stephan huller

So this is what it comes down - I present a serious theory based on detailed linguistic arguments about what is written in the book of Daniel and the various manuscripts of Josephus and you respond by someone criticizing my book on Amazon. Why is it that you continually display a complete inability to respond to anything a say? Could it be that your inadequacies are displayed in your ability to articulate any form of a response to what I say either in terms of the proper reading of Daniel, Marcion or anything else?

In my experience there is only one person on this forum whose opinions are purely based on reactionary, emotional hysteria. For the moment that person's name escapes me. Yet Mary Helena's tactic it seems is to goad me into attacking her and then complaining that I go too far in my attacks.

Let's just say that I would welcome a debate on the merits of anything I have to say. Fighting is good for the soul. If you want a debate or a fight, bring it on. But stop crawling under the skirt of others to do your fighting for you.

What is your issue with my linguistic analysis of Daniel chapter 9? Or can you even articulate an argument?

maryhelena

A linguistic analysis of a "messianic prophesy"?

igsfly:igsfly:igsfly:

And as to me wanting to "goad" you - don't fool yourself Stephan...

Sheshbazzar

Thanks for the links Maryhelena. Although I have encountered Stephan's 'Throne-ey baloney' in various other threads, I just hadn't realized what an elaborate and hokey whack-job delusion it is that he is attempting to peddle.
This review lays it all out quite clearly and concisely.
Stevie 'ol boy, You are here, and as your pet wacko-theory by far even outstrips mountanman's, it certainly looks like you are ensconced in the right place.

maryhelena

Thanks for that Sheshbazzar - sometimes it's good to lighten things up a bit.....:notworthy:

stephan huller

I'm glad to see how important critical analysis is your respective thought processes are. Someone doesn't like Stephan = Stephan's analysis of the evidence disproved. Not even an attempt to refute the evidence. Scholarship by popularity contest

Iskander

Daniel 9:26
The Jewish Study Bible:
And after those sixty-two weeks, the anointed one will disappear and vanish. (b)
Meaning of Hebrew language uncertain

The anointed one is most likely the high priest Onias III killed in 171 BC (2 Macc 4 :30-34




The oxford Annotated Bible says the anointed one shall be cut off (as in karet) and have nothing.

The prince who is to come is Antiochus IV Epiphanes

Sheshbazzar

Oh really Stephan.
Do not the reviews presented by Publishers Weekly, TheoGonostus, and J. Lundberg accurately summarize and critique the content your published pet wacko-theory?
Care to give us a list of the names of all of the well recognized Historians and Academics that have stepped forward in support of your utterly amazing claims?

I don't like or dislike Stephan the person.
As a fellow forum participant I do find your claims to be often contrived, based upon your own 'strange' personal predilections, assumptions, and claims with little or no basis other than the peculiar twists that you (usually alone of all men) choose to place upon them.
Your 'strange' pet wacko-thesis simply lacks credibility when it is examined in the light of all other Biblical and Historical scholarship.

When we don't 'buy' Stephan's latest line of jive, he tends to get quite upset.
And of course then, everyone but Stephen has to become the 'wackos'.

stephan huller

The original question was about Daniel chapter 9. I thought I provided the definitive explanation of the material. Do you have any quibbles with my exegesis? And the answer is of course not. The people who bring forward reviews of my book only do so because they are incapable of operating at the intellectual level required to respond to its arguments.

maryhelena

icardfacepalm:

Sheshbazzar

Stephan must have read a different OP than the rest of us.