Posts by a Christian

19

JESUS B-day

by I-CH-TH-U-S in

dec 25?.

oct 1?.

i have even heard some recent speculation on jesus possibly being born in march which is interesting.. october seems reasonable with the rational of "shepherds watched their flocks by night" and in the december months it would be too cold for them to be out?

a Christian

I believe the evidence is very strong that Christ was born in the spring of 5 BC, as this article written by a renowned astronomer makes clear.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Astronomy-Cosmology/S&CB%2010-93Humphreys.html

66

Daniels prophecy

by Hellrider in

i`m discussing with a jw-dork on another forum, and we`re discussing 607, 1914, all that crap (no scholar, stay away from this thread!

) , and then he writes: .

"they were famaliar with the writing of the jewish prophets.

a Christian

Leolaila, You wrote: I would say that the illegitimacy of Menelaus is noted obliquely by the author Daniel. The "anointed one" is "cut off" at the beginning of the final week in Daniel 9:26-27 ...
You then go on to support your understanding of how the actions of Antiochus are referenced in Daniel's "70 Weeks" prophecy. However, since I do not believe the words of Daniel 9:24-27 were intended to in any way apply to events which took place during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, I was not persuaded by your arguments.
You wrote: Moreover the text refers to the cessation of daily sacrifice, which is what in fact occurred in 168 BC through Antiochus' edict ... As I pointed out, since Menelaus was not allowed by God's Law to offer those sacrifices, those sacrifices totally ceased in God's eyes at the time Menelaus became High Priest. Consider this illustration: Only citizens of the United States are allowed to vote in U.S. elections. People who are not U.S. citizens may if they wish drop off a slip of paper to a U.S. polling place on election day stating who they wish to be elected and call it a "vote." But if their "vote" is not recognized by the proper authorities as a "vote" and is not counted by those authorities as a "vote" is it really a "vote"? No, it is not. Neither were any of the sacrifices offered by Menelaus counted as "sacrifices" by the only One whose opinion on this matter counted. Thus I believe the cessation of daily sacrifices began in 171 BC. You wrote: As for Jason's earlier neglect of the sacrifices (due to his hellenizing tendencies), this was as you would say simply not relevant....neglect is not the same thing as "putting an end" to sacrifice and ceasing them altogether. I agree. Daniel prophesied that "After 2,300 days the sanctuary will be cleansed," of corrupted Jewish religious practices which began with the appointment of Jason as High Priest. (Dan. 8:14 KJV) However, he said there were only going to be "1290 days" "from the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up," until that cleansing took place. (Dan. 12:11) I have not said that the sacrifices were ever abolished during the tenure of Jason, only that they were often neglected while he was High Priest. I believe that fact, along with other corruptions which Jason introduced into the Jewish religion during his time as its visible leader, marked the beginning of his service as a very significant time in Bible prophecy, the beginning of the "2,300 days" of Daniel 8:14. You wrote: As far as the 2,300 "evenings and mornings" are concerned, I notice that you take them to be 2,300 full days rather than half days ... Yes I do, just as many Bible commentators and translators also do. We understand these words to refer to 2,300 days because we understand "2,300 evenings and mornings" to refer to 2,300 evenings and 2,300 mornings. If I tell you I am going on a Caribbean cruise and will be gone for fourteen days and nights, do you think I am going to be gone for only seven of each? Of course not. I believe those who understand the "2,300 evenings and mornings" in such a way, to refer to 1,150 of each, only do so to make their own prophetic interpretation of Daniel's prophecies come close to alligning with the dates of historical events which took place during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. You wrote: The other key point is that the terminus of the 2,300 half days is when "the sanctuary has its rights restored" (Daniel 8:14), which refers not to the cessation of "corrupted Jewish practice" as you may put it but the restoration of the sanctuary to legitimate worship. You say this as if it were a proven fact. But it is not. You wrote: I cannot get my mind around the concept that instituting pagan worship by sacrificing unclean animals in honor of Zeus Olympias is what the author meant in referring to the Temple having its rights restored (i.e. being "vindicated", "justified", etc.). It doesn't make sense to me. Yet 168 BC is what you posit as the terminus of the 2,300 days. To begin with, you may do well to keep this fact in mind. Before pagan worship was introduced into Jerusalem's Temple all vestiges of the corrupted Jewish religion were first removed. You may also want to do some reading on the meaning of the Hebrew word "sedeq" used in Dan. 8:14 which has been rendered in various Bible translations as "cleansed," "vindicated, "justified," and even as "reconsecrated" and "properly restored." According to the "Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament" (1980 Vol. 2, pgs. 752-755) this word simply means "to be just, righteous." The article on this word's somewhat simple meaning points out that "the vistation of punishment on moral infractions is an example of righteousness." This article also makes a statement which I believe is very relevant to this discussion. It tells us, "God is just to deliver the national sanctuary to the sword of Israel's enemies on account of her sins." This being true, justice (sedeq) was certainly done in mid-December of 168 BC when Menelaus assisted the armed forces of Antiochus in then removing everyone and everything associated with the Jewish religion from Jerusalem's Temple.
You wrote: to displace the cessation of sacrifice and the installation of the abomination to some time earlier requires a whole set of assumptions and creative readings that in my view are completely unnecessary when the usual Antiochene interpretation is adopted. You may be right about that. I do not believe having the precisely correct interpretation of all of Daniel's various "day" prophecies is a matter of great importance. Especially if people can read these prophecies of Daniel, compare them to the facts of history, find a fairly close match between the two, and recognize Daniel as a true prophet of God. So, if you can do that while understanding Daniel's prophecies as you now do, that's fine with me. Mike

