Age Of The Gentiles

[Kris]

Black Cat-- are you saying that you believe Daniel is accurate prophecy?  It seems that way?  Your arguements are certainly in line with my christian friend-- in fact, I think you may have even said a few of the same things.   Are you asserting the preterist viewpoint that everything was accomplished during Jesus time-- and there is no "gap" theology, or do you believe that as well?

 

I am a little confused with the assertion of dating of Daniel regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls in that some of the manuscripts are older than one might expect-- however, I could also see how the messianic and apocalyptic writing could get copied and passed around quite frequently because that was big news in those days-- people were obsessed with the end. Anyone else have thoughts on what links BC provided regarding the dating of Daniel?

[Overcame Faith]

If anyone would like to read for themselves the meaning of Daniel's 70 Weeks, then go right to the source and read all about it.  I refer you to the Books of the Maccabees.  Here is the First Book.

 

http://www.templemountfaithful.org/books/1stmacc.pdf

 

It can be a bit gruesome, so be warned.

 

In this book, you will read all about the covenant and the betrayal of that covenant.  You will read about the rebuilding of Jerusalem by Antiochus Epiphanes and about his "abomination that causes desolation", and his destruction of the temple.  It's all there and none of it has anything whatsoever to do with Jesus.

[Kris]

Overcame-- thanks for this. I have always subscribed to the fact that Daniel was written about the Maccabeen times--and have been quite content with that. I also believe that once the end of the world did not transpire-- people began to reinterpet Daniel and this may be what lead to the ultimate tenets of christianity. Richard Carrier has some interesting theses on this topic.

 

I do have to say that Black Cat's postings got me a little twisted up with regard to the Dead Sea Scrolls and what some of the people had to say-- some appear to be as old as 125bce-- and there are some assertations that there would not be enough time to disseminate this literature-- so it truly was early prophecy. I subscribe to the belief that perhaps some of the book had been written in earlier times, but that the prophetic peices may have been added later-- as a way to assuage people going through a terrible time. Reading that the end was near and that god was going to take care of things would have been a comfort, I would think. Doesn't the book of Daniel state that it would be sealed up until the very end-- and was "found" around 167bc? Isn't that failed prophecy in the sense that we are still here 2000+ years later? Or is that the gap theology at work?

[centauri]

 

I'll comment in red so that I don't forget the points I want to make (my memory is getting bad now)

 

centauri:

The apologist relies on the New Testament to create a fulfillment.

 

It's true that we are looking after the facts and may be guilty of fitting Jesus into the Daniel stuff, but as I said above, some of the stuff that Daniel wrote was still to happen in the future (oldest manuscripts being dated as 2BC) and thus the temple's destruction within 40 years of Daniel's timeline prediction is very striking to me, and thus lends support to the Messiah having to be around prior to this destruction.  Well, I only know of one contender who seems to fit the bill.

Please elaborate on how your contender (Jesus) fits the bill of a king messiah when he doesn't have the pedigree to be one, was never anointed as one (per Old Testament guidelines), and never sat on the throne.

 

cenaturi:

He assumes that Jesus was actually a king messiah and proceeds from there.

Jesus was never anointed as king and was not a valid sacrifice for sin according to God's regulations.

 

BC:

I've heard this said before and find it a very strange thing to say.  I understand Jesus' anointing was done directly by God supposedly and was not with oil, which was a symbol, but with the holy spirit that supposedly descended on Jesus like a dove.  That far surpasses getting olive oil dripped onto you don't you think?

Why would it be strange to take God's procedures seriously?

While being called anointed does mean that a person found favor with God, and that they were to serve God in some capacity, there was an important aspect of being anointed that played an important part in the process of being given the title of king of Israel.

That aspect was the physical anointing of the person that was to be king.

The Bible specifically mentions the ritual of being anointed with oil, which in the case of a king of Israel, provided a form of official authorization and recognition of regal status.

 

Saul, the first king of Israel, was anointed with oil by the prophet Samuel in 1 Sam 9:27, 1 Sam 10:1.

David, the progenitor for the Davidic line, was anointed with oil by the prophet Samuel in 1 Sam 16:3.

Solomon, the son of David and a required link for the expected king messiah, was anointed with oil by the high priest Zadok with help from the prophet Nathan in 1 Kings 1:34,39.

 

As you know, anointing oil was not simply straight oil, but was a special formulation of various spices and olive oil.

The exact formula is given in Exo 30:23-25.

It was the prophet Moses that anointed the High Priest Aaron and his sons(Exo 30:30).

Anointing with holy oil involved pouring it on the head of the person being anointed(Exo 29:7).

This anointing oil was not to be used on the body of an ordinary person and if any unauthorized person attempted to make this oil, there were punishments for doing so. (Exo 30:32-33)

 

If the Bible is to be believed, then Jesus was never anointed with holy anointing oil by Elijah or by any other authorized person.

According to the New Testament, Jesus was anointed, but not with holy oil and not by any prophet or high priest.

 

The Old Testament states that the prophet Elijah would be sent prior to the great day of the Lord.

It's not unreasonable to postulate that when the prophet Elijah returned(Mal 4:5-6) to help usher in the messianic Era, he would anoint the expected Davidic king who would then preside and rule over the golden age.

The prophet Elijah anointed two people to positions of kingly authority during his time on earth, and also anointed his successor, the prophet Elisha. (1 Kings 19:15-16)

However, Elijah never showed up to validate Jesus as king , and John the Baptist never anointed Jesus with oil.

