room to make it fit their intepretation as well - like over-lapping the periods or putting other gaps between the 49, 434, and last 7. It is all to funny - really.

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

Yes! Also, Cyrus in Is.45:1 'Thus says the LORD to His anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have held...'

And here is another point - it is not clear, from grammar or context, why the pre-tribites have two distinct 'princes' - one in verse 26a and another in 26b. Nothing grammatically or contextually grants them this seperation. Once again special pleading is needed to make the 1st Jesus and the second antichrist. Also it is quite possible that verse 25's anointed one (a prince) is different than verse 26a's anointed one while 26b refers back to the anointed prince - annointed meaning being commissioned by God for a specific purpose and 'prince' meaning a ruler/king - you can be an anointed one w/out being a king. Anyway, there are a number of possible people and contexts, as noted, all have problems - so much for the power of prophecy.

Add to that a seperation between this distinction of now appoximately 2000 yrs - nothing but special pleading grants them that as well. If they are granted the privilege to put a gap in there then every other interpreter is granted wiggle room to make it fit their intepretation as well - like over-lapping the periods or putting other gaps between the 49, 434, and last 7. It is all to funny - really.

Of course there is a gap. Had Israel not been set aside the prophetic statements would have continued.

Rom_11:25 For I am not willing for you to be ignorant of this secret, brethren, lest you may be passing for prudent among yourselves, that callousness, in part, on Israel has come, until the complement of the nations may be entering."

Once the complement of the nations has been filled then Israel will be no longer "lo-ammi"

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by ancient warrior

RESPONSE:

1. Sorry. Both the high priests and kings were "annointed" ones, but were not the messiah. Your logic is in error. There are a number of OldTestament p[assages refering to "an annointed" high priests.

The high priests did not come riding on a mule at the specific date given by Daniel. Jesus did. The high priests were not cut off as Jesus was. There was adjudication for the high priests but none for Jesus.

Etc., There are many OT descriptions of "anointed ones," high priests and kings in the Old Testament.

I don't dispute that. But that is not the issue. The issue is: Did Jesus fulfill the prophetic statement as given by Daniel? Yes. Did anyone else? No.

Daniel's account might well refer to the "annointed "Menelaus was High Priest in Jerusalem from 171 BC to about 161 BC. He plundered the Temple. And he was "cut off" that is driven out.

"Might well" doesn't cut it. Menelaus was too late for the prophetic statement given by Daniel to be the Messiah.

2. Jesus was not "cut off" when he rode into Jerusalem on one or two animals (pick the version you like). Read the passages that follow the reports of this incident.

He rode in to Jerusalem just before he was cut off. That is how Daniel explains it too. First He presented Himself as the rightful king then was cut off with no adjudication all fulfilling the exact years given by Daniel.

[ancient warrior]

Eusebius posted:

Daniel's account might well refer to the "annointed "Menelaus was High Priest in Jerusalem from 171 BC to about 161 BC. He plundered the Temple. And he was "cut off" that is driven out.

>>"Might well" doesn't cut it. Menelaus was too late for the prophetic statement given by Daniel to be the Messiah.<<

RESPONSE:

May I suggest that you rethink your remark. Are you really saying that "Menelaus" (annointed high priest from171 to 161 BC) was too late for the prophetic statement given by Daniel to be the Messiah, but Jesus 30-33 AD (over 100 years later) wasn't "too late" to be the Messiah?.

The high priests were not cut off as Jesus was

That is not true at least two preist were 'cut off' (by that I mean murdered but it certainly does not necessitate murder) that fullfil the years - Onias III (185-175 and who was murdered in 170) and Simon Thassi (142-135 who was assasinated in 135). All depending on how you calculate and where you start.

Thassi was intresting - from wiki:

He took part in the Jewish revolt against the Seleucid Empire led by his brothers, Judas Maccabaeus and Jonathan Maccabaeus. He became the first prince of the HebrewHasmonean Dynasty. He reigned from 142 to 135 BC.

The Hasmonean Dynasty was founded by a resolution, adopted in 141 BCE, at a large assembly "of the priests and the people and of the elders of the land, to the effect that Simon should be their leader and high priest forever, until there should arise a faithful prophet" (1 Maccabees 14:41).

In February 135 BCE, he was assassinated at the instigation of his son-in-law Ptolemy, son of Abubus. Simon was followed by his third son, John Hyrcanus, whose two elder brothers, Mattathias and Judah, had been murdered, together with their father.

[ancient warrior]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

That is not true at least two preist were 'cut off' (by that I mean murdered but it certainly does not necessitate murder) that fullfil the years - Onias III (185-175 and who was murdered in 170) and Simon Thassi (142-135 who was assasinated in 135). All depending on how you calculate and where you start.

Thassi was intresting - from wiki:

He took part in the Jewish revolt against the Seleucid Empire led by his brothers, Judas Maccabaeus and Jonathan Maccabaeus. He became the first prince of the HebrewHasmonean Dynasty. He reigned from 142 to 135 BC.

The Hasmonean Dynasty was founded by a resolution, adopted in 141 BCE, at a large assembly "of the priests and the people and of the elders of the land, to the effect that Simon should be their leader and high priest forever, until there should arise a faithful prophet" (1 Maccabees 14:41).

In February 135 BCE, he was assassinated at the instigation of his son-in-law Ptolemy, son of Abubus. Simon was followed by his third son, John Hyrcanus, whose two elder brothers, Mattathias and Judah, had been murdered, together with their father.

RESPONSE:

Yep. A lot of "annointed ones" got "cut off."

You did notice that Daniel 9:26 refers to "AN annointed one" not "THE annointed one."

But the most significant reason for not regarding the Book of Danial as "inspired" is the many historical errors it contains. Perhaps we should start listing examples.

Originally Posted by ancient warrior

RESPONSE:

Yep. A lot of "annointed ones" got "cut off."

You did notice that Daniel 9:26 refers to "AN annointed one" not "THE annointed one."

But the most significant reason for not regarding the Book of Danial as "inspired" is the many historical errors it contains. Perhaps we should start listing examples.

Yes, 9:26 is an anointed one who is cut off and who may not be the same as the one from verse 25.