The Prophecy of the 70 weeks of Daniel

Does it? How does it mention the time frame?The choice of the 'beginning' of the time frame is arbitrary, the ending time frame is assumed. For example, the date at least one prophecy solution assumes it the right date is april 6th 32. Prove that is the
date that Jesus entered Jerusalum, using scripture, and historical sources.And, I bet I can find at least one source that will disagree.And, I find it very amusing that you have to have the clock of the last week 'stop' and then resume at a later time. It really is a tortured solution to try to make things fit.Edited by ramoss, : No reason given.

If you want to make it fit, it will fit, no matter what.I don't even think you got the right decade, and the torturous spaghetti reasoning to get to the 70'th week by 'stopping the clock' so to speak makes it totally off.

If it is so clear, how come there are at least 4 different solutions that are mutually exclusive to each other by Christians, not to mention the various Jewish ones?

I think it is pretty obvious there are other explanations other than "Christ" or even "The Messiah". Other explanations, which do not require a supernatural occurence to happen, have been shown to you. You dismissed them out of hand.You made a certain claim.Justify your start date to the day. Justify your end date to the day, using scripture only. Prove that your start date and your end date are not arbitrary.For example, you made a claim of April 6, 32 as when Jesus supposedly came into Jerusualum. Prove it via scripture.You made the start date very exact. Prove it via scripture.

I am sorry, but repeating unsupported assertions do not make your case any stronger.Show support for your dates. I can actually show support for other dates.There have been people who showed support for other start dates, other end dates. Why should I accept you interpretation?
I can make a case for Jesus being executed in 36 ce. not 37 ce, based on the works of Josephus.You have not answered the critisms at all, and merely avoided . Why is that.So, to reiteratewe have unsupported assumptions, an arbitrary start date, and arbitrary end date, and this fits?Out of curiosity, when do you think the Book of Daniel was written?

It's even worse than that.. he can't justify the year 32 c.e., since according to Josephus, John the Baptist was killed in 36 c.e., and Jesus was supposed to have started his ministry when John the Baptist was killed.

Really? I showed at least several alternate intepretations.. and none of them match yours. You have to do better than 'because I said so'

I don't know the oldest date of the oldest extant manuscript, but the first reference to the Book of Danial was in the Sybline oracles in 140 bce..

Daniel's prophecy was 'brilliant', in that the writer of the Book of Daniel wrote as it if was written 400 years before it actually was.After the fact prophecies impress only the gullible

Let's have some real fun.. You try to find ANY evidence it was written before 167 BCE, and explain away the language, the theology, and the symbolism.Please explain away the 3 other main explanations by Christians that think Daniel was a prophecy for Jesus, but each one is mutually exclusive to each other.Please explain away the 3 or 4 different interpretations that the Jewish faith has, (which does not include Jesus at all).Sorry, but you are just being stubborn, and reading into an inkblot to make it mean what you want it to.When you have so many different mutually exclusive explanations, the best explanation is that it means nothing. You are looking for fortune telling that isn't there, and have fooled yourself into seeing it.

Pardon, but that exactly what 'messiah' means. It literally means "anointed one". The two terms are synonymous

This particular piece from FF Bruce shows how bad the art of paleographies can be wrong. The copy of Daniel that was found in Qumran was carbon dated at 125 Bce. Give me hard data over subjective bias any day..

I was not making a judgment on what the text in Daniel fits or does not fit. I was making a statement that Messiah is literally 'anointed one'From a Jewish perspective, the hoped for 'The Messiah' was going to be a military leader (or spiritual leader) to remove foreign rule from Judah, and reestablish a home rule King. (Hint, Herod was not really 'Home rule").I will state that Jesus does not fit Daniel either (IMO). He does not fit the Jewish expectations, nor did he accomplish what is needed for the Jewish Messiah.The entire Daniel prophecy fits the apocalyptic theology that developed in the second century BC, and entirely fits events that happened up to about 163-167 BC, but not after that. The 'messiah' as described in Daniel fits no body, especially not Jesus.In the Jewish culture of the time, there were two 'positions' that were considered 'anointed ones'. One was the High Priest in the temple, the other was the King. The Jewish expectation for "The Messiah" was a king who accomplished certain things.. those things are yet to be accomplished.The Book of Daniel is written in a lot of vague symbolism that can be interpreted many ways. The fact that Christians have 4 basic methods that are mutually exclusive to 'prove' it is about Jesus show that it is hardly accurate for a prophecy. You have 4 different events as a starting point in the Christian versions, 4 different 'end' points in the Christian versions.The simplest explanation is the one that doesn't require any prophecy for the future at all. It's nice, simple, fits all the time frames, and all the writing for the 'correct' prophecies is after the fact.That includes rejecting 3 or 4 different Jewish versions too, all of which are mutually exclusive with each other, as well as the ones Christian versions.

Do you have a more accurate way? Yes , I do.Let's see you give something better. Paleographies isn't it. The article by FF Bruce is at least 30 years out of date with better technology.

I see you are relying on mistranslations.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.As for 'virgin', that is Isaiah 7:14, where the word 'Almah' in Hebrew means 'young maiden', and if you bothered to read on context, (what an amazing concept), you will see that Isaiah is talking about his own wife (the prophetess, see Isaiah 8:4), and his own son.The other part are also 'retrofitting' random phrases taken out of context , and written to. Sounds bits shoe horned into being a non-existant prophecy is not very honest.One of these days you should look at the supposed prophecies in CONTEXT. You will find that none of them, in context, either were prophecies to begin with, or do not fit Jesus.I would like to see you, without referring to the claims of the Bible, evidence that Jesus was 3 days in hell. For that matter,I would like to see evidence from outside the bible within, oh, 40 years of Jesus's alledged execution that he actually existed. That would bring it up to around the Jewish revolt, and the time frame that Mark was just about being circulated.