The Prophecy of the 70 weeks of Daniel

I do need to prove dates that are part of sacred texts, and as the dead sea scrolls attest, a very important part of them. Jesus also attested. It is also insane in my opinion, to believe that Israel or whoever you might think did it, made such an elaborate hoax. One that included counting back the years from Jesus, and temple destruction, to arrive at the time of the decree. The 62 weeks, if written after the fact, might be even more amazing. To claim that Daniel really was not living as he claimed, in Babylon, in the palace, and a captive, etc, seems to require some evidence.You have none. I can say that your doubts, as obviously baseless as they are, are very overrated, apparently inside your head.

We is we of whom had the record, and we who know it to be true. We that touched, and handled Him, and we that died to verify He rose from the dead.
We, the believers, to whom the record was given.You may prove that record wrong if you can, but it has walked over the rotting corpses of naysayers of centuries past, and stood the test of time. You will need more than doubt here, that has no basis in fact, and cannot stand the light of day.

It proves that the debate is far from as clear cut as you present it. It proves that there are doubts over the identity of the Gospel we have, so it is a very important point.

quote:

---

Brian writes:

​

And then you would have to assume that the text we have was exactly the same as the one that 'Matthew' wrote, and we know that there are many variants of all of the Gospels, look at the long ending of Mark for eaxmple.

​

Icant "You mean to tell me science can assume a smear, a pea sized universe that our universe came from existed in an absence of No Thing.

​

This is a fact we know it is, we are here.

---

I don't mean to tell you anything about the BB, I didn't even mention it, I don't even think about it to be honest, it does not interest me at all. In historical research mate you really should not assume ANYTHING, what you should do is to look at the evidence and then come to a reasonable conclusion. Now look at the evidence I and others are being asked to accept without criticism. We are told that the author of Matthew foretold the fall of the Temple in 70CE and when we ask for the text that he wrote we are handed something written over 300 years after the fall of the Temple, can you blame us for being sceptical? I have it as well, but I have no idea if it is the same one that people were reading in the early church, and if you were being honest you would admit this too. Because you do not know when the Temple prophecy was included in the text. What if we found a pre-70 CE gMat and this prophecy wasn't in it? You are a student of the Bible, you must know that all books in it show signs of editing and redaction, why have a naive approach to studying the texts? There's only good evidence if you have already made up your mind that Matthew wrote gMat before 70 CE.The thing you seem to be unaware of is that it makes not one iota of a difference to my life if gMat was written by the disciple Matthew in the year 30, 40, or 50 CE, it would make no difference to my life at all.However, as it stands, we do have NO evidence of gMat before the mid 2nd century CE, we have no extant texts before the 4th century CE, we have mentions of a gMat whose description may or may not fit the gMat that we have in our Bibles. The evidence is not greatly in favour of your position. Well let's put it this way, there's more evidence that a Ferrari is faster than a Ford Mondeo than there is evidence for the Book of Matthew being written by the apostle Matthew, therefore the apostle Matthew could not have written the Gospel of Matthew.Silly argument though isn't it?Edited by Brian, : quote formatting error

quote:

---

Maybe it doesn't matter to you, but to critical scholarship it matters a great deal. For example, if you could produce a contemporary gMat then that would give you a strong argument, as it is though, what is the earliest extant gMat, is it 300 or 400 years after Jesus died? That gives ample time for editing.

---

No, that says nothing about how we had the records circulating already, and knew what the record of Matthew was! That simply says the record is doubted by an outsider. So??? You have nothing to say about it, we had, and have the record.

quote:

---

'We' actually have a great many variant copies of all of the Gospels, which shows that they really weren't viewed as authoratative for a few centuries. Early xians certainly never put as much faith in these texts as you do.

---

You seem to doubt God, now as well, and His ability to get a good collection of the records we had together! Your doubts are worthless. Get it?? Try fact. The fact is you got nothin. We got plenty.

quote:

---

Indeed we don't. That is why the book is entitled 'according to Matthew'. There is no good reason to suppose its author(s) even knew Jesus.