66

Daniels prophecy

by Hellrider in

i`m discussing with a jw-dork on another forum, and we`re discussing 607, 1914, all that crap (no scholar, stay away from this thread!

) , and then he writes: .

"they were famaliar with the writing of the jewish prophets.

a Christian

Leolaia, I understand that the sequence of events as indicated in Daniel's prophecies and in Jewish history seem to support the idea that the events which we have here been discussing occurred in the order in which you have here described them. Namely that Antiochus set up an abomination which caused the desolation of the Jewish religion and abolished the daily sacrifices following his return to Syria from Egypt in 168 BC, and not before that time as my interpretation of Daniel's various "day" prophecies would have it. However, as I'm sure you are aware, the daily sacrifices began to be regularly neglected during the tenure of Jason long before Antiochus turned Jerusalem's Temple into a temple of Zeus. And since Menelaus as a non-Levite High Priest was not even legally authorized to perform any rituals of the Jewish religion, the daily sacrifices which he offered, if he offered any at all, must have gone unrecognized by God. These things being so, I believe the words of Dan. 11:31, where we are told of Antiochus desecrating the Temple, doing away with the daily sacrifices, and setting up an abomination that would bring about the desolation of the Jewish religion, should be understood in one of two ways. First, these words can be understood as an anachronism, parenthetically if you will. As you may know, Old Testament history contains several such anachronisms. Or the words of Dan. 11:31 may be understood as describing the highly visible actions that Antiochus would take upon his return from Egypt in 168 BC, unmistakable actions which would make it very clear to even casual observers that he had in fact desecrated the Temple, done away with the daily sacrifice, and set up an abomination which would temporarily bring an end to the Jewish religion, things that all careful Jewish observers had been aware of since he had appointed Menelaus to be High Priest in 171 BC, some 1290 days earlier. However, though the results of the actions of Antiochus were not noticed by casual observers until mid December of 168 BC, I believe the actual sequence of events which eventually resulted in Antiochus' completely removing all Jewish religious practices from Jerusalem's Temple began much earlier, some 2300 days earlier to be precise, in the year 174 BC, when Antiochus appointed Jason as High Priest. Mike

66

Daniels prophecy

by Hellrider in

i`m discussing with a jw-dork on another forum, and we`re discussing 607, 1914, all that crap (no scholar, stay away from this thread!

) , and then he writes: .