 

It could be argued that the failure for Jesus to be anointed with oil by Elijah or John the Baptist isn't of any real importance, but according to the Bible, the physical anointing with oil was critical to establishing a valid king.

In particular, the throne of King David was contested by one of his sons, named Adonijah, whose mother was Haggith.

1 Kings 1:5

Then Adonijah the son of Haggith exalted himself, saying, I will be king: and he prepared him chariots and horsemen, and fifty men to run before him.

 

The throne had been promised to another of David's sons, named Solomon, whose mother was Bathsheba.

1 Chron 28:5

And of all my sons, (for the LORD hath given me many sons,) he hath chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the LORD over Israel.

 

Bathsheba goes to King David and asks him to make it clear who the future ruler is.

1 Kings 1:20

And thou, my lord, O king, the eyes of all Israel are upon thee, that thou shouldest tell them who shall sit on the throne of my lord the king after him.

 

King David then declares that Solomon will be the next ruler and makes it official by having the prophet Nathan and the priest Zadok anoint Solomon.

1 Kings 1:34

And let Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anoint him there king over Israel: and blow ye with the trumpet, and say, God save king Solomon.

 

This was a physical anointing with oil, not simply a few words of confirmation.

1 Kings 1:39

And Zadok the priest took an horn of oil out of the tabernacle, and anointed Solomon. And they blew the trumpet; and all the people said, God save king Solomon.

 

This was the way the impostor(Adonijah) was separated from the genuine candidate(Solomon) for the throne of David.

For all the talk about how Jesus was the perfect candidate for the throne of David, one would think that Elijah or a high priest might have actually shown up and made an official endorsement of Jesus by anointing him with oil or at least presiding over such a ceremony.

However, the prophet Elijah never appeared and Jesus was never anointed king according to the guidelines exhibited in the Hebrew scriptures.

 

Obviously we have no proof that this actually happened, just as there is no proof that David was anointed or Saul.  But as far as the 'story' goes, it seems to make much sense to me.

Well, it makes sense if God's prior practices are waived away and Jesus is exempt from them.

[Joshpantera]

Hey BC, I can assure you that decrypting the book of Daniel doesn't turn out very differently than decrypting the Exodus or any number of things that you, I, and others have torn through in the past.

 

Remember what usually happens?

 

It usually turns out that many books of the Bible belong to later periods and look back at earlier times. People interpret them as prophecy and in many cases wrongly so. This general trend turns out to be true of the book of Daniel as well.

 

One of the best series on this comes from youtubes Xoroaster:

 

 

That's the intro to the series. I would recommend watching the entire series if you're genuinely interested in knowing all of the details that go along with the book of Daniel. Below is the closing summary: 

 

[Fweethawt]

 

My mistake--- I know that for as long as I have been around (since 1967) I have had to hear about this crap!!! I just want to relax and watch Dance Moms without having to worry about the threat of armeggedon, you know? I try to avoid these Christian friends as much as possible just so I don't have to hear the latest theory!!

 

 

 

If it is that bad you could always go hard line with them.  Tell them that you don't want to talk about religion at all.  When they ignore that boundary simply answer "There is no such thing as God, Jesus, angels, devils, demons, talking snakes, talking donkeys, behemoths, leviathans, sea monsters, dragons, unicorns, cherubim, seraphim, flying whirling wheeles, fiery chariots, holy spirits, familiar spirits, evil spirits, no witchcraft, no magic power, no prophesy, no healing, no miracles, no raptures . . . and so on . . . and so forth."

Everybody ALWAYS forgets about the SATYRS! What makes them so forgettable????

[centauri]

 

centauri:

The expected king was to rule and usher in a new age of unity and prosperity in his days, not thousands of years later.

 

Black Cat:

Yes, this is evident by the disciples asking Jesus if he was restoring the Kingdom to Israel at that time.  Expectations can be wrong or rather they don't have all the information. 

If their expectations were wrong, then scripture is wrong because it states that the king would perform his job functions in his days.

 

centauri:

The apologist also turns Jesus into a high priest (via the Book of Hebrews), and that's a violation of God's regulations.

Jesus does not have the pedigree to be a high priest.

 

Hmm, again, I don't follow this line of reasoning.  We know (according to the story), that as well as a Levitical priesthood, there was a priesthood that preceded it: the Melchizadek priesthood.  This dude was supposedly a King and a priest.  What a mysterious fellow.  He is a perfect 'type' or foreshadow for Jesus' priesthood and Kingship, wouldn't you say?  I see no problem with Jesus' pedigree as a high priest and King. 

I would agree if the Biblical rules can be tossed aside.

The Levitical priesthood superseded that of Melchizedek and was promised exclusively to the Levites, specifically to the sons of Aaron.

The penalty for impersonating a high priest was death.

 

centauri:

The apologist then states that Jesus confirmed "the covenant".

The new covenant was to be a time when the law would be infused directly into the hearts of the people, which never happened.

 

I  understand this as having a partial fulfilment with the first believers being baptised in the holy spirit and thus having their hearts infused directly with God's love and power.  It hasn't had a universal application yet.

The new covenant as defined by Jer 31, states that the law would be infused in their hearts so that they would obey it.

That hasn't happened in Christianity, which claims itself to be free from the law.

centauri:

Jesus undermined parts of the law, something that an expected king would not do under any circumstance.

