Topic: Stathei's Desired Prophecy (Read 5561 times)

Dannyboy · « **Reply #100 on:** April 27, 2009, 02:41:08 PM »

EB,

Or rather because it doesn't fit in any way, shape, or form to either the prophecy or the timming which you whine that I would argue differently if it DID fit in any way, shape, or form. Which is pretty much true for all evidence.

You're a logical contortion artist EB, i'm just pointing out a mental twist that you would be quite capable of putting yourself through if it fitted what you need this prophecy to say. Examples of your previous contortions are the geneology of Jesus thread, where you went to immense effort to resolve the contradiction between the two lists of ancestry by assuming things not mentioned in the text, and here, where you are stretching the meaning of the word "destroyed" to its very limits in order to allow that Jesus is the ruler Daniel speaks of. i don't know if you're even aware of it.

"Funny how this consideration didn't occur to you quite so forcefully when SJ was incorrectly demonstrating how the prophecy foretold Jesus' entry of Jerusalem to the very day."

I don't recall him or even any major Christian arguement saying it's foretold to the very day.

Re-read the OP then. He certainly wanted to pin it down to a single weekend.

"You presumably also think that a woman who goes out in a short skirt rapes herself if some unfulfilled maladjust happens to attack her on the basis that she's "asking for it" by showing her legs."

Red-herring.

Nope, it's entirely consistent with what you said, which was "the Romans wouldn't have destroyed either the Temple or Jerusalem if not for the Zealots' actions and decisions". The Romans destroyed the Temple, but you want to place responsibility on the Jews by arguing that the Romans wouldn't have done what they did if the Zealots hadn't done what they did. Blaming a raped woman for wearing the short skirt which attracted her attacker's attention is a logical extension of what you said.

"You're making an argument that an aggressor takes full responsibility for a response of any level of brutality/disproportionality, just by virtue of having been the first to strike."

More like they don't get to act innocent and surprised when they come out bloodied. It usually follows when declaring war and unprovokingly attacking.

You seem to be under the impression that i am an apologist for the Japanese during WW2. i am not. No one is suggesting that Japan should not have expected a retaliation, or had the right to act all innocent afterwards. My point is that people (and countries) have responsibility for their own actions, and although a separate debate may well be had about whether X or Y action was justified, there should never be any doubt that if you did it then it is your responsibility.

I've been well educated to view the theater of war in a more corporate light.

You were raised by Arms Dealers?

"i would prefer to judge who is 'to blame' on a case by case basis, rather than just follow the moronic principle that whoever moved first is responsible for everything that follows."

Oh what's this? Giving yourself an out are we? I seem to see you avoiding the case of whether or not the Zealots or Romans are 'to blame' in it's entirety.

You seem to not see very clearly. i have explicitly stated that "the Romans destroyed the Temple", under every rational definition of those five words. i am not interested in 'who started it', because that is irrelevant from a literal reading of the prophecy. It says that the people of the ruler will destroy the Temple, and if you want the prophecy to make sense then that can only mean the Romans, meaning that the 'ruler' mentioned in Daniel would have to be a Roman leader, e.g. Titus.

"No, that just makes it the most convenient one."

Much like your opposition is convenient for you. Almost as if it's circular reasoning.

The burden of proof is on you. i dont care if you want to use a different translation, but you can't switch mid-debate without presenting a good reason for doing so, beyond the fact that it gets you out of hole.

I don't see there being so much a "correctiveness" issue in the two as much as a 'clarifying' or making it more clear.

My point is this - each different translation will have areas where it is closer to the original version than others. If we spoke Hebrew then we could see whether this switch of translations was faithful to the original meaning, but we dont. So how am i to know whether the change you want to make here takes us closer or further away from what the writer of Daniel actually meant to say? i can't know, so if we have no evidence to say that it takes us closer then i'm not going to let you get away with it just because it takes us closer to what you want the writer of Daniel to have said.

Give me a reason why i should accept that translation over the one we were using.

You take issue that these achievements ("bringing righteousness", etc.) are unfalsifiable as they can not be viewed in the physical, correct? That's your major complaint here, right? Well if there was indeed a physical representation that these things were achieved, then that would solve your criticism, would it not? Thus we have the Resurrection. Which leaving aside the issue of actually happening or not, it would indeed be an observable way to know those achievements did indeed occur, would it not?

Only assuming that your view of what the resurrection achieved is the correct one. In other words, no.

