No questions, keep going.

Then we turn our attention to the description of what this Anointed One will accomplish despite being 'cut off.'

Here is what the passage said.  Compare it to what Christians believe Jesus actually accomplished:

to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy.

Here you will spot a few obvious parallels with what the Christian message is.  For example, the New Testament insists that Jesus wrapped up the sins of the whole world, past, present and future, and 'became sin' on the cross, and in this event atoned, or paid for, all of them.  He then established a new and clean relationship between humanity and God that would be everlasting.  The 'anointing of the most holy' is a reference to being crowned the 'Messiah' and in light of this prophecy, the event in Bethany, just six days before the Passover, takes on new significance...

"Six days before the Passover, Jesus arrived at Bethany, where Jesus lived, whom Jesus had raised from the dead.   Here a dinner was given in Jesus' honor.  Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him.  Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume;  she poured it on Jesus' feet and wiped his feet with her hair.  And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume."  John 12:1-3

(Incidentally, the very next day- John 12:12, Jesus finally entered Jerusalem on a donkey to shouts of declaration that he was the Messiah.  He would have still stunk with the 'anointing.')

In summary, at the end of the period described in Daniel an entire new 'religion' began that experienced extraordinary success.  Moreover, most of the new Christians were Jews- and the Daniel 9 prophecy is a big part of the reason why.

In my estimation, though looking at what Jesus did might seem like post hoc reading back into the prophecy, I think it is still a staggering level of exactness for a prophecy in the 5th century BC to virtually pinpoint the beginning of a religion exhibiting all of the characteristics of that prophesy- 500 years later.

So what do you think?

Now, here we have a Catch-22 if ever there was one.

SJ, you are using a prophecy which seemingly (albeit with a little massage here and there) predicts the events described in the New Testament as evidence of the supernatural. Did it not strike you that if I believed the events described in the New Testament I would already believe in the supernatural and already be a Christian?

You know my feelings about the historical value of the New Testament. This is just words on a page being predicted by other words on a page.

Why the riddles? Why can't these amazing supernatural prophecies be plain spoken, simple and unequivocal?

If a 2,500 year old prophecy which may or may not have turned out to be true proves anything, I'm not sure what it is. I remember my horoscope once correctly predicted that I would have a minor traffic accident - does that prove astrology is real? Of course not.

Although I would settle for your concession that Christians can be Christians based on evidence and reasons and not simple infantile brainwashing.

Alright, I concede the above. But they are the minority by a long, long, long way.

As for your prophecy, if that is your only "evidence" of the supernatural you're screwed.

"Alright, I concede the above. But they are the minority by a long, long, long way."

VICTORY!  

Even one means that you as a sincere searcher of truth (we are assuming  ) should be prepared to explore their position.  No one is asking you to confront the positions of the brainwashed.  Why concern yourself with the weakest links?  Go after the strongest proponents of the strongest presentation of the position.

"As for your prophecy, if that is your only "evidence" of the supernatural you're screwed."
 
Screwed in what way?  Not that I am suggesting that it is the only evidence but even if it was you could no longer say, with honesty, "There is no evidence for the supernatural."  I gave you some now you've got to deal with it and ignoring it is not what I would expect a sincere seeker of truth to do.

My suggestion would be to ask me to expand on it.  Unless you have a problem with it as presented, I would be happy to take you in a few more directions, building off of Daniel 9.  Before you know it perhaps you'll see that there are any number of strands of positive evidence for the supernatural and Christianity.  Who knows what an open mind can discover?

I have not conceded that I believe this to be evidence of the supernatural, only that some Christians do.

I understand that you are not willing to accept this piece of evidence but what you actually said was that you acknowledge that Christians can have good reasons for what they believe.  You comforted yourself on the view that these represented a minority.

"Keep going if there is more - like I said, you're screwed if you can't do better than a millennia old prophecy which may or may not have turned out to be correct."

I confess to being reluctant to proceed if you're not willing to address this particular issue.   If you can point to reasons to think that this prophecy did not have as its terminus the explosive birth of a religion bearing the specific characteristics recorded in the prophecy then by all means share them.  If the prophecy was not correct then of course, dismiss it.  If, however, it was, then you've got to deal with it.

As an aside, you characterize it as a 'millenia old prophecy' as though its age somehow diminishes its importance and reliability.  But it should be self-evident that under this analysis, an OLD prophecy traversed by hundreds of years is much more valuable than a new one traversed by a short time.

Coming in the age that it did, one cannot dismiss it as the work of quantum physicists experimenting with Einsteinian time travel and by taking so many generations to come to pass it insulates the prophecy from the charge that it was somehow self-fulfilling or that it could reasonably have been predicted by the ones who recorded it.