"they were famaliar with the writing of the jewish prophets.

a Christian

Hamster,

Like most matters involving chronology, JWs have this one wrong. The preponderance of the evidence, including such things as the time of Herod's death and the star of Bethlehem, points to a 5 BC date for Christ's birth.

Mike

66

Daniels prophecy

by Hellrider in

i`m discussing with a jw-dork on another forum, and we`re discussing 607, 1914, all that crap (no scholar, stay away from this thread!

) , and then he writes: .

"they were famaliar with the writing of the jewish prophets.

a Christian

Leolaia, Thank you for your comments. I don't have time now to respond to all you wrote. Where you find the time to write as much as you do I don't know. You wrote: What I don't understand is how you describe Menelaus and Antiochus as "cleansing the temple of corrupt Jewish religious practices" by instituting complete heathenism, when the corruption of Jason and Menelaus that preceded this was precisely the introduction of "hellenizing practices" into the Temple, contrary to the Law (2 Maccabees 4:11-14). In 168 BC Antiochus did not introduce a corrupted form of the Jewish religion into Jerusalem's Temple. Rather he then completely removed all corrupted Jewish worship from the Temple. As I wrote earlier, the fact that the temple was then converted into a temple of a pagan god is totally irrelevant. For, I believe God's only concern was to then cleanse Jerusalem's temple of corrupt Jewish religious practices, worship practices that were part Jewish and part pagan.

For, as I also wrote earlier to illustrate this point, cleaning solutions quite often contain ingredients which are very caustic. After being used to cleanse a vessel of filth these cleansers almost always leave behind residue which is itself harmful and must also then be removed before the cleansed vessel is finally again fit for use. This was what happened when Antiochus cleansed Jerusalem's Temple of the part pagan -part Jewish religious rituals which had been taking place there for the past several years. You wrote: The removal of the abomination, moreover, is described in 1 Maccabees 4:43, 6:7 as occurring in 165 BC during the purification of the Temple: "Next he selected priests who were blameless in observance of the Law to purify the sanctuary and remove the stones of the Abomination to an unclean place" (4:42-43). The priests cleansed and purified the sanctuary ... First of all, how the writers of 1 Maccabees understood Daniel's prophecies is of little concern to me. For I do not recognize the writings of the Apocrypha as inspired Scripture. That being the case, the writer of 1 Maccabees may well have misunderstood the words of Daniel's prophecies concerning who or what constituted Daniel's "abomination." As I have said, for the reasons I pointed out earlier, I believe Daniel's "abomination causing desolation" was the non-Levite High Priest Menelaus. However, it is possible that in referring to "the stones of the abomination" the writer of 1 Maccabees may simply have been referring in a general way to the pagan alter which had been erected in the Temple, which certainly was then quite abominable in the eyes of all Jews, and not referencing the prophecies of Daniel at all. But again, even if he was doing so, his understanding of Daniel's prophecies may very well have been mistaken. Mike

66

Daniels prophecy

by Hellrider in

i`m discussing with a jw-dork on another forum, and we`re discussing 607, 1914, all that crap (no scholar, stay away from this thread!

) , and then he writes: .

"they were famaliar with the writing of the jewish prophets.

a Christian

Navigator,

You wrote: My sources give, Dec, 167bc as the date that the pagan altar was constructed in the temple and the cleansing 3 years later in 164 b.c..

You may want to check some other sources. Here are a few from the Net. http://www.drshirley.org/hist/hist07.html

http://www.fanaticus.org/DBA/armies/II43.html The opinion of scholars is pretty evenly divided on whether Antiochus IV ruled from 175-164 http://www.bible-history.com/sketches/ancient/antiochus-epiphanes.html or from 174-163 http://www.hebroots.org/hebrootsarchive/0312/0312f.html . For various reasons (what dating method was used, what calendar was used, questions about the Olympiad method of dating, etc.) there is often a question of one year one way or the other when it comes to assigning dates to may events recorded in ancient history.

However this makes no difference to my understanding of these prophecies. In other words, whether the events I described began in 174 and ended in 164 or began in 173 and ended in 163 is inconsequential to my understanding of Daniel.