 

This is a big subject.  I understand the Law as having a temporary application but with eternal spiritual application.  E.g. circumcision must have a temporary application, as a mortal body cannot live forever.  It's spiritual counterpart of application is circumcision of the heart or one's attitude.  Jesus didn't mention this example and nor did he say that the blood of animals would no longer be acceptable.  There was never going to be an eternal slaughtering of animals, so again this part of the Law has a temporary application which was fulfilled eternally via Jesus' blood.

I assume then that you don't believe this:

Psa 119:160(NIV)

All your words are true; all your righteous laws are eternal.

 

In light of Jer 33:18, I'm not sure how you can say sacrifices, including animal sacrifices would not be going on in the messianic era.

 

Nor do I understand how you can say the blood of Jesus fulfilled anything when his sacrifice violated just about every rule God gave concerning sin sacrifices.

 

centauri:

The apologist states that the messiah would cause sacrifice to cease by the sacrifice of himself.

That violates the law of God and scripture.

 

There are no provisions for a human to be used as a sin sacrifice in Leviticus.

 

There's a lot to say about this so I can't do it justice in this short reply.  The sacrificial system in the OT is purely dealing with animals.  Humans were not killed by the priests to atone for people's sins.  That idea is abhorrent and similar to the kinds of human sacrifices that other peoples had (I'm thinking of the film Apocalypto.  Did God need  a human to be killed to appease his anger?  Or is Jesus' sacrifice like that of a soldier who gives his life in the line of duty to save others?  Jesus was murdered by the Romans (and the Jewish religious leaders).   He knew his enemies would kill him but chose to continue in his mission.  I'm struggling to convey the difference between the kind of sacrifice that is conjured up in Apocalypto, and Jesus' death.   The animals that were killed all those hundreds of years prior to Jesus, were symbols.

If Jesus was a sin sacrifice then that sacrifice violated the law of God.

Regardless of the motivation, the law doesn't provide for humans to be used as sin sacrifices.

 

BC:

If you take the example of the Passover Lamb that had to be taken into the family home and loved and petted for several days before Passover.  The family would have felt torn at having to kill this innocent lamb.  I can see how the issues of life and death, innocence, suffering, all these things were crudely 'covered' by the animals, but if God provides a Lamb whose blood is shed and thus ends the vicious cycle of animal sacrifices and ultimately sin and death, then I don't see a violation of the Law but a change or fulfilment.

I'm curious as to where you find OT scripture that says God would end his laws on sacrifice and replace them with a new system.

Is it your position that God planned to surprise them with a new system and used Christianity to carry out this surprise?

 

centauri:

Sacrifice will be active in the messianic era and the Levitial priesthood will be functioning.

  

Jer 33:17-18(ESV)

“For thus says the Lord: David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel,

and the Levitical priests shall never lack a man in my presence to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings, and to make sacrifices forever.”

 

This verse does not say that these things will last 'forever', but 'continually'.  The Hebrew word that is usually translated 'forever' (Olam), doesn't necessarily mean 'without end'.  It can mean for a length of time that is not determined.  Some Christians believe that these kind of verses are showing that there will be a temporary reintroduction of some aspects of the Levitical priesthood system and that even animals will be killed to focus people on Jesus' sacrifice.  This is because sin is still present during the 1000 year reign.  I don't know about any of that.  The NT seems to teach that all believers are priests now, and so these verses have would make more sense from a spiritual perspective and not literally.  I'm not sure.  What I am sure about, as far as the story goes, is that one day there will be no more tears, pain or death.  If animals are to be eternally sacrificed, this would make a mockery of that part of the story. 

If Jesus ended the Levitical priesthood, then there wouldn't be need of them in the messianic era, but Jer 33 specifically states the Levites are functioning in their usual role.

I wondering where in the (Old Testament) God states that he will end the Levitical priesthood.

It seems odd to me that he gives promises and regulations that get waived away when a person shows up that doesn't need to adhere to any of them.

centauri:

Text of Dan 9 states:

Dan 9:25-27(ESV)

Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.

And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed.

And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.”

 

Pushing the destruction of the city outside the 70 weeks is vital if one wants to place Jesus in this passage, but I see no reason such a rationaliztion should be accepted, especially when Jesus doesn't even qualify to be a king messiah.

It's true, that the destruction is outside of the 70 weeks by about 33 years and I still think it very feasible to view the destruction as not having to occur within the 70 weeks but be a result of the other things that happen within the 70 weeks.   I believe the story of Jesus makes him the only valid and legally qualified contender to this 'anointed one' mentioned in Daniel who comes on the scene very soon before this destruction of the city.  Surely you can see how the story of Jesus seems to fit very well to Daniel's prophecy.  There is no other contenders who lived at that time, who could claim to be that 'anointed one' of Daniel.  There are no writings or stories that have survived, that claim someone else as this 'Messiah'.   Daniel was right about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple - so was he right about the Messiah? 

You might want to read Jewish interpretations of Dan 9.

They have candidates that include a king and a high priest.

 

BC:

The 'anointed one' is mentioned twice and it can be seen by the context that it is the same person being spoken about.

 

centauri:

The context is for a prince to come after 49 years or 7 weeks, then after 434 more years or 62 weeks, an anointed one is cut off.

 

Dan 9:25-26(ESV)

Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.

And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed.

 

If it's the same person then they lived for hundreds of years.

Verse 26 then states that the people of a prince will come and destroy the city and Temple.

That's three people in total, two being princes and one simply being anointed.

