Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sugarhitman · 01-22-2008, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darklighter

Happy to oblige...

Close... but not quite.

The typical fundie understanding of these vs is that the stone cut from the mountain represents the coming of Jesus (one like a son of man), with athority "cut" from the original Kingdom of God (mountain). Notice then the stone, after destroying the image, becomes a new mountain. A new kingdom of God, by Jesus, which destroys all the other man-made kingdoms. It represents the re-establishment of God's sovreignty over the earth.... that is... if you believe such things.

I'm not especially interested in what the fundies think it says, because they're terrible at exegesis. I'm interested in what the author meant. I think the 'one like a son of man' is pretty widely considered to be Michael, but I'd like to hear what spin has to say on it and on the identity of the stone in Nebuchadrezzar's vision.

Whether one blieves it to be Jesus or not (it is) . The book of Daniel is about the Jewish Messiah and not an angel.

makerowner · 01-22-2008, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

I'm not especially interested in what the fundies think it says, because they're terrible at exegesis. I'm interested in what the author meant. I think the 'one like a son of man' is pretty widely considered to be Michael, but I'd like to hear what spin has to say on it and on the identity of the stone in Nebuchadrezzar's vision.

Whether one blieves it to be Jesus or not (it is) . The book of Daniel is about the Jewish Messiah and not an angel.

And what is your evidence for that? Please uses sources from the text, and if necessary refer to the Dead Sea Scrolls or other near-contemporaneous Jewish literature. Revelation is out, because it's much later and from a different religion.

spin · 01-22-2008, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

I'm not especially interested in what the fundies think it says, because they're terrible at exegesis. I'm interested in what the author meant. I think the 'one like a son of man' is pretty widely considered to be Michael, but I'd like to hear what spin has to say on it and on the identity of the stone in Nebuchadrezzar's vision.

Whether one blieves it to be Jesus or not (it is) . The book of Daniel is about the Jewish Messiah and not an angel.

The book of Daniel is about the persecution of the Jews under Antiochus IV.

Please stop talking about things other than the topic of Tyre which is the thread you started.

And please, for the sixth time I ask you to answer my questions about Tyre. You started it, now talk about it.

spin

sugarhitman · 01-22-2008, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Whether one blieves it to be Jesus or not (it is) . The book of Daniel is about the Jewish Messiah and not an angel.

The book of Daniel is about the persecution of the Jews under Antiochus IV.

Please stop talking about things other than the topic of Tyre which is the thread you started.

And please, for the sixth time I ask you to answer my questions about Tyre. You started it, now talk about it.

spin

it is on the page before this. And I did not bring up Daniel

sugarhitman · 01-22-2008, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darklighter

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

I'm not especially interested in what the fundies think it says, because they're terrible at exegesis. I'm interested in what the author meant. I think the 'one like a son of man' is pretty widely believed to be Michael, but I'd like to hear what spin has to say on it and on the identity of the stone in Nebuchadrezzar's vision.

Ohhhh... OK. Couldn't tell ya then. But again, that highlightes the problem with these prophecies, we have no clue what some of them originally meant, and it's too easy to just hand pick a few historical events (especially if you say that a particular prophecy spans hundreds or even thousands of years), and say "Lookie! Lookie! It's fulfilled!"

Sugar, what do you think of NOSTRADAMUS?

A fraud Mr. Darkwater...a fraud

makerowner · 01-22-2008, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darklighter

Ohhhh... OK. Couldn't tell ya then. But again, that highlightes the problem with these prophecies, we have no clue what some of them originally meant, and it's too easy to just hand pick a few historical events (especially if you say that a particular prophecy spans hundreds or even thousands of years), and say "Lookie! Lookie! It's fulfilled!"

Sugar, what do you think of NOSTRADAMUS?

A fraud Mr. Darkwater...a fraud

And how did you determine that?

arnoldo · 01-22-2008, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Whether one blieves it to be Jesus or not (it is) . The book of Daniel is about the Jewish Messiah and not an angel.

The book of Daniel is about the persecution of the Jews under Antiochus IV.
spin

Was it accurate because it was a self-fulfilled prophecy, written before the event and revised after, or was it merely written after the event? Or have you found historical inaccuracies such as you claim occured in the prophecies of tyre in order to discredit the book of Daniel? You have so many excuses it's hard to keep track of them all. If there are historical inacuracies why didn't the jewish writer simply revise it and we have evidence of a correct manuscript with no historical inacuracies.

makerowner · 01-22-2008, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The book of Daniel is about the persecution of the Jews under Antiochus IV.
spin

Was it accurate because it was a self-fulfilled prophecy, written before the event and revised after, or was it merely written after the event? Or have you found historical inaccuracies such as you claim occured in the prophecies of tyre in order to discredit the book of Daniel? You have so many excuses it's hard to keep track of them all. If there are historical inacuracies why didn't the jewish writer simply revise it and we have evidence of a correct manuscript with no historical inacuracies.

Perhaps you'd like to take a look at the thread on the subject here.

Sheshonq · 01-22-2008, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The book of Daniel is about the persecution of the Jews under Antiochus IV.
spin

Was it accurate because it was a self-fulfilled prophecy, written before the event and revised after, or was it merely written after the event? Or have you found historical inaccuracies such as you claim occured in the prophecies of tyre in order to discredit the book of Daniel? You have so many excuses it's hard to keep track of them all.

Gee; you have so many spurious topics of discussion to avoid answering questions, that it's hard to keep track of them all.

Got that proof ready for prophecies about Israel yet?

No; I didn't think so.

Quote:

If there are historical inacuracies why didn't the jewish writer simply revise it and we have evidence of a correct manuscript with no historical inacuracies.

Because like you, they weren't too good with history and their mistakes weren't obvious at the time it was written.

spin · 01-22-2008, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The book of Daniel is about the persecution of the Jews under Antiochus IV.
spin

Was it accurate because it was a self-fulfilled prophecy, written before the event and revised after, or was it merely written after the event?

History is usually written after the event. You are still confused about the status of Daniel, which isn't among the prophets in Jewish literature.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Or have you found historical inaccuracies such as you claim occured in the prophecies of tyre in order to discredit the book of Daniel?

The ones discrediting Daniel are those trying to make the text prophetic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

You have so many excuses it's hard to keep track of them all.

Hypocrisy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

If there are historical inacuracies why didn't the jewish writer simply revise it and we have evidence of a correct manuscript with no historical inacuracies.

I have been arguing for Daniel's historical accuracy in the second century BCE. You cannot see the text because you are falling over your christian irrelevances about Daniel being a prophet.

Now, please talk about Tyre.

Dear moderators, could you please direct people to stop talking about Daniel in a thread about Tyre?

spin

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.