spin

Well, as all the scholarly commentaries on Daniel indicate that the anointed one in 9:26 is Onias III, I wonder who these "scholars" you refer to are.

Onias was removed from office as high priest in Jerusalem by Antiochus IV circa 175 BCE. His murder was arranged by the wicked priest Menelaus in 171 BCE. Three and a half years (half a week of years) later, Antiochus pollutes the Temple, by setting up a statue of himself as Zeus -- this is the abomination of desolation -- and stopping the tamid. Three and a half years later the Temple is purified and rededicated.


spin

ex-preacher

Name one.

Toto

We went through this before.

Josephus, writing in the late 1st century, composed a fable about Alexander the Great stopping by Jerusalem to offer a sacrifice to YWHW at the Temple and acknowledging the prophecy in Daniel. The story is not very credible, and has no support in any disinterested source.

Jim Larmore

No, not at all, I quote Daniel 9:25 "Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto MESSIAH THE PRINCE shall be seven weeks , and three score and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times". How can you say the Messiah was not in the mind of Daniel when He plainly spoke of him in verse 25 of Daniel 9 ? Now I don't deny I have made a statement of faith when it comes to Satan's work on the different decrees but it just stands to reason that Satan knew that a decree was to come so why not have several of them to confuse the validity of the genuine in later years when this was studied.
I accept that it takes faith to believe in all of the Bible but this prophecy lines up perfectly with the beginning of the ministry of Jesus Christ the messiah. So its a valid prophecy and theres no assumption on my part regarding that.

Satan exists because of the demon possessions that occurr thru out our world. Couple this with the evil that exists here on our planet I would say thats emperical evidence of his existence.
Your participation on this thread is voluntary if you don't wish to engage me or my posts then thats totally up to you.

Daniel cannot be accepted as authentic or guys like you who refuse to see the truth wouldn't have a leg to stand on.


You could assume that and you'd probably be right. Vatican 11 did a lot towards embracing evolution and casting a bad light on the authenticity of the Bible. I don't accept most of the skeptical or secular scholars findings because they assume to much and nit pic the writings to obscurity. Like I have said before if they scrutinized other ancient writings the way they did the Bible we probably wouldn't have any thing accepted from ancient writers.

This passage plainly is dealing with the time prophecy for the first comming of the messiah and the end of favorite nation status for the nation of Israel. Its a 70 week prophecy in all. The start of it ( the 69 week part ) is the messiah the princes baptism and the start of His ministry and it says in verse 26 that the messiah would be cut off and in the 27 it says that this would happen in the midst of the week. This plainly happened at the crucifixition. The rest of the prophecy or the rest of the 70 week time line gave the nation of Israel 3 1/2 more years to "finish the transgression" verse 24. At the stoning of Stephen the favored nation status ended and the gospel went to the gentiles exactly on time for the prophecies time line.

Amaleq13

I understand that is your claim but you have not answered the question: Why? Was he not the Messiah until he started his ministry/was baptized?

I ask because, without a really good reason, it seems the only reason this "starting point" is chosen is so that the calculations can appear to be fulfilled.

I have no doubt that there are several devout students of the Bible who share your faith and desire to find prophetic evidence supporting your beliefs and some might even have genuine scholarly credentials but I seriously doubt that you can produce even one scholar lacking such faith who finds this interpretation reasonable.

ex-preacher

From Curt van den Heuvel:


------------

The activities of the "prince that shall come" (9:26) perfectly match the deeds of Antiochus, and we may confidently state that Daniel thus intended his seventy weeks to end in 164 BCE.

The futurist interpretation of this passage is, of course, quite different. The KJV phrase "...unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks..." (9:25) invites an attempt to turn this into a prophecy of Jesus. Ignoring the grouping of seven weeks and sixty-two weeks, futurists interpret this phrase to mean that the Messiah will come sixty-nine weeks (483 years) after the "commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem". As we have already seen, the decree of Cyrus is far too early to apply to Jesus, since it lands us at about 55 BCE. So, an alternative decree must be sought.

The second chapter of Nehemiah records an incident in which Nehemiah asked permission from Artaxerxes to return to Jerusalem to assist with the rebuilding project. The king assented, and gave Nehemiah letters of safe conduct to Judea, as well as orders for his foresters to donate timber to the project. Despite the fact that this passage does not technically record a decree, and that the restoration of Jerusalem was already underway when Nehemiah arrived, this incident is chosen as the starting point of Daniel's seventy weeks by futurists, because it occurred in 444 BCE. This then takes the end of the sixty-nine weeks to about 38 BCE. While this is closer to the time of Christ, it is still a few years too late. In order to rectify this problem, futurists note that the Jews used a lunar year of twelve months of thirty days. Using a year of 360 days then puts the end of the sixty-nine weeks at about 33 BCE, exactly, so the story goes, at the point that Jesus was crucified. The problem with the latter is that the Jews knew that their lunar year eventually got out of sync with the solar year. In order to rectify this situation, they inserted an extra month of thirty days every two or three years. This means that, on average, the Jewish year was about 365 days long.

Another problem with the futurist interpretation soon becomes apparent. If the sixty-nine weeks ended with the crucifixion of Jesus, that means that the seventieth week must have ended about 40 CE. However, no person fitting the description of Daniel's prince appeared on the scene at that point. In order to circumvent this problem, futurists insert a gap of indeterminate duration between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks. The seventieth week, so the story goes, will begin when the "times of the gentiles" (Luke 21:4) are completed. So far, this gap has lasted two thousand years, with no end in sight.

ex-preacher

Daniel has to be accepted as authentic or guys like you who refuse to see the truth wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

Jim Larmore

Heres one of them, I haven't verified the writings of Josephus on this but I will.

7) The testimony of Josephus. The Jewish historian records that Alex T. Great was shown a copy of Daniel when he passed through the Jewish realm. [see Meadw.ADGD, 189; Luck.Dan, 10] He was mightily impressed by the prophecy which referred to him, and treated the Jews kindly - as evidenced both by Josephus and otherwise known histories of the period. Josephus also affirms the content of the book of Daniel as historical and authentic[Verm.JosDan]. (Of course, we realize that critics will do as Porteous [Porte.Dan, 47] does - dismiss Josephus' account as biased or inaccurate!)

www.tektonics.org/af/danieldefense.html

Jim Larmore

Of course He was but you have to understand that it was a Jewish custom that a man wasn't to start His priest-hood until he turned 30 , this was when Jesus was baptisted and began His ministry with a coronation from God the Father and the Holy Spirit. This was when He took on the duties of His mission as messiah.

Not at all, His activities were not well known at all until after His baptism and subsequent 40 days being tempted in the wilderness.

I'll have to dig but I know I have recently read of a skeptic writer who admitts that this time line fits well into the historical account of what happens. Give me some time and I"ll get it.

spin

Daniel has to be read without any understanding of its historical context or guys like Jim who refuse to see the truth wouldn't have a leg to stand on.


spin