Who are the NT epistles aimed at?

[Gordon]

Because it happened. Because Daniel predicted when the Messiah would come, that He would be killed, and that the temple would be destroyed, and it happened. And the temple and sacrificial system were swept away, a sign that they had been replaced by the new covenant.

Aside from the inconvenience of 'Daniel' being written around 400 years later than when Daniel allegedly lived it is also the case, is it not, that these prophecies aren't exactly clear and concise predictions and in reality is an example of a mish-mash of stuff that has been subject to 'interpretations'.

This chap goes into it in detail, albeit he has produced a tortuous read, but he does highlight a number of issues around chronology, with different views on when these '70' weeks start, and also those 'prophecies' in Daniel which failed. Hard to imagine anyone taking prophecy seriously to start with, and especially so when it consists of a veritable dogs breakfast of stuff that is as clear as mud (I love mixed metaphors before anyone points this out).

http://infidels.org/library/modern/chris_sandoval/daniel.html

[floo]

So called prophecies  have a convenient way of being interpreted to suit the POV of the interpreter. The book of Revelation is a case in point, the crazy spin some put on that book of fantasy beggars belief!

[2Corrie]

Aside from the inconvenience of 'Daniel' being written around 400 years later than when Daniel allegedly lived it is also the case, is it not, that these prophecies aren't exactly clear and concise predictions and in reality is an example of a mish-mash of stuff that has been subject to 'interpretations'.

This chap goes into it in detail, albeit he has produced a tortuous read, but he does highlight a number of issues around chronology, with different views on when these '70' weeks start, and also those 'prophecies' in Daniel which failed. Hard to imagine anyone taking prophecy seriously to start with, and especially so when it consists of a veritable dogs breakfast of stuff that is as clear as mud (I love mixed metaphors before anyone points this out).

http://infidels.org/library/modern/chris_sandoval/daniel.html

The temple was rebuilt.

The Messiah did come.

The Messiah was killed.

The temple was destroyed.

A ten year old could understand Daniel 9:25-26.


I can understand that people like to obfuscate because the implications of these prophecies having been fulfilled are tremendous. Daniel was definitely B.C. so the dating of Daniel doesn't come into it. By the way, did the sceptre depart from Judah when Shiloh came? Yes. Another related fulfilment of prophecy.

[Gordon]

The temple was rebuilt.

The Messiah did come.

The Messiah was killed.

The temple was destroyed.

A ten year old could understand Daniel 9:25-26.


I can understand that people like to obfuscate because the implications of these prophecies having been fulfilled are tremendous. Daniel was definitely B.C. so the dating of Daniel doesn't come into it. By the way, did the sceptre depart from Judah when Shiloh came? Yes. Another related fulfilment of prophecy.

Well the dating of Daniel does come into it, since glossing over the fact that it doesn't actually date from the time of Daniel, and that it provenance is unknown, doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the content - I can see why some may seek to skirt round this inconvenient fact but they are only fooling themselves if they do.

Daniel 9:25-26 says this (NIV)

“Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One,[f] the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. 26 After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing.[g] The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.

Yet is seems, according the link I provided earlier, that the 'seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens' isn't exactly precise since their are different views of what this means among Christians and the language (as translated in the NIV) isn't exactly clear and precise.

So, we get creative interpretation (theology) in order to claim it means something - but whether this something is justified by knowledge is another matter entirely given the imprecision inherent in the text.

I suspect you are taking the Bible too literally (and seriously). 

[Hope]

Well the dating of Daniel does come into it, since glossing over the fact that it doesn't actually date from the time of Daniel, and that it provenance is unknown, doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the content - I can see why some may seek to skirt round this inconvenient fact but they are only fooling themselves if they do.

I can also see why some want to skirt around the inconvenient fact that scholars still date it as earlier than the time of Christ - and therefore the prophetic nature of the book still stands.

Yet is seems, according the link I provided earlier, that the 'seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens' isn't exactly precise since their are different views of what this means among Christians and the language (as translated in the NIV) isn't exactly clear and precise.

'Seven' has a very important part to play in Jewish thinking and culture.  It's not as if it is simply used to refer to number that matches the days in a week.

So, we get creative interpretation (theology) in order to claim it means something - but whether this something is justified by knowledge is another matter entirely given the imprecision inherent in the text.

Which is where understanding the cultural context is so important.

I suspect you are taking the Bible too literally (and seriously).

Many on your side of the debate seem to forget that English isn't the original language of the material, that translating anything from one language to another is difficult at the best of times, and translation and interpretation is central to any exchange of infomation, be that within the same language context or without.