A ruler and his army come and destroy the city.

The second prince is the ruler that comes with his army.

 

I've only had a quick look at this so I could be wrong, but if you check this verses in the Hebrew interlinear:

http://interlinearbible.org/daniel/9-25.htm

 

your Bible version that you quote from, seems to not convey the meaning correctly.  The correct translation should read:

''Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.''  King James version.

I will strongly contest your assertion that the ESV is incorrect.

I contend it's one of the few honest Christian interpretations.

The KJV distorts the Hebrew text to a great degree.

There is no capitalization "Messiah the Prince" in Dan 9.

 

JPS 1917 Tanach

9:25 Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem unto one anointed, a prince, shall be seven weeks; and for threescore and two weeks, it shall be built again, with broad place and moat, but in troublous times.

9:26 And after the threescore and two weeks shall an anointed one be cut off, and be no more; and the people of a prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; but his end shall be with a flood; and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

 

Note that in the above Jewish rendition of Dan 9:25-26 there is no capitalization of the words "anointed" as is found in so many Christian Bible translations of this passage.

The KJV serves as an example of how many Christian Bibles modify the Hebrew scriptures.

Dan 9:25(KJV)

Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

 

Note the insertion of the capitalized "Messiah" which replaces the word "anointed".

Note also the removal of both the important semicolon after words seven weeks(replaced by a comma), and the removal of the word "for" in the phrase "and [for] threescore and two weeks".

 

Here's Dan 9:25 from the Hebrew Bible again:

Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem unto one anointed, a prince, shall be seven weeks; and for threescore and two weeks, it shall be built again, with broad place and moat, but in troublous times.

 

The removal of the punctuation semicolon and the word "for" serves the purpose of creating an impression that "the messiah" would come at the end of 69 weeks rather than a messiah coming at the end of 7 weeks.

It tries to create the impression that only one messiah is involved in the timeline and that he enters the picture at the end of the 69th week and is "cut off".

This is exactly what Christians want because they can then insert Jesus as this messiah or anointed one.

Jesus is advertised to be the only actor that this script was written for and two messiahs would spoil the show.

However, the scripture doesn't say the first messiah would come after 69 weeks, and it uses a specific segmentation of the timeline in order to distinguish that there are 7 weeks associated with an anointed prince, followed by a period of 62 weeks, when another anointed one is "cut off"(see Dan 9:26).

Dan 9:26 also exhibits this segmentation of the 62 week period by stating , "after the threescore and two weeks". ]

 

BC:

There are too many things that make me sit up and take notice.  By understanding the 70 weeks as a continuous span of time, and with all that we know supposedly happened regarding Jesus, and what we are sure happened with the destruction of Jerusalem, it seems to me that someone special was meant to show up around 30AD, and this would precede the destruction of the Jewish system of life as a theocratic nation, which of course we know did happen.

 

centauri:

If the interpretations that fit Jesus into the prophecy appeal to you, then you're wise to consult Christian apologetics, as they specialize in explaining all of it and turning it into an amazing fulfillment.

 

I'm trying to look at this objectively.  Did the temple and city get destroyed within the time frame predicted by Daniel and in the manner predicted by Daniel?  Yes, it would certainly seem so.  Therefore, it's a no brainer to seriously consider Jesus to be 'the anointed one' that is also mentioned by Daniel. 

It may be a no brainer for you, but as I see it, your considerations rest on a huge mound of special exemptions for Jesus that pretty much gut the stipulations of God as set forth in the Old Testament.

Jesus was never anointed as a king would have been.

Jesus wasn't qualified to be a king or a high priest, he didn't have the proper pedigree.

Jesus never sat on the throne.

The death of Jesus did not conform as a proper sin sacrifice according to God's rules.

Jesus undermined some of the very laws that a king messiah was supposed to strictly observe.

 

You've waved these things aside as not being problems, which is certainly your option, but I consider that to be severe special pleading, something that my pastors engaged in as well.

 

I've asked this question to many apologists and I'll pose it to you now.

Where does the Old Testament state that a king messiah would come once, be killed, and require a second coming thousands of years later to accomplish what he didn't do the first time?

I would also repeat my suggestion to read a few Jewish interpretations and I think you'll find that they have candidates that fit the profile better than Jesus.

[BlackCat]

Hey guys.  Great replies: much food for thought.  I'll check out those videos Josh.  Thanks.    I'll need a few hours to digest all your comments and I look forward to coming back to you hopefully tonight, with my replies.

 

I find this topic very interesting, and although I'm not saying I believe it, it does intrigue me and gets my attention hence why I enjoy discussing these things.  I'll be back later................

[bornagainathiest]

Guys!  Guys!   (I don't mean this angrily, despite the emoticon.)

Wait up a minute.  Please, please... pull back from the ultra-tight focus on scripture and try to look at the bigger picture.

 

Even if certain parts of the Bible seem to fit a certain pattern...

And even if this pattern seems to indicate the hand of some non-human agency...

And even if it seems that this agency is, in fact, the very same one described throughout the Bible...

Even if we take these points as accepted, let's not forget the following.

 

1.

As Ex-Christians, were we not all emotionally involved (to lesser or greater degrees) in Christianity?

2.

When we were Christians, did we not accept many things as 'true' on an emotional level, without examining them as critically as we should have?

3.

Even now, don't we still feel emotionally drawn back to these same faulty, un-critical modes of acceptance? (I know I still do, dammit!)

4.