Remember, Daniel and the Israelites were in captivity and Jerusalem was a desolate waste and the temple was knocked down.  Apart from prophecies insisting that the Jews would return, there was no hope that they would and certainly no hope that the temple would be re-built, and the prophetic word that having been rebuilt it would be destroyed and sacrifice ended would have struck the Jews at the time as very bad news, not good news.

But really the whole 'this prophecy is so old' argument is extremely weak.  I'd go so far as to say it is pathetic.  On that sort of chronological snobbery in 500 years we'd have to conclude that you, Stathei, didn't exist.  The fact is that in 30ish AD the prophecy would have seemed just as fresh to the Jews as a prophecy in 1609 predicting the Obama presidency would seem 'fresh' to you now.  By your insinuations, after enough time passes one can safely dismiss the events that have implications to your world view.  If your Obama prophecy convinced you of the supernatural, a thousand years from now, the 3009 version of Stathei would be mocking the 2009 version for his belief in the supernatural just because the prophecy was 'millinea old.'

Absurd.

Daniel 9 is one of the prophecies I have been studying in depth in the past week or so.
To start off, the math doesn't work, no matter what decree you start counting from. Some Christians try to make the math work by inventing something called a "prophetic year" of 360 days in length, but nowhere in the Hebrew Bible is there any such concept. It seems an obvious ploy designed to fit this ONE prophecy! That's circular reasoning.
Also, the Hebrew of Daniel 9 uses a word meaning "cut off" that the Bible ONLY uses for evil persons, not the righteous. Are Christians prepared to admit Jesus was evil? If not, the he was not the one to be "cut off" in the prophecy.
The quote is a poor translation of Daniel, and that poor translation allows Christians to play fast and loose with the supposed fulfillment. In fact, there are several errors in the translation.
For example...
The translation has vs. 25 reading, "Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler,..." This is a mistranslation, since the letter hey that is used to mean "the" is not used in reference to that anointed one, and certainly not twice.
Jesus was never a ruler over anyone. Moreover, Jesus was never anointed, so he could not be the person Daniel was speaking about.
Hebrew doesn't use capital letters, so having the verse read, "the Anointed One," is a blatant and disingenuous attempt to indicate Jesus when that is not necessarily the case.
The verse is mistranslated as far as punctuation, making it to say, "there will be seven 'sevens,' and sixty-two 'sevens.'" No language on Earth says "sixty-nine" that way. The verse should actually read, "Know and discern that from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem unto one anointed, a prince, shall be seven weeks; and for sixty two weeks shall it be built again with streets and moats, but in troublesome times." Note the main difference -- not that it will take 69 weeks before the messiah will come, but rather a mere 7 weeks. If you study this in the original Hebrew, this should be quite clear. Thus, the translation by itself answers the above question of why not simply write 69, instead of 7 plus 62.
Next, notice that Daniel speaks of TWO anointed ones, one who comes after seven weeks, and the other who is cut off after 62 weeks. If (as Jews agree) these weeks are actually weeks of years, then those two references could NOT be references to the same anointed one.
According to the simple, untwisted translation of verse 26, two events were to occur after the 62 weeks: the anointed one would be cut off, and the city and the sanctuary would be destroyed. As you know, Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D., which is 38 years after the death of Jesus -- more than five "weeks" off. That means Jesus was NOT the anointed one who would be cut off.
I could say more, but for a final point, let me point out that the Christians shuffled the books of the Hebrew Bible, moving Ezra from behind Daniel (where it can be found in a Jewish Bible) to hide the fact that Ezra answered the question of which decree Daniel was worried about that caused the angel to come to Daniel to "make him understand."
Daniel - Chapter 9:1. In the first year of Darius, the son of Ahasuerus of the seed of Media, who was crowned over the kingdom of the Chaldeans. 2. In the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, contemplated the calculations, the number of the years that the word of the Lord had come to Jeremiah the prophet, since the destruction of Jerusalem seventy years. 3. And I turned my face to the Lord God to beg with prayer and supplications, with fasting and sackcloth and ashes.
[...]
21. While I was still speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel, whom I saw in the vision at first, approached me in swift flight about the time of the evening offering. 22. And he enabled me to understand, and he spoke with me, and he said, "Daniel, now I have come forth to make you skillful in understanding.
[...]
24. Seventy weeks [of years] have been decreed upon your people and upon the city of your Sanctuary to terminate the transgression and to end sin, and to expiate iniquity, and to bring eternal righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies.
Here are the verses in Jeremiah Daniel was worked up over:
Jeremiah 25:12. And it shall be at the completion of seventy years, I will visit upon the king of Babylon and upon that nation, says the Lord, their iniquity, and upon the land of the Chaldeans, and I will make it for everlasting desolations.
And
Jeremiah 29:10 prophesied: "For at the completion of seventy years of Babylon I will remember you."
Daniel was concerned. Jeremiah was told that after 70 years from the destruction of Jerusalem, Babylon would be overthrown and the Temple would be rebuilt. Daniel was reading that prediction at the year before the Temple was to be rebuilt, and yet no Jews were even in the Holy Land, much less were any making any effort to rebuild the Temple. There is a verse in the Torah (one of the Five Books of Moses), that says that if Israel doesn't repent, then God will multiply their punishment. Daniel was worried that the Babylonian exile was going to be extended and on an order of seven times longer than Jeremiah had been told. Daniel then prayed to God in sackcloth and with great mourning. The angel Gabriel came to Daniel with an answer from God. Gabriel told Daniel that he was counting from the wrong starting point, and that the Temple would indeed be rebuilt on schedule.
Now see Ezra.
Ezra - Chapter 1:1. And in the first year of Cyrus, the king of Persia, at the completion of the word of the Lord from the mouth of Jeremiah, the Lord aroused the Spirit of Cyrus, the king of Persia, and he issued a proclamation throughout his kingdom, and also in writing, saying: 2. "So said Cyrus, the king of Persia, 'All the kingdoms of the earth the Lord God of the heavens delivered to me, and He commanded me to build Him a House in Jerusalem, which is in Judea. 3. Who is among you of all His people, may his God be with him, and he may ascend to Jerusalem, which is in Judea, and let him build the House of the Lord, God of Israel; He is the God Who is in Jerusalem. 4. And whoever remains from all the places where he sojourns, the people of his place shall help him with silver and with gold and with possessions and with cattle, with the donation to the House of God, which is in Jerusalem.'
This verse tells of the fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecy.