[Gordon]

I can also see why some want to skirt around the inconvenient fact that scholars still date it as earlier than the time of Christ - and therefore the prophetic nature of the book still stands.

The real inconvenient thing here, Hope, is the claim of prophecy in the first place, which is another of these unfalsifiable claims since beyond logical or lucky guesses the future cannot be accurately foretold on any basis that is verifiable. Where these 'prophecies' date from antiquity and are expressed in gloriously imprecise terms then we stray into theological 'interpretations' - so not to be taken seriously in the absence of a reliable method of evaluating 'prophecies'.
 

'Seven' has a very important part to play in Jewish thinking and culture.  It's not as if it is simply used to refer to number that matches the days in a week.

So '7' is a cultural superstition and still is: I recall Dr Feelgood even sang a song about 'Lucky 7' a few years back. The point is, as was mentioned in the link I gave earlier, there is disagreement on how these numbers should be interpreted.

Many on your side of the debate seem to forget that English isn't the original language of the material, that translating anything from one language to another is difficult at the best of times, and translation and interpretation is central to any exchange of infomation, be that within the same language context or without.

If prophecy is to be taken seriously then I don't suppose it matters what language is used - the problem here is the notion that 'prophecy' should be taken seriously in the first place and that Christianity does is why some of us find Christianity impossible to take seriously. 

[Spud]

70 AD? You so need to read this:

http://www.letgodbetrue.com/sermons/prophecy/70ad/sermon.php

Hi Corrie,

I think I agree with all of what you have said in this thread. I have been pleasantly surprised, particularly because you have previously talked about the significance of the Jews being back in Israel since 1948, and, iirc, seem to have agreed with a lot of Freeminer's ideas - a third temple and a literal 1000 year reign of Christ after his second coming, for example. Yet the above link disagrees with that. I'm pleased to see you've discarded those ideas- nice one.

[2Corrie]

Hi Corrie,

I think I agree with all of what you have said in this thread. I have been pleasantly surprised, particularly because you have previously talked about the significance of the Jews being back in Israel since 1948, and, iirc, seem to have agreed with a lot of Freeminer's ideas - a third temple and a literal 1000 year reign of Christ after his second coming, for example. Yet the above link disagrees with that. I'm pleased to see you've discarded those ideas- nice one.

Older and wiser (I typed "wider" by mistake - that too)

[Spud]

 

[jeremyp]

This was evidence to them that He was the Son of Man who had received the everlasting kingdom; it refers back to the imagery used in Daniel 7.

So what you are saying is that the author of Mark ripped off Daniel to make it look like Jesus was special.

[jeremyp]

also those 'prophecies' in Daniel which failed.

I disagree, many of the prophecies in Daniel succeeded.

But that doesn't help the Christians because they were predicting the history of the Greek world leading up to around 164BCE. After that, they started to go wrong. This is how we know that Daniel was written in around 164BCE.

The gospel authors simply retconned Jesus' life to fit with all these old prophecies.

[2Corrie]

I disagree, many of the prophecies in Daniel succeeded.

But that doesn't help the Christians because they were predicting the history of the Greek world leading up to around 164BCE. After that, they started to go wrong. This is how we know that Daniel was written in around 164BCE.

The gospel authors simply retconned Jesus' life to fit with all these old prophecies.

I suppose the Gospel writers orchestrated the destruction of the temple and the siege of Jerusalem too.

[floo]

I suppose the Gospel writers orchestrated the destruction of the temple and the siege of Jerusalem too.

They probably didn't help!

[Gordon]

I suppose the Gospel writers orchestrated the destruction of the temple and the siege of Jerusalem too.

Of course not - but they may have 'interpreted' the prophecy so that it seemed to fit later events that occurred in Jerusalem especially since the prophecy itself (presumably the verse from Daniel that you referred to and that I quoted earlier) is, as I said then, so gloriously imprecise to start with.

[Spud]

Of course not - but they may have 'interpreted' the prophecy so that it seemed to fit later events that occurred in Jerusalem especially since the prophecy itself (presumably the verse from Daniel that you referred to and that I quoted earlier) is, as I said then, so gloriously imprecise to start with.

http://www.letgodbetrue.com/bible/prophecy/daniel11.php (from Corrie's link)
Daniel 11:36 speaks of "the king". It is not clear who is meant, though some think it is Antiochus Epiphanes. Herod the Great is a possibility, as the immediate context is not Syria or Egypt but the nation of Israel. If so, Daniel's prophecy extends all the way until the events of AD 70.

