Just Ask Grandpa - A Christian answers tough questions and debunks common myths

gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Just Ask Grandpa - A Christian answers tough questions and debunks common myths

Way too many "delusional myths", and unanswered questions on this site. One cannot rationally disbelieve something unless they have a clear picture of what it is that they do not believe. Since I do not see these myths and false perceptions answered properly in terms of simple reasoning I shall attempt to do it myself.

Myth #1. God will burn "sinners" in "HELL" throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity. This is not supported in the bible. It is merely a false doctrine that entered the church during the dark ages. It has it's roots in paganism. Unfortunately most Christians still believe this myth. Ultimately those who choose to accept Gods gift of eternal life will go on to live forever in a world without all the suffering and horrors of this world. Those who do not accept His gift will cease to exist and have nothing to do with God as they have chosen and wished for. Sounds pretty fair to me!

If God were indeed to burn anybody throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity (including the devil) He would be the most terrible monster one could imagine. I myself would join the movement in defying and blasting God. Fortunately we have a loving creator God that will not and would not do that.

Rather than writing a 20 page study on the topic of death and hell, I will just give a website that those interested can visit that will clearly and definitively clear this myth up. It is hell truth.com.

 


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
InTouch with Reality

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

gramster wrote:

We already discussed vs 9 where the little horn comes out of one of the 4 winds of heaven. Rome did not come from within, but came out of one of the 4 directions of the compass, or out of war, strife, turmoil upon the earth.

1-We hold very different views on whether it was from one of the 4 kings or the 4 winds where the little horn comes from. I voted for it comes from one of the 4 kings.

2-Rome as I pointed out hundreds of posts ago did the same as all expanding empires, war and battle to gain territory. Nearly all of this territory has nothing to do with the Jews, therefore not meaningful to them if Daniel was meant for the Jews.

gramster wrote:

Vs 10 "And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and cast down some of the host and stars to the ground, and stamped on them"

Cowles defines the "host" as the people of God on earth. He sees these people as militant Jews, but the text does not specifically state this. The "stars" Cowles sees as the leaders of the host.

"This little horn made war upon the people of God and destroyed some of their distinguished leaders" Cowles pg 376.

1-Jews and Cowles both see this as the "Jews" being persecuted by Antiochus, which is my position. The 2nd century BCE writer was very clear in his descriptions of the actions of Antiochus against the Jews. Short of detailing the murders, persecution in detail as was done in 1 & 2 Mac, the writer was explicit enough, but not if you morph it into something else as you are doing.

2-The text was specific enough calling them "the people of the god" who else believed in the God of Israel in the 2nd century BCE? No one.

gramster wrote:

I agree with Cowles in the above quote. Unlike Cowles I see this as referring to the persecution of Christians by Rome, which indeed did wax great. Some of the stars, or leaders would be James who was killed early on, Stephen shortly after, and even Paul amongst others.

James the Just was zealous for the Law, we discussed this earlier, and exactly what his true beliefs might have been, it didn't seem to be the same as Paul the deceiver.

Stephen may only be a divergent story of the Jesus trial as the stories are very similar. As to if it is based in reality, we can argue that later.

Paul may or may not have been executed. He may have taken all the cash he had collected and retired in a remote part of the empire, there isn't anything that proves what happened to him.

In order for the people of the god, the Jews to be abandoned and replaced by Gentiles, the god would need to explain this somewhere in the Hebrew scriptures.

Please supply the Hebrew scripture whereupon the god did so. Do not supply NT quotes, as that is after the fact.

A threat was made at Sinai, however the god was guilt tripped by Moses and relented.

Other times the god allowed his "chosen people" to suffer, but outright abandonment and replacement by a group of Gentiles is not mentioned specifically  by Jewish scriptures that I'm aware.


gramster wrote:

Ch8 vs 11. "Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down."

Cowles makes a pretty good case that this can be made to fit AE IV. I will not dispute this at this time. We will wait to deal with this one until later verses shed further light on this.

If you detail your view, isn't that disputing the other?

gramster wrote:

I will detail how this fits into the Roman view, and move on.

"magnify himself even to the prince of the host."

This text fits well into the crucifixion of Christ, who is the prince of hosts in more way than one. He is the prince of the heavenly hosts of angels. He is also the prince, ruler, or head of the saints on earth.

As claims Christ is any kind of prince or ruler of any kind are only based in your beliefs, this is assertion just like Enki is the Lord of the Earth. You can't simply say this without proving it to be true. Many don't consider Christ to even be a historically real person. As described in the NT, I don't for one. I consider it to be legends and stories, not necessarily based on a real man though it could be incorporating multiple persons in the legends with typical bard exaggerations.

Your point in discussing  Daniel was to show the prophecies prove god, not to attack the RCC and prove Jesus wasn't it?

Or have you moved on to new goals here?

gramster wrote:

"and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down."

AD 70 soldiers under Titus destroyed the temple in Jerusalem terminating it's services.

AD 130's Hadrian constructed a pagan temple in Jerusalem, renamed the city, and forbid the Jews ever to live in the city.

In the case of Antiochus IV, the sacrifices were taken away, see 1 & 2 Mac, Josephus.

Rome did destroy the Temple, which is related to Jewish practices not Christian. Why then argue about it? You argue that papal Rome takes away the continual sacrifice of Christ, therefore whatever effect the Romans had on the Jews in regard to Temple destruction really has no meaning in that connotation if that's what you accept. So why even bother discussing the Temple's destruction?

gramster wrote:

In another sense, Christian Rome took away, or obscured the "daily" or "continual" sacrifice of Christ from his followers. Confessions to priests, penance, indulgences, and Mary worship were all substitutes given to the people rather than having them just come to Christ as their heavenly high priest.

 

This is all opinions on your part. Do you wish to start a discussion in regards to Catholic beliefs versus yours?

If so, there are a few Catholics on this forum, maybe the one from the thread "Former Catholics Questions" will come to challenge your assertions.

As I could care less what you think of the RCC, you can take it up with one of them.

However, you will be required to substantiate this assertion at some point.

Oh that's right. I'm dealing with someone who believes Paul wrote most of the NT, all the Maccoby Myths, and that Jesus never existed. It is always comforting for me to keep this in mind.

I am sure that if man's landing on the moon was evidence that God existed, you wouldn't believe that either.

I already showed that those who believe in Jesus are the "seed" of Abraham (Jews). Oh that's right, you don't believe in the NT. I guess it is good we are also "playing to the audience" who may be more in touch with reality. However, this being an atheist website, I can not count on this.

By stating that I am not disputing Cowles in this case, I am simply conceding that this particular text can be made to fit into Cowles views. I do not argue points needlessly.

In regards to the destruction of the Temple, and the sacrifice being taken away, this is stated as two separate events. They may have happened at the same time, or be divided by time. The text does not say.

"and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away" can be literal, or figurative, or have a dual application.

"and the place of his sanctuary was cast down" usually is considered to be referring to the destruction of the Temple. 

My point is that the Roman view does not conflict with this passage.

I am not "attacking" the RCC. No need to be so sensitive. I intentionally used the term "Christian Rome" as to not place the emphasis on the Catholic Church. I am not anti-Catholic, but I do acknowledge history and fact.

I am not attempting to open up a debate about RCC beliefs. I am simply referencing common known facts. If you wish to dispute that any of the following; confession, penance, indulgences, or Mary worship are or have been part of RCC beliefs, traditions, or practices, just list specifically what you disagree with and why. We will address it.

 

 

 


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Still Blogging after all Those Beers

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

1. So because Mattathias mentions Daniel as a real person you automatically assume that this Daniel wrote the book under discussion? Isn't that a bit of a leap? Could he just have been acknowledging the existence of the legend? Also, on one's death bed one is liable to say anything.

2. So because ben Sira didn't mention Daniel it was just an "omission" and he didn't mean it? Can't you acknowledge the possibility that Daniel didn't meet the Jewish standard of much of anything? It seems like the Christians are claiming that they know more about the books of the OT than the writers. Adding context to what's not there again?

3. By all means let's get back to the text. You were discussing the text plus your added context as being equivalent to the text, weren't you?

As for #1 see above. As for #2 I haven't missed that point.

As for #3 we will get back to the text and my "added context" which must be even superior to the text???

I suppose you think that discussion, commentary, and logic have no place in analyzing text. Or I should just post the text by itself, period???

I guess there's not much I can say to that logic.

 

Discussion, commentary and logic I have no problem with. It's a shame that's not what you've been doing. what you've been doing is a lot of "<X> can't be right because my interpretation is. And my interpretation is right because what Daniel was really saying was <re-insert interpretation>".

As for whether your added context is superior, that's your position and it's still under discussion. Indeed, your interpretation is all you wish to discuss. "<X> is wrong and I'm right" really sucks as a discussion starter - especially if that's all you say.

As for the other points, I've seen above and you haven't added anything to answer my questions.

Dear "BlogZilla"

You like to repeat the following false claim or a similar one often. It is clear to one reading my comments that I do not do what you claim. Most of the time I admit that a certain passage can fit into interpretations that are not mine. When I evaluate a text that I feel does not fit a specific interpretation, I say so, and specifically why.

It is counterproductive for you to waste time making these false claims. If I have said the above please post reference. Otherwise, please stop throwing "crap into the fan".

As for #1 above, I have discussed my reasoning. It is clear to me that Mattathias viewed Daniel as a real person, and had high regard for the book. You and PJTS don't choose to see this as it does not support your religion. That is your choice. We have beat this topic long enough. Other readers can decide for themselves what they think about this piece of evidence.

As for #2 above, the fact that Ben Sira did not mention Daniel is a point worth consideration, but hardly constitutes strong evidence. It is a pretty weak argument of omission.

As for JPTS analogy of the airplane, I was really disappointed that he would make such a baseless statement. He is usually much better than this. Really, omission being the basis that something does exist??? The reverse logic on this one doesn't work.

As for the claim that I view my discussion of a text being superior to the text itself, this is just more BlogZilla stuff.

 

 

And you prove my statement yet again. Don't make the claim that you don't do something and then do that very thing in the same post. It makes you look foolish.

"It is clear to me..." is not even close to proof. PJTS has provided support for his position from the view of Judaism that just seems to piss you off because you don't seem to have support for your position outside of your opinion.

Ben Sira's statement seems to be strong to me - mostly because you have brought nothing but your own opinion to counter it.

When all you bring is your own opinion about a text without even supporting it with the text, you lead me in no other direction than to believe that your opinion about the text is superior to the text.

I may be wrong - you might be an expert. Personally, I'd like to see your credentials. If you are truly an expert in this field, I apologize. If (as I suspect) you are simply a layman who is only sure of his own opinion and is passing that off as expertise, stop doing it because you're doing it badly.

Can you back up any of your stuff or not?

Oh, never mind. You'll likely just dismiss this again as "Blogzilla" because I can distill your pages of crap into a few sentences. Have fun anyway.

 

 

We have discussed the views of "Judaism", which is not always consistent through the centuries, and is, like all others bias. I acknowledge their views, but do not hold them to be "gospel truth".

There are highly educated scholars that agree with my views. There are scholars who believe like Cowles. There are scholars that believe in the 2nd century BC theory. I can choose to believe something on the basis of what somebody else thinks, or I can examine the evidences for myself. I choose to do the later.