You wrote: Most scholars seem to believe that the book of Daniel was written during this 3 year period, probably near the end of it. ... It really isn't prophecy when it is written after the fact is it?

There is much evidence to support the belief that all of Daniel was written before the time of Antiochus IV. http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qwhendan3x.html

But I did not enter into this discussion to debate Daniel's authenticity with Bible critics. And I will not do so now. I simply don't have the time. Besides, there never exists enough evidence of anything to convince someone of something they do not wish to believe.

Mike

66

Daniels prophecy

by Hellrider in

i`m discussing with a jw-dork on another forum, and we`re discussing 607, 1914, all that crap (no scholar, stay away from this thread!

) , and then he writes: .

"they were famaliar with the writing of the jewish prophets.

a Christian

Navigator, I too have studied at great length all of Daniel's prophecies pertaining to the actions of Antiochus Epiphanes. Here is my take, which is much like yours. Jewish history indicates that Daniel's various "day" prophecies very well fit events which took place between the years 174 and 164 BC. In those historical accounts we find strong reason to believe that the 2,300 days of Daniel 8:14, as well as the 1,290 and 1,335 days of Daniel 12:11,12 were all literally and precisely fulfilled during the reign of Syrian king Antiochus Epiphanes. The following information can be easily obtained by reading a few Jewish history books and Bible commentaries. In 174 BC Jason, the brother of High Priest Onias III, secured the High Priesthood for himself by bribing Syrian king Antiochus Epiphanes. Jason's actions thereafter, such as promoting Jewish participation in athletic competitions dedicated to the Greek god Hercules and sending silver from the temple treasury to be sacrificed to that false god, caused the temple priests to neglect the sacrifices which were required by Jewish law. History records the fact that this corrupted Jewish worship, which began with the appointment of Jason as High Priest, was not completely cleansed from the temple until mid December of 168 BC when it was forcefully removed by the military forces of the king of Syria, Antiochus Epiphanes, with the very willing and active assistance of Jason’s successor as High Priest, Menelaus. Though history does not record the exact month and day of Jason's appointment as High Priest in 174 BC, I believe Daniel's prophecies and Jewish history combine to tell us that his appointment took place 2,300 days before the temple was cleansed of corrupted Jewish worship in mid December of 168 BC. "After 2,300 days (or evenings and mornings) the sanctuary will be cleansed." (Dan. 8:14 KJV) Many Bible commentators believe that the "evenings and mornings” here spoken of refer to the evening and morning sacrifices which began to be neglected after the appointment of Jason as High Priest. In 171 BC, Menelaus, a Jew not born of the line of Aaron, managed to have himself appointed as High Priest in place of Jason by offering Antiochus a larger bribe than Jason had previously paid. Since Menelaus was not of the line of Aaron, in fact not even a Levite, his being set up as High Priest was no doubt "an abomination" to God. And since he was not permitted by Jewish law, as were other High Priests, to "daily offer up sacrifices, first for their own sins and then the sins of the people" (Heb. 7:27), it is believed that "the daily sacrifice" was then "abolished" in God's eyes. Though history does not record the exact month and day of Menelaus' appointment as High Priest in 171 BC, I believe Daniel's prophecies and Jewish history combine to tell us that 1,290 days passed between the time Menelaus became High Priest and the time he finished assisting Antiochus Epiphanes in bringing about the total "desolation" of the Jewish religion. "From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up there will be 1,290 days." (Dan. 12:11) History tells us that it was in mid December of 168 BC that Jerusalem's Temple was completely cleansed of corrupted Jewish worship brought about by the actions of Jason and Menelaus. This cleansing took place when Antiochus Epiphenes completely outlawed all practices of the Jewish religion. Jewish history indicates that some 2,300 days of corrupted Jewish worship then came to an end, a corruption which began with the appointment of High Priest Jason in 174 BC. Jewish history also indicates that some 1,290 days had also then passed since Menelaus, the "abomination" who had "abolished the daily sacrifice" and caused the "desolation" of the Jewish religion, had first been "set up" as High Priest. Three years later, in mid December of 165 BC, the revolt of the Maccabees finally reestablished undefiled Jewish worship in Jerusalem's temple. In the year 164 BC Antiochus Epiphanes died and was succeeded by his son, Antiochus Eupator. Later that same year Antiochus Eupator made a peace treaty with the Jews which guaranteed them religious freedom. Though history does not record the exact month and day that Eupator made that peace treaty with the Jews, I believe Daniel's prophesies and Jewish history combine to tell us that this peace treaty was made 1335 days after Antiochus Epiphanes, with the assistance of High Priest Menelaus, completely cleansed Jerusalem's Temple of all corrupted Jewish worship. "Blessed is the one who waits for and reaches the end of the 1,335 days." (Dan.12:12) Some Bible interpreters have chosen to turn the 2,300, 1290 and 1,335 days of Daniel chapters 8 and 12 into equal numbers of years and connect those years to various ancient and modern historical events. The Watchtower Society now actually says that all of Daniel’s “day” prophecies apply to events which occurred in the early history of their organization, such as the number of days which passed between various assemblies and published articles in the Watchtower magazine. ( Interpretations which are so far-fetched that it is hard for me to believe that even the men who came up with these interpretations actually believe them.) However, with all of the foregoing historical facts in mind, we have no need to believe that the "days" of Daniel chapters 8 and 12 were meant to be understood as equal numbers of years. And we certainly have no need to count days which passed between various JW assemblies and Watchtower articles! For history testifies that all of the "day" prophecies of Daniel very well fit the timing of very significant events which took place in Jewish history between the years 174 and 164 BC. Some have objected to this understanding because they feel God could not have considered the sanctuary to have been “cleansed” at the time the pagan alter was erected in the temple in 168 BC. For they say at that time the temple was more defiled than ever before. However, I disagree. For the temple was completely cleansed of the corrupted worship of the one true God at the time Menelaus assisted Syria's armies in removing all vestiges of Jewish worship from Jerusalem's temple. The fact that the temple was then converted into a temple of a false god, I believe, is totally irrelevant. For, I believe God's only concern was to then "cleanse" Jerusalem's temple of corrupt Jewish religious practices. How and by whom Jerusalem's temple was used during the following three years seems to me to be entirely beside the point.

