And just like that sntj shows us how he fails to explain what he's talking about as he makes inane comments based upon illogical leaps.

"
Clearly this is you talking out of both sides of your mouth.

I don't know who you were addressing that comment too - doen't matter.  Still,  were I come from , that line is an insult.  

I am not above falling into the same negative pattern. It is a struggle for me to meet my own standard.  So I'm 'preaching' to myself as well.  I find I do better with those who see the same standard as I do, and togeter with help each other avoid this pitfall, while still holding opposing views.

I believe you told me I can run this section anyway I see fit.  Therefore I'm asking you and me and eveyone else to avoid taking the debate to the person.

Shalom

"And just like that sntj shows us how he fails to explain what he's talking about as he makes inane comments based upon illogical leaps."

My position is crystal clear, thanks.  My position is so clear, that you had no excuse for failing to speak to it.  Both you and Shalom continue to operate on an assumption that I specifically have clarified is NOT a fair assumption.

This should have been abundantly clear from this statement:

"If you invoke Paul one more time, you have revealed yourselves as completely discredited."

And yet you went on to speak as though our questions were being derived from "Paul."  In my opinion, this derives from a position of arrogance that is akin to the sort of arrogance we see from some of our atheist friends on this board.  Nevermind what we say... YOU know what we REALLY mean, don't you?

To continually showcase Paul, I think, is to muddle this conversation, especially when sntj and I haven't even alluded to him at all for any reference concerning the topic on hand.  Besides, since Paul has been brought up a few times already, I will just make one quick comment on it.  There is already a thread in which Paul, with his famous "without blood there is no remission" phrase, in which, apparently, if read correctly, one would find that Paul doesn't say what is being claimed.  I think it is scripturally true that "without blood there is no remission" because there are examples of it in the Hebrew scriptures.  But it also true that blood was not always necessary.  Paul, or whoever wrote Hebrews, quite likely realized that and properly put that verse in context.

Okay, enough of Paul.

Nojc wrote:

No, He didn't. See my post above. The demanded blood sacrifice for Passover, but that was not for sin.

Interesting point.  Passover, of course, is when the Death Angel passed over the dwelling places of those who applied the blood around their doorpost.  Those without this sign suffered the death of their firstborns.  But yet, the slaughtered sheep/goat suffered the place of the firstborn for the rest of the Jewish nation?  hmmmm...still trying to put this whole story in perspective.

Now who else is going to comment of Daniels prophecy?

Well, I decided not to.  There are clearly two different paths in this thread.  On the one hand there is the Daniel passage, which has been curtly ignored.  On the other hand there is this blood business.  I think its evident that neither you or nojc are going to discuss it without continuing to invoke Paul/Hebrews, and that would not change no matter what forum its in.  I think this constant invocation really says about all that can be said on the matter, and confirms a great many things in my mind.

While it seemed to be an earnest discussion I was willing to participate.  Whether its here or there, if such earnesty is in fact an illusion, I don't have the time and energy to push the point.  

So, no yanking. I think the thread speaks for itself on the only points left worth making.  Carry on- I'll be on the sidelines.

2)  So, does the Daniel 9 serve any purpose as prophecy to the modern Jew?  

Has the modern Jew thrown out the very idea that God every foretold future events and pointed to people to look to their fulfilling as evidence that he keeps his word and will continue to keep his word?

If not, how was Daniel 9 fulfilled?

If it isn't yet fulfilled, how do the modern Jews expect it to be fulfilled?

If it isn't a prophecy at all, and is something else, what literary techniques can we use to find out the true point of the passage?

Whether the decree is in Cyrus time or not is hardly relevant, ultimately.  It was already pointed out (and certainly argued on some of the links I gave) that its not abundantly evidence which decree you should start with.  They all seemed to end about the same time- the first half of the first century- provided you take what you call a 'prophetic year' to be what it seems to be derived from.  

If 'sevens' (or 'weeks') do not represent 70 years, as Daniel himself seems to be saying that they do when referencing the prophet of Jeremiah as we see in Daniel 9:2, then what do they represent?  In Jeremiah's assertion that "when seventy years are fulfilled, I will punish the king of Babylon and his nation, the land of the Babylonians, for their guilt"  (Jer. 25:12) and Daniels reference to this time period in 9:2 seem to be a very plausible, if not demanded, leap as to how long to think the 'sevens' are only a few verses later.

Isn't it reasonable to use the context, where Daniel explicitly references a 70 year period immediately before praying to God, who answers immediately via an angel that  "Seventy 'sevens'" are decreed, etc, etc?