I could, like PJTS just put forward a theologian that agrees with my views and leave it at that. And I am not saying there is anything wrong with that. In PJTS case it was constructive. But, I choose not to do so at this time. I would rather concentrate on examining the text verse by verse.

You may be of the opinion that only those who are highly educated have the ability to think and reason. That is your choice. You can let others do the thinking for you if you wish. As for me, I will continue to think and reason for myself.

I evaluate what one says on the basis of the reasoning put forward. Not on the basis of ones credentials. I'm sorry you have a problem with that.

You say you can "distill my crap into a few sentences". You often misconstrue my words as such, but have failed to disprove my logic. Try that for a change. Yes, all you have been doing so far is just "blogging".

Don't worry little man - I won't play with you anymore.

You know, the great thing about "examining the evidence for yourself" the way you do it? Somehow (as if by magic) your opinion on the evidence will be correct.

I don't want this to get into a battle of the experts but it would be nice if you could mention some of these "highly educated scholars that agree with your view" so their work could be checked out for ourselves so we can make sure that it exists and is not being misinterpreted.

I don't need to disprove your logic because you haven't used any. I'm also not going to waste time trying to dissuade you of your firmly held opinions. It's not my fault that your mind is closed to any thoughts that aren't yours.

I'm sorry to have pissed you off by pointing out that your opinion is not superior to the text. Carry on with your game of "Cowles isn't right because he disagrees with my view". You conceded when you started into the "religion of atheism" that you claim PJTS and I subscribe to anytime it was mentioned that your view doesn't square with Judaism, the religion that Christianity claims to be built from.

 

I don't mind it when someone of your great caliber tries to belittle me, or feels somehow superior. That's a reflection on you, not me.

As for your claim that I haven't as of yet "used any logic", that is just more evidence of where you are coming from. Obviously you wouldn't recognize logic if it knocked you off your feet.

As for having a closed mind, and believing my opinions are superior to the text, that is also a construct of your own warped little mind.

No, I am not "pissed off", I do prefer intelligent conversation about the topic. The kind of stuff that PJTS usually does. That is something you seem to be unable to do.

Join the conversation some time. I would like to hear what you have to say about the topic being discussed for a change.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:jcgadfly

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

1. So because Mattathias mentions Daniel as a real person you automatically assume that this Daniel wrote the book under discussion? Isn't that a bit of a leap? Could he just have been acknowledging the existence of the legend? Also, on one's death bed one is liable to say anything.

2. So because ben Sira didn't mention Daniel it was just an "omission" and he didn't mean it? Can't you acknowledge the possibility that Daniel didn't meet the Jewish standard of much of anything? It seems like the Christians are claiming that they know more about the books of the OT than the writers. Adding context to what's not there again?

3. By all means let's get back to the text. You were discussing the text plus your added context as being equivalent to the text, weren't you?

As for #1 see above. As for #2 I haven't missed that point.

As for #3 we will get back to the text and my "added context" which must be even superior to the text???

I suppose you think that discussion, commentary, and logic have no place in analyzing text. Or I should just post the text by itself, period???

I guess there's not much I can say to that logic.

 

Discussion, commentary and logic I have no problem with. It's a shame that's not what you've been doing. what you've been doing is a lot of "<X> can't be right because my interpretation is. And my interpretation is right because what Daniel was really saying was <re-insert interpretation>".

As for whether your added context is superior, that's your position and it's still under discussion. Indeed, your interpretation is all you wish to discuss. "<X> is wrong and I'm right" really sucks as a discussion starter - especially if that's all you say.

As for the other points, I've seen above and you haven't added anything to answer my questions.

Dear "BlogZilla"

You like to repeat the following false claim or a similar one often. It is clear to one reading my comments that I do not do what you claim. Most of the time I admit that a certain passage can fit into interpretations that are not mine. When I evaluate a text that I feel does not fit a specific interpretation, I say so, and specifically why.

It is counterproductive for you to waste time making these false claims. If I have said the above please post reference. Otherwise, please stop throwing "crap into the fan".

As for #1 above, I have discussed my reasoning. It is clear to me that Mattathias viewed Daniel as a real person, and had high regard for the book. You and PJTS don't choose to see this as it does not support your religion. That is your choice. We have beat this topic long enough. Other readers can decide for themselves what they think about this piece of evidence.

As for #2 above, the fact that Ben Sira did not mention Daniel is a point worth consideration, but hardly constitutes strong evidence. It is a pretty weak argument of omission.

As for JPTS analogy of the airplane, I was really disappointed that he would make such a baseless statement. He is usually much better than this. Really, omission being the basis that something does exist??? The reverse logic on this one doesn't work.

As for the claim that I view my discussion of a text being superior to the text itself, this is just more BlogZilla stuff.

 

 

And you prove my statement yet again. Don't make the claim that you don't do something and then do that very thing in the same post. It makes you look foolish.

"It is clear to me..." is not even close to proof. PJTS has provided support for his position from the view of Judaism that just seems to piss you off because you don't seem to have support for your position outside of your opinion.

Ben Sira's statement seems to be strong to me - mostly because you have brought nothing but your own opinion to counter it.

When all you bring is your own opinion about a text without even supporting it with the text, you lead me in no other direction than to believe that your opinion about the text is superior to the text.

I may be wrong - you might be an expert. Personally, I'd like to see your credentials. If you are truly an expert in this field, I apologize. If (as I suspect) you are simply a layman who is only sure of his own opinion and is passing that off as expertise, stop doing it because you're doing it badly.

Can you back up any of your stuff or not?

Oh, never mind. You'll likely just dismiss this again as "Blogzilla" because I can distill your pages of crap into a few sentences. Have fun anyway.

 

 

We have discussed the views of "Judaism", which is not always consistent through the centuries, and is, like all others bias. I acknowledge their views, but do not hold them to be "gospel truth".

There are highly educated scholars that agree with my views. There are scholars who believe like Cowles. There are scholars that believe in the 2nd century BC theory. I can choose to believe something on the basis of what somebody else thinks, or I can examine the evidences for myself. I choose to do the later.

I could, like PJTS just put forward a theologian that agrees with my views and leave it at that. And I am not saying there is anything wrong with that. In PJTS case it was constructive. But, I choose not to do so at this time. I would rather concentrate on examining the text verse by verse.

You may be of the opinion that only those who are highly educated have the ability to think and reason. That is your choice. You can let others do the thinking for you if you wish. As for me, I will continue to think and reason for myself.

I evaluate what one says on the basis of the reasoning put forward. Not on the basis of ones credentials. I'm sorry you have a problem with that.

You say you can "distill my crap into a few sentences". You often misconstrue my words as such, but have failed to disprove my logic. Try that for a change. Yes, all you have been doing so far is just "blogging".

Don't worry little man - I won't play with you anymore.

You know, the great thing about "examining the evidence for yourself" the way you do it? Somehow (as if by magic) your opinion on the evidence will be correct.

I don't want this to get into a battle of the experts but it would be nice if you could mention some of these "highly educated scholars that agree with your view" so their work could be checked out for ourselves so we can make sure that it exists and is not being misinterpreted.

I don't need to disprove your logic because you haven't used any. I'm also not going to waste time trying to dissuade you of your firmly held opinions. It's not my fault that your mind is closed to any thoughts that aren't yours.

I'm sorry to have pissed you off by pointing out that your opinion is not superior to the text. Carry on with your game of "Cowles isn't right because he disagrees with my view". You conceded when you started into the "religion of atheism" that you claim PJTS and I subscribe to anytime it was mentioned that your view doesn't square with Judaism, the religion that Christianity claims to be built from.

 

I don't mind it when someone of your great caliber tries to belittle me, or feels somehow superior. That's a reflection on you, not me.

As for your claim that I haven't as of yet "used any logic", that is just more evidence of where you are coming from. Obviously you wouldn't recognize logic if it knocked you off your feet.

As for having a closed mind, and believing my opinions are superior to the text, that is also a construct of your own warped little mind.

No, I am not "pissed off", I do prefer intelligent conversation about the topic. The kind of stuff that PJTS usually does. That is something you seem to be unable to do.

Join the conversation some time. I would like to hear what you have to say about the topic being discussed for a change.

I try to get out and they pull me back in...

If I am such a waste of your precious time, why are you still playing with me instead of providing PJTS something of substance instead of your opinion?

Oh wait, you did. You decided to use ad hominem attacks on him as well.

If it's a construct of my warped little mind, why don't you add more to your commentary than your opinion? You know, like those "highly educated people" who agree with your views?

I've already given you my opinion. You disregarded it like you're doing now with PJTS. Now I'mleft with ripping you on structure because you have brought no evidence outside of yourself that can be checked into.

Your opinions are not evidence - neither are your insults.

Get used to it.

Sorry, PJTS. I wasn't planning on coming in but he decided to take a shot at me because I called him on his lack of evidence. Again.

 

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
gramster

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

gramster wrote:

We already discussed vs 9 where the little horn comes out of one of the 4 winds of heaven. Rome did not come from within, but came out of one of the 4 directions of the compass, or out of war, strife, turmoil upon the earth.

1-We hold very different views on whether it was from one of the 4 kings or the 4 winds where the little horn comes from. I voted for it comes from one of the 4 kings.

2-Rome as I pointed out hundreds of posts ago did the same as all expanding empires, war and battle to gain territory. Nearly all of this territory has nothing to do with the Jews, therefore not meaningful to them if Daniel was meant for the Jews.

gramster wrote:

Vs 10 "And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and cast down some of the host and stars to the ground, and stamped on them"

Cowles defines the "host" as the people of God on earth. He sees these people as militant Jews, but the text does not specifically state this. The "stars" Cowles sees as the leaders of the host.

"This little horn made war upon the people of God and destroyed some of their distinguished leaders" Cowles pg 376.

1-Jews and Cowles both see this as the "Jews" being persecuted by Antiochus, which is my position. The 2nd century BCE writer was very clear in his descriptions of the actions of Antiochus against the Jews. Short of detailing the murders, persecution in detail as was done in 1 & 2 Mac, the writer was explicit enough, but not if you morph it into something else as you are doing.

2-The text was specific enough calling them "the people of the god" who else believed in the God of Israel in the 2nd century BCE? No one.

gramster wrote:

I agree with Cowles in the above quote. Unlike Cowles I see this as referring to the persecution of Christians by Rome, which indeed did wax great. Some of the stars, or leaders would be James who was killed early on, Stephen shortly after, and even Paul amongst others.

James the Just was zealous for the Law, we discussed this earlier, and exactly what his true beliefs might have been, it didn't seem to be the same as Paul the deceiver.

Stephen may only be a divergent story of the Jesus trial as the stories are very similar. As to if it is based in reality, we can argue that later.

Paul may or may not have been executed. He may have taken all the cash he had collected and retired in a remote part of the empire, there isn't anything that proves what happened to him.

In order for the people of the god, the Jews to be abandoned and replaced by Gentiles, the god would need to explain this somewhere in the Hebrew scriptures.

Please supply the Hebrew scripture whereupon the god did so. Do not supply NT quotes, as that is after the fact.

A threat was made at Sinai, however the god was guilt tripped by Moses and relented.

Other times the god allowed his "chosen people" to suffer, but outright abandonment and replacement by a group of Gentiles is not mentioned specifically  by Jewish scriptures that I'm aware.


gramster wrote:

Ch8 vs 11. "Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down."