---

Being a deciple really is a great reason! Having his records passed down, in the sacred way we did stuff, means we knew it was his. You do not. So?? Tell us what you DO know, not what you doubt, for no apparent reason. That matters not at all.

quote:

---

Do you know the earliest gMat in existence that mentions the Temple 'prophecy'?

---

Are you doubting it was destroyed now?? Or are you doubting Jesus was alive before that? Or are you suggesting another hoax here, where evil fraudsters conspired to fabricate a prophesy??? Or do you even have a point?

quote:

---

... everything you have ever posted at this site only demonstrates an ignorance of a collection of texts you explicitly adore far more than you adore the Man that 27 books of it are about.

---

The Man that said Daniel was a prophet, and that the temple would be destroyed? The man that defied all laws of temporary universe physics? The Man that called Matthew? Boy do you got a wrong number. Work on that.

Maybe it doesn't matter to you, but to critical scholarship it matters a great deal. For example, if you could produce a contemporary gMat then that would give you a strong argument, as it is though, what is the earliest extant gMat, is it 300 or 400 years after Jesus died? That gives ample time for editing. No you don't. This is the whole point, you really do not know what the original text was, since you do not have an original to compare to the gMat that we have then you are up a gum tree.You do know that the earliest existing copies of gMat are not identical? If you have the record then show it to us. But you don't have, and it is very likely that the gMat that we have is not even the same one that the early church used. What does God have to do with anything?Tell me, do you believe that the Bibles we have today are identical to the earliest texts we have? The fact is, I need nothing, you are the one saying Matthew prophecised before the Temple fell, and the fact is you got nothing but hand waving and wishful thinking. Where are the texts written before the Temple fell?

quote:

---

Indeed we don't. That is why the book is entitled 'according to Matthew'. There is no good reason to suppose its author(s) even knew Jesus.

---

quote:

---

Being a deciple really is a great reason!
  —starman

---

You do realise that gMat is an anonymous work, we do not know who wrote it, now that is a fact.

quote:

---

Having his records passed down, in the sacred way we did stuff, means we knew it was his.
  —Starman

---

You do not know it is his. Look, if you have proof that the gMat we have belongs to the apostle Matthew you can pick up your ph.d from any uni you want, the uni will even pay you a great deal of money to associate yourself with them. But the fact is, you have nothing, you have shown us nothing except that you really don't know the subject very well.The point about the gMat that we have is that it MAY not be the same text reffered to by the early church fathers. I'll repeat for you, there is nothing in the gMat that suggests that it was written by Matthew the apostle.As for this:
Having his records passed down, in the sacred way we did stuff 'The way we did stuff' means what? That each text was carefully copied so that there was an accurate record kept of each book, is this what you are saying?Do you know the earliest gMat in existence that mentions the Temple 'prophecy'?

quote:

---

Are you doubting it was destroyed now??
  —starman

---

When did I say that?The evidence we do have suggests that the gMat we have was written well after the destruction of the Temple.If you could come up with one tiny little piece of evidence to support a pre-70 CE text then that would be nice, but you have failed to do so, just like you failed on the Daniel text.

quote:

---

Or are you doubting Jesus was alive before that?
  —starman

---

I doubt whether the Jesus of the NT ever existed.

quote:

---

Or are you suggesting another hoax here, where evil fraudsters conspired to fabricate a prophesy??? Or do you even have a point?
  —starman

---

I got lots of points, you are unable to address any of them, and it is becoming boring.

quote:

---

The Man that said Daniel was a prophet,
  —starman

---

Only if you blindly accept everything you read in the Bible. But the realisty is, we have NO idea what Jesus said as He left nothing behind Him. He wrote nothing, He left NO possessions, we do not know where He was buried, we do not know when He was born, or when He died. We really do no know very much about Him for being the so-called Messiah, so you do not know if Jesus mentioned Daniel or not.

