spin

This is interesting. You know that what you've said is not true, yet you say it for rhetorical effect. Would you call that a rhetorical lie? Or perhaps a desperate lie?

Whatever the case, it's yet another post which doesn't deal with Dan 11. It's becoming obvious that you are unable to and unable to admit it.


spin

spin

Wouldn't it be nice if you'd just read the text?

The four beasts are one like a lion..., one like a bear..., one like a panther..., and one which is unnamed (which I've argued is like an elephant), plus one like a son of man. Each of these entities represents a nation. The one like a son of man represents the people of god, ie the Jews. We know from 10:21 that the name of the prince of Israel is Michael and he has done battle with the prince of Persia and soon will do battle with the prince of Greece. Michael is obviously the one like a son of man, the chief of angels. It is he in 8:15f, "having the appearance of a man", who instructs Gabriel to teach Daniel.

Oh, and try to understand this: the one like a son of man is coming on the clouds up to heaven where he is presented before the ancient one.

As I try to answer your questions for you, please respond regarding Dan 11 -- see post #243. It's been six days and your silence is deafening.


spin

Ben C Smith

I agree with most of the rest of your comments, but, despite 8.15, I am not so sure the one like a son of man is obviously Michael. The other creatures represent nations (in a symbolic sense), so why does the one like a son of man not represent Israel? Of course, Michael would also represent Israel (in a legal or military sense), but why can the creatures not stand on their own as pure symbols? Why must one of them be an actual (as it were) angel?

Ben.

arnoldo

I agree with you that Yeshua didn't fulfill all of the prophecies 2000 years ago. But I disagree with the "Da Vinci code" rubbish that Yeshua faked his death and had kids, etc,etc. I would respect you more if you just stated that it's all fiction and there never was a person who claimed to be the "Son of God" two thousand years ago.

spin

I thought I had said that?!

The vision in Dan 7 is rich in tradition, based on the struggle between Baal and Yamm, in which the one like a son of man is a substitute for Baal and the ancient of days replaces El. The writer has made the effort, in rewriting the Baal/Yamm struggle, to put a lot into the figure of the one like a son of man, so I can't see that that effort peters out into a pure symbol. As each of the visions deal fundamentally with the same issues -- just varying timeframes and specific interests --, and often the same basic personnel. The fourth vision features Michael as the prince of Israel who contends with the princes of Persia and Greece. The victorious one like a son of man seems to be doing exactly the same thing as Michael, which should indicate that they are the same.


spin

Amaleq13

Thanks. I missed that.

So, the entire basis for arnoldo's alleged demolition is the assumptions that 1) all of the collected texts at Qumran were considered canonical and 2) it is impossible for Daniel to have become so considered in such a short amount of time.

Except we've already seen that 1) the collection includes texts not considered canonical and 2) no evidence has been put forth to support this assumption about the rapidity with which texts become venerated. :huh:

arnoldo, presumably, since it is relevant to his position.

arnoldo

Or somebody tried to fulfill it, and then couldn't, so they invented a story about the resurrection.

Jack the Bodiless

This has nothing to do with "the resurrection", it's a story about the events of the Maccabean Rebellion.

Species8472

Well, as resurrections are impossible, they obviously invented it...

makerowner

I never said anything about the Da Vinci code or Jesus faking his own death. There's no evidence of any of that. What seems likeliest to me is that he died and some time later his followers convinced themselves/each other that he had been resurrected, and therefore his failure to fulfill the requirements of the Messiah would be resolved in the future.
Why don't you try responding to what people actually say, instead of trying to drag us off on tangents all the time? Is it because you can't address the central arguments? Are you going to answer spin's posts about Daniel 11?