Don't we have a duty to the facts to rid ourselves of our emotional attachment to Christianity and to look at the facts as critically and logically as we can?

5.

And if you agree with #4, what about the other, pertinent facts relating to the Bible?

It's irresovable internal contradictions.  It's lack of corroborating archaeological evidence.  The failure of it's god to measure up to even a basic standards of morality.  The continuing failure (2,000 years and counting) of Christians to live up to the standards asked of them. The growing mountain of scientific evidence that cannot be reconciled with the basic tenets of Christianity.

6.

And if you agree with #4, what about aspects of human psychology that have to be taken into account before reaching a conclusion? The human disposition to see patterns where only random noise exists.  The in-built tendency in humans to attribute these perceived patterns to invisible agencies.  The evolutionary trait of ascribing all-too-human qualities to these invisible agencies. 

7.

And if you agree with #4, please look closely at how you feel about this issue and how much you want it to be 'true'?

 

Yes, even the most logical of scientists cannot totally divorce themselves from their emotions.  But, that is what the discipline of science and the process of peer-review is designed to do - to strip away any emotional attachment Professor X or Doctor Y might have about their work and leave behind only... the facts.  And those working in non-scientific, but still relevant areas, should still strive to be as emotionally un-attached to their work as possible. 

 

These would be the historians, the archaeologists, the translators and everyone else who contributes to our current understanding of the Bible.  You'll notice that I make no mention of those who believe?  That is... the Christians? Imho, their input is immediately suspect  - because they are emotionally involved with the issue.  Just as we Ex-Christans once were, remember?

8.

And this is why it's so important that we don't make the same mistakes now as we made then.

If we accept that points #1 thru #3 apply to us, don't we then have an obligation NOT to think and behave as we did when we were Christians? 

9.

If so, then we have to factor points #5 thru #7 into our thinking when drawing conclusions about this issue (the Age of the Gentiles) and any other Bible-related issues.

10.

If we fail to do so, then I see a real risk of the following happening.  We might say to ourselves...

 

"Certain passages and / or prophecies in scripture seem to ring 'true' to me.

They seem to fit a certain pattern and / or they seem to be connected to other stuff, elsewhere in the Bible.

If that's so, then they might also be related to certain historical events, not recorded the Bible."

 

"So if this is a bona fide confirmation of Biblical prophecy, wouldn't this indicate that said prophecy is true?

And if it's true, then doesn't this mean that the prophecy-giving agency (god) is also real and true?

And if he's real and true, then maybe ALL the Bible and ALL Christianity is real and true?

 

"And perhaps at the time I just couIdn't see that?

And perhaps I was mistaken to leave the fold?

So maybe I should go back?"

 

11.

http://www.ex-christian.net/forum/5-testimonies-of-former-christians/

http://www.ex-christian.net/forum/3-rants-and-replies/

http://www.ex-christian.net/forum/8-ex-christian-life/

 

These sub-forums give ample (and very sad) witness to how difficult it is for us to divest ourselves of the old Christian habits of making emotionally-driven judgements and drawing un-critical conclusions.  I count myself among the number of those still struggling.  I'm not better than anyone else here, ok?

 

So I appeal to you to be absolutely ruthless with yourselves and examine your feelings closely.

Please look at nothing else but the facts and don't let yourself be drawn back into old ways by your emotions.

Also, please allow others to logically and critically inspect every aspect of your position on any matter.

 

12.

I'll leave you with a short list of people who (for personal reasons) refuse/d to let the critical thinking of others deflect them from their conclusions.  Since Astronomy is my personal passion, they're all drawn from this branch of the sciences.  However, I submit that the all-too-human tendency of letting un-critical, emotionally-driven thinking rule us, is present in every aspect of human life.  It applies to me too.  Which is why I need others to critique what I write in this forum - without mercy.  Please do so.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle

Even though Hoyle was well aware that a detection of the Big Bang's afterglow would be confirmation of it's existence, when it was discovered in 1964, he refused to accept it - and continued to do so until his death in 2001, despite further and better evidence from other lines of investigation.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percival_Lowell

When other astronomers failed to see the same features (networks of canals) on the planets Mars and Venus, this should have alerted Lowell to a problem.  In science, the failure of others to reproduce your results is a clear indicator that your data and your claims are suspect.  Yet he consistently refused to accept that what he was seeing was not real.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_van_de_Kamp

Like Lowell, van de Kamp refused to accept that his claims were spurious, even when they couldn't be verified by others. Like Lowell and Hoyle, he went to his death believing in things others could not verify.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Kepler

He believed that he'd gained an insight into god's geometrical plan of the universe, but refused to relinquish his personal cosmology when better data called it into question.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halton_Arp

Despite ample contradictory evidence from the Hubble space telescope and other sources in the last two decades , Arp still refuses to accept Big Bang cosmology - even though his cosmological model was drawn up in the 1960's.

 

The lesson is clear guys!

Check, re-check, cross-check and double-check.

And then let others do the same to what you hold to be true.

 

 

Thanks,

 

 

 

 

BAA.

 

 

[Overcame Faith]

I do have to say that Black Cat's postings got me a little twisted up with regard to the Dead Sea Scrolls and what some of the people had to say-- some appear to be as old as 125bce-- and there are some assertations that there would not be enough time to disseminate this literature-- so it truly was early prophecy. I subscribe to the belief that perhaps some of the book had been written in earlier times, but that the prophetic peices may have been added later-- as a way to assuage people going through a terrible time. Reading that the end was near and that god was going to take care of things would have been a comfort, I would think. Doesn't the book of Daniel state that it would be sealed up until the very end-- and was "found" around 167bc? Isn't that failed prophecy in the sense that we are still here 2000+ years later? Or is that the gap theology at work?

