The Prophecy of the 70 weeks of Daniel

quote:

---

However, Buzsaw/anointed not Buzsaw/messiah. I don't fit the definition of the latter nor do I fit the criteria of the prophets including Daniel's little stone/messiah that demolishes the kingdoms and his becomes the prevalent global one.

---

You may qualify as a "messiah". A High Priest or a legitimately appointed King of Isreal or Judah - or better yet someone identified as a messiah in the Bible would have an even better claim.

quote:

---

You people need to get real. I provided a bonafide dictionary definition of each word and no way do they interchange as per definition.

---

That's because you're using an English dictionary, influenced by Christian doctrine. Neither Daniel not Isaiah are Christian books nor are they written in English.The books of Isaiah and Daniel use THE SAME WORD. How will a dictionary help there ?

quote:

---

I'm not denying the anointing of Cyrus, but he sure does in no way fit the ticket for Biblical messiah.

---

Nobody is claiming that he is The Messiah. Just A messiah. Why do you and starman persist in this misrepresentation ?

quote:

---

You people who claim so are just showing your ignorance of Biblical doctrine, including the deciphering of the prophecies.

---

Disagreeing with Christian doctrine is not the same as being ignorant of it. As we have seen Christian "decipherings" are simply force-fitting the text into doctrine. Rejecting that is a sign of knowledge, not ignorance.

quote:

---

One can concoct up about any doctrine they want by isolating scripture texts.

---

And in your case, misrepresenting them, too.

quote:

---

One must apply corroborating scriptures in understanding Biblical prophecy as well as other doctrines

---

When there are other relevant writings. And that is precisely what you are objecting to. The use of Daniel 8 to identify Daniel's "End Times". The reference to Isaiah 45:1 to identify Cyrus as A messiah.

quote:

---

Daniel was given what God wanted to dish out for his time but John the prophet of the NT who wrote Revelation filled in many of the blanks which were not revealed to Daniel.

---

Now you're talking doctrine not fact. If the events in Daniel all occurred - or were meant to occur - in the 2nd century BC, they cannot be "predicted" in the Revelation written at the end of the 1st century AD.

quote:

---

That's why in Daniel 12:8 and 9 when Daniel wanted to know the end of all these things, God told him to go his way for the words are closed up and sealed til the time of the end.

---

In Daniel 12:4, however, Daniel is told to "conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time" 12:8 is ambiguous, it being unclear which words it refers to. But 12:4 is clear - Daniel 12 itself is meant to be a secret until the End Times. This adds confirming evidence to the view that Daniel is about the Hellenistic period.

quote:

---

One must go to Revelation 13, 17 and 18 where the ten horned beast becomes the 10 horns of Daniel's beast. There are many similarities of Daniel's account and John's.

---

Which are adequately explained by "John" drawing on Daniel as a source. 17:9-12 for instance is not exactly similar.

quote:

---

This is happening as we debate. Daniel's 10 horn beast is now emerging and the long prophesied anti-christ is likely present on earth now.

---

This is just your opinion, and not one which you can support.

quote:

---

Obama get's close to the description, but I'm not yet saying he is the one. Perhaps so; perhaps not. Obama is a Muslim. I'm convinced of that.

---

Of course this is just your hatred and prejudice at work. You have no scriptural basis for even suggesting that Obama is the anti-Christ. Nor is there any real evidence that he is a Muslim. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Another clue to the 10 horned beast of Daniel relative to the end times is the phenomena of integrating the races. Read it in Daniel 2:40-43. God separated the races and attempting to mix them is like attempting to mix water with diesel fuel. Your diesel will either not run at all or spit and sputter at half speed or less. That's where the world is going.

---

This is another case of abusing scripture. The number of toes is not given any significance, nor are they described as belonging to different races. Al that comes from your own prejudice. At least now we know that racism is part of the reason for your hatred of Obama.

quote:

---

The Daniel 2 Image's 10 toes are what the 10 horns are to the beast, the end time antichrist world government.

---

There is no support for this idea in the Book of Daniel. Daniel never even claims that the ten Kings of his Beast will rule simultaneously, nor links it to the (uncounted) toes of the statue. (Indeed it is more likely that the ten horns are Seleucid rulers while the toes include rulers of the other Hellenistic states, especially the Ptolemys)

quote:

---

While the Messiah sure is anointed, the quality of getting anointed does not make one the One that was pierced, born of a virgin in Bethlehem, had none of his bones broken, rose from the dead, was not left in hell, did not see His flesh corrupted, led captivity captive, and etc.