Cowles makes a pretty good case that this can be made to fit AE IV. I will not dispute this at this time. We will wait to deal with this one until later verses shed further light on this.

If you detail your view, isn't that disputing the other?

gramster wrote:

I will detail how this fits into the Roman view, and move on.

"magnify himself even to the prince of the host."

This text fits well into the crucifixion of Christ, who is the prince of hosts in more way than one. He is the prince of the heavenly hosts of angels. He is also the prince, ruler, or head of the saints on earth.

As claims Christ is any kind of prince or ruler of any kind are only based in your beliefs, this is assertion just like Enki is the Lord of the Earth. You can't simply say this without proving it to be true. Many don't consider Christ to even be a historically real person. As described in the NT, I don't for one. I consider it to be legends and stories, not necessarily based on a real man though it could be incorporating multiple persons in the legends with typical bard exaggerations.

Your point in discussing  Daniel was to show the prophecies prove god, not to attack the RCC and prove Jesus wasn't it?

Or have you moved on to new goals here?

gramster wrote:

"and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down."

AD 70 soldiers under Titus destroyed the temple in Jerusalem terminating it's services.

AD 130's Hadrian constructed a pagan temple in Jerusalem, renamed the city, and forbid the Jews ever to live in the city.

In the case of Antiochus IV, the sacrifices were taken away, see 1 & 2 Mac, Josephus.

Rome did destroy the Temple, which is related to Jewish practices not Christian. Why then argue about it? You argue that papal Rome takes away the continual sacrifice of Christ, therefore whatever effect the Romans had on the Jews in regard to Temple destruction really has no meaning in that connotation if that's what you accept. So why even bother discussing the Temple's destruction?

gramster wrote:

In another sense, Christian Rome took away, or obscured the "daily" or "continual" sacrifice of Christ from his followers. Confessions to priests, penance, indulgences, and Mary worship were all substitutes given to the people rather than having them just come to Christ as their heavenly high priest.

 

This is all opinions on your part. Do you wish to start a discussion in regards to Catholic beliefs versus yours?

If so, there are a few Catholics on this forum, maybe the one from the thread "Former Catholics Questions" will come to challenge your assertions.

As I could care less what you think of the RCC, you can take it up with one of them.

However, you will be required to substantiate this assertion at some point.

Oh that's right. I'm dealing with someone who believes Paul wrote most of the NT, all the Maccoby Myths, and that Jesus never existed. It is always comforting for me to keep this in mind.

I am sure that if man's landing on the moon was evidence that God existed, you wouldn't believe that either.

I already showed that those who believe in Jesus are the "seed" of Abraham (Jews). Oh that's right, you don't believe in the NT. I guess it is good we are also "playing to the audience" who may be more in touch with reality. However, this being an atheist website, I can not count on this.

By stating that I am not disputing Cowles in this case, I am simply conceding that this particular text can be made to fit into Cowles views. I do not argue points needlessly.

In regards to the destruction of the Temple, and the sacrifice being taken away, this is stated as two separate events. They may have happened at the same time, or be divided by time. The text does not say.

"and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away" can be literal, or figurative, or have a dual application.

"and the place of his sanctuary was cast down" usually is considered to be referring to the destruction of the Temple. 

My point is that the Roman view does not conflict with this passage.

I am not "attacking" the RCC. No need to be so sensitive. I intentionally used the term "Christian Rome" as to not place the emphasis on the Catholic Church. I am not anti-Catholic, but I do acknowledge history and fact.

I am not attempting to open up a debate about RCC beliefs. I am simply referencing common known facts. If you wish to dispute that any of the following; confession, penance, indulgences, or Mary worship are or have been part of RCC beliefs, traditions, or practices, just list specifically what you disagree with and why. We will address it.

 

More than one of us have made comments to you with different viewpoints.

You should try to keep track of what our different positions are:

Mine on the NT

Paul is attributed to all of the following NT texts - Galatians (46 CE); 1&2 Thessalonians (50 CE); 1&2 Corinthians (55 CE); Romans (56 CE); Philemon (62 CE); Philippians (63 CE)

Questionable if Paul wrote but attributed to him - Colossians (62 CE); Ephesians (62 CE); 1&2 Timothy (63 CE); Titus (60+ CE)

The rest of the NT has names attached but who they were is not known other than claims by the Church.

Macoby wrote non-fiction and commentary not myths. Myths are stories from antiquity like the garden of Eden, the Paradise of Dilmun, the flood story (whether it be Noah or Gilgamesh), the Exodus, the Invasion of Canaan, the United kingdom of Israel, the Golden Fleece, the Medusa, Pandora's box, the exploits of Hercules, the miracles of Jesus & Apollonius . . . .

My statement on Jesus was I don't consider Jesus to be as described in the NT, possibly based on multiple persons or legends.

I watched the moon launch. I have also watched over 55 space shuttles launch and dozens of other rockets from the Pier in Cocoa Beach as well as from one of the windows in my house. I lived in Cape Canaveral Florida a stones throw from the Space Center for 10 years. One of my coworkers at an engineering company designed part of the Viking landers that lasted forever. I had other coworkers that worked on Apollo and have seen detailed proof of the trips to the moon.

Who may or may not be the seed of a character named Abraham from an ancient story is not supported. Maybe none if he was just a character. In order to begin to make your claim valid in regard to Abraham you'd first have to prove he was real. You didn't, you just made an assertion that Christians were his seed as replacements for the Jews, also an opinion.

I have been respectful to you despite your snarky comments and can easily be condescending just like you are if I chose. As to what is reality and who is in touch is indeed a fantastic question. Do you want to discuss that?

I understand that you think you  can fit your interpretations into the writing of Daniel, but you are on a very different road using a map for some other place. Eventually you will drive off a cliff or into a dead end. And you have already revealed your planned route, so the dead end is in sight. Though you are denying it all the way.

I don't care if you are attacking the RCC, I do all the time. In this case the way you stated your assertion was unsupported except through your opinions and interpretations. That's why I suggested a Catholic come discuss it with you. Your view that Christians were somehow prevented from having a personal relationship with your character Jesus just because the RCC made up sacraments  to control the believers was just plain silly.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Throwing Stones

JC,

I do not wish to continue a pointless "stone throwing" competition, so I won't.

As for commentary, that is always part of a discussion. As is also opinion and logic. As for evidence, I have also provided that, but it is usually ignored or discounted. I guess that is to be expected.

As for "highly educated people" that you are so intent on, I will quote them when the time comes. I do not place too much stock in what the "brilliant minds" of society have to say as some of the dumbest things I have ever heard have concocted by such as these.

I evaluate what one has to say, and whether it makes sense, or if is backed by evidence, over who they are, and what letters follow their name.

If you want to check into some of my evidence, you can start with a good word gender study in reference to the little horn that comes out of "one of them". My evidence was discredited not on the basis that it was not sound, but merely on prejudice against Christian Scholars. 

Find a non-Christian source that discusses the word gender's involved in some depth. Now that would be something constructive for you to spend your time on, rather than just throwing stones.

I do not dislike you, I just wish you would become a real part of the conversation in a constructive way.

 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:JC,I do not

gramster wrote:

JC,

I do not wish to continue a pointless "stone throwing" competition, so I won't.

As for commentary, that is always part of a discussion. As is also opinion and logic. As for evidence, I have also provided that, but it is usually ignored or discounted. I guess that is to be expected.

As for "highly educated people" that you are so intent on, I will quote them when the time comes. I do not place too much stock in what the "brilliant minds" of society have to say as some of the dumbest things I have ever heard have concocted by such as these.

I evaluate what one has to say, and whether it makes sense, or if is backed by evidence, over who they are, and what letters follow their name.

If you want to check into some of my evidence, you can start with a good word gender study in reference to the little horn that comes out of "one of them". My evidence was discredited not on the basis that it was not sound, but merely on prejudice against Christian Scholars. 

Find a non-Christian source that discusses the word gender's involved in some depth. Now that would be something constructive for you to spend your time on, rather than just throwing stones.

I do not dislike you, I just wish you would become a real part of the conversation in a constructive way.

 

That must be why you elected to take a shot at me after I elected to leave this thread - because you didn't want to engage in a stone throwing competition. Yeah, sure, OK. Hypocrite much?

Your evidence has not been ignored or discounted. You have yet to bring evidence. All you have brought are the assertions that you've made based on your own opinions. Why should we have to support our thoughts when you don't seem to have to? The assertions that you have brought have been handled quite nicely by PJTS using evidence that can be checked into by visiting libraries or doing web searches. Shame you can't or won't do that.

If you want to recommend a good word gender study - how about suggesting the one you used? Did you use one or just take the word of someone with an agenda that runs closely to yours?

I don't dislike you either - I just wish you'd support your positions instead of insisting that those who do are just wrong because they don't agree with your view.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Word Study

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

JC,

I do not wish to continue a pointless "stone throwing" competition, so I won't.

As for commentary, that is always part of a discussion. As is also opinion and logic. As for evidence, I have also provided that, but it is usually ignored or discounted. I guess that is to be expected.

As for "highly educated people" that you are so intent on, I will quote them when the time comes. I do not place too much stock in what the "brilliant minds" of society have to say as some of the dumbest things I have ever heard have concocted by such as these.

I evaluate what one has to say, and whether it makes sense, or if is backed by evidence, over who they are, and what letters follow their name.

If you want to check into some of my evidence, you can start with a good word gender study in reference to the little horn that comes out of "one of them". My evidence was discredited not on the basis that it was not sound, but merely on prejudice against Christian Scholars. 

Find a non-Christian source that discusses the word gender's involved in some depth. Now that would be something constructive for you to spend your time on, rather than just throwing stones.

I do not dislike you, I just wish you would become a real part of the conversation in a constructive way.

 

That must be why you elected to take a shot at me after I elected to leave this thread - because you didn't want to engage in a stone throwing competition. Yeah, sure, OK. Hypocrite much?

Your evidence has not been ignored or discounted. You have yet to bring evidence. All you have brought are the assertions that you've made based on your own opinions. Why should we have to support our thoughts when you don't seem to have to? The assertions that you have brought have been handled quite nicely by PJTS using evidence that can be checked into by visiting libraries or doing web searches. Shame you can't or won't do that.

If you want to recommend a good word gender study - how about suggesting the one you used? Did you use one or just take the word of someone with an agenda that runs closely to yours?

I don't dislike you either - I just wish you'd support your positions instead of insisting that those who do are just wrong because they don't agree with your view.

If you read my post, you would know that I posted links to the sources I used, which included lexicons, and Hebrew and English parallel passages including the original words used. Of course I did not just take someones word.

 


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

gramster wrote:

We already discussed vs 9 where the little horn comes out of one of the 4 winds of heaven. Rome did not come from within, but came out of one of the 4 directions of the compass, or out of war, strife, turmoil upon the earth.

1-We hold very different views on whether it was from one of the 4 kings or the 4 winds where the little horn comes from. I voted for it comes from one of the 4 kings.

2-Rome as I pointed out hundreds of posts ago did the same as all expanding empires, war and battle to gain territory. Nearly all of this territory has nothing to do with the Jews, therefore not meaningful to them if Daniel was meant for the Jews.

gramster wrote:

Vs 10 "And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and cast down some of the host and stars to the ground, and stamped on them"

Cowles defines the "host" as the people of God on earth. He sees these people as militant Jews, but the text does not specifically state this. The "stars" Cowles sees as the leaders of the host.