quote:

---

and that the temple would be destroyed?
  —starman

---

We don't know if He said that either. As it looks right now, someone invented this 'prophecy' (that's if Jesus was talking about the Temple) long after Jesus was worm food, so your special pleading makes no difference at all.

quote:

---

The man that defied all laws of temporary universe physics?
  —starman

---

And your proof that Jesus defied all of temporary universe physics (what ever that is) is what exactly? The same collection of tatty ancient contradicting texts?

quote:

---

The Man that called Matthew?
  —starman

---

More circular reasoning Starman, do you always use the Bible to support the Bible? Do you never post anything to support the biblical text from outside of the Bible?

quote:

---

Boy do you got a wrong number. Work on that.
  —starman

---

Starman, come into the world of adult research, all your posts suggest that you have a very naive and very limited appraoch to the Bible.Why are you scared to actually study the evolution of the Bible?Oh, while I remember, what is the earliest existing text of Matthew that mentions the destruction of the Temple? Try to answer the question if you can, if not, just say you don't know, it's no problem.

Well, since I am not in Israel, and neither are the majority of the world's Jewish population, then, that prophecy is yet to be fulfilled.

As a matter of fact, there is plenty of evidence that they were not. For example, the Gospel of Mark was written by someone who made a lot of mistakes when it comes to the geography around Jerusalem. Traditions has it that it was written by a disciple of Peter after Peter died. The fact the person did not know the area in Judah, and tradition line up to
point to someone who as not a direct disciple of Jesus. It does not self identify the author either.

Evidence has it that the Gospel of Matthew that we have was NOT written in Hebrew, but written in Greek. This evidence is internal to Matthew, because it uses Greek language syntax and word order. There are some aramic idioms, but it was definitely not written in Hebrew.So, we have someone quoting from someone , who was quoting someone else who was quoting someone else that the Gospel was written by Matthew. The extant claim we have is 4th century, although it was quoting from earlier sources that are now lost. It makes a claim that the Gospel was written in a language that it was not. So, explain to me , considering that the statement that it was written in Hebrew is incorrect, how this could be considered evidence?

Total Jewish population worldwide as of 2006 12,831,200 of which
5,499,000 was in Israel.I take that to mean you are a Jew. Since they are the only ones that prophesy pertains too.But could you point out where He said every Jew would returned.
Jeremiah said: "a great company shall return thither."
At Israel's 60th Independence day the Jewish population of Israel was 5,499,000. Sounds like a pretty good company to me.
1.4 million of the 3 million Jewish people who have immigrated to Israel since 1948 came from Russia and surrounding countries. He did say they would come from the North country.Lets examine what we got.
Prior to 1947 Israel did not exist as a country.
Israel is a country today and has been since 1947.
Over a million Jews returned from the North country.
A total of 3 million Jews have immigrated to Israel since 1948.The prophesy was.
I will bring them from the north country. He did.
and gather them from the coasts of the earth, He did.
a great company shall return thither. Over 3 million a great company did.The evidence says the prophesy has been fulfilled.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Lets look at the internal evidence.What audience was the book of Matthew trying to reach?
If we know that it should help us to understand a little better.The first 23 verses of Matthew deal with the generation of Jesus Christ.Generations are very important to the Jews.There are 77 prophesies in Matthew of which only 2 is mentioned in Luke, concerning the Messiah. The other 75 are not mentioned in any other book.Much of the teaching in Matthew is unique to the gospel of Matthew.Matt 5:17-20: Sayings relating to Jesus' view of the Law in relation to the Kingdom of Heaven
Matt 5:33-37: Jesus' teaching about the taking of oaths
Matt 6:1-4: Jesus' teaching about almsgiving
Matt 6:16-18: Jesus' teaching about fasting
Matt 22:1-14: Jesus' parable speaking to Israel's status upon its rejection of Jesus
Matt 23: An extended version of Jesus' evaluation of the Pharisees.These were teachings for the Jewish people the people of promise.All these things are important to Jews but most have little or no meaning to a gentile. So the author of Matthew was aiming his book at a Hebrew audience.Most of the Hebrews in and around Jerusalem at this time spoke Aramaic.
So why would the book be wrote in another language?The author of Matthew was very interested in the fulfillment of prophecy concerning Messiah.
Only a Jewish audience would be interested in that.Only the book of Matthew refers to Matthew the tax collector.
What type of a man would have access to the records needed to put down the genealogy of Christ? How about a tax collector that had the records. Who would have had access to the old scriptures to bring forth the prophecies.Probably somebody who copied it from Mark but wait a minute those prophesies and those unique teaching's above are not in Mark.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