---

As I keep explaining I am NOT claiming that Cyrus was The Messiah, let alone the Christian idea of the Messiah. Just a messiah as Isaiah 45:1 says. Neither Isaiah nor Daniel mentions any of those things you list. Thus they are completely irrelevant.If you wish to deny that Cyrus was a messiah you directly contradict the Bible. Do you want to do that ?

quote:

---

Having certain traits revealed in many books of the bible does not make Him a different Messiah, in any way, shape, or form.

---

And the fact that you ASSUME that Daniel meant your idea of the Messiah - when Daniel says nothing of the sort - does not make it so..

quote:

---

You are trying to equate being gifted, or anointed for a job, with being the One that was to come, the Lamb of God, slain from the foundation of the world, that was to take away the sins of man. Sorry. That is stupid as stupid could be.

---

No, I am not. I've told you often enough. I am saying no more than Isaiah 45:1 says, when it says that Cyrus is a messiah.No matter how often you repeat this misrepresentation the truth remains.

quote:

---

The "truth", then, is what?? That the savior is some Persian king? Get serious. He could never begin to fulfill all that was said about the Saviour. Obviously. That all you got??

---

No, the truth is that I am NOT saying that. As I have told you. Repeatedly. You have no excuse for repeating this falsehood.

quote:

---

So you claim what?? That a saviour does not equal a Messiah?? Spell it out.

---

I have spelled it out several times. And you ignored it. Perhaps you might ask yourself why you did that.Isaiah 45:1 says that Cyrus is a messiah. I am not claiming ANYTHING more than Isaiah 45:1 says. If you want to believe that Isaiah 45:1 says that Cyrus is the Saviour, with all your Christian ideas about Jesus, then that's your problem. It's not a part of MY argument.It really is that simple. Isaiah 45:1 says that Cyrus is a messiah. Therefore the author of Daniel could have called Cyrus a messiah - using exactly the same word found in Isaiah 45:1.

quote:

---

Well, the rest of the bible tells us all about The Messiah, call el rinky dinko anything you like. Ridiculous.

---

A lot of the Bible has little or nothing to do with "The Messiah".But then again, as you make very clear you aren't interested in really understanding the Bible. That's against your religion.

quote:

---

Who cares if not all the bible deals just in the Messiah? There is enough there to cover it just fine, so some poor soul doesn't start thinking some king was Him.

​

I am not sure what your idea of understanding the bible is supposed to be. Apparently it needs rejecting Jesus, and accepting Cyrus!! Not a good start, really.

---

You know that isn't true. The proposition you object to so strenuously is that Isaiah 45:1 says what it says. Your continued misrepresentation - which at this stage can only be intentional - only proves my point. Understanding the Bible is against your religion.

quote:

---

If you were interested in it, you might start without the preconceptions, and do more than cherry picking.

---

As is quite obvious it is your interpretation that is controlled by preconceptions. The idea that Daniel refers to Jesus at all is a preconception.. The invention of a massive gap between the 69th and 70th "week" is based solely on your preconceptions. Your refusal to accept the clear words of Daniel 8 is based on preconceptions.And it would be an understatement to accuse you of cherry-picking. Even ripped out of context Daniel 8:28 did not support your presumed gap in the 490 year. And the context clearly contradicts your reading by placing the End Times in the Hellenistic period.

quote:

---

Such a desperate grasping at straws, and strawmen here. Cyrus is not a contender for the Messiah. Call him tomato, or call him messiah, or call him Popeye, it matters not. He was, as the Antichrist may be, anointed for a purpose. Whoopee do. No one said that Cyrus came from a virgin, or a plethora and virtual armada of other prophesied things, did they???

---

Exactly. Nobody said it. Nobody at all. You just like to pretend I said it because you can't answer my point. I don't know what you hope to gain by repeating an obvious falsehood over and over again.

quote:

---

So make up your mind here! Is your defense attempt claiming that the bible is wrong, or that the dates must be wrong!!?? You have no case within the bible, is that where you choose to be trounced? Fine with me.

---

The fact that you can't keep up with my arguments does not mean that I am changing my mind. In fact I have a very good case. Daniel 8 clearly places the End TImes in the Hellenistic period, as I have already explained.

quote:

---

our grasping at ludicrous straws, trying to claim Greece was more than the empire in the time and place it was in, is unsupportable by the bible. Now what?

---

SInce I have said no such thing, it is obvious who is clutching at straws,

quote:

---

The events of Dan 9 demand that a sequential fulfillment be the order of the day

---

In a period of 490 years. WHich is over..

quote:

---

The prophesy was to finish the whole Jewish history. That never happened in a year, or a century, or whatever, if you notice!!

---

Exactly. The end did not occur on schedule. The prophecy failed.It really is that obvious and simple. To anybody who can read the Bible without their preconceptions getting in the way.

quote:

---

I suppose 167-164 BC would be it, unless there are earlier ones from other sources. Or would it be 200 years after the Book of Daniel was written?