"This little horn made war upon the people of God and destroyed some of their distinguished leaders" Cowles pg 376.

1-Jews and Cowles both see this as the "Jews" being persecuted by Antiochus, which is my position. The 2nd century BCE writer was very clear in his descriptions of the actions of Antiochus against the Jews. Short of detailing the murders, persecution in detail as was done in 1 & 2 Mac, the writer was explicit enough, but not if you morph it into something else as you are doing.

2-The text was specific enough calling them "the people of the god" who else believed in the God of Israel in the 2nd century BCE? No one.

gramster wrote:

I agree with Cowles in the above quote. Unlike Cowles I see this as referring to the persecution of Christians by Rome, which indeed did wax great. Some of the stars, or leaders would be James who was killed early on, Stephen shortly after, and even Paul amongst others.

James the Just was zealous for the Law, we discussed this earlier, and exactly what his true beliefs might have been, it didn't seem to be the same as Paul the deceiver.

Stephen may only be a divergent story of the Jesus trial as the stories are very similar. As to if it is based in reality, we can argue that later.

Paul may or may not have been executed. He may have taken all the cash he had collected and retired in a remote part of the empire, there isn't anything that proves what happened to him.

In order for the people of the god, the Jews to be abandoned and replaced by Gentiles, the god would need to explain this somewhere in the Hebrew scriptures.

Please supply the Hebrew scripture whereupon the god did so. Do not supply NT quotes, as that is after the fact.

A threat was made at Sinai, however the god was guilt tripped by Moses and relented.

Other times the god allowed his "chosen people" to suffer, but outright abandonment and replacement by a group of Gentiles is not mentioned specifically  by Jewish scriptures that I'm aware.


gramster wrote:

Ch8 vs 11. "Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down."

Cowles makes a pretty good case that this can be made to fit AE IV. I will not dispute this at this time. We will wait to deal with this one until later verses shed further light on this.

If you detail your view, isn't that disputing the other?

gramster wrote:

I will detail how this fits into the Roman view, and move on.

"magnify himself even to the prince of the host."

This text fits well into the crucifixion of Christ, who is the prince of hosts in more way than one. He is the prince of the heavenly hosts of angels. He is also the prince, ruler, or head of the saints on earth.

As claims Christ is any kind of prince or ruler of any kind are only based in your beliefs, this is assertion just like Enki is the Lord of the Earth. You can't simply say this without proving it to be true. Many don't consider Christ to even be a historically real person. As described in the NT, I don't for one. I consider it to be legends and stories, not necessarily based on a real man though it could be incorporating multiple persons in the legends with typical bard exaggerations.

Your point in discussing  Daniel was to show the prophecies prove god, not to attack the RCC and prove Jesus wasn't it?

Or have you moved on to new goals here?

gramster wrote:

"and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down."

AD 70 soldiers under Titus destroyed the temple in Jerusalem terminating it's services.

AD 130's Hadrian constructed a pagan temple in Jerusalem, renamed the city, and forbid the Jews ever to live in the city.

In the case of Antiochus IV, the sacrifices were taken away, see 1 & 2 Mac, Josephus.

Rome did destroy the Temple, which is related to Jewish practices not Christian. Why then argue about it? You argue that papal Rome takes away the continual sacrifice of Christ, therefore whatever effect the Romans had on the Jews in regard to Temple destruction really has no meaning in that connotation if that's what you accept. So why even bother discussing the Temple's destruction?

gramster wrote:

In another sense, Christian Rome took away, or obscured the "daily" or "continual" sacrifice of Christ from his followers. Confessions to priests, penance, indulgences, and Mary worship were all substitutes given to the people rather than having them just come to Christ as their heavenly high priest.

 

This is all opinions on your part. Do you wish to start a discussion in regards to Catholic beliefs versus yours?

If so, there are a few Catholics on this forum, maybe the one from the thread "Former Catholics Questions" will come to challenge your assertions.

As I could care less what you think of the RCC, you can take it up with one of them.

However, you will be required to substantiate this assertion at some point.

Oh that's right. I'm dealing with someone who believes Paul wrote most of the NT, all the Maccoby Myths, and that Jesus never existed. It is always comforting for me to keep this in mind.

I am sure that if man's landing on the moon was evidence that God existed, you wouldn't believe that either.

I already showed that those who believe in Jesus are the "seed" of Abraham (Jews). Oh that's right, you don't believe in the NT. I guess it is good we are also "playing to the audience" who may be more in touch with reality. However, this being an atheist website, I can not count on this.

By stating that I am not disputing Cowles in this case, I am simply conceding that this particular text can be made to fit into Cowles views. I do not argue points needlessly.

In regards to the destruction of the Temple, and the sacrifice being taken away, this is stated as two separate events. They may have happened at the same time, or be divided by time. The text does not say.

"and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away" can be literal, or figurative, or have a dual application.

"and the place of his sanctuary was cast down" usually is considered to be referring to the destruction of the Temple. 

My point is that the Roman view does not conflict with this passage.

I am not "attacking" the RCC. No need to be so sensitive. I intentionally used the term "Christian Rome" as to not place the emphasis on the Catholic Church. I am not anti-Catholic, but I do acknowledge history and fact.

I am not attempting to open up a debate about RCC beliefs. I am simply referencing common known facts. If you wish to dispute that any of the following; confession, penance, indulgences, or Mary worship are or have been part of RCC beliefs, traditions, or practices, just list specifically what you disagree with and why. We will address it.

 

More than one of us have made comments to you with different viewpoints.

You should try to keep track of what our different positions are:

Mine on the NT

Paul is attributed to all of the following NT texts - Galatians (46 CE); 1&2 Thessalonians (50 CE); 1&2 Corinthians (55 CE); Romans (56 CE); Philemon (62 CE); Philippians (63 CE)

Questionable if Paul wrote but attributed to him - Colossians (62 CE); Ephesians (62 CE); 1&2 Timothy (63 CE); Titus (60+ CE)

The rest of the NT has names attached but who they were is not known other than claims by the Church.

Macoby wrote non-fiction and commentary not myths. Myths are stories from antiquity like the garden of Eden, the Paradise of Dilmun, the flood story (whether it be Noah or Gilgamesh), the Exodus, the Invasion of Canaan, the United kingdom of Israel, the Golden Fleece, the Medusa, Pandora's box, the exploits of Hercules, the miracles of Jesus & Apollonius . . . .

My statement on Jesus was I don't consider Jesus to be as described in the NT, possibly based on multiple persons or legends.

I watched the moon launch. I have also watched over 55 space shuttles launch and dozens of other rockets from the Pier in Cocoa Beach as well as from one of the windows in my house. I lived in Cape Canaveral Florida a stones throw from the Space Center for 10 years. One of my coworkers at an engineering company designed part of the Viking landers that lasted forever. I had other coworkers that worked on Apollo and have seen detailed proof of the trips to the moon.

Who may or may not be the seed of a character named Abraham from an ancient story is not supported. Maybe none if he was just a character. In order to begin to make your claim valid in regard to Abraham you'd first have to prove he was real. You didn't, you just made an assertion that Christians were his seed as replacements for the Jews, also an opinion.

I have been respectful to you despite your snarky comments and can easily be condescending just like you are if I chose. As to what is reality and who is in touch is indeed a fantastic question. Do you want to discuss that?

I understand that you think you  can fit your interpretations into the writing of Daniel, but you are on a very different road using a map for some other place. Eventually you will drive off a cliff or into a dead end. And you have already revealed your planned route, so the dead end is in sight. Though you are denying it all the way.

I don't care if you are attacking the RCC, I do all the time. In this case the way you stated your assertion was unsupported except through your opinions and interpretations. That's why I suggested a Catholic come discuss it with you. Your view that Christians were somehow prevented from having a personal relationship with your character Jesus just because the RCC made up sacraments  to control the believers was just plain silly.

 

 

PJTS, I am not trying to be disrespectful to you. I can get a bit "snarky" at times when you discount the NT based on things like "conspiracy theories", and arguments of omission, and refer to the OT as myths like Enki. It is not much different than when you get sarcastic or condescending in regards to Christians or the Bible.

I generally make an effort to treat you with regard and respect, as usually you, unlike most, have earned it.

With all due respect, in spite of all the evidence and eye witness accounts, I do believe that if it were to give strong evidence of the existence of God, you would find a way to discount the landing on the moon. That I do believe.

I do not believe people are "prevented" from having a personal relationship with Jesus by the RCC. I do believe that some of their practices as I listed above, obscure his priesthood as they duplicate part of His functions. There is no reason to sidetrack deeply into this subject at this time. We have enough of that already.

Must I first prove the existence of Abraham, or maybe even "prove" that we even exist...??? There are some that put up a pretty good argument that we don't even exist in physical form. I am a Christian and will continue to use the Bible as one source. The continuity of the Bible is part of the evidence. 

I will continue, and like you say, somebody, or some interpretations or theories will indeed eventually "drive off a cliff".

Meanwhile, I will try to be a bit more respectful. That does not mean that I will not be sarcastic at times when I think it is in order. Sarcasm is a good tool that helps to point out the absurd. Being on such divergent path's I am sure we both consider certain views of the other to fit this category.

 


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Back to Daniel

Just to regain our perspective after all that "blogging", I will briefly recap vs 11.

"Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down."

To keep this simple, it was Rome (by Biblical accounts) that crucified Jesus who is commonly believed to be the Christ, and the prince of heaven by "Christian Scholars". Thus Rome fits the NT account of this. You are free to discount this if you wish. Those with less radical beliefs regarding the authorship and authenticity of the Bible will more likely accept it.

History is clear that Rome destroyed the temple, and put an end to the sacrifices taking place therein.

 


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Daniel 8:12-14

Now comes the interesting part.

vs 12 "And a host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practiced and prospered."

AE IV did defile the temple, and in a sense "cast down the truth" as pointed out by Cowles. He hardly "prospered". He was fairly quickly to come to an untimely end.

vs 13 "Than I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, how long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?"

vs 14 "And he said to me, unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed."

This very specifically states that both the sanctuary and the host would be "trodden under foot" for a period of 2300 days, or 6 years, 3 month, and 20 days.

We find from 1 Mac 1:54-59, and 4:52-54 that the temple services were suspended for a period of 3 years and 10 days, or 1105 days. This is no where close to 2300 days.

Cowles makes a vigilant attempt to make this fit AE IV by stretching and skewing the facts.

He asserts that Jason's attack on Jerusalem, and Menelaus' execution of Onias a high priest and other Jews should be attributed to AE IV, as his minions. He further asserts that thus the host were trodden under foot for a longer period of time, making the prophecy fit.

This does not work. A close look at history and facts show that this was not the case.

Jason became high priest in 175 BC, and payed AE IV for the honor of occupying the office.

Menelaus outbid Jason and became high priest in 172 BC and Jason fled Jerusalem.

Menelaus "robbed the temple" to meet his obligations. Onias the high and other Jews objected, and were executed by Menelaus.

Jason, thinking that AE IV was dead attacked Jerusalem in 168 BC and Menelaus fled Jerusalem.

Also in 168 BC, AE IV made a 2nd "attack" on Egypt where he was met by Popillius, a single ambassador of Rome, who told AE IV to withdraw his armies from Egypt, or consider himself to be at war with Rome. AE IV left immediately.