quote:

---

Maybe it doesn't matter to you, but to critical scholarship it matters a great deal. For example, if you could produce a contemporary gMat then that would give you a strong argument, as it is though, what is the earliest extant gMat, is it 300 or 400 years after Jesus died? That gives ample time for editing.

---

When we officially compiled the records does not matter. I might have a photo copy of the magna carta, but it is still and old record.

quote:

---

No you don't.

​

This is the whole point, you really do not know what the original text was, since you do not have an original to compare to the gMat that we have then you are up a gum tree.

​

You do know that the earliest existing copies of gMat are not identical?

---

What is different?? Maybe many of us can tell you which one is a little better! Which copies? Details..? Have I any reason to suspect that the ones anointed to compile the books, picked the wrong one??? Says who???

quote:

---

If you have the record then show it to us. But you don't have, and it is very likely that the gMat that we have is not even the same one that the early church used.

---

You can dream all you like, it is very likely you don't know what you are talking about. The record of Matthew was there, and we had it. Whether some wrote it a little different passing it around does not matter at all. The ones that picked the records to use in the bible likely had a grip on things you don't. Relax.

quote:

---

What does God have to do with anything?

​

Tell me, do you believe that the Bibles we have today are identical to the earliest texts we have?

---

God has everything to do with His book, what do you have to do with it is the better question! The answer is squat, except doubt for no apparent reason.

quote:

---

You do realise that gMat is an anonymous work, we do not know who wrote it, now that is a fact.

---

Yes we do, you don't. We know it is the record of Matthew! That was known as the record was passed down. You don't know it, no, so?? What do you know??

quote:

---

You do not know it is his. Look, if you have proof that the gMat we have belongs to the apostle Matthew you can pick up your ph.d from any uni you want, the uni will even pay you a great deal of money to associate yourself with them. But the fact is, you have nothing, you have shown us nothing except that you really don't know the subject very well.

---

Of course we know that God is real, and His book was inspired, and that we who passed the record on in our blood knew what was what. No proof that is better is needed or could exist. There is no real reason at all to doubt Matthew. None. Setting some criteria of so called proof that our records, that we died for, and held sacred must meet in your doubting head is a not needed.
Jesus gave the royal stamp for the book of Daniel, Personally, and there is no reason to doubt Daniel was a captive in Babylon, at that time of captivity, that is known. [quote] 'The way we did stuff' means what? That each text was carefully copied so that there was an accurate record kept of each book, is this what you are saying?Do you know the earliest gMat in existence that mentions the Temple 'prophecy'? {/quote It gDoes? So??? Is the temple destruction news?? What copy is theis, where, and why would anyone care??

quote:

---

The evidence we do have suggests that the gMat we have was written well after the destruction of the Temple.

---

I call you out, I don't believe you. Some copy of the record is no more evidence of that, than finding a copy of the bible under a burnt house, and claiming it was written around the time the house burned.

quote:

---

I doubt whether the Jesus of the NT ever existed.

---

I don't doubt you doubt anything that has to do with anything that you can't pick out of your nose. So??!

quote:

---

And your proof that Jesus defied all of temporary universe physics (what ever that is) is what exactly? The same collection of tatty ancient contradicting texts?