Still the inconsistency of where the Jewish society got the expectation of Messiah's timming beforehand if you want to maintain it was only ever written afterward.

i have not suggested that the Book of Daniel was written after the life of Jesus.

Still doesn't give a good reason for this specific period of time having such high expectancy. You haven't addressed this issue at all.

It was a possible implication of the prophecy, whichever decree you accept as the 'correct' one. that is what allows this prophecy to be, in some respects, self-fulfilling.

You find your hypocriscy amusing?

No, i find it amusing that you fling around accusations of people fitting the facts to their view when you're such a fine performer in the same event.

"i am open to the discussion of whether terrorism (as defined) is always wrong, whatever each of us mean by that, but from my point of view i think that it almost always is. As i said above, i place the German blitz of London and the British fire-bombing of Dresden into the same category."

Another thread then.

If you like. Bear in mind that you'll then only get responses on this one half as frequently.

Edit: We've gotten WAY off topic with the rest of our discussion.

Yeah we did. i blame the Zealots.

Dannyboy · « **Reply #101 on:** April 27, 2009, 02:50:38 PM »

By the way, i wonder if you noticed that on this thread which we both replied to:

http://sntjohnny.com/smf/index.php/topic,3122.0.html

...jfoxton is using Daniel 9:27 as predictive of an Anti-Christ appearing in the present day. Do you have a get-out clause that allows for a two thousand year gap to occur between the events predicted in verse 26 and those in verse 27? If not i am assuming that you'll be in a hurry to correct him.

End Bringer · « **Reply #102 on:** April 27, 2009, 03:46:17 PM »

Quote from: Dannyboy on April 27, 2009, 02:41:08 PM

You're a logical contortion artist EB, i'm just pointing out a mental twist that you would be quite capable of putting yourself through if it fitted what you need this prophecy to say.

It's the "if it fitted" that's the candle stick to the whole murder.

Quote

Examples of your previous contortions are the geneology of Jesus thread, where you went to immense effort to resolve the contradiction between the two lists of ancestry by assuming things not mentioned in the text, and here, where you are stretching the meaning of the word "destroyed" to its very limits in order to allow that Jesus is the ruler Daniel speaks of. i don't know if you're even aware of it.

Hmmm, it predicts the Temple would be "ruined completely". The Temple was "ruined completely". If you call this "stretching", you must consider standing to your full height quite strenuous.

And given the latest discussion on book burning, I wouldn't speak about "assumming things not mentioned in text" as an admonishment if I were you.

Quote

Nope, it's entirely consistent with what you said, which was "the Romans wouldn't have destroyed either the Temple or Jerusalem if not for the Zealots' actions and decisions". The Romans destroyed the Temple, but you want to place responsibility on the Jews by arguing that the Romans wouldn't have done what they did if the Zealots hadn't done what they did. Blaming a raped woman for wearing the short skirt which attracted her attacker's attention is a logical extension of what you said.

Not even close as you don't even show how your rape example follows (the best you can do is pin being oggled on her), while I have consistently pointed out the Zealots used the Temple as a final stronghold against the Romans and as such there is a direct (and rather obvious) following of consequences. So again, red-herring.

Quote

You seem to be under the impression that i am an apologist for the Japanese during WW2. i am not. No one is suggesting that Japan should not have expected a retaliation, or had the right to act all innocent afterwards.

Under your arguements, you very much are making such a suggestion that Japan held no responsibility as your previous refusals seem to indicate you don't think consequences follows action.

Quote

My point is that people (and countries) have responsibility for their own actions, and although a separate debate may well be had about whether X or Y action was justified, there should never be any doubt that if you did it then it is your responsibility.

Yet there is indeed an issue of WHY you did it. And if that reason is the responsibility of someone else then it does inevitably trace back.

Quote

I've been well educated to view the theater of war in a more corporate light.

You were raised by Arms Dealers?

As in 'corporate' or 'group' responsibility.

Quote

You seem to not see very clearly. i have explicitly stated that "the Romans destroyed the Temple", under every rational definition of those five words. i am not interested in 'who started it', because that is irrelevant from a literal reading of the prophecy. It says that the people of the ruler will destroy the Temple, and if you want the prophecy to make sense then that can only mean the Romans, meaning that the 'ruler' mentioned in Daniel would have to be a Roman leader, e.g. Titus.

