|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Christianity and the End Times | |||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: That’s your opinion. The text of Daniel argues against it.
quote: Without a certain start date - which you don’t have - you can’t say who did or did not come at the end of the 69 weeks. And that’s before we include the fact that you are prepared to assume massive gaps in the count. Moreover neither messiah is said to put an end to transgressions - which surely hasn’t happened anyway. I only have to deal with what the text says, not your assumptions.
quote: That’s not what you’ve been saying before. According to you the seventieth week hasn’t even started.
quote: Which is more evidence that Daniel is dealing with the period of the Maccabean revolt.
quote: You assume that there is a switch in context, but the text is a continuous narrative with no sign of it.
quote: The illumination is here. You just reject it because it doesn’t fit with your beliefs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
PaulK writes: Without a certain start date - which you don’t have - you can’t say who did or did not come at the end of the 69 weeks. I only had a vague memory of there being a number of decrees and I couldn't remember how the one considered the right one was identified. The following commentary makes all that clear. Here the four decrees to rebuild Jerusalem are identified, but it turns out only one of them is a command to rebuld the city itself, the other three are about rebuilding the temple, so since the prophecy starts with a decree to rebuild the city that's the right starting point. And it isn't Cyrus, it's Artaxerxes' decree to Nehemiah. Nehemiah is the one who organized the people to rebuild different sections of the walls of the city, which is reported on in the book of Nehemiah. In this part of the commentary he explains how Palm Sunday is the most popular ending point for the sixty-nine weeks, while the crucifixion is preferred by very few. NONE of the speculations refer to the time of the Maccabees, which is way too early for any of the possible calculations. Also the most convincing calculations use the 360-day calendar in use in Daniel's day. And, near the end of this commentary he mentions that the first seven weeks, or 49 years, that are the first separated part of the prophecy are understood to be the time in which the rebuilding of the city took place. I tried to post this and lost it because of that glitch that takes me to the log-in page when I try to post. I've tried to correct it and hope I succeeded but won't know until I try again. So at the moment I'm just going to post this with my comments above, and will have to pick it up sometime later. Will also get to the actual calculations later too.
3. (Dan 9:25) The course and dividing of the seventy weeks. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince, there shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublesome times. a. From the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem: Here Gabriel revealed to Daniel the starting point for the seventy-weeks prophecy. There was a command to restore and build Jerusalem in history that started this specific period of time. i. The Bible presents four possible decrees that might fulfill this description:Cyrus made a decree giving Ezra and the Babylonian captives the right to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple in 538 b.c. (Ezra 1:1-4 and 5:13-17). Darius made a decree giving Ezra the right to rebuild the temple in 517 b.c. (Ezra 6:6-12). Artaxerxes made a decree giving Ezra permission, safe passage, and supplies to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple in 458 b.c. (Ezra 7:11-26). Artaxerxes made a decree giving Nehemiah permission, safe passage and supplies to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the city and the walls in 445 b.c. (Nehemiah 2:1-8). ii. Only the last of these four decrees was a command to restore and build Jerusalem. The first three each focused on the temple, not on the street or on the wall. Seems pretty clear at this point that the last on the list is the decree that starts the seventy weeks countdown.
b. Until Messiah the Prince, there shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks: Gabriel’s message to Daniel was simple and striking. 483 years — that is, 69 units of seven years — would pass from the time of the command recorded in Nehemiah 2:1-8 until the appearance of Messiah the Prince. i. Some say the 483 years were completed at the time of Jesus’ birth (5 or 4 b.c.). There is little chronological support for this date. ii. Some say the 483 years were completed at His baptism, at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry (if dated at a.d. 26). This is possible if one begins with the earlier decree of Artaxerxes, and figures with our present measurement for years (365.25 days to a year) instead of the ancient measurement of years (360 days to a year). iii. Some say the 483 years were completed at the triumphal entry of Jesus (if dated at a.d. 32). Sir Robert Anderson’s significant work The Coming Prince followed this argument in great detail. Anderson, using a 360-day year (which Israel used in Daniel’s day), calculated 173,880 days from the decree to the triumphal entry, fulfilling the prophecy to the day. It is customary for the Jews to have twelve months of 360 days each and then to insert a thirteenth month occasionally when necessary to correct the calendar. (Walvoord) The year a.d. 32 (based on Luke 3:1) for Jesus’ death is controversial (most chronologists favor a.d. 30 or 33). But recent attempts have made some case for the date: A recent article attempts to give credence to the date of a.d. 32; cf. R.E. Showers, Grace Journal, XI (Winter, 1970), pp. 30ff. The evidence presented is worthy of notice. (Wood) No one today is able dogmatically to declare that Sir Robert Anderson’s computations are impossible. (Walvoord) iv. Some say the 483 years were completed at the exact time of the crucifixion. This is a minority opinion. Most who find the date near this time also see it belonging to the Triumphal Entry, which happened seven days before the crucifixion. c. Until Messiah the Prince: Taking Anderson’s calculations as reliable, we see a remarkable fulfillment of prophecy. A Gentile king made a decree and 483 years later to the day, Jesus presented Himself as Messiah the Prince to Israel. i. In our mind a Prince is a good step lower than a king. In the Hebrew vocabulary, Prince has more the idea of strong, mighty ruler than son of a king and heir to the throne. ii. There was only one occasion in our Lord’s earthly ministry on which He is depicted as presenting Himself openly as Zion’s King, the so-called ‘Triumphal Entry,’ recorded in each one of the Gospels and fulfilling Zechariah 9:9 and Psalm 118:26. (Newell) On that day, Jesus deliberately arranged the event to present Himself as Messiah (Mark 11:1-10). On that day, Jesus welcomed praise (Luke 19:38-40) instead of quieting it (Luke 5:14 and 8:56). On that day, Jesus made special reference to the importance of that day (Luke 19:41-42). iii. This prophecy is so specifically fulfilled that it has been a significant testimony to many. Others of the Jewish [scholars], by the evidence of these words, have been compelled to confess that Messiah is already come, and that he was that Jesus whom their forefathers crucified. (Trapp) d. The street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublesome times: This indicates that the rebuilding of the streets and wall of Jerusalem would happen in the first seven weeks mentioned. Then would follow another 62 weeks of years until the coming of Messiah the Prince. i. The seventy weeks are divided into three parts: Seven weeks — 49 years, until the city and its walls are rebuilt.69 weeks (7 plus 62), 483 years from the decree, until Messiah the Prince appears. A final 70th week to complete the prophecy. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Unfortunately for your argument we have strong evidence that the intended end point is in the Maccabean period. Unless you have equally strong evidence for the start point your argument fails. And you do not. It is only speculation that the word to restore Jerusalem is a command from the Persian emperor. Thus, listing them is not adequate. Note also, that Christian apologists often prefer the decree of Artaxerxes to Ezra since 458 BC gives a better date. I’m still waiting for evidence of a 360 day year without corrections - even your quote admits that there were corrections which would have made the 490 years longer than if the year was simply 360 days long.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Unfortunately for your argument we have strong evidence that the intended end point is in the Maccabean period. You have no evidence at all because there is exactly ZERO fulfillment of the prophecy in the Maccabean period. ZERO. The sixty-nine weeks don't come anywhere near it no matter how you fiddle around with dates. The only decree that can start the seventy weeks is the one by Artaxerxes to Nehemiah because it's the only one that actually commands what the prophecy says it commands. That's IT, and from there the sixty-nine weeks takes us beyond Maccabees into the life of Christ. Your accusation that it's chosen because we want it that way is utterly unfounded. ABE: It is only speculation that the word to restore Jerusalem is a command from the Persian emperor. Calling this mere speculation is silly. Nehemiah's concern was for the people still living in the city without walls and gates (see Nehemiah 1:3), it was not about the temple which other decrees dealt with. When the king gives him permission to go he asks for timber for houses and for the gates of the city (Nehemiah 2:8). When he gets there he organizes the people into families and tribes and other groupings to build particular portions of the wall of the city. This is about the CITY, the other decrees are about the temple and the seventy-weeks prophecy starts with a decree about the CITY. So stop with the irrelevant stuff and the accusations please. /ABE Your messiahs are NOT "Messiah the Prince." I don't know how you can continue to make such a ridiculous claim, Paul, you have NO grounds for your choise of the Maccabean period. I intend to get to the discussion in this commentary about how the dates are computed. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Oh and the date of Artaxerxes' decree is not tp Ezra in 458 BC, which was just another about the temple, it's the one to Nehemiah in 445 BC.
But if anybody is computing dates based on wanting them to validate their own prejudices it's you. Clearly you prefer the Maccabean period to the lifetime of Jesus Christ though the actual prophecies point to Christ, and you have to make everything up to get things to point to the Maccabean period.. ABE: There is plenty of prophecy in Daniel involving the Maccabean period but not the prophecy of the seventy weeks. The little horn in Daniel 8 is Antiochus Epiphanes who desecrated the temple and was defeated by the Maccabees. The little horn in Daniel 7 is a different little horn, which arises out of the fourth beast, the Roman Empire which follows the Greeks, the third Empire, from which Antiochus emerges. The little horn from the Roman Empire is understood to be the Antichrist who appears in the last of the last days. After the seventy weeks prophecy in Daniel 9, there is a lengthy prophecy from Daniel 10 through 12 which takes us back to the Maccabean period, but then it ends with the final Antichrist who comes from the Roman Empire. But the seventy weeks counts to Jesus Christ, its final week reaching into the future to the final Antjchrist. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The issue is that Daniel has nothing to do with Jesus and it is only the Dogma of your Cult that tries to force fit Daniel (and almost every other messianic prophesy) to meet YOUR fantasies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: You mean apart from the rise of Antiochus, and his attacks on the city and ending the sacrifices and putting up pagan altars in the Temple....