---

The ones that the calendar are set to, and that billions over time have been convinced it was true. Passing through walls to be seen by many, and raising from the dead, does transcend our laws, yes. Since the bible says these heavens and earth will pass away, yes, the laws here are temporary. Your baseless doubt against our sacred record, testified on their lives, by many thousands, or tens of thousands. Your doubts look pretty pathetic.

quote:

---

Only if you blindly accept everything you read in the Bible. But the realisty is, we have NO idea what Jesus said as He left nothing behind Him. He wrote nothing, He left NO possessions, we do not know where He was buried, we do not know when He was born, or when He died. We really do no know very much about Him for being the so-called Messiah, so you do not know if Jesus mentioned Daniel or not.

---

But we knew where He was buried, but since we saw Him often after He rose from the dead, that doesn't matter. We know where He lives, that is better. He wrote His word in the hearts of deciples, and they imprinted that to others. We have the record, we always have, and it goes right back to creation.

Off topic (now an authorship of Matthew discussion), going in circles and beyond 300. Time to give this one a decent burial.

quote:

---

But we knew where He was buried, but since we saw Him often after He rose from the dead, that doesn't matter. We know where He lives, that is better. He wrote His word in the hearts of deciples, and they imprinted that to others. We have the record, we always have, and it goes right back to creation.

---

I have expressed my opinion that this discussion should be closed and this quote illustrates some of the problems that have crept into the discussion. This is a religious argument you are making. Even though it is a biblical discussion, it is in the science forums. You can't have it both ways. If you want a scientific discussion about the Bible, you cannot invoke religious arguments.

It has been correctly noted that this thread is over the 300 post limit. I'll leave this thread open another day for people to post summations. Please, no replies to summations, and no continuation of discussion. If anyone is interested in continuing the discussion, please propose a continuation thread in the [forum=-25] forum.Please, no replies.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

The topic was also Daniel, and if it diverged to another book, it can swing back. The thread originator can say what is topical, as well as anyone.In either case, all some have is doubt, that is not reasonable. Not based on anything at all. And God cannot be divorced from a biblical discussion, like it or lump it. If science had Him covered, and more than squat to say about it, yes, then one could talk. It is too pitifully limited to begin to do that. There is no possible proof that He never inspired the bible. No possible science as we currently know science that covers the spiritual, or God.
Dating some 'most recently found' part of our record cannot date the record itself,just some more recent copy- only in some people's head.The great timetable of events that started near the captivity, and climaxed in the time of Jesus (except for the famous last week yet to come) is beyond any reasonable possibility of some fraudulent conspiracy. And, if imagined late dates were right, that is what it would have to be.Just as science can't tell us if the 3 captives were tossed into the fire, and lived, it cannot tell us almost anything about the book! Therefore doubts cannot be supported with evidence. Can any prove there was no fire!!? Can one expect every ancient document to come with scientific proof of all it speaks of!!? That is what the doubters seem to be asking for.The life of Jesus sets the western calendar, and was cross referenced by some extra biblical people, as I think I linked. But a google should show plenty of links to support that, and a lot more. It would be more reasonable to doubt the life of Napoleon.The gospel record, according to Matthew need not have secular proof, the issue is whether the witnesses that had the record, and lived then, are more worthy of trust than ignorant, biased, and in many cases, antiChrist modern scoffers.The dead sea scrolls show that Daniel was a very important book, as I think they say more fragments of that were found than any other book. Jesus spoke of it, and the book has a special place in history.The desperate efforts of some to try to cast doubt on the book, and dates, are evidence that what is in it is so incredible, only a real living, time traveling God could explain it!!!No real case could be made that it was an elaborate hoax, that involved Israel, and all sorts of others, that would have had to have been part over great time!!It is high time that worthless doubts were not confused with any evidence, or science. The prophesies of Daniel, and Jesus, and others rock the ages!Edited by starman, : No reason given.Edited by starman, : No reason given.Edited by starman, : No reason given.