Seems I see things quite clearly as this just shows you're not taking a case of who's 'to blame' on this issue. In fact you explicitly say you aren't. I see the matter quite literally as well and it is clear that through the actions of the Zealots in starting a revolt and using the Temple they are indeed ultimately 'to blame'. This is even further supported by the very clear pattern of the Bible laying the responsibility of who causes destruction and judgement is ultimately at the feet of those being destroyed and judged.

But once again it's a secondary matter as either way you have a prophecied destroyed Temple being destroyed.

Quote

The burden of proof is on you. i dont care if you want to use a different translation, but you can't switch mid-debate without presenting a good reason for doing so, beyond the fact that it gets you out of hole.

I don't see a "different translation" as even in the version SJ quoted the only one making up a conflicting translation is you.

Quote

My point is this - each different translation will have areas where it is closer to the original version than others. If we spoke Hebrew then we could see whether this switch of translations was faithful to the original meaning, but we dont. So how am i to know whether the change you want to make here takes us closer or further away from what the writer of Daniel actually meant to say? i can't know, so if we have no evidence to say that it takes us closer then i'm not going to let you get away with it just because it takes us closer to what you want the writer of Daniel to have said.

Give me a reason why i should accept that translation over the one we were using.

Because like SJ said - No one thinks the one to cause desolation is the Messiah. No matter which version. So it proceeds there is less actual conflict and more that you are making conflict up.

Quote

Only assuming that your view of what the resurrection achieved is the correct one. In other words, no.

Seeing how supposedly the one being Ressurected wasn't a mute and revealed things, I have to say 'view point' doesn't even enter into it.

Quote

i have not suggested that the Book of Daniel was written after the life of Jesus.

Dodge. You suggest the prophecies were.

Quote

It was a possible implication of the prophecy, whichever decree you accept as the 'correct' one. that is what allows this prophecy to be, in some respects, self-fulfilling.

In which case you can't suggest it was written afterwards. Again, you don't address this inconsistency.

Though tell me how is a prophecy that says the Jews will be let back into Jerusalem supposed to be self-fullfilled if it's only through the decree of a foreign power that they can be let back in?

Quote

No, i find it amusing that you fling around accusations of people fitting the facts to their view when you're such a fine performer in the same event.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Quote

...jfoxton is using Daniel 9:27 as predictive of an Anti-Christ appearing in the present day. Do you have a get-out clause that allows for a two thousand year gap to occur between the events predicted in verse 26 and those in verse 27? If not i am assuming that you'll be in a hurry to correct him.

No, because he's not using Daniel to predict Anti-Christ's appearance, but rather what he will accomplish when he does. That's why I don't see the need to look for the guy. He'll out himself and everyone will know it.

Dannyboy · « **Reply #103 on:** May 01, 2009, 03:04:55 PM »

EB,

I have consistently pointed out the Zealots used the Temple as a final stronghold against the Romans and as such there is a direct (and rather obvious) following of consequences.

And i'll say it again - this is irrelevant. Whoever was primarily at fault, whoever 'started it', the Romans destroyed the city and the sanctuary. The fact that you're employing as much mis-direction as you can muster against this inevitable conclusion suggests that you have little confidence in the ability of the prophecy to stand up to scrutiny without you there to give the 'correct' interpretation. Sure, it says that the people of the ruler will destroy the Temple, but what it really means is that the people of the ruler will bear ultimate moral responsibility for the destruction of the Temple. Self-serving, self-deluding post hoc bull.

Under your arguements, you very much are making such a suggestion that Japan held no responsibility as your previous refusals seem to indicate you don't think consequences follows action.

False and irrelevant. i have never argued that Japan held no responsibility for the casualties they sustained during WW2, but simply that they did not destroy Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Americans did that. Likewise, whatever responsibility the Zealots held for initiating the conflict, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in around 70CE.

...this just shows you're not taking a case of who's 'to blame' on this issue. In fact you explicitly say you aren't.

There is a moral issue here (i.e. responsibility for ones actions and how far that can be mitigated by the actions of another party), and a factual issue (i.e. who actually performed a particular action), and you are trying your hardest to equivocate them. i am trying to keep them separate.

In a self-defence case, for example, if i fight off an attacker and do them severe damage in the process, we could say that i was less morally culpable for that damage than if i had been the aggressor. However, there would never be any suggestion that my assailant had literally inflicted those injuries on himself, which is effectively the logic you are applying to this issue in an attempt to reconcile your beliefs with the facts.

But once again it's a secondary matter as either way you have a prophecied destroyed Temple being destroyed.