 

Given that Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated the temple in 164 bce, Daniel 9 is not prophetic at all.  Rather, it is a genre of writing in which the writer(s) tried to make sense of very tough times.  The way this was done was to try to view it as all a part of God's plan and thus writing it as a prophecy as a way to demonstrate this in literary form.  Some say this was deceptive and the writers) was/were trying to fool people into believing what was written was truly prophetical.  This may be the case, but I tend to think it was a form of expression for the purpose of trying to make sense of terrible times (as I already mentioned).

 

As for the sealing of the words, I think you are referring to these verses:

 

 

⁸ I heard, but I did not understand. So I asked, “My lord, what will the outcome of all this be?”

⁹ He replied, “Go your way, Daniel, because the words are rolled up and sealed until the time of the end.

 

 

Daniel 12:8-9

 

I always took this language to mean that the meaning of the words will be "...rolled up and sealed until the time of the end."  In other words, that no one will understand the meaning of the "prophecies" until they actually happen.  This "time of the end", however, is emphatically not what Christians try to impose.  The "time of the end" was what Antiochus Epiphanes did in effectively, for a time, preventing the Jewish people from practicing their religion.  That was  the "time of the end" of the Jewish way of life in Jerusalem and the temple.

[BlackCat]

Hi BAA, thank you for your words of warning.     I do appreciate what you are saying- however.......I'm not quite ready to give it all up yet.  I don't see that it has to be all or nothing.  We know the Bible contains errors but it also seems to contain many things that make sense (to me).  I feel uneasy throwing the whole lot out or at least for now, hence why some subjects like this one of Daniel., I find interesting to discuss.   

 

While we're on this subject, I'd like to get something off my chest that has been bugging me on and off since I wrote it back in March.  On the 'Jim and Penny Caldwell' thread, I posted this on page 19, post 375:

 

The more I consider all these amazing scientific findings, the more it strikes me as illogical to consider a 'supernatural' being who is responsible for the universe/s.  If I may reword the apostle Paul's famous saying:

 

''For since we now know how the creation of the world came about (via the Big Bang) nature's invisible qualities--its eternal power and  nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been discovered about the universe, so that people are without excuse.''

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/54614-jim-and-penny-caldwells-archaeological-findings/page-19

 

 

I'm not so sure that above statement is true or rather my heart doesn't seem to be in that statement anymore (quite soon after I wrote it in fact).  We think we know this and that about the universe, but I think we may be being too hasty to rule a supernatural 'God' out of the equation.  Here's the main thing that's bugging me about a purely material universe: how did life arise?  I keep thinking about cells, and the two types of cells that form all the life on this planet.  I wonder why there are no intermediate forms of these cells?  The sheer scale of complexity of which a cell is comprised ie thousands and thousands of different molecular machines that each have a specific job to do, makes me wonder why we don't see cells that have no machines, cells that have one, then two etc.  You'd need to have a gradual development of the mechanisms that these machines use.  If we look at the LHC and compare it to a simple electronic device e.g a torch, the leap in complexity from the torch to the LHC is staggering.  Something is tapping away at my mind, regarding how cells could evolve gradually.  Maybe my ignorance of this is causing the problem, but I'm not comfortable in ignoring this supposed 'problem'.   So this is what has made me open again, to the possibility that there is something more to reality than mere materialism.  

[Kris]

Thanks BAA,

 

When I wrote my original post--- I was just looking for some sound arguments regarding how the age of the Gentiles was not some arbitrary timeframe in which god was allowing us all to continue to exist until he decided to finally take his wrath out as described in Daniel and Revelation. I was quite content in the support I was getting from those that posted

 

However, I do have to admit that Black Cat's postings did twist me up a bit-- I felt like I was back debating my Christian friend. I spent all evening re-going over Daniel and looking at the Dead Sea scroll evidence as well as the sepunigant info as these areas seem to lend the most support to the book being written at a time earlier than 160's BC.

 

However, with the Dead Sea scrolls-- the earliest dating found so far is from 125bc. While some disagree, I still think 4 or so decades is long enough for a number of these parchments to be made and passed around. It was a juicy book about the time these people lived.

 

I am not as sure about the Septuagint Daniel. From what I can tell, the septuagint was written and developed beginning in 200's BC with the Torah first and then subsequent books later. I could not find any specific evidence to state when Daniel was added to this series of books but more than likely, it fits to say that it was also after 160's BC.

 

I found a source that reports that the earliest reference to Daniel was in 140bc in the Syllabine oracles, but that early dating is in dispute. Some think it is later. The other early reference is in 1maccabees around 100bc. These dates tie in with the scrolls.

 

I still believe that Daniel was a prophecy written for people in their day-- and didn't have anything to do with Jesus. I have spent years trying to get Christian rhetoric out of my head and hate having any type of religious disscussion-- yet am surrounded by Christians so they are at times unavoidable. I try to avoid the mindset of Christianity and their interpretations unless I am confronted with in avoidable evidence to support their assertion. In this case, I don't think Daniel had anything to do with a miraculous fulfillment of prophecy during his time, Jesus time, or our time.

