Diogenes the Cynic

The "70 weeks" prophecy measures from the Babylonian sack of Jerusalem to the reign of Antiochus (during which the book of Daniel was written).

The "annointed ones" refer to a couple of different high priests (Yeshua is the first one back from Babylon after ("7 weeks") and Onias III is the one "cut off" after an additional "62 weeks" (removed by Antiochus in favor of Onias' brother, Jason).

After another "half week", Antiochus (the "prince" come to destroy the city) set up the "abomination" (a statue of Zeus) in the Temple.

Daniel goes on to make some predictions about how Antiochus will come to his end, none of which come true.

PoodleLovinPessimist

An obviously post hoc interpretation. The problem is that we already know where the "treasure" is. Just take the distance from the destination, and call that the starting point. No matter what Daniel said, you can use this method. Therefore, it's not a prophecy.

Really, may, this is very weak stuff. If you're basing your whole worldview on evidence flimsier than wet tissue paper, well...

spin

Stop joking may. You are simply falsifying the data. Ezra 1 gives the story of Cyrus who authorized the return and the rebuilding (see Ezr 1:2). This is 100 years before your supposed starting point so that you can fabricate an end date of 29 CE.

You take no notice of the fact that the mashiach nabi (anointed prince) in Dan 9:25 is not just anointed but also head of the community. This is not an itinerant preacher but an established head of the community in Jerusalem. This person was the high priest Yeshua son of Yehozedek (Ezr 3:2) who is crowned as head of the community in Zech 6:11f.

I don't claim that the 70 weeks is accurate, though I do claim the last week is, which is what interested the writers, who pour over the events around the pollution of the temple by Antiochus IV several times. Everything in that last week is explained by historical events from the death of the anointed Onias III to the coming restoration of the temple -- with the exception of the flood whose literal nature is not overt. Historical events clearly explain who the prince whose troops came, the damage that they did both to the city and the temple, the agreement between Menelaus and Antiochus, the fact that sacrifice stopped and all offerings as well, that a statue was erected in the temple (the desolating abomination, a linguistic game on the name Ba'al Shamiyim, the lod of the heavens who was the Greek Zeus and the temple was made a temple to the Olympian Zeus). You may turn your back on all the historical references but to do so by falsifying your data to suit your desired conclusion shouldn't even convince you.


spin

lesyeuxdespauvres

You a JW, may?