Questions about Daniel's Seventy Week prophecy (grace, Isaiah, genesis, America)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Daniel 5:30-31 “ That very night Belshazzar, the Chaldean king, was killed. And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old.” (NRSV)
Wasn’t it Cyrus the Persian who conquered the kingdom? Was there ever any such person as Darius the Mede?
1) No NT writer has anything to say regarding this prophecy - I think this is very telling regarding what it actually means.
On a little side note, Shiloh. This is the SAME thing with the other big so-called prophecy some believers love to throw out there - the return of Israel to their ancestral homeland. Ever notice that there is not ONE clear word about a latter day return of the Jews to the land of Israel in one New Testament book after all the yapping about it in the Old Testament? The problem is not with the testaments. It's with the believers who WANT them to say what they WANT them to say. Case in point - this thread.
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.
The above is not what I said but I was quoting what AW said. I don't believe Daniel's account might well refer to Menelaus. My whole point is that it can't refer to him.
Quote:
This is what I (Eusebius wrote: >>"Might well" doesn't cut it. Menelaus was too late for the prophetic statement given by Daniel to be the Messiah.<<
Quote:
RESPONSE:
Quote:
May I suggest that you rethink your remark. Are you really saying that "Menelaus" (annointed high priest from171 to 161 BC) wastoo 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?.
That's exactly what I am saying that Menelaus was too late and he did not fulfill the prophetic statements as Jesus did. Jesus fulfilled the Daniel prophecy to the DAY.
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.
Here is what 9:26 states:
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."
It doesn't say "an anointed one." And actually it is THE MESSIAH:
DANIEL 11:45 “He (Antiochus IV) shall pitch his palatial tents between the sea and the beautiful holy mountain. Yet he shall come to his end, with no one to help him.” [NRSV]
But didn’t Antichus die suddenly in Tabae, Persia in 164 BC rather than in Israel?
12-09-2012, 12:48 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Here is what 9:26 states:
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."
It doesn't say "an anointed one." And actually it is THE MESSIAH:
No! saying that it is THE MESSIAH, particularly Jesus, is a post-hocinterpretation.
It is a common singular noun. A noun that is the name common to all members of a group or class of nouns (aprophet) as oppossed to a proper noun that names a specific member(s) of that group - therefore, 'an anointed one.' Or if you like 'a mashiah.'
See, another special pleading on the part of the absolutists.
No! saying that it is THE MESSIAH, particularly Jesus, is a post-hocinterpretation.
It is a common singular noun. A noun that is the name common to all members of a group or class of nouns (aprophet) as oppossed to a proper noun that names a specific member(s) of that group - therefore, 'an anointed one.' Or if you like 'a mashiah.'
See, another special pleading on the part of the absolutists.
It is "the Messiah" not "a Messiah."
And even if it were "a Messiah" then Jesus fulfilled the prophetic even TO THE DAY.
It is you who are doing the special pleading. Actually, it's not even special, just specious.
And even if it were "a Messiah" then Jesus fulfilled the prophetic even TO THE DAY.
It is you who are doing the special pleading. Actually, it's not even special, just specious.
Blah! Blah! You are just repeating yourself - the grammar is what it is - 'an anointed one' - a mashiah is a person anointed to perform a certain task - nothing neccesitates it to be Jesus. Sorry you have a problem accepting these facts. And I have read that book by Anderson - he is the king of special pleading.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And I have read that book by Anderson - he is the king of special pleading.