[BlackCat]

Kris, I'm sorry if I have caused you discomfort in any way.  That wasn't my intention. 

 

I've just realised that we've veered from the subject of this thread which is the 'times of the Gentiles', which as far as I know has nothing to do with Daniel, as you rightly say. 

 

These 'Gentile times' do seem to be actually happening or at least until 1948??  More interesting stuff to consider maybe.

 

As for the book of Daniel, I've found this information about some of the other chapters interesting:

 

''The prophecies in Daniel, with the lone exception of Daniel 12, are of events in the Near East which occurred between the time of Daniel and the end of the Roman Empire.  To be specific, Daniel 2 is about the four kingdoms; Babylon, Persia/Media, Greece and Rome.  It ends with the fall of Western Rome in AD 476 and the end of Eastern Rome (Byzantium) in the fifteenth century.  Daniel 7 is a prophecy of the same four empires (four beasts are the four parts of the statue in Daniel 2), but it primarily focuses in on the fourth beast:  Rome.  It is a prophecy of the persecution of the church by Rome, focusing on that of Domitian who died in AD 91.  The ram and the goat of Daniel 8 are Persia/Media and Greece.  This prophecy focuses in on Antiochus Epiphanes who ruled until 164 BC.  Daniel 11 is about the Seleucid Empire (the kings of the North) and the Ptolemaic Empire (the kings of the South).  It especially focuses in on Antiochus Epiphanes and his persecutions against the Jews in 167-164 BC.  There is no doubt that this is the subject of this prophecy.  In fact, the historical details match spectacularly well.  There is no doubt whatsoever that these prophecies were fulfilled in the past.  Daniel 11:36f is a prophecy of the end of the Ptolemies.  It is about the Battle of Actium and its aftermath.  This happened in 31BC.  No, these prophecies are not of end times.  I know that many Bible teachers like to say that it is about end times, but outside of Daniel 12, these prophecies are of events of the past.  If they have a double meaning, including something from the future, there is no indication in the text.  Such speculative things are best left to speculation.  Thoughts that the ten toes of Daniel 2 are some such countries in the Middle East is nonsense. ''

 

http://www.evidenceforchristianity.org/category/questions-and-answers/qaa-daniel/page/2/

 

I don't know if that above quote is correct, but it seems to be agreeing with some of the stuff that has been said earlier.

[bornagainathiest]

Hi BAA, thank you for your words of warning.    

 

Hello BC.

 

I do appreciate what you are saying- however.......I'm not quite ready to give it all up yet.  I don't see that it has to be all or nothing.  We know the Bible contains errors but it also seems to contain many things that make sense (to me).  I feel uneasy throwing the whole lot out or at least for now, hence why some subjects like this one of Daniel., I find interesting to discuss.

 

You feel uneasy.  Well, I can empathize with that.  As I mentioned in my earlier message, I struggle with my feelings too.

 

While we're on this subject, I'd like to get something off my chest that has been bugging me on and off since I wrote it back in March.  On the 'Jim and Penny Caldwell' thread, I posted this on page 19, post 375:

 

The more I consider all these amazing scientific findings, the more it strikes me as illogical to consider a 'supernatural' being who is responsible for the universe/s.  If I may reword the apostle Paul's famous saying:

 

''For since we now know how the creation of the world came about (via the Big Bang) nature's invisible qualities--its eternal power and  nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been discovered about the universe, so that people are without excuse.''

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/54614-jim-and-penny-caldwells-archaeological-findings/page-19

I'm not so sure that above statement is true or rather my heart doesn't seem to be in that statement anymore (quite soon after I wrote it in fact). 

 

That's cool BC.

As I said above, it's not for me to tell you how to feel.

 

We think we know this and that about the universe, but I think we may be being too hasty to rule a supernatural 'God' out of the equation.  

Here's the main thing that's bugging me about a purely material universe: how did life arise?  I keep thinking about cells, and the two types of cells that form all the life on this planet.  I wonder why there are no intermediate forms of these cells?  The sheer scale of complexity of which a cell is comprised ie thousands and thousands of different molecular machines that each have a specific job to do, makes me wonder why we don't see cells that have no machines, cells that have one, then two etc.  You'd need to have a gradual development of the mechanisms that these machines use.  If we look at the LHC and compare it to a simple electronic device e.g a torch, the leap in complexity from the torch to the LHC is staggering.  Something is tapping away at my mind, regarding how cells could evolve gradually.  Maybe my ignorance of this is causing the problem, but I'm not comfortable in ignoring this supposed 'problem'.   So this is what has made me open again, to the possibility that there is something more to reality than mere materialism.  

 

Remember this, BC?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted 22 January 2013 - 08:09 AM

"I can see how the multiverse theory is plausible and makes most sense of the data so far. 

My 'starting point' has always been to assume that matter or energy is eternal.  (This boosted my faith in an eternal God: if energy/matter can be eternal then why not a God?)  I never understood why ' creation ex nihilo' was such a big deal with Christians.  The bible doesn't teach this and logic and science surely show that you can't get something from nothing.  So if it is the case that there is this ocean of bubbles/ Big Bangs that has always existed, then that makes sense to me"  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the eternal existence of matter / energy is still your 'starting point'  BC, then you've already answered your own question!

 

The one implicit in the sentence that I've emboldened in red, that is.  

Which would read like this. "Is it possible that reality is more than mere material?"

And be answered, like this. "Not if matter / energy is eternal."