And i have agreed that this is an interesting aspect of the prophecy. The evidence definitely appears to suggest a BCE date for the writing of the Book of Daniel, and since it was well known at the time one would assume that an interpolation regarding events which had already transpired would be commented upon. i have also agreed that this aspect of the prophecy cannot credibly be regarded as self-fulfilling.

Do you wish to pursue this aspect further, because it's the only area in which you have made any progress?

I don't see a "different translation" as even in the version SJ quoted the only one making up a conflicting translation is you.

In the version SJ quoted the "He" mentioned in verse 27 must be assumed to be either "The Ruler" or "The Annointed One", depending on whether or not you think that they are separate people. The translation which you prefer introduces a new figure in verse 27 using the words "one will come...". The fact that i am the only one pointing out this problem is not so remarkable if the only other people commenting are committed to finding any interpretation which supports the 'genuinely' prophetic nature of the text.

No one thinks the one to cause desolation is the Messiah. No matter which version. So it proceeds there is less actual conflict and more that you are making conflict up.

Do you consider that "no one thinks x, y and z" to be a legitmiate counter argument to a literal reading of the text? That would be an argument from authority, wouldn't it?

"i have not suggested that the Book of Daniel was written after the life of Jesus."

Dodge. You suggest the prophecies were.

i have not. i have suggested that it was written after the return of the Jews and the rebuilding of Jerusalem.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #104 on:** May 01, 2009, 04:54:13 PM »

drat I'm falling behind again.

Righteous Goy · « **Reply #105 on:** May 08, 2009, 11:16:22 AM »

Johnny,.

Try a butt sling. That's what I use when I'm falling behind.

Righteous Goy · « **Reply #106 on:** May 14, 2009, 04:31:16 PM »

I seem to be lost here. Did anybody ever show the calculations of when the word went out to rebuild Jerusalem, and when the "abomination of desolations" came to pass and all the rest of it yet?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #107 on:** May 14, 2009, 04:55:09 PM »

I'm currently detoured with DB to make sure that any evidence I do submit doesn't get dismissed as unusable because it can't be trusted. After I square that I anticipate coming back here.

I was wondering if you ever saw my citation of a reference to the Daniel 9 passage in the book of Matthew. You had said such allusions weren't even in the NT and I replied with this citation. Did you see it?

Righteous Goy · « **Reply #108 on:** May 15, 2009, 08:44:06 AM »

I don't recall. What was the Matthew citation?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #109 on:** May 15, 2009, 08:56:41 AM »

Matthew 24:15-16

Righteous Goy · « **Reply #110 on:** May 16, 2009, 02:34:11 AM »

That doesn't count, because it implies the Daniel passage is still in the future, not fulfilled through Jesus. The point was, the Daniel passage supposedly "pinpoints" the time of the coming of the messiah, and if so, it would have been used to point to Jesus. But it wasn't.

Righteous Goy · « **Reply #111 on:** May 23, 2009, 07:44:49 PM »

Still haven't seen a breakdown of the calculations of the Daniel "prophecy." Are the proponants of it being fulfilled in the days of Jesus prepared to admit they can't make it fit, er, I mean are incapable of explaining HOW it fits?

Righteous Goy · « **Reply #112 on:** June 02, 2009, 08:26:17 PM »

Is anybody going to count out seventy sevens and add them up to Jesus, or not?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #113 on:** June 02, 2009, 08:58:23 PM »

Sorry, RG, I didn't notice you had posted here.

As you see elsewhere, I'm working my way back to this thread now that I have an atheist that is going to take the time to ponder the finer points.

However, I must take issue with this:

"That doesn't count, because it implies the Daniel passage is still in the future, not fulfilled through Jesus. The point was, the Daniel passage supposedly "pinpoints" the time of the coming of the messiah, and if so, it would have been used to point to Jesus. But it wasn't."

I can break up my objection into two parts. First of all, the part that matters. You forget apparently what you originally asked for. In Reply #20 on: March 18, 2009, 12:19:47 AM you said:

"False. In no passage in the New Testament is Daniel 9 mentioned."

My burden was only to show that in fact Daniel 9 is mentioned in the New Testament. This I have done. You were trying to imply that no one at the time dreamed of employing Daniel 9 in messianic terms so you thought you could establish this by showing it as absent from the New Testament. However, it is not absent at all. Jesus himself cites it in Matthew.