Isn't Gabriel referencing the 70 years as a 'seven' that Daniel himself only just recorded?  Isn't he providing for us as explicitly as he might how to decode the prophecy (assuming you think its a prophecy?)

If not, then what?  And why?  Because some rabbi says so?  What evidence will the rabbi provide other than "Because I say so (because whatever the heck else is true, Christianity simply cannot be)"  ?

Whether Cyrus, or Artaxerxes, or whomever, doesn't whatever interpretation you give to decoding the 'math' of this quickly mean that the time has almost certainly passed for the fulfillment of the prophecy- and either God fulfilled it or he lied to the Jews?

Just some questions for ya.

I'm sure there are instances in the writings that are nonetheless clearly meant to be prophetic.  Did the people who heard what Daniel had to say interpret his material in chapter 9 as a prophecy?

I appreciate you checking into what the rabbis said.  I don't suppose you could try working right off the text, though?

One wonders if perhaps 'Judaism' has taken a turn since it turned rabbinic?

Just out of curiosity, on that point, when did 'Rabbinic Judaism' begin, anyway?

"The legislative authority now called called "Rabbinic Judaism" began during the diaspora into Babylon."

On what basis do you say this, given your view that the term itself didn't arise for hundreds of years later?   You use the presence of the word in the NT as a basis for claiming the NT was written later while simultaneously positing that the rabbinic concept had pre-existed the NT by hundreds of years?

"Side note: The term Rabbi was not used in Jewish literature until after the destruction of the Temple. That fact helps any Jew date (at least the translation) of the Gospels."

That's a pretty strained argument, which certainly begs the question and assumes in advance that the Gospels might not record real history.  But it is strained quite apart from the logical fallacy involved.  We are to believe that the authors (you imply possibly, the 'fabricators'), while so crafty in immersing the context of Jesus' life in the period from about 1-35 AD (you know, comments about Pilate, things like that)  lost sight of their tact and accidentally used the word 'rabbis' ?

That's stretching it, I'd say.  back to the point.

It strikes me as a bit odd that you are confronting Christianity with its incongruities with a movement (rabbinic Judaism) that didn't even formally exist- according to you- by any recognizable name until after the destruction of the temple  c. 70 Ad.

Surely we as Christians ought to take comments by such folks with a shaker of salt.  Wouldn't we be closer to understanding Christianity's Jewishness and their interpretation of the Tanak using pre-rabbinic understandings of Judaism, gleaned from Philo, Josephus, and the Dead Sea Scrolls?

For example, in the DSS there is a document called "The Coming of Melchizedek" which has this passage that cites Daniel 9:

The visitation is the Day of Salvation that He [Melchizedek] has decreed through Isaiah the prophet concerning all the captives, inasmuch as Scripture says, "How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of the messenger who announces peace, who brings good news, who announces salvation, who says to Zion "Your divine being reigns"." (Isa. 52;7) This scriptures interpretation : "the mountains" are the prophets, they who were sent to proclaim God's truth and to prophesy to all Israel. "The messengers" is the Anointed of the spirit, of whom Daniel spoke; "After the sixty-two weeks, an Anointed shall be cut off" (Dan. 9;26) The "messenger who brings good news, who announces Salvation" is the one of whom it is written; "to proclaim the year of the LORD`s favor, the day of the vengeance of our God; to comfort all who mourn" (Isa. 61;2)

http://www.webcom.com/gnosis/library/commelc.htm

In my 1996 translation of the DSS, the editor points out that:  "For our [the composer of the document] author Melchizedek is an enormously exalted divine being, to whom are applied names that are generally reserved for God alone, the Hebrew names el and elohim.  In the author's citation of Isaiah 61:2, which speaks of 'the year of the Lord's favor," "Melchizedek" is substituted even for the most holy name of Israel's God, Yahweh.  Yet more remarkably, Melchizedek is said to atone for the sins of the righteous..."

The editor also goes into quite a bit of time talking about the jubilee year, etc, and its connection to that document here and in other DSS documents, and largely corroborates what the Christian said in one of the links above.

I also have trouble perceiving that the Rabbis were really God's idea for dealing with a scattered people.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to the prophets and the writings, wasn't this scattering the result of disobedience?

Anyway, I'm curious about your side note about 'rabbi' being used only after the destruction of the temple.  I'm almost curious enough to scour Philo to see what can be found.   Still, the simplest conclusion I draw from what you said is that Rabbinic Judaism actually didn't get started until after Christianity started.