Angered by Jason's replacing his appointed high priest, and believing Jerusalem to be rejoicing in his supposed death and in a state of revolt, AE IV attacked Jerusalem. He slaughtered many, and defiled the temple.

There is no way that the actions of Jason, or Menelaus can be attributed to AE IV. They were clearly acting on their own, and not in conformity with his wishes.

Thus we are back to the 1105 days instead of the predicted 2300. Cowles tries to gain some insurance against this also, as he suggests "rounding" as a possible solution. I could see 1105 being rounded to 1100, 1110, 1150, maybe even to 1200, but it could hardly be rounded to 2300.

For reference, the above was taken from 1+2 Maccabees, Cowles on Daniel ch 8, and Wikipedia, which all are in agreement on the dates and events. I have found no sources that dispute these well established facts.

I see this as a very big problem for the Antiochus theory for not only Cowles, but also for the 2nd century BC writer advocate.

A 2nd century writer who was recording "history as it happened", right up to the death of AE IV and beyond, could hardly have made such a gross error. He would have known these dates and facts much better than that.

So once again, Cowles and the 2nd century writer theories "fall off the cliff".

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:Now comes the

gramster wrote:

Now comes the interesting part.

vs 12 "And a host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practiced and prospered."

AE IV did defile the temple, and in a sense "cast down the truth" as pointed out by Cowles. He hardly "prospered". He was fairly quickly to come to an untimely end.

vs 13 "Than I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, how long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?"

vs 14 "And he said to me, unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed."

This very specifically states that both the sanctuary and the host would be "trodden under foot" for a period of 2300 days, or 6 years, 3 month, and 20 days.

We find from 1 Mac 1:54-59, and 4:52-54 that the temple services were suspended for a period of 3 years and 10 days, or 1105 days. This is no where close to 2300 days.

Actually your translation - KJV -  takes it to be 2300 days others do not such as NIV and JPS, etc.

JPS has "And he said unto me: 'Unto two thousand and three hundred evenings and mornings; then shall the sanctuary be victorious." Daniel 8:14 JPS

As sacrifices were done both in the morning and the evening this can easily be only 1150 days. This is approximately the number of days that the Temple was contaminated.

One year to the Jews was 360 days by the way so it's 6 years 4 months and 20 days in your interpretation and 3 years and 20 days using it as 1150 days.

gramster wrote:

Cowles makes a vigilant attempt to make this fit AE IV by stretching and skewing the facts.

He asserts that Jason's attack on Jerusalem, and Menelaus' execution of Onias a high priest and other Jews should be attributed to AE IV, as his minions. He further asserts that thus the host were trodden under foot for a longer period of time, making the prophecy fit.

This does not work. A close look at history and facts show that this was not the case.

Jason became high priest in 175 BC, and payed AE IV for the honor of occupying the office.

Menelaus outbid Jason and became high priest in 172 BC and Jason fled Jerusalem.

Menelaus "robbed the temple" to meet his obligations. Onias the high and other Jews objected, and were executed by Menelaus.

Jason, thinking that AE IV was dead attacked Jerusalem in 168 BC and Menelaus fled Jerusalem.

Also in 168 BC, AE IV made a 2nd "attack" on Egypt where he was met by Popillius, a single ambassador of Rome, who told AE IV to withdraw his armies from Egypt, or consider himself to be at war with Rome. AE IV left immediately.

Angered by Jason's replacing his appointed high priest, and believing Jerusalem to be rejoicing in his supposed death and in a state of revolt, AE IV attacked Jerusalem. He slaughtered many, and defiled the temple.

There is no way that the actions of Jason, or Menelaus can be attributed to AE IV. They were clearly acting on their own, and not in conformity with his wishes.

Thus we are back to the 1105 days instead of the predicted 2300. Cowles tries to gain some insurance against this also, as he suggests "rounding" as a possible solution. I could see 1105 being rounded to 1100, 1110, 1150, maybe even to 1200, but it could hardly be rounded to 2300.

For reference, the above was taken from 1+2 Maccabees, Cowles on Daniel ch 8, and Wikipedia, which all are in agreement on the dates and events. I have found no sources that dispute these well established facts.

I see this as a very big problem for the Antiochus theory for not only Cowles, but also for the 2nd century BC writer advocate.

A 2nd century writer who was recording "history as it happened", right up to the death of AE IV and beyond, could hardly have made such a gross error. He would have known these dates and facts much better than that.

So once again, Cowles and the 2nd century writer theories "fall off the cliff".

 

I agree the Temple sacrifices were not done for some part of 3 years. I disagreed with the translation you are using and your interpretation thereby.

Again the issue comes down to what is meant by 2300 evenings and mornings. Is it 2300 of each or 2300 between the two? Many translators take it to be 2300 days, but not so the Hebrew Bible, where it is 2300 evenings and mornings. This is inconclusive in the intent of the writer as presented meaning that we can't tell what was meant.

 

Even more to consider is:

There were 2 questions asked by the holy one in v13,

JPS v13 - "Then I heard a holy one speaking; and another holy one said unto that certain one who spoke: 'How long shall be the vision concerning the continual burnt-offering, and the transgression that causes appalment, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trampled under foot."

Question 1 -  'How long shall be the vision concerning the continual burnt-offering, ............ be trampled under foot.

Question 2 - How long shall be the vision concerning the  . . . .  transgression that causes appalment, . . . . .and the host to be trampled under foot

Therefore this means there should be 2 answers if the persecution and contamination started at 2 times, or the writer gave an answer for both the persecution to the hosts and the suspended sacrifice as a combined total.

All in all, the language is not plain enough to concisely decipher what was meant in the answer given in v 14.

It can mean 1150 days for the sacrifices to be suspended or it can mean 2300 days in regard to the hosts & the suspended sacrifices.

Cowles begins the clock with the death of Onias in about 170 BCE and ends it with the resumption of sacrifice and re-dedication of the Temple in 164 BCE.

One thing it does not mean here is years, which many use in the Christian interpretation.

So, I disagree that Cowles and a 2nd century BCE origin are both "off a cliff".

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Cliff Hangers

I agree with you that a more literal translation of the text does read "evenings and mornings." That does warrant a bit more discussion.

In the Hebrew bible, going back to the original language, "evening and morning" always refers to whole days, and never to sacrifices. It is that way also in the translations you listed.

See Genesis 1:5 and 1:8. Also see 1 Chronicles 2:4, 13:11, 31:3, Ezra 3:3, and Numbers 28:4.

The Jewish day always started in the evening. The sacrifices and burnt offerings were always done "morning and evening." A Jew in the 2nd century would never take this passage as referring to the "morning and evening" sacrifices.

It would be clear that this was referring to whole days.

I also agree that the Jewish calendar was based on a 360 day year. To my recollection they had a way of adjusting it from time to time to keep the seasons from slowly getting out of sync. But that is not important here.

The dates we use BC or BCE are not based on the Jewish calendar. And he prophecy is given in whole days, not Jewish years. Therefore, the Jewish calendar argument has no basis here.

In regards to the "two questions", it does not really matter which definition you wish to go by. It still does not work.

As I stated in my last post, the death of Onias by the hand of Menelaus does not qualify as a starting point. These acts by competing Jewish "high priests", were not ordered by, or condoned by AE IV. This was political infighting and atrocities done by Jews to Jews. 

Antiochus does not come on to the scene in the way prophesied until 167 BC. That is your absolute maximum starting point. Since the "cleansing of the temple" is historically verified to have taken place Dec 25 164 BC, That gives us a maximum of about 1100 days using the 365 day year. Or about 1080 using the Jewish year if you prefer. And that is really stretching it.

I can still see you there lying at the bottom of the cliff with Cowles laying at your side.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:I agree with

gramster wrote:

I agree with you that a more literal translation of the text does read "evenings and mornings." That does warrant a bit more discussion.

In the Hebrew bible, going back to the original language, "evening and morning" always refers to whole days, and never to sacrifices. It is that way also in the translations you listed.

See Genesis 1:5 and 1:8. Also see 1 Chronicles 2:4, 13:11, 31:3, Ezra 3:3, and Numbers 28:4.

If the writer of Daniel was the same as Genesis, 1 Chronicles, Ezra, and Numbers then we'd have a feel for the writers style based on previous works, he wasn't (they weren't). It's true that normal accepted techniques and writing styles using common expressions are generally used by a writer, though styles do vary. You and I are both living in the 21st century and we use different styles in our writing.  In this case the writer's implied intent here is not concise. Therefore concluding it should be days and not a number of missed sacrifices cannot be determined with certainty.

I must conclude therefore it can be either one and cannot be determined accurately what was meant by evenings and mornings by the writer.

gramster wrote:

The Jewish day always started in the evening. The sacrifices and burnt offerings were always done "morning and evening." A Jew in the 2nd century would never take this passage as referring to the "morning and evening" sacrifices.

It would be clear that this was referring to whole days.

See above, not concise and clear.

gramster wrote:

In regards to the "two questions", it does not really matter which definition you wish to go by. It still does not work.

You missed the reasoning. The appalment and trampling of the host could be the start of the clock and violence did start earlier than 167 BCE somewhere around 170 BCE.

If it was 1150 days, then it would also meet the writer's claims as the Temple was cleansed on Dec 25 164 BCE and were suspended in June of 167 BCE,

Either one can fit the imprecise writing in the verse.

gramster wrote:

As I stated in my last post, the death of Onias by the hand of Menelaus does not qualify as a starting point. These acts by competing Jewish "high priests", were not ordered by, or condoned by AE IV. This was political infighting and atrocities done by Jews to Jews. 

Antiochus does not come on to the scene in the way prophesied until 167 BC. That is your absolute maximum starting point. Since the "cleansing of the temple" is historically verified to have taken place Dec 25 164 BC, That gives us a maximum of about 1100 days using the 365 day year. Or about 1080 using the Jewish year if you prefer. And that is really stretching it.

Antiochus came on the scene when he ascended to power in 175 BCE. As to specific dates of his oppression and persecution as well as all the acts of war, dates are not specific in any sources. The dates are +/- 1 to 2 years or even more.

Cowles detailed much of this on pp 378-79. The date of Onias death was 170 BCE. Do you have the secret diary of Antiochus IV to support your view he had nothing to do with these events? Jason paying a bribe to Antiochus can also be the start of the appalment and the trampling of the hosts (Jewish people) beginning the 2300 days.

gramster wrote:

I can still see you there lying at the bottom of the cliff with Cowles laying at your side.

Nah, you are on a road going west to nowhere so you can't see a thing from where you are. You took a wrong turn with Rome and are still using a map that has nothing to do with Rome and continue to get further lost as you progress.

But don't let my comments stop you from going full speed ahead in your interpretation to crash into a wall or fly off a cliff, please continue on you journey to nowhere.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:As

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

As a generalization if you go door to door and hand out info on Jesus and Christianity the recipient of the tract lit probably would conclude you are a Christian.

If you're going around handing out information on Jesus and Christianity, I dont' see how you wouldn't be seen as Christian.   They likely would be categorized under a sect of Christianity.  It doesn't mean the info they give you is the way it is to be understood.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Who am I to judge if someone is Christian or not. If they tell me they are, I must conclude they are. It's the same as if someone tells me that they are Libertarian or Independent. How would I know that they only vote for Republicans?