To illustrate this fact, I will remind you of the fact that cleaning solutions quite often contain ingredients which are poisonous. After being used to cleanse a vessel of filth these cleansers almost always leave behind residue which is itself harmful and must also be removed at a later time before the cleansed vessel is finally again fit for use. However, no one will deny that the dirty vessel was "cleansed" prior to the time that the cleanser's poisonous residue was itself removed.

However, despite the wide availability of this information millions of Jehovah’s Witnesses now actually feel that it makes more sense to believe that Daniel’s prophecies refer to various JW assemblies and Watchtower articles from the 1920s, 30s and 40s, than to believe they refer to a time when all practices of the Jewish religion were totally outlawed under penalty of death, and to the time those sanctions were finally removed. However, I continue to strongly believe that 'the abomination which causes desolation" referenced in Daniel 9:27 is a different "abomination" than the one referred to in Daniel 8:14 and 12:11,12. For words of Christ quoted by Matthew, Mark and Luke make it quite clear that one "abomination which causes desolation" "spoken of by Daniel the prophet" was the army of Rome which destroyed Jerusalem and her Temple in the first century. Mike

66

Daniels prophecy

by Hellrider in

i`m discussing with a jw-dork on another forum, and we`re discussing 607, 1914, all that crap (no scholar, stay away from this thread!

) , and then he writes: .