---

No, that date is the date of the original text, not the manuscript. The manuscript is dated 4 BC - 68 AD as can clearly be seen in the text. (emphasis mine)

Firstly Buz, I'll thank you not to attribute starman's misrepresentations to me.

quote:

---

The truth, Paul is that the fierce king who utters the dark sentences in verses 23-26 is a deceitful impressive slippery fellow who destroys many, all the while talking peacefully. He makes war with the "holy ones," i.e. the true Christians in the end times.

---

It is only your assumption that the text refers to Christians, rather than to pious Jews. Given the evidence that Daniel's "end times" are around 160 BC I'd say that your assumption has problems.

quote:

---

Note that in Daniel 7:25 the notable little horn of the beast "made war with the saints and prevailed against them." The notable little horn who persecutes the saints (holy ones) is one and the same mighty one who persecutes the "holy ones" in chapter 8.

---

Chapter 8 explicitly places the End Times in the Hellenistic period.

quote:

---

His kingdom is also the same beast kingdom of Revelation 13 in the NT which "makes war with the saints and overcomes them." The planet is witnessing this as we debate.

---

Obviously we aren't. Even your erroneous reading requires that you have a candidate for the king who is supposed to lead this war. And you don't.

quote:

---

War is being waged on the Christians in Africa, Muslim nations, Communist nations, etc

---

IN SOME of these nation Christians may be being persecuted. But that's it, really. And in each case it's local forces acting on their own agenda. There is nobody in overall charge.

quote:

---

The globalist beast kingdom, i.e. world government is emerging via the UN which btw is anti-Christian and pro-Muslim. You and others here need to corroborate these scriptures or you'll never understand them or whataheck is going on in the world today.

---

By which you men that if I don't twist the Bible to fit into your prejudices and hatreds I'll never share your warped vision of the world. That's hardly an argument calculated to change my mind.

quote:

---

Note how many times the "end times" and similar wording appears in these visions.

---

Believe me I do. It corroborates my view that they are speaking of the same time. A time long before Jesus was born.

quote:

---

Note also that when he confronts the "Prince of princes" in verse 25 of 8 that he is "broken without hand.

---

Yes, it's anther example of Daniel failing.

quote:

---

John the revelator says messiah Jesus will destroy his enemies with the breath of his mouth or something similar to that when he appears to Jerusalem to set up shop/kingdom. This corroborates with the "little stone" of the first image vision which destroys the world kingdoms and becomes the mountain replacing the destroyed kingdoms of this world.

---

Except that the stone is never identified as a single person. The stone simply seems to be the Kingdom of God. There simply is no corroboration there.

quote:

---

Starman is right.

---

You mean he is right to grossly misrepresent my arguments, because it is the only way you can deal with them ? He is right to misrepresent and reject the Bible, because the Bible is subject to the dogma that you share ? He is right to confuse matters by failing even to keep track of his own arguments, because you have no real case ?If you praise starman's dismal record you only confirm how hopelessly weak your position is.

quote:

---

Your arguments are full of holes so as to attemp to secularize everything that Daniel prophesied and to render as contemporary history.

---

If my arguments were full of holes you could answer them. Obviously you can't. Starman can't even acknowledge my arguments let alone deal with them

quote:

---

You pick and choose so as to overlook anything and everything that doesn't fit your secularist mindset for the book of Daniel, Jehovah's prophet.

---

Of course when you accuse me of "picking and choosing",you are really complaining because I DIDN'T "pick and choose" - the way you do. You want me to ignore Isaiah 45:1 You especially want me to ignore Daniel 8:8-9 and Daniel 8:22-23 because they sink your interpretation of the prophecies of Daniel. Don't think I've forgotten how badly you want to avoid discussing those.

quote:

---

As usual, in your ignorance of how Biblical eschatology works, you choose to secularize the holy writ by isolating texts and skewing them into secular literature.

---

On the contrary. I know enough of your Biblical eschatology to understand that it leads to serious misunderstandings of the Bible.That, after, all, is why your side is losing so badly in this debate.

quote:

---

Starman is obviously a highly intelligent, articulate, efficient and witty contribution to EvC. Pay attention to his wisdom and your Biblical understanding will be enhanced.

​

PaulK writes:

​

Except that the stone is never identified as a single person. The stone simply seems to be the Kingdom of God. There simply is no corroboration there.

​

As usual, in your ignorance of how Biblical eschatology works, you choose to secularize the holy writ by isolating texts and skewing them into secular literature. Both corroborated visions are of the world class empires and both end with the end time messianic prince of princes/conquering stone and you refuse to acknowledge the obvious.