It's no ones place to judge whether someone is something or not.  But can someone still call themselves a republican and only agree with the democratic party?  Of course they can, but they wouldn't be a true republican would they?  

This has nothing to do with judging whether someone really is a Christian or not, it's judging whether the information they're trying to portray to you is legit or not.  There are 1000's of teachings claiming to be Christian.  The only way to know for sure is if it can be supported scripturally... IN CONTEXT.  Which is the biggest stumbling block for sects.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

It's a book page thread by Todangst about the lack of information on Jesus -

See - http://www.rationalresponders.com/silence_screams_no_contemporary_historical_accounts_quotjesus

A believer named Lee starting posting on page 2, my comments are on page 3.

I'll see you there.

I'll just finish up this post to close out the conversation here.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The analogy is simply this for Ex-Catholics for Atheism when you consider human understanding like you claim for Jewish understanding:

Christianity is completely dependent and is rooted in Judaism.  Catholicism is not rooted or dependent on atheism, so it has no comparison.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Catholics are humans, atheists are humans; Catholics celebrate Christmas as the birthday of Jesus as well as for family, many atheists celebrate Christmas as a family get together holiday;

In the case of the Jews who are Christians, Jews that believe in Judaism don'r consider them to be Jews any more just like you consider an Ex-Catholic atheist to not believe in god.

of course not, just as Christians don't accept that Jews are Christian.  The Jews for Jesus that I have talked to personally don't consider themselves Jewish in the sense that they follow the Jewish religion, only that they accept the foundation of Christianity from their heritage and understand that its related and that they dont' have to denounce Judaism to accept Christianity.  

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Christian Jews are violating the Torah, they are practicing idolatry, praying to a false god, claiming god is a trinity etc...

Christians are forbidden to practice idolatry, so how do Jews for Jesus practice idolatry?  Worship of Christ I'm sure is the idolatry, but then again, if Jesus is truly the messiah, then there is no idolatry to be had through that worship and therefore they didn't violate the Torah.

How are they praying to a false god if the Jewish God and the Christian God are one and the same?

What does it mean to "claim that God is a trinity."?  

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

My argument, is the basis of Christianity is Jewish belief. Most that call themselves Christians have no idea what Jews believe or why. The Jewish belief existed 1st and must be shown to be in error based on the OT scriptures or point to where they made these errors. Most Christians have no clue. We can discuss this elsewhere or in the thread I mentioned.

yup

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The difference starts in Genesis and is more than just the Messiah's coming, it's all of it. Man does not have original sin. The messiah is not part god or god. Human sacrifice is against Torah. Anyone changing the Torah is a false prophet. . . .

Not all Christians hold to the "original sin" doctrine

Few Christians would ever claim Jesus is either a part of God or God himself.  Christian understand that Jesus is a separate person sharing one being with God... Which i guess technically could be a part of God, but I don't believe it'd be to the magnitude your claiming.  

Human sacrifice is against the Torah, but a blood sacrifice was necessary to absolve sin.  The penalty for sin is death.  Jesus, not fully human, was the sacrificial lamb, though he wasn't ritually sacrificed according to the rules of the Torah nor was his death seen by those killing him as a sacrifice.  Therefore, no Torah rules were broken.  God allowed all the sins of the world to be put on him so that he may die with sin and allow us to live.  Of course this is where the difference in understanding lies as far as the role of the messiah.

see more on other thread

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

and it's interpretation is far different by Christians taking positions never taught or accepted by the Jews.

I wonder what sect you might be referring to due to the fact that as i've said, Christianity is completely dependent on the Jewish texts... an accurate understanding of the Jewish texts.  

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

All religions use people through manipulation eventually. The RCC was a master of doing so for over 1500 years. The Muslims are still doing so. Many TV Evangelists do so today as well.

I'd argue that Jewish belief was developed in the 1st place to manipulate the people.

Sure you would.  You don't understand God and don't know Him so wouldn't understand why Jews would be the way they are.  You also seem to have a warped understanding of Christianity... just as many in the world do and therefore I wouldn't expect you to see anything more than manipulation through that warped understanding.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

We can do this in the OT thread if you want.

that's up to you.  its your thread to take where you want.  You understand that this might cause us to deviate from the runthrough... and we both have concluded at this point that we can't convince each other of our understandings of truth. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I know you have studied a lot. Not everyone does. I did as well and I'm still atheist.

Right, and you're not looking for reasons to believe, just for someone to show you convincing evidence of God.  I'm looking for someone to give me a reason not to believe and have studied with that state of mind.  I always question what I think I know as well as information brought my way.  

You've told me you're bias toward the atheistic point of view.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Yes we have discussed this, I felt a comment was needed though.

maybe, but that particular one makes it sound like I haven't done my homework.  and you know me better than that.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

Like I told you before, I can sit down and drink a beer or coffee with you and have no problem. The discussion works for me.

Beer sounds great.  I'll get one.. brb

...to be continued on the other thread referenced above


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

I agree with you that a more literal translation of the text does read "evenings and mornings." That does warrant a bit more discussion.

In the Hebrew bible, going back to the original language, "evening and morning" always refers to whole days, and never to sacrifices. It is that way also in the translations you listed.

See Genesis 1:5 and 1:8. Also see 1 Chronicles 2:4, 13:11, 31:3, Ezra 3:3, and Numbers 28:4.

If the writer of Daniel was the same as Genesis, 1 Chronicles, Ezra, and Numbers then we'd have a feel for the writers style based on previous works, he wasn't (they weren't). It's true that normal accepted techniques and writing styles using common expressions are generally used by a writer, though styles do vary. You and I are both living in the 21st century and we use different styles in our writing.  In this case the writer's implied intent here is not concise. Therefore concluding it should be days and not a number of missed sacrifices cannot be determined with certainty.

I must conclude therefore it can be either one and cannot be determined accurately what was meant by evenings and mornings by the writer.

Quote:

In the entire bible we do not find a single author that deviates from this. Now, in Daniel we are expected to believe that the writer might have "done a switch"? I don't think so. That is just not rational. It is very clear how a Jewish reader would take this, and very clear a Jewish writer would not use the term "evening and morning" to refer to the "morning and evening" sacrifices.

gramster wrote:

The Jewish day always started in the evening. The sacrifices and burnt offerings were always done "morning and evening." A Jew in the 2nd century would never take this passage as referring to the "morning and evening" sacrifices.

It would be clear that this was referring to whole days.

 

See above, not concise and clear.

Quote:

Very clear. See above.

gramster wrote:

In regards to the "two questions", it does not really matter which definition you wish to go by. It still does not work.

You missed the reasoning. The appalment and trampling of the host could be the start of the clock and violence did start earlier than 167 BCE somewhere around 170 BCE.

Quote:

I did not miss the reasoning. I just can not accept that the infighting amongst Jew marks a starting point. If violence amongst Jews constitute a starting point, we could start just about anywhere, beginning with the exodus from Egypt, or even earlier.

 

If it was 1150 days, then it would also meet the writer's claims as the Temple was cleansed on Dec 25 164 BCE and were suspended in June of 167 BCE,

Either one can fit the imprecise writing in the verse.

Quote:

Yes, but it wasn't half days. No rational mind would believe that the author of Daniel would suddenly do a switch up like this one.  Again, see above. 

 

gramster wrote:

As I stated in my last post, the death of Onias by the hand of Menelaus does not qualify as a starting point. These acts by competing Jewish "high priests", were not ordered by, or condoned by AE IV. This was political infighting and atrocities done by Jews to Jews. 

Antiochus does not come on to the scene in the way prophesied until 167 BC. That is your absolute maximum starting point. Since the "cleansing of the temple" is historically verified to have taken place Dec 25 164 BC, That gives us a maximum of about 1100 days using the 365 day year. Or about 1080 using the Jewish year if you prefer. And that is really stretching it.

Antiochus came on the scene when he ascended to power in 175 BCE. As to specific dates of his oppression and persecution as well as all the acts of war, dates are not specific in any sources. The dates are +/- 1 to 2 years or even more.

Quote:

It is interesting how things suddenly become "fuzzy" when the evidence is against you.

Cowles detailed much of this on pp 378-79. The date of Onias death was 170 BCE. Do you have the secret diary of Antiochus IV to support your view he had nothing to do with these events? Jason paying a bribe to Antiochus can also be the start of the appalment and the trampling of the hosts (Jewish people) beginning the 2300 days.

Quote:

Now we need "secret diaries" in addition to time stamped photos, and dna.

gramster wrote:

I can still see you there lying at the bottom of the cliff with Cowles laying at your side.

Nah, you are on a road going west to nowhere so you can't see a thing from where you are. You took a wrong turn with Rome and are still using a map that has nothing to do with Rome and continue to get further lost as you progress.

But don't let my comments stop you from going full speed ahead in your interpretation to crash into a wall or fly off a cliff, please continue on you journey to nowhere.

It is interesting just how far one will go when attempting to defend their faith. And when I refer to your faith, or religion, I do not do so in a derogatory way. I see it as admirable when one will stand up and give reason for their strongly held beliefs.

 

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:It is

gramster wrote:

It is interesting just how far one will go when attempting to defend their faith. And when I refer to your faith, or religion, I do not do so in a derogatory way. I see it as admirable when one will stand up and give reason for their strongly held beliefs. 

As I do not have either faith or a religion this is a misapplied statement. I do have a strongly held position based on multiple sources. I consider all gods to be based in myths and legends therefore when ancient writing of any culture makes claims related to magic and impossible to duplicate events in the real world that some god performed, I consider that to be be based outside of reality and to be not true. I understand I am biased towards considering only things of reality, not things outside of the real world we can see, analyze, lab test, simulate, calculate, model, or build. I can be abstract, as I am an engineer therefore I utilize that which I can not always see. What doesn't work for me is faith in something that goes counter to reality. When we don't understand something entirely today, we will eventually. Maybe not in our own lifetimes. People today are impatient wanting the specific answer to everything right now. That will not always happen. I consider knowledge to be power, and violence to be immoral. One of my mottos is "Read More. Kill less!" So when I encounter writing that actively promotes killing I consider it to be based in ignorance, the misunderstood, and the uneducated. So, yes I have very strongly held positions, but they can be modified to add more understanding as more knowledge is discovered.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
"Rome"

Unlike the Seleucid Empire, and AE IV, Rome did follow the "Grecian Empire" as the next major empire to come on to the scene from a Hebrew prospective.

Unlike AE IV, Rome did wax exceedingly great, and practiced and prospered.

Unlike the Seleucid Empire which came from the east, Rome did push to the south, to the east, and west to the glorious land.

From a Hebrew standpoint Rome came basically from the North, and the Seleucid Empire from the east.

Unlike the Seleucid Empire, Rome does not have to be successive to itself within the textual symbolism.

And yes, Rome was the next major empire from a Hebrew prospective. It enveloped both Judea and Babylon. No power ends up occupying the exact territories of the empire it replaces. No need to discuss China, Russia, or the good old USA here.

 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:Unlike the

gramster wrote:

Unlike the Seleucid Empire, and AE IV, Rome did follow the "Grecian Empire" as the next major empire to come on to the scene from a Hebrew prospective.

Unlike AE IV, Rome did wax exceedingly great, and practiced and prospered.

Unlike the Seleucid Empire which came from the east, Rome did push to the south, to the east, and west to the glorious land.

