|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Christianity and the End Times | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Faith writes: And even your comment about the Messiah coming after the first 49 years needs support. Which of your two messiahs and when did he appear? If you weren’t too busy ignoring what I wrote - and repeating the same obvious error even after I explained it again shows that you were - then you’d already have seen the support and know.You could even work it out yourself easily enough. Well, I do have such a different scenario in mind I probably did miss your way of working out your own, so please forgive me for missing it, and for the sake of improving communication and defending your own point of view, please repeat your calculations.
But since you haven't answered shall I suppose you can't relate your scenario to the seventy weeks prophecy at all? Since you haven’t given any reason to think that Daniel 9 meant to use an uncorrected 360 day year, or any valid reason to suppose that there is a gap in the 490 years, or any valid reason to think that Daniel 11 suddenly changes subject or any reason to think that the actual Roman Empire could make a comeback - despite having far more time and continuing to post to this topic - may I assume that you have no answer ? All that is irrelevant to the question I'm asking you, so I continue to suppose you are just avoiding the fact that you have no answer. Which you can't have because there is no way the seventy weeks have anything to do with the Maccabean period. It is sufficient for my scenario that the sixty-nine weeks counts to the lifetime of Jesus no matter which starting point is used, and no matter which calendar is used, and there is no getting around that. There is nothing whatever in your scenario that fulfills any of the seventy week prophecy, not one part of it.
Sinking to this level is only proof of your desperation. Well I'm very certain of my interpretation and if anybody is desperate I would suppose it must be you because you continue to avoid the glaring fact that your Maccabean scenario fits nothing whatever in the seventy weeks prophecy. All your accusations and carrying on serve only to put up a smokescreen as far as I can see.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Anyway the seventy weeks. Ah, at last.
As I said the endpoint is the Maccabean revolt with the murder of Onaias marking the start of the last seven years. OK So now you have to get TO the Maccabean revolt.
The case for this is very strong unlike the argument that there are an extra 280 sevens or more that just happened to get left out of the prophecy for no apparent reason. But that is a huge straw man since I've said nothing about an extra 280 sevens. All the seventy weeks prophecy is fulfilled in what I've described up through the coming of the Messiah, and the only thing left out is the last week, seven years, which is understood to be yet future. Please stick to justifying your own scenario instead of making false accusations against mine.
The dates don’t really work out whether through error in the author’s part or a schematic system that doesn’t match actual history. Since the 70 likely comes from Jeremiah’s 70 years it may be schematic (the chapter opens with a reading from Jeremiah). Oh the dates work out fine for anybody who isn't determined to make a mess of them. We get to the time of Jesus by them. Yes, Jeremiah's prophecy launches the new prophecy but seventy years is not seventy sevens of years. The Babylonian Captivity is coming to an end after seventy years and Daniel has just discovered that by reading the book of Jerimiah, and now he is being introduced to a prophecy of things to come after the end of the captivity.
If the 49th year is intended to be Cyrus’ conquest of Babylon then the start date works out to be about right for a prophecy of Jeremiah (it is in the period he was active) as I have previously suggested. This is very confused. You are making Jeremiah's prophecy of seventy years for the duration of the Babylonian Captivity into your starting date for the seventy weeks? And believe me it took me some doing even to figure this much out. Is there anything in Jeremiah's prophecy that suggests a command or decree to rebuild the city of Jerusalem, because that is the starting point given for the seventy weeks. You don't quote it which requires me to look it up but if I do that now I know from experience I'll lose my post so I'll have to do it later. I've never seen any reference whatever to Jeremiah's prophecy as related to the command to rebuild Jerusalem so I think it's fairly safe to assume it isn't there. The command has to be one of the four quoted in the commentary I posted earlier on this thread, only one of which actually mentions the city, the others being about rebuilding the temple. You have NO justification for making Jeremiah your starting point. No wonder the timing is such a mess if you start from there. Then you've got Cyrus' conquest of Babylon as the 49th year or first seven weeks of the seventy weeks prophecy? How did you arrive at that? Oh, it's "in the period when he was active?" In other words it doesn't work at all, even if it made sense. What does Cyrus' conquest have to do with the seventy weeks' prophecy? You make him into the Messiah I guess? But even the 49 years you claim for that doesn't work. Well I see that your timing is even more confused than I expected it to be. It doesn't work, period.;
The end date, on the other hand ought to be about 98BC. That is obviously wrong, Anything calculated from Jeremiah is going to be wrong in relation to anything in Daniel's prophecies, but why not give us the numbers so we can see how wrong?