"they were famaliar with the writing of the jewish prophets.

a Christian

Navigator, You wrote: I happen to believe that there is a good deal in the new testament attributed to Jesus that he never said. Just as Daniel was written during the period of the Greek Desolation and attributed to an earlier period ... I disagree with both of those statements. But you seem to believe these things quite strongly. That being the case, I see no point in discussing Daniel's "70 weeks" prophecy with you. For you don't believe it was a real prophecy anyway. And you don't even care what the Bible tells us Jesus Himself had to say on this matter. I would, however, be interested to hear how anyone who respects the Bible as being God's Word, or at least believes the words the Gospels attributed to Jesus which impact this discussion were actually spoken by Him, can say that the "abomination" referred to in Daniel 9:27 does not refer to the Roman armies which besieged Jerusalem and destroyed its Temple between the years AD 66 and 70. Mike

66

Daniels prophecy

by Hellrider in

i`m discussing with a jw-dork on another forum, and we`re discussing 607, 1914, all that crap (no scholar, stay away from this thread!

) , and then he writes: .

"they were famaliar with the writing of the jewish prophets.

a Christian

Navigator,

You wrote: As you well know, the "abomination standing in the holy place" is a reference to the erection of a pagan god on the altar of the temple during the time of the Macabees.

No one is denying this is true in regards to when those words are used in Dan. 11:31 and 12:11. But most Christian commentators do not believe it is true in regards to when those words are used in Dan. 9:27. They understand that reference to an "abomination" which would cause a "desolation" to refer to the Roman armies which would desolate First Century Jerusalem and her Temple. And they point to the words of Christ Himself, as recorded by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, in support of their understanding Dan. 9:27 in this way.

I asked you if Jesus was not referring to the words of Dan. 9:27, which words "spoken of by Daniel the prophet" containing the words "abomination which causes desolation" was He referring to?

You answered: The phrase in Mark (let the reader understand) is an indication that Mark is herewith reproducing a document which could not have been part of an oral communication by Jesus. ... This section of Mark was later copied by both Matthew and Luke.

So you certainly seem to be saying that Jesus never spoke the words which Matthew and Mark tell us that He did, saying that "the abomination which causes desolation which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet" would cause "those in Judea" to "flee to the mountains." And you certainly seem to be saying that Luke was mistaken when he understood that Mark and Matthew's reference to "the abomination which causes desolation which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet" to refer to "Jerusalem being surrounded by armies."

If this is your position and/or Leolaia's position, I see no reason to discuss the Scriptures further with people who have so little respect for them.

Mike

66

Daniels prophecy

by Hellrider in

i`m discussing with a jw-dork on another forum, and we`re discussing 607, 1914, all that crap (no scholar, stay away from this thread!

) , and then he writes: .

"they were famaliar with the writing of the jewish prophets.

a Christian

Navigator, You say that my mind is "clearly closed to truth." And you say that why? Because I don't believe that Dan. 9:24-27 was speaking of Antiochus Ephinanes? Then I guess, according to you, Jesus did not care about truth either, since according to the gospels, He understood that one of Daniel's prophecies was referring not to Ephinanes but to the Roman armies led by General Titus which would surround Jerusalem in AD 66. Matthew and Mark tell us that Jesus said the following: "Therefore when you see the abomination which causes desolation which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place ( let the reader understand ), then those in Judea must flee to the mountains." (Matt. 24:15,16; Mark:14) In Luke's parallel account of Christ's words he makes it quite clear that when Jesus referred to this 'desolator' "spoken of by Daniel the prophet" He was referring to the Roman armies which would in the not too distant future surround and then desolate Jerusalem. For when reporting Christ's words on this subject matter he paraphrased them this way: "When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near." (Luke 21:20) So, clearly, according to the Bible itself, both Jesus and Luke understood that some prophecy of Daniel - which spoke of an 'abomination which would cause desolation' - found its fulfillment in the first century AD, at the time Rome destroyed Jerusalem. So, I ask you, if at the time Jesus referred to words "spoken of by Daniel the prophet" ( in which Daniel spoke of an 'abomination which would cause desolation' ) if He was not referring to the words of Daniel 9:27, which words "spoken of by Daniel the prophet" containing such language was He referring to? Or maybe you acknowledge that in these passages Jesus and the Gospel writers were referring to the words of Dan. 9:27 (as most cross reference Bibles indicate that they were) but you maintain that they also misunderstood Daniel 9; 24-27.