From a Hebrew standpoint Rome came basically from the North, and the Seleucid Empire from the east.

Unlike the Seleucid Empire, Rome does not have to be successive to itself within the textual symbolism.

And yes, Rome was the next major empire from a Hebrew prospective. It enveloped both Judea and Babylon. No power ends up occupying the exact territories of the empire it replaces. No need to discuss China, Russia, or the good old USA here.

 

There is also no need to discuss Papal Rome here but it hasn't stopped you.

Is calling you on your double standard blogging? Oops.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:Unlike the

gramster wrote:

Unlike the Seleucid Empire, and AE IV, Rome did follow the "Grecian Empire" as the next major empire to come on to the scene from a Hebrew prospective.

This completely ignores history suggesting that the Maccabean or Jewish Wars were somehow insignificant. That the Jews have Hanukkah would seem to suggest otherwise.

gramster wrote:

 

Unlike the Seleucid Empire which came from the east, Rome did push to the south, to the east, and west to the glorious land.

Are you suggesting that Rome invaded Judea from Iraq? It seems Pompey came from Syria intervening in the civil war between Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus II. Jerusalem was taken by siege with both Pompey and Hyrcanus II's armies. The text of Daniel doesn't mention the Jews would be involved in this way.

 

gramster wrote:

And yes, Rome was the next major empire from a Hebrew prospective. It enveloped both Judea and Babylon. No power ends up occupying the exact territories of the empire it replaces. No need to discuss China, Russia, or the good old USA here. 

By the way, who was the king of Rome mentioned supposedly in Daniel 8:23? As far as history goes, Rome was a Republic when Judea was conquered by Pompey and Hyrcanus II.

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
PJTS,He has an answer for

PJTS,

He has an answer for this also. This is why he claims that Rome is an empire unlike all the others (fitting the fourth beast).

I'm still not sure hoe Rome can be the 4th beast AND the little horn in his view.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:PJTS,He has

jcgadfly wrote:

PJTS,

He has an answer for this also. This is why he claims that Rome is an empire unlike all the others (fitting the fourth beast).

I'm still not sure hoe Rome can be the 4th beast AND the little horn in his view.

I'm sure he will attempt to tell us.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

Unlike the Seleucid Empire, and AE IV, Rome did follow the "Grecian Empire" as the next major empire to come on to the scene from a Hebrew prospective.

This completely ignores history suggesting that the Maccabean or Jewish Wars were somehow insignificant. That the Jews have Hanukkah would seem to suggest otherwise.

Quote:

Not insignificant, but these wars do not mark the end of one empire, or the beginning of another. They do give account of the Jews gaining a brief period of independence under the 3rd beast.

gramster wrote:

 

Unlike the Seleucid Empire which came from the east, Rome did push to the south, to the east, and west to the glorious land.

Are you suggesting that Rome invaded Judea from Iraq? It seems Pompey came from Syria intervening in the civil war between Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus II. Jerusalem was taken by siege with both Pompey and Hyrcanus II's armies. The text of Daniel doesn't mention the Jews would be involved in this way.

Quote:

I am not suggesting that Rome invaded Judea from Iraq. The text does not give specifics on how Judea would be invaded. It simply states that this power would push south, east, and towards the glorious land.

The text here does not say anything about whether or not the Jews would be involved at all.

gramster wrote:

And yes, Rome was the next major empire from a Hebrew prospective. It enveloped both Judea and Babylon. No power ends up occupying the exact territories of the empire it replaces. No need to discuss China, Russia, or the good old USA here. 

By the way, who was the king of Rome mentioned supposedly in Daniel 8:23? As far as history ges, Rome was a Republic when Judea was conquered by Pompey and Hyrcanus II.

Quote:

In a prophecy outlining history over a long period of time, there would hardly be any point in trying to describe the type of government or leadership involved with this beast. It was enough to state that this power would be different. As for "king", this term is used interchangeably with kingdom throughout Daniel to simply represent various powers that would arise.

 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
gramster

 

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

Unlike the Seleucid Empire, and AE IV, Rome did follow the "Grecian Empire" as the next major empire to come on to the scene from a Hebrew prospective.

This completely ignores history suggesting that the Maccabean or Jewish Wars were somehow insignificant. That the Jews have Hanukkah would seem to suggest otherwise.

Not insignificant, but these wars do not mark the end of one empire, or the beginning of another. They do give account of the Jews gaining a brief period of independence under the 3rd beast.

gramster wrote:

 

Unlike the Seleucid Empire which came from the east, Rome did push to the south, to the east, and west to the glorious land.

pjts wrote:

Are you suggesting that Rome invaded Judea from Iraq? It seems Pompey came from Syria intervening in the civil war between Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus II. Jerusalem was taken by siege with both Pompey and Hyrcanus II's armies. The text of Daniel doesn't mention the Jews would be involved in this way.

gramster wrote:

I am not suggesting that Rome invaded Judea from Iraq. The text does not give specifics on how Judea would be invaded. It simply states that this power would push south, east, and towards the glorious land.

The text here does not say anything about whether or not the Jews would be involved at all.

gramster wrote:

And yes, Rome was the next major empire from a Hebrew prospective. It enveloped both Judea and Babylon. No power ends up occupying the exact territories of the empire it replaces. No need to discuss China, Russia, or the good old USA here. 

pjts wrote:

By the way, who was the king of Rome mentioned supposedly in Daniel 8:23? As far as history ges, Rome was a Republic when Judea was conquered by Pompey and Hyrcanus II.

gramster wrote:

In a prophecy outlining history over a long period of time, there would hardly be any point in trying to describe the type of government or leadership involved with this beast. It was enough to state that this power would be different. As for "king", this term is used interchangeably with kingdom throughout Daniel to simply represent various powers that would arise.

 

 

1. How does a period of independence NOT mark an end of an empire (at least where the Hebrews were concerned)?

2. Again, Rome was not an Empire during this time. Land grabbing does not an empire make.

3. In other words, the work "king" means pretty much what you need it to mean when the need arises?

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
gramster

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

Unlike the Seleucid Empire, and AE IV, Rome did follow the "Grecian Empire" as the next major empire to come on to the scene from a Hebrew prospective.

This completely ignores history suggesting that the Maccabean or Jewish Wars were somehow insignificant. That the Jews have Hanukkah would seem to suggest otherwise.

Not insignificant, but these wars do not mark the end of one empire, or the beginning of another. They do give account of the Jews gaining a brief period of independence under the 3rd beast.

Since you are as an analogy using a map of Las Vegas,  New Mexico trying to find some place in Las Vegas, Nevada it's no wonder you are so lost. Did you used to get this lost before GPS? As you have misunderstood the map in Daniel you have made landmarks be something unrelated to the material thereby convincing yourself you are on the correct road when you in fact are no where near what was described.

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

 

Unlike the Seleucid Empire which came from the east, Rome did push to the south, to the east, and west to the glorious land.

Are you suggesting that Rome invaded Judea from Iraq? It seems Pompey came from Syria intervening in the civil war between Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus II. Jerusalem was taken by siege with both Pompey and Hyrcanus II's armies. The text of Daniel doesn't mention the Jews would be involved in this way.

I am not suggesting that Rome invaded Judea from Iraq. The text does not give specifics on how Judea would be invaded. It simply states that this power would push south, east, and towards the glorious land.

The text here does not say anything about whether or not the Jews would be involved at all.

You said "west to the glorious land" which from Rome is Spain, North America, Asia, then eventually Palestine. Seems like you took the wrong direction here.

And no the text does not mention the Jews aiding the 4th beast does it? When the involvement of Rome coincides with cooperation of a large part of the Jews it should tell you perhaps you are on the wrong road. I don't think you can find the Mandalay Bay Casino in Las Vegas, New Mexico.

 

 

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

And yes, Rome was the next major empire from a Hebrew prospective. It enveloped both Judea and Babylon. No power ends up occupying the exact territories of the empire it replaces. No need to discuss China, Russia, or the good old USA here. 

By the way, who was the king of Rome mentioned supposedly in Daniel 8:23? As far as history goes, Rome was a Republic when Judea was conquered by Pompey and Hyrcanus II.

In a prophecy outlining history over a long period of time, there would hardly be any point in trying to describe the type of government or leadership involved with this beast. It was enough to state that this power would be different. As for "king", this term is used interchangeably with kingdom throughout Daniel to simply represent various powers that would arise.

Yet, the description fits Antiochus IV.

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Correction

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

Unlike the Seleucid Empire, and AE IV, Rome did follow the "Grecian Empire" as the next major empire to come on to the scene from a Hebrew prospective.

This completely ignores history suggesting that the Maccabean or Jewish Wars were somehow insignificant. That the Jews have Hanukkah would seem to suggest otherwise.

Not insignificant, but these wars do not mark the end of one empire, or the beginning of another. They do give account of the Jews gaining a brief period of independence under the 3rd beast.

Since you are as an analogy using a map of Las Vegas,  New Mexico trying to find some place in Las Vegas, Nevada it's no wonder you are so lost. Did you used to get this lost before GPS? As you have misunderstood the map in Daniel you have made landmarks be something unrelated to the material thereby convincing yourself you are on the correct road when you in fact are no where near what was described.

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

 

Unlike the Seleucid Empire which came from the east, Rome did push to the south, to the east, and west to the glorious land.

Are you suggesting that Rome invaded Judea from Iraq? It seems Pompey came from Syria intervening in the civil war between Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus II. Jerusalem was taken by siege with both Pompey and Hyrcanus II's armies. The text of Daniel doesn't mention the Jews would be involved in this way.

I am not suggesting that Rome invaded Judea from Iraq. The text does not give specifics on how Judea would be invaded. It simply states that this power would push south, east, and towards the glorious land.

The text here does not say anything about whether or not the Jews would be involved at all.

You said "west to the glorious land" which from Rome is Spain, North America, Asia, then eventually Palestine. Seems like you took the wrong direction here.

Sorry my bad. No, the text does not say "west". That was my error. The text says "south" "east" and to the "glorious land". Yes, Palestine is south and east of Italy. Indeed they would have had to travel a long way to get to Palestine traveling west. [/quote}

And no the text does not mention the Jews aiding the 4th beast does it? When the involvement of Rome coincides with cooperation of a large part of the Jews it should tell you perhaps you are on the wrong road. I don't think you can find the Mandalay Bay Casino in Las Vegas, New Mexico.

Interestingly enough, Antiochus also had the cooperation of a large part of the Jews. And since the majority of the evidence is contrary to the text referring to him, I am sure AE IV must be down the wrong road.

 

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

And yes, Rome was the next major empire from a Hebrew prospective. It enveloped both Judea and Babylon. No power ends up occupying the exact territories of the empire it replaces. No need to discuss China, Russia, or the good old USA here. 

By the way, who was the king of Rome mentioned supposedly in Daniel 8:23? As far as history goes, Rome was a Republic when Judea was conquered by Pompey and Hyrcanus II.

In a prophecy outlining history over a long period of time, there would hardly be any point in trying to describe the type of government or leadership involved with this beast. It was enough to state that this power would be different. As for "king", this term is used interchangeably with kingdom throughout Daniel to simply represent various powers that would arise.

Yet, the description fits Antiochus IV.

 


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: gramster

jcgadfly wrote:

 

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

Unlike the Seleucid Empire, and AE IV, Rome did follow the "Grecian Empire" as the next major empire to come on to the scene from a Hebrew prospective.