quote: But it is speculation. There is no mention of the source of the command in Daniel.
quote: I have the actual text of Daniel. If you consider that worthless then that is your problem.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Well you just go and tell the people who disagree with you that they are wrong.
quote: So you think that I wrote Daniel 8 and Daniel 9-12 and parts of Daniel 9, too. Well no, I didn’t make them up. Unlike the addition of a gap into the prophecy of seventy weeks (four times bigger than the span of the prophecy!) or the change of context in Daniel 11 you assume.
quote: Then it is very odd that the prophecy of the seventy weeks fits the Maccabean period so much better than it does the time of Jesus.
quote: Daniel doesn’t even mention the Roman Empire and the brief mention of the Republic of Rome hardly gives it a central position (did you know that the phrase a line in the sand comes from a confrontation between a Roman commander and Antiochus?) And if you read Daniel 10-12 you will see that there is no change to talking about Rome. It still talks about the Kings of the North and the South, established as the Diadochi kingdoms in 11:4
quote: Until you come up with a better reason than it didn’t happen it only reaches seven years past a messiah being cut off. (And most if it did happen in the years after Onaias’ murder)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You keep doing this, Paul, making assertions about how your interpretation is right without offering any evidence for it. I think you offered some way back there, but you can't just keep making assertions, you have to lay out your evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You have no evidence at all because there is exactly ZERO fulfillment of the prophecy in the Maccabean period. ZERO. You mean apart from the rise of Antiochus, and his attacks on the city and ending the sacrifices and putting up pagan altars in the Temple... We are talking about the seventy weeks of Daniel 9. That is no part of the prophecy of the seventy weeks. That is in Daniel 8 and again in Daniel 11m not in Daniel 9..'''''
Calling this mere speculation is silly. But it is speculation. There is no mention of the source of the command in Daniel. For pete's sake, we know the emperiors issued decrees or commands for the work on the temple, and we know that Nehemiah asked to go to Jerusalem, also asked for timper to rebuild the gates of the city, and the emperor granted his request, and he was going specifically to rebuild the city not the temple. I don't know what text you are reading but this is all very clear in mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: But I have offered evidence for it. And you pretend it doesn’t exist. But I’m still waiting for any evidence for a 360 day year, used without any additional corrections. Or any real evidence for a gap in the seventy weeks or for Rome playing any part beyond the minor one in Daniel 11. You don’t even admit to the evidence I pointed out in the post you are replying to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Daniel 9:26 has the attacks on Jerusalem. 9:27 has the ending of sacrifices and the pagan altar.
quote: So ?
quote: Daniel 9:25. Where does it say that the command comes from a Persian Emperor ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Daniel doesn't even mention the Roman Empire I can't believe you said that. The Roman Empire was not yet in existence during Daniel's time. Nor for that matter was Medo Persia if you go back to Daniel's days under Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar. That empire came during his tenure, but he didn't live to see the Greek or Roman Empires. So of course it isn't named. But just as the other two empires were identified by the angel as Persia and Greece, two that had been prefigured by symbols in visions, so we know that the empire that followed them that was also prefigured in his visions was the Roman Empire though it is not identified except by its symbols. It's really simple Paul, but you seem to have an agenda that has to dispute these obvious things. Oh yes I read Daniel 10 to 12, and it is clear that the events change at the very end of the prophecy so we know the topic is no longer Antiochus but an unknown similar figure yet to come.; Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The issue is that Daniel has nothing to do with Jesus and it is only the Dogma of your Cult that tries to force fit Daniel (and almost every other messianic prophesy) to meet YOUR fantasies. Funny how well the number of years works out to Jesus then. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Nevertheless it is true. The idea that the Roman Empire is mentioned is an interpretation based on false assumptions. The mentions of the Diadochi Kingdoms in Daniel 8 and 11 are clear. But there is no such mention on the Roman Empire. Even the Roman Republic’s intervention in Antiochus’ wars isn’t obvious unless you know the history.
quote: Or, since we know that it is the Diadochi kingdoms that are the final Empire (as Daniel 8 and 10-12 make clear) Rome obviously isn’t part of it. (And isn’t it awkward for your interpretation that Rome is gone and that there have been other Empires since then?)
quote: Then why is it still talking about that Diadochi Kings in 11:40 ? Where is this change and what justifies the idea that there is a change?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024