​

PaulK writes:

​

You mean he is right to grossly misrepresent my arguments, because it is the only way you can deal with them ? He is right to misrepresent and reject the Bible, because the Bible is subject to the dogma that you share ? He is right to confuse matters by failing even to keep track of his own arguments, because you have no real case ?

​

If you praise starman's dismal record you only confirm how hopelessly weak your position is.

​

Starman is obviously a highly intelligent, articulate, efficient and witty contribution to EvC. Pay attention to his wisdom and your Biblical understanding will be enhanced.

---

Then I guess that his religion must be responsible for his dismal showing. And since this thread nicely demonstrates that his understanding of the Bible is severely lacking, I have nothing to learn form him on that score.

quote:

---

Your idea of representing the bible right might best be fulfilled by a garbage man. You seem to want to extend the Greco Macedonian empire to the ends of time. The bible clearly puts it in a time and place.

---

No, I don't. I have never stated nor implied anything of the sort.

quote:

---

The bible clearly puts it in a time and place. You seem to want to have the end times end in 160 BC, which is absurd, and unsupportable.

---

Daniel 8 provides significant support, backed up by the other "prophecies" in Daniel.
Remember that Daniel 8 is explicitly stated to be an End Times prophecy, and explicitly stated to refer to what we would call the Hellenistic period.The clear references to the acts of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in Daniel provide further evidence confirming this interpretation,

quote:

---

Chiefly, it seems you want to knock Jesus out of the Messiah role, and stick some sad sack dead king in there, who could never dream of starting to fulfill the requirements of being the Lamb, slain from the foundations of the world, that the sacrifices of His people of old all pointed to.

---

I want you to recognise the fact that the Bible does not restrict the term "messiah" to one singular individual. There are messiahs and The Messiah. Isaiah 45:1 explicitly states that Cyrus is a messiah. I have repeatedly made this distinction so that no reasonable person could honestly believe that I was claiming that Cyrus was The Messiah. So why do you keep trying to pretend otherwise ?The fact that Jesus is not an especially good candidate for The Messiah is a side issue, only mentioned in passing. Everyone who knows the Bible understands that the majority of messianic prophecies have yet to be fulfilled.

quote:

---

The stone that comes to rule all kingdoms, is not a person, by the way, any balanced understanding of this from the bible leads to God taking over, not man. In fact, the stone you mention, if you notice was cut without human hands! The demolition derby that destroys the kingdoms of this world can only be presided over by God.

---

Thank you for having the honesty to admit that I was right on this point. It was Buzsaw who claimed that the stone was a single person.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Yes, if you claim Greece is anything more than the belly an thighs of the image, you do. A belly and thighs that were to be followed by another kingdom. Another kingdom that would be here when God takes over.

---

Of course that only follows if you ASSUME that the prophecy must come true. Without that assumption there is no requirement to "extend" the Hellenisitc kingdoms past their historical dates.

quote:

---

Having some local fulfillments to prophesy never preclude the ultimate fulfillments. The key to knowing where the one gets off, and the other starts, is context, and balance, and the rest of the book. Something you sorely lack the ability to deal with.

---

On the contrary, the context supports my case. What I do NOT do is assume that your beliefs take priority over the text of the Bible. That is what you complain about.

quote:

---

Nonsense!!!! There is only One that was to come to save mankind, and make things right again, and that Lamb of God was looked forward to from the getgo.

---

Even assuming orthodox Christian, beleifs that would be The Messiah. However that does not rule out the existence of other messiahs because that require denying what the Bible says.

quote:

---

Calling a king of this world a messiah, is really a misapplication of the term. Anointed is anointed, and saving mankind is saving mankind, and paving the way back to God. All things are not equal.

---

Being a messiah is being anointed, not saving the world. That is what the Hebrew word, whether translated as "anointed" or transliterated as "messiah" means.As I say, if you wish to read anything more than being a messiah (that is being God's anointed) into Isaiah 45:1, that is your problem. It is not a part of my argument.

quote:

---

His birth place, virgin birth, and a lot of other details are given, right on up to the manner of death. To declare Him otherwise is nothing short of an admission of gross ignorance.

---

On the contrary, we don't know where Jesus was born, there is no prophecy of a virgin birth and most of the other details are taken from texts that are not even prophecies, let alone messianic.

quote:

---

No, he was right, in that it is the Person of God. A Person that also was a person. But only the person that was God could fill the bill. You are therefore severely, and totally wrong, in the extreme.

---

I should have known that it wouldn't last. The stone is not stated to be God or any person. The Bible does not say that it is anything other than the Kingdom of God. Why would a stone, cut out of a mountain without hands describe God, rather than a kingdom formed by God's divine action ?