...but given that we know the intended end date, Well there's your problem, you are assuming an intended end date based on your own misreading of the prophecies. It doesn't fit and you make that the fault of the prophecy?
Your problem is that Daniel 9 doesn't have anything to do with the Maccabean period. You are imposing the other prophecies that ARE about that period onto this one which isn't about it. There isn't the slightest relation to the Maccabean period in Daniel 9. None of the seventy weeks has anything to do with the Maccabean period. ...the only alternative to assuming that the dates are wrong or schematic is to find alternative interpretations which do fit and I am not aware of any plausible options. Well, you are right, there aren't any plausible options once you've decided that the Maccabean period is the intended end date. Well, thank you for spelling all that out after all so I can get a better idea of how wrong it is. No wonder I kept ignoring it, I couldn't make any sense of it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Funny how you always say that about stuff that doesn’t really work at all.
quote: Funny how you abandoned the discussion then, with no real explanation of how there could be a continuous Roman Empire or any explanation of why later empires were excluded. Until you manage that you have no viable list. Your future empire must be a new one, and the Ottomans at least must be included. Probably the Sasanians, too and the British. Last time I looked eight is not four.
quote: I am not ignoring it. I just reject your interpretation because you ignore too much of it and it’s relation to the other prophecies.
quote: You can’t squeeze it in either. The only thing you have is the rough calculation of the date of Jesus’ death. The rest all fails. Daniel 7 does not contradict it and Daniel 9 agrees more than it disagrees. Not to mention Daniel 8 and Daniel 10-12
quote: The fact that the prophecy failed hardly proves that your interpretation is right.
quote: 60 years is a much smaller error than 2000 years. Daniel 8 and Daniel 10-12 confirm that the end of the world was meant to occur in the Maccabean revolt, and Daniel 7 is consistent with that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: On the contrary. The question is whether you are prepared to be held to the same standard - or in fact a considerably more lenient one. The answer is that you are not.
quote: And that is an outright lie. I not only have very good candidates for the messiahs, i also have the city being stormed, and the sacrifice being taken away and the abomination of desolation all in the years directly following a messiah’s death. You don’t.
quote: Funny how your accusations apply more to your own conduct. I at least have not stooped to lies, double standards, or inventing gaps in the narrative.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: How else do you get to our future ? If you want to say the whole thing was fulfilled in the years immediately following the crucifixion go ahead. But otherwise you need to actually account for those extra years.
quote: Well make your mind up. If the fulfilment is in our future you have at least 280 more sevens to account for.
quote: The last seven years do not work for you.
quote: If you make things up your confusion is your own fault. And in fact the entire paragraph is too confused to be worth answering.
quote: On the contrary, I am basing it on the very clear evidence from Daniel 8 and Daniel 10-12 as you ought to know by now, as well as the fact that much of Daniel 9 does fit.
quote: That’s your opinion. However since,overall, my interpretation fits much better with the Book of Daniel I disagree with you.
quote: Your confusion comes from not reading it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Oh but we do. [have a viable list of four empires, which I go on to spell out in much detail.] Funny how you abandoned the discussion then, with no real explanation of how there could be a continuous Roman Empire or any explanation of why later empires were excluded. Until you manage that you have no viable list. That is false. I abandoned that discussion because there's only so far one can go with speculations about an unknown future. All the prophecies we've discussed so far have a known fulfillment we can point to -- the historical sequence of the empires, the breakup of Greece and the emergence of Antiochus Epiphanes who is defeated by the Maccabees, and the coming of Jesus Christ and His crucifixion. We also know that the Roman Empire has to be the fourth empire prophesied because that was the empire into which Christ was born. All that is history, not speculative future. But the idea of a continuation of the Roman Empire into the future has not been fulfilled so everything concerning it can only be speculative and tentative. I don't have to know anything for sure about it, but since I have some ideas about it I have offered them. I( can't prove it because it hasn't come, and I may change my mind about it as time goes on. There is no point in pursuing it further because there is no way to know how it will play out. We have to wait and see.