 

Back in January you understood and accepted that an eternally-existing Multiverse naturally (not supernaturally) gives rise to everything that's physically possible. Not just once, not only twice nor even a thousand times - but in infinite quantities. 

Back then you understood that there's simply no need to invoke the supernatural to account for these 'miraculous' molecular machines.  Not if you have infinite materials, infinite energy and infinite time - which is exactly what an eternally-existing Multiverse gives you. Then, on March 21st, the Planck satellite data was published and we saw that Andrei Linde's model of an eternally-existing Multiverse was favored by it's ultra-precise measurements.  

Remember this?

 

BlackCat, on 04 Apr 2013 - 9:51 PM, said:

BAA, you asked me:

 

Quote

So, the next BIG question for you to wrap your head around is... how does our fractal Multiverse affect I.D.?

 

 

And you replied to Ravenstar:

 

But what of the Christians? Where can they insert their God now? There is no, 

"In the beginning..."

 

Ok, I'm seeing the problem.  

 

Here's my initial thoughts: 'creation ex nihilo' is not something I have ever believed in because it is not 'taught' in the bible, so I'm not sure where they've got that from?  We're agreed that matter/energy (and God maybe??  ) are eternal.  So......

 

The 'creating' mentioned in the Bible, is really only an 'appearance' of creation as it is from our 'local' vantage point.  The 'fashioning' (which I think is what the word 'create' in Genesis actually means??) of matter/energy since the Big Bang, has given rise gradually to our univese, and so I don't see a problem with explaining the  'forming' of the universe as if it was created.  God/nature is always 'forming' universes.   

 

Or if we want to forget the Bible all together- God could still be 'everything' but as we can't see everything, we can never 'see' God.  

 

You have established (if these findings are correct) that we are not a special 'occurrence' in the universe and hence there is no special creation involved.  This would suggest that (from a human point of view) pain, suffering and love will continue eternally, and hence no ultimate reconciliation.    So which ever way I look at it, God doesn't seem to fit anywhere at all.  

 

Edit:  I can hear 'checkmate'............

 

Excellent, BC!

 

Josh was right... you do catch on quickly.  

God is excluded from the Multiverse.

 

(Snip!)

 

In a fractal Multiverse ALL possible permutations of the natural physical laws will evolve.  Not just once and not just a few times, but an infinite number of times.  Therefore it's not surprising that our region appears to be designed for life.  Such an outcome is... inevitable.  And not just once... but an infinite number of times.

 

Therefore, there's no need whatsoever to invoke the supernatural hand of an Intelligent Designer to account for our existence.  Regions like our universe MUST spring out of the Multiverse.  If this result is simply a logical and inevitable result of the math, then no supernatural agencies are required to account for our existence. Thus, ID has no basis in fact!

As you say... Checkmate.

 

This concludes my explanation of my cosmology-based objection to Intelligent Design.  Thank you very much for your patience and diligence, BC.

 

 

Yours respectfully,

 

BAA.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now BC, if you still hold to your long-standing assumption of eternal matter / energy, is there any logical reason for you to invoke the supernatural to explain anything?  

And if you still accept the Planck data and the Multiverse it points to, is there any logical reason to for you invoke the supernatural to explain everything?  

 

I'm sorry BC, but it IS all or nothing!

 

Either God is excluded from an entirely natural, but eternal reality.

Or...

God is the supernatural explanation for a supernaturally-created reality and there is no eternal matter / energy.

 

You cannot have it both ways and there is no middle ground...

...unless you make the conscious decision to abandon reason and logic and evidence in favor of feelings and emotions.

 

Please think carefully about this.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Kris]

For some reason, I am getting duplicate posts-- I don't know if it is because most of the time I write on these threads, I am doing it on my iphone!  Anyway, since I have edit capabilities, I am filling in one of my duplicate posts with this random explanation as to why I look like I have a stuttering problem or am really trying to get my point across at times.  I think I press the submit button twice occasionally. 

[Kris]

Overcame--- in my mind, the talk about sealing up the book of Daniel until the end was that it was like a secret-- and now the knowledge was becoming available-- so the readers felt like these words were for their time-- since the book was supposed to be written hundreds of years earlier. Contrast that with revelation where the writer is specifically told not to seal up the book because the time is at hand!! Interesting huh!

[BlackCat]

 

Now BC, if you still hold to your long-standing assumption of eternal matter / energy, is there any logical reason for you to invoke the supernatural to explain anything?  

And if you still accept the Planck data and the Multiverse it points to, is there any logical reason to for you invoke the supernatural to explain everything?  

 

I'm sorry BC, but it IS all or nothing!

 

Either God is excluded from an entirely natural, but eternal reality.

Or...

God is the supernatural explanation for a supernaturally-created reality and there is no eternal matter / energy.

 

You cannot have it both ways and there is no middle ground...

...unless you make the conscious decision to abandon reason and logic and evidence in favor of feelings and emotions.

 

Please think carefully about this.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

Hi BAA- thanks again for your reply.  I am going to start a new thread in the Science forum,  in order to address your last reply to me.  I hope that is ok. 

[Overcame Faith]

Overcame--- in my mind, the talk about sealing up the book of Daniel until the end was that it was like a secret-- and now the knowledge was becoming available-- so the readers felt like these words were for their time-- since the book was supposed to be written hundreds of years earlier. Contrast that with revelation where the writer is specifically told not to seal up the book because the time is at hand!! Interesting huh!

 

This is a reasonable interpretation and it is interesting.