The Prophecy of the 70 weeks of Daniel

quote:

---

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.

---

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??

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:

---

For example, the 'pierced' sounds like a reference to Psalm 22, which the word "k'ari" means 'like a lion' not 'pierced. It is a Psalm of David, in which he is being described as being harried by his opponents.

---

I see, so they decided to pierce his hands and feet? Not very funny. You may not relegate the scriptures that talk of the Messiah to some king of Israel. But, in case this is news to you, when He returns, the folks in Israel will look on Him whom they have pierced.Zech 12:10 10 "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.Oh, and in case you want to pretend that the wounnds were not those of jesus, ...
Zec 13:6"And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.""And then, of course, there are still hundreds of other prophecies, all of which were fulfilled by Jesus Christ: His virgin birth (Isaiah 7:14); His birth in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2); His sacrificial death (Isaiah 53:5); His crucifixion (Psalm 22:14-18); His bodily resurrection (Psalm 16:10); and many others. All of these unite in their witness that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” (John 20:31).The probability that hundreds of such specific predictions, each quite independent of the others, could all be fulfilled concurrently in one individual, is unlikely in the highest degree, especially in view of the miraculous nature of many of them (e.g., the virgin birth, the resurrection, etc.). No rational conclusion seems possible except that Jesus is all He claims - Messiah, Savior, Lord and God."THE MESSIAHHow do we know that Jesus was the Messiah? - ChristianAnswers.NetDon't you wish that science as applied to the past had something 1/1000000th as solid??"

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

That a messiah is not necessarily The Messiah. Just like Louis XIV was a king but he wasn't The King.

---

soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

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.

No, it isn't about Jesus at all. First of all, in the hebrew, in 'perfect tense', which means it is a completed action (i.e. past tense).It's hard to make a prediction of the future when it is in past tense.Now, I am sure the writers of the Gospels used it, but that doesn't mean that it was a prediction of the future. That is the technique known as 'retrofitting'.

Apparently there is since you have been going on about it on this thread.I am replying to a link you posted, a link that you provided to answer my question about the earliest extant Daniel text!Did you post this link to provide a date for the earliest text before you read it since it doesn't give a date?Will I take it that you do not know the date of the earliest extant text? That's what I'm asking you mate. But, I am asking the date of the earliest extant Daniel text, NOT the era that the contents are said to represent. I have no problem with the Bible authors making mistakes, the Bible is rife with errors, but that wasn't my point.You asked if I had some reason to doubt the sacred texts, and I gave you ONE reason why there's not a single solitary scholar that doesn't doubt some parts of the Book of Daniel. I am glad you agree with me on this at least. So can I, but probably for different reasons.But the point that you agree that the Bible contains errors is well noted.

So you want to call every one that was anointed a messiah. Go ahead. That does not affect what the text means when it refers to the Messiah, of course.

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

So, what is "it"?? Some verse? Some part of some verse?
By the way, when it talks about God, the Messiah, I see no reason it wouldn't be perfect in tense as well as content. What He says is literally, exactly as good as done, whether some of it is completed yet or not, it will be.And, when we give some period, like 62 group of seven years till the Head honcho comes, and dies, etc, then we should consider it done. Especially when He was cut off, and etc over 2000 years ago.

quote:

---

Apparently there is since you have been going on about it on this thread.

​

I am replying to a link you posted, a link that you provided to answer my question about the earliest extant Daniel text!

​

Did you post this link to provide a date for the earliest text before you read it since it doesn't give a date?

​

Will I take it that you do not know the date of the earliest extant text?

---

The earliest hard copy of an ancient document doesn't matter. Have you some reason to declare that the whole Jewish race, and their sacred writings were a hoax, and fraud??? That sounds pretty anti semitic to me. Better to deal in evidence, and I see no reason to doubt the records. Except of course that some don't like it. Too bad. What you got??

quote:

---

I have no problem with the Bible authors making mistakes, the Bible is rife with errors, but that wasn't my point.

---

I don't believe you, you are rife with errors!

quote:

---

You asked if I had some reason to doubt the sacred texts, and I gave you ONE reason why there's not a single solitary scholar that doesn't doubt some parts of the Book of Daniel. I am glad you agree with me on this at least.

---

But what is the REASON the so called scholar doubts? Let's see it. From what I hear, it amounts to' We do not believe in the supernatural, and angels, and miracles, so it HAD to be written after the fact, or it would be precisely that'!! Not much of a case, now is it?? And I am having trouble getting any of you to pony up some solid reasons to declare the elders and leaders of the land of Israel over many centuries to be involved in some hack job?? What, just an insinuation is enough??Don't think so. I rest my case.

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.

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

Of course it does. What are you on about? I haven’t said any writings were a hoax, all I have asked you is the date of the oldest extant text of Daniel! A question you have dodged how many times now, 6 or 7? So what are the earliest extant records?Since you deal in evidence, what is the date of the earliest extant evidence? How can I have anything when you haven’t answered the question yet? You know why, you even posted a link and admitted that the author messed up with the name Darius the Mede! In the example in question, it is the amount of evidence that shows there was no such person as Daniel’s Darius. I haven’t posted anything yet mate, I’m still trying to get you to answer the simple question that I keep asking you, and you get all defensive.Once you answer this question we can move on to my next question which will start to build a background and an understanding of the issues surrounding of the Book of Daniel.Then, perhaps, we can discuss these issues rationally.But I find with some my students that they learn much better with a step by step approach, instead of trying to tackle too many issues at the same time.So, chill out, focus on my question, and if you do not have an answer then just say so, this isn’t a problem.One more time:What is the date of the oldest existing text of the Book of Daniel?