Your future empire must be a new one, and the Ottomans at least must be included. Probably the Sasanians, too and the British. Last time I looked eight is not four. You are continuing a discussion that is purely speculative on your part as well as mine. There is no point in pursuing it and I returned to the earlier discussion because it refers to history that we can argue about with more certainty.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: We don’t need to look at the future to know your interpretation doesn’t work. The fall of the Roman Empire and the following empires in the region are all history. And in fact you couldn’t even offer speculations that really addressed the problem that continuity is very thoroughly broken.
quote: The fact that the Roman Empire is so thoroughly gone that any revival would be a new Empire is not speculation.
quote: The existence of all three empires and the fact that they have held the Holy Land at various points in history is not speculation. It is not a problem for my view, but it certainly is for yours.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
...the problem that continuity is very thoroughly broken. that is a problem from your point of view because of your way of looking at the prophecies, but I think there is a fulfillment to come that you can't anticipate, and for that matter I may not be anticipating it all that well either. But I don't want to discuss these speculations with you beyond this point because you don't know and I don't either and besides, your way of dealing with the prophecies is so off the charts wrong there's just no point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
Faith writes: but I think there is a fulfillment to come that you can't anticipate, and for that matter I may not be anticipating it all that well either. But I don't want to discuss these speculations with you beyond this point because you don't know and I don't either Some fucking prophecy...Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: That’s just reality. The Roman Empire IS gone. There is no continuity of government.
quote: My reading fits the text far better than yours. That’s why it is my reading.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
My reading fits the text far better than yours. That’s why it is my reading. Just a reminder that you garble up Daniel 7 and 9, confusing the Roman little horn with the Greek little horn, and mangling the seventy weeks prophecy which doesn't have anything to do with the Maccabean period you've arbitrarily made your intended goal, ignoring the fact that the weeks do count to Jesus' lifetime instead, and probably exactly to his entry into Jerusalem. But you've got things so confused there's no point in getting into that discussion yet, it would just confuse the confusions all the more.; Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
PaulK writes: Faith writes: You are right to focus on Antiochus Epiphanes' defeat by the Maccabees as a major part of the prophetic picture but you are wrong to ignore Daniel 9 which shows the bigger context of the coming of the Messiah and the fourth empire I am not ignoring it. I just reject your interpretation because you ignore too much of it and it’s relation to the other prophecies. Except for the fact that Antiochus is the type or symbol or model for the future Antichrist who is based on the little horn of the fourth empire of Daniel 7, there is no relation to the other prophecies. Daniel 8 and 10-to 12, except for a few verses at the end of each, refer to the Maccabean period, Daniel 7 and 9 refer to the fourth empire and to Jesus Christ, and with the verses at the end of each of the chapters to a future time that hasn't yet come, and that is what you are ignoring. Is there any point in continuing this discussion? It's very clear by now what our different interpretations are and there doesn't seem to be any way either of us is going to change. You have your scenario, I have mine and we seem to have come to the usual impasse. If there is something in particular you would like me to address I'll take a look at it but beyond that I think I've done it for this thread. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
But that is a huge straw man since I've said nothing about an extra 280 sevens. How else do you get to our future ? If you want to say the whole thing was fulfilled in the years immediately following the crucifixion go ahead. But otherwise you need to actually account for those extra years. No I don't, I just have to deal with the seventy weeks and all that is left after the crucifixion is the one seventieth week of the prophecy, which has no fulfillment in the time frame you are insisting on and therefore looks to the future. abe This won't mean anything to you but as I've been immersed in these prophecies on account of this thread -- for which I should thank you by the way since it's allowed me to get more deeply into the Daniel prophecies -- I'm appreciating them a lot more. For instance, because the sixty-ninth week does appear to arrive at the entry into Jerusalem where Jesus announces his Messiahship, and the seventieth week has no fulfillment in that time period, that means everything after that is outside the prophecy of the weeks until the future when the seventy weeks are resumed with the seventieth week. And that means the Church Age in some sense starts after the Palm Sunday entry into Jerusalem, includes the crucifixion and the destruction of the temple and most of the city by Titus plus the rest of the New Testament and the following two thousand years of history to the present. But up to and including the entry into Jerusalem we are still in the Daniel prophecy of the seventy weeks, which is mostly addressed to ethnic Israel, and when the seventieth week finally comes around it will be ethnic Israel that again emerges as the Saints of the Most High for the grand finale of the prophecy which was addressed to Daniel's people and city, which will also be the grand finale of planet Earth and then Jesus will return. It's all about time inside and time outside the seventy weeks. Thanks for drawing my attention to that. Really really interesting prophecy going on here. /abe But again, I'm not sure there is any point in continuing this discussion as I say above, we are just going to keep repeating our separate views. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Empty assertion is no excuse for argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It wasn't intended as argument, it's a summary.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024