The second part has to do with your assessment that "the Daniel passage supposedly "pinpoints" the time of the coming of the messiah." And the retort to that is sure, but why should we expect the New Testament lay out the rationale for why people expected a Messiah at all? If the NT was not written in the time when it presents itself as being written then it would be necessary to explain why everyone was looking for a messiah at just this time. Later documents, or a Gospel written later, would have to explain this. Written during the time in question it wouldn't require explanation as everyone would already know what's going on.

For example, no one has to explain to adults why we had a presidential election in 2008. We already know that we have them every four years. Children or foreigners might need to be told this. A race of people living after our system had collapsed might need to be told this. People like ourselves who have been in the system don't need an explanation and if we found it mentioned it would be incidentally only (ie, not intended to inform or educate ourselves about it).

In summary, the key point here is that you said the NT contains no references to Daniel 9. I proved it did.

You didn't ask me to show that the reference would prove also that they used it for pinpointing the messiah.

Righteous Goy · « **Reply #114 on:** June 05, 2009, 08:20:16 AM »

My burden was only to show that in fact Daniel 9 is mentioned in the New Testament. This I have done.

You are right, I was wrong to dismiss your citation of Matthew 24:15, and I apologize. My objection is rescinded.
I should have said something like, "AFAIK, in no passage in the New Testament is Daniel 9 used to prove Jesus was the messiah." To expound, if Daniel was supposedly such a good prophecy that proved them messiah should come before the destruction of the Temple, then the NT probably would have called upon it to do so. But it doesn't. What Jesus did is only mention the passage, he didn't apply it to himself or his days.

If the NT was not written in the time when it presents itself as being written then it would be necessary to explain why everyone was looking for a messiah at just this time.

I don't think so at all. Why should it need to explain that? It was (according to you) the nature of things that everybody was expecting some kind of messiah, so why should they have to explain why there was such an expectation; they simply could "ride the wave.

Righteous Goy · « **Reply #115 on:** June 24, 2009, 09:16:22 AM »

Is anybody going to show the dates and calculations of the 70 sevens so that we may better understand Daniel 9?
When should we start counting the first week?
When was the word to rebuild Jerusalem and the Temple to go out?
When was the city built, and the Temple?
When was the anointed one to arrive.
When was the second anointed to be "cut off"?
When was the city and sanctuary to be destroyed?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #116 on:** June 24, 2009, 02:18:40 PM »

I have not forgotten about this thread. I believe we are waiting for DB to reply to this:

http://sntjohnny.com/smf/index.php/topic,3214.0.html

Righteous Goy · « **Reply #117 on:** July 11, 2009, 12:27:02 PM »

Is this thread dead? Are the questions ever going to be answered?
To remind, "What are the specific dates for the prophecied events? How do the dates of events line up with Daniel's 70 Sevens? When was the word to rebuild the Temple sent out? When was the Temple rebuilt? When did the anointed one of Daneil 9:25 show up? When was the anointed one of Daniel 9:26 cut off?"

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #118 on:** July 12, 2009, 05:39:21 PM »

Quote

I have not forgotten about this thread. I believe we are waiting for DB to reply to this:

http://sntjohnny.com/smf/index.php/topic,3214.0.html

Author Topic: Stathei's Desired Prophecy (Read 5561 times)

Dannyboy

Re: Stathei's Desired Prophecy

Dannyboy

Re: Stathei's Desired Prophecy

End Bringer

Re: Stathei's Desired Prophecy

Dannyboy

Re: Stathei's Desired Prophecy

Anthony Horvath

Re: Stathei's Desired Prophecy

Righteous Goy

Re: Stathei's Desired Prophecy

Righteous Goy

Re: Stathei's Desired Prophecy

Anthony Horvath

Re: Stathei's Desired Prophecy

Righteous Goy

Re: Stathei's Desired Prophecy

Anthony Horvath

Re: Stathei's Desired Prophecy

Righteous Goy

Re: Stathei's Desired Prophecy

Righteous Goy

Re: Stathei's Desired Prophecy

Righteous Goy

Re: Stathei's Desired Prophecy

Anthony Horvath

Re: Stathei's Desired Prophecy

Righteous Goy

Re: Stathei's Desired Prophecy

Righteous Goy

Re: Stathei's Desired Prophecy

Anthony Horvath

Re: Stathei's Desired Prophecy

Righteous Goy

Re: Stathei's Desired Prophecy

Anthony Horvath

Re: Stathei's Desired Prophecy