RG is a Noachide Jew.  He bases his statements off of the a Judaism that turned decidedly and definitively rabbinic after the fall of Jerusalem.   Let me explain what that means.  Prior to the fall of Jerusalem, Judaism was firmly based on a sacrificial system.  According to Judaism, these sacrifices had to be held in the temple in Jerusalem.  As you can guess, if the temple is destroyed that makes it hard to follow through on the requirement that one must do the required rituals at the temple.

Now, rabbinism had been around for a couple of hundred years around this time because the Jews had been dispersed so widely and it was impossible for a long time for them to carry out this critical plank in their religion.  Nonetheless, the hope that they would eventually be able to do so carried them a long way.  Herod rebuilt the temple in the early part of the first century which prompted huge messianic expectations.

Once the temple was gone, though, Judaism would have to change- or die.  With no hope for the restoration of temple sacrifice (until Israel once again became a nation state in this last century) it changed.

When a Jew today complains about an error in translation or interpretation you have to take it in stride.  For the last 2,000 years they have been working over time to show (themselves) that the Christians had the wrong view.

I anticipated this whole line of discourse for you Stathei by making several things clear.  1.  All the first Christians were Jews.  2.  Daniel 9 played emphatically into the messianic expectations of the time.

RG can say anything he likes.  He can say the 'prophetic year' is an invention but the problem is that it is evident that it was an invention not of Christians, but of the Jews themselves 100-200 BC.  The Dead Sea Scrolls, while not actually laying out the argument that I laid out, make high use of the book of Daniel.  The DSS community believed like all the other Jews that the return of the Messiah was imminent.

So, RG is just wrong.  This isn't a Christian invention.  This was a Jewish one, and it was abandoned by the Jews who saw the time of the prophecy pass with the only candidate for its fulfillment being Jesus, followed immediately by the destruction of the temple, and the reducing of Judaism to rabbinism.

For you, Stath, it will surely come across as his word against mine, unless you roll up your sleeves to do your own study and research.  When you do, you will see that the first Christians were all Jews who were persuaded from the Old Testament.  You will see that messianic expectations where at a fevered pitch just at the time when Christianity was born.  You will see that Judaism underwent a radical shift in its focus at the same time- this, I believe, as the logical consequence of rejecting Jesus as that expected messiah.

All but the last sentence are simple historical facts.  They are easily verified.  And they require explanation.

I won't dispute the passage with RG because he is not approaching it the way a Jew of 100 BC would be approaching it (see again the DSS scrolls which are from that time period) but rather from a later development in Judaism which strove to distance itself from Christianity come hell or high water.

Think of it this way.  Any Jewish material post-Jesus is suspect.  If a Jew of the third century AD says a Christian interpretation is wrong, obviously he will say that.  If you like, any Christian material can be considered suspect on the same grounds.  That is why the Dead Sea Scroll and the intertestamental stuff is so helpful.  What did THESE Jews think before there was any Christianity at all to taint the analysis?