[Gordon]

http://www.letgodbetrue.com/bible/prophecy/daniel11.php (from Corrie's link)
Daniel 11:36 speaks of "the king". It is not clear who is meant, though some think it is Antiochus Epiphanes. Herod the Great is a possibility, as the immediate context is not Syria or Egypt but the nation of Israel. If so, Daniel's prophecy extends all the way until the events of AD 70.

As I said, Spud, gloriously imprecise - hence your 'not clear who is meant', 'some think', 'a possibility' and 'if so' in your fairly brief post above: you yourself have packed quite a bit of this imprecision into just a handful of sentences!

You guys seem to accept the notion of 'prophecy' as a given when it is no more than just another unfalsifiable conjecture, and since 'prophecy' is part of the tradition you subscribe to there seems to be an underlying assumption that these prophecies must mean something - so we see these creative 'interpretations' which, as you've just demonstrated, are bereft of any precision.         

[floo]

I wonder how spud and 2corrie react to fortune tellers who make predictions which occasionally come true?

[Dicky Underpants]

I am equating it with the Lord's judgement on Jerusalem; He said to the Sanhedrin: "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” Mark 14. The Sanhedrin certainly saw his judgement. Do a study of OT references to the Lord coming on clouds and you will see.

This was evidence to them that He was the Son of Man who had received the everlasting kingdom; it refers back to the imagery used in Daniel 7.

And presumably you would like this imagery from Daniel re-applied at the Second Coming of Christ sometime in our future* - though by your logic this would be the 3rd Coming.

The verses at the end of Matthew 16 also refer to the Son of Man coming with all his angels in judgment (in the lifetime of Jesus' listeners). Which particular 'judgment' would you like this to refer to?


*I should point out that some fundamentalist sects think that Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin would have to be resurrected in the distant future sometime, in order to witness the Second Coming. Interesting to see your linguistic tangles by which you've managed to assert that these characters actually did see "The Son of man coming in judgment" during their own lifetimes.
Incidentally, anyone know when Caiaphas actually died?

[Dicky Underpants]

So what you are saying is that the author of Mark ripped off Daniel to make it look like Jesus was special.

Quite possible that Jesus was actually making reference to the Son of Man figure in Daniel. However, there is some evidence that he thought this figure was someone quite distinct from himself (though the synoptic evangelists have ended up conflating the two).

[~TW~]

And presumably you would like this imagery from Daniel re-applied at the Second Coming of Christ sometime in our future* - though by your logic this would be the 3rd Coming.

The verses at the end of Matthew 16 also refer to the Son of Man coming with all his angels in judgment (in the lifetime of Jesus' listeners). Which particular 'judgment' would you like this to refer to?


*I should point out that some fundamentalist sects think that Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin would have to be resurrected in the distant future sometime, in order to witness the Second Coming. Interesting to see your linguistic tangles by which you've managed to assert that these characters actually did see "The Son of man coming in judgment" during their own lifetimes.
Incidentally, anyone know when Caiaphas actually died?

 More lies and you misunderstand what is being said here please note no mention of angels------28 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”   ----You need to quote what is there and you need to study more.Also just to add Matt 16 is fulfilled it is history.

  ~TW~

[Dicky Underpants]

More lies and you misunderstand what is being said here please note no mention of angels------28 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”   ----You need to quote what is there and you need to study more.Also just to add Matt 16 is fulfilled it is history.

  ~TW~

Well, either you are a liar, or simply someone who does not know his Bible, since the two verses at the end of Matthew 16 definitely do contain a reference to angels "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels and judge each man according to his works: 28 Truly I tell you etc."


Did you conveniently forget that?

[jeremyp]

I suppose the Gospel writers orchestrated the destruction of the temple and the siege of Jerusalem too.

How would they orchestrate something that had already happened?

[jeremyp]

http://www.letgodbetrue.com/bible/prophecy/daniel11.php (from Corrie's link)
Daniel 11:36 speaks of "the king". It is not clear who is meant, though some think it is Antiochus Epiphanes. Herod the Great is a possibility, as the immediate context is not Syria or Egypt but the nation of Israel.

So it is not clear. How, then, can you claim it is Jesus when Jesus was, factually speaking, not a king?

If so, Daniel's prophecy extends all the way until the events of AD 70.

Why?

[Spud]

So it is not clear. How, then, can you claim it is Jesus when Jesus was, factually speaking, not a king?

The claim is not that Jesus is the king mentioned in Dan 11:36, but that Herod the Great is.

[Spud]

Quite possible that Jesus was actually making reference to the Son of Man figure in Daniel. However, there is some evidence that he thought this figure was someone quite distinct from himself (though the synoptic evangelists have ended up conflating the two).

Can you elaborate on that? I thought he used the title for himself?