This completely ignores history suggesting that the Maccabean or Jewish Wars were somehow insignificant. That the Jews have Hanukkah would seem to suggest otherwise.

Not insignificant, but these wars do not mark the end of one empire, or the beginning of another. They do give account of the Jews gaining a brief period of independence under the 3rd beast.

gramster wrote:

 

Unlike the Seleucid Empire which came from the east, Rome did push to the south, to the east, and west to the glorious land.

pjts wrote:

Are you suggesting that Rome invaded Judea from Iraq? It seems Pompey came from Syria intervening in the civil war between Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus II. Jerusalem was taken by siege with both Pompey and Hyrcanus II's armies. The text of Daniel doesn't mention the Jews would be involved in this way.

gramster wrote:

I am not suggesting that Rome invaded Judea from Iraq. The text does not give specifics on how Judea would be invaded. It simply states that this power would push south, east, and towards the glorious land.

The text here does not say anything about whether or not the Jews would be involved at all.

gramster wrote:

And yes, Rome was the next major empire from a Hebrew prospective. It enveloped both Judea and Babylon. No power ends up occupying the exact territories of the empire it replaces. No need to discuss China, Russia, or the good old USA here. 

pjts wrote:

By the way, who was the king of Rome mentioned supposedly in Daniel 8:23? As far as history ges, Rome was a Republic when Judea was conquered by Pompey and Hyrcanus II.

gramster wrote:

In a prophecy outlining history over a long period of time, there would hardly be any point in trying to describe the type of government or leadership involved with this beast. It was enough to state that this power would be different. As for "king", this term is used interchangeably with kingdom throughout Daniel to simply represent various powers that would arise.

 

 

1. How does a period of independence NOT mark an end of an empire (at least where the Hebrews were concerned)?

2. Again, Rome was not an Empire during this time. Land grabbing does not an empire make.

3. In other words, the work "king" means pretty much what you need it to mean when the need arises?

 

1. The period of independence marked "independence" from an empire that still existed. I don't believe that the Jews thought the Seleucid's were no longer in existence.  They were, I am sure, happy to have their independence.

2. No, Rome was as the text says, "a little horn", that "grew exceedingly great". Antiochus was not.

3. Unfortunately, since the writer in Daniel used the word "king" to refer to kingdoms, the use of the word does not differentiate between the two. We are left evaluating the rest of the evidence to determine the powers being discussed.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
The majority of Jews didn't cooperate with Rome?

Except for when they did.

From http://www.followtherabbi.com/Brix?pageID=3393

"Ever since the Romans arrived on the scene in 64 BC, the Jewish people were divided over how to respond to the rule of their often corrupt governors or the Herod family who served them. The religious community, particularly the Pharisees, believed the Jewish people were to be God's instruments on earth, from whom the Messiah would come to institute that glorious age when Israel would be a great and free nation. Many others, especially the secular community and apparently some of the Sadducees, noted the present reality of the rule of Rome and determined that cooperation was the best policy. The tyrannical rule of Rome and the paganism of its religious and Hellenistic culture heightened the contrast between the situation at hand and the messianic hopes. This difference produced increasing fragmentation of the people, and several movements developed in response."

there were revolts but they stayed underground for the most part. When they became open, they were trashed.

Just think, if they were all Christians and read Paul's work none of this would have happened. Believers are to stay subservient to authority (as they are chosen by God). Christians revolting against Rome would have been unthinkable.

Don't believe me? Look it up.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Go on and finish this

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

You said "

west to the glorious land

" which from Rome is Spain, North America, Asia, then eventually Palestine. Seems like you took the wrong direction here.

Sorry my bad. No, the text does not say "west". That was my error. The text says "south" "east" and to the "glorious land". Yes, Palestine is south and east of Italy. Indeed they would have had to travel a long way to get to Palestine traveling west.

Exactly. Perhaps you misread in other places as well.

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

And no the text does not mention the Jews aiding the 4th beast does it? When the involvement of Rome coincides with cooperation of a large part of the Jews it should tell you perhaps you are on the wrong road. I don't think you can find the Mandalay Bay Casino in Las Vegas, New Mexico.

Interestingly enough, Antiochus also had the cooperation of a large part of the Jews. And since the majority of the evidence is contrary to the text referring to him, I am sure AE IV must be down the wrong road.

I know you are convinced Antiochus isn't  the little horn and won't be convinced otherwise. Go on and finish this.

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Excellent Article

jcgadfly wrote:

Except for when they did.

From http://www.followtherabbi.com/Brix?pageID=3393

"Ever since the Romans arrived on the scene in 64 BC, the Jewish people were divided over how to respond to the rule of their often corrupt governors or the Herod family who served them. The religious community, particularly the Pharisees, believed the Jewish people were to be God's instruments on earth, from whom the Messiah would come to institute that glorious age when Israel would be a great and free nation. Many others, especially the secular community and apparently some of the Sadducees, noted the present reality of the rule of Rome and determined that cooperation was the best policy. The tyrannical rule of Rome and the paganism of its religious and Hellenistic culture heightened the contrast between the situation at hand and the messianic hopes. This difference produced increasing fragmentation of the people, and several movements developed in response."

there were revolts but they stayed underground for the most part. When they became open, they were trashed.

Just think, if they were all Christians and read Paul's work none of this would have happened. Believers are to stay subservient to authority (as they are chosen by God). Christians revolting against Rome would have been unthinkable.

Don't believe me? Look it up.

Excellent article. I would have a hard time myself finding such an excellent article that portrays Rome's character so vividly matching the dreadful, terrible, and exceedingly strong 4th beast in chapter 7 or Daniel. And as a bonus we get an account of the devastation of Jerusalem along with the predictions of Jesus, and some insight into the current Jewish mentality.

Thanks

 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:jcgadfly

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Except for when they did.

From http://www.followtherabbi.com/Brix?pageID=3393

"Ever since the Romans arrived on the scene in 64 BC, the Jewish people were divided over how to respond to the rule of their often corrupt governors or the Herod family who served them. The religious community, particularly the Pharisees, believed the Jewish people were to be God's instruments on earth, from whom the Messiah would come to institute that glorious age when Israel would be a great and free nation. Many others, especially the secular community and apparently some of the Sadducees, noted the present reality of the rule of Rome and determined that cooperation was the best policy. The tyrannical rule of Rome and the paganism of its religious and Hellenistic culture heightened the contrast between the situation at hand and the messianic hopes. This difference produced increasing fragmentation of the people, and several movements developed in response."

there were revolts but they stayed underground for the most part. When they became open, they were trashed.

Just think, if they were all Christians and read Paul's work none of this would have happened. Believers are to stay subservient to authority (as they are chosen by God). Christians revolting against Rome would have been unthinkable.

Don't believe me? Look it up.

Excellent article. I would have a hard time myself finding such an excellent article that portrays Rome's character so vividly matching the dreadful, terrible, and exceedingly strong 4th beast in chapter 7 or Daniel. And as a bonus we get an account of the devastation of Jerusalem along with the predictions of Jesus, and some insight into the current Jewish mentality.

Thanks

 

And it also blows apart your view that the majority of Jews weren't co-operating with Rome - nice of you to miss that.

I also see that you are in agreement that if they had had all been followers of Paul as you are, there would have been no revolts at all.

Then again, you're used to not seeing stuff that opposes your view, huh?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:Explain

gramster wrote:

Explain evidence is huge in scope, and could take hundreds and maybe thousands of pages to do in depth so I will be as brief as possible.

Stop BS'ing.

In order for there to be an actual god, there would have to be more than simply the 'conjuring' of said god.

As such, 'we' (theists and atheists alike) have nothing more than a theory to observe.

gramster wrote:
God says "come let us reason together"

Being that the 'theorists' of the 'god' theory, have not satisfied even the most simplest of empirical evidence to support their assertions, it is completely inane to carry on in such an oblivious fashion with the presupposition of what a 'god' may have, or have not done, if one is truly honest with themselves (let alone anyone else).

I have the full awareness that people can, and will, be dishonest with themselves. As such, I have no expectation of honest appraisals from anyone.

Cognitive dissonance exists within humans, and has been proven absolutely.

gramster wrote:
God claims to be able to see the future and predict it.

Then it would be entirely nonsensical to begin with, for him to have created the entire universe, and man, and for him to not dismantle and rearrange it, if it doesn't behave in the manner in which he intended it to.

It would be a lack of intelligence to keep attempting to 'fix' what was obviously malfunctioning, being that there would be unlimited time and resources to simply redo it.

It would actually be 'insane' to 'command' people to obey, rather than to simply design them to accurately follow the intended 'programming'.

 

But of course, logically, this would make us 'robots'. And that's a 'tough sell', even for religion, that prays on ignorance and suspension of rational thinking.

Face it. Philosophically speaking, the theory of a 'god' is of a 'dude' who wants his 'robots' to stick with the program...

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:gramster

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Except for when they did.

From http://www.followtherabbi.com/Brix?pageID=3393

"Ever since the Romans arrived on the scene in 64 BC, the Jewish people were divided over how to respond to the rule of their often corrupt governors or the Herod family who served them. The religious community, particularly the Pharisees, believed the Jewish people were to be God's instruments on earth, from whom the Messiah would come to institute that glorious age when Israel would be a great and free nation. Many others, especially the secular community and apparently some of the Sadducees, noted the present reality of the rule of Rome and determined that cooperation was the best policy. The tyrannical rule of Rome and the paganism of its religious and Hellenistic culture heightened the contrast between the situation at hand and the messianic hopes. This difference produced increasing fragmentation of the people, and several movements developed in response."

there were revolts but they stayed underground for the most part. When they became open, they were trashed.

Just think, if they were all Christians and read Paul's work none of this would have happened. Believers are to stay subservient to authority (as they are chosen by God). Christians revolting against Rome would have been unthinkable.

Don't believe me? Look it up.

Excellent article. I would have a hard time myself finding such an excellent article that portrays Rome's character so vividly matching the dreadful, terrible, and exceedingly strong 4th beast in chapter 7 or Daniel. And as a bonus we get an account of the devastation of Jerusalem along with the predictions of Jesus, and some insight into the current Jewish mentality.

Thanks

 

And it also blows apart your view that the majority of Jews weren't co-operating with Rome - nice of you to miss that.

I also see that you are in agreement that if they had had all been followers of Paul as you are, there would have been no revolts at all.

Then again, you're used to not seeing stuff that opposes your view, huh?

Of course the majority of the Jews cooperated with Rome. It is almost always that way when one group of people are under the control of another. Those who do not cooperate and rebel usually pay extreme consequences while those who do cooperate are either left alone or rewarded. I just do not see this as an issue that is relevant to the text.

I have not seen in these texts where the writer comments on whether or not the majority of the Jews would be cooperating with the powers being discussed. Any argument here would either be pure speculation, or reading something into the text that is not there.

The Jesus that Paul preached taught something very different. He taught people to "change the world" one person at a time. And it works. I have witnessed countless lives changed for the better through the power and teachings of Jesus. Through the years, I have also witnessed many significant positive world changes mostly due to the influence of Christianity.

There are also those who have done great damage by warping and manipulating biblical teachings for their own sinister purposes. That is due to the dark side of human nature. Clearly not in line with the teachings of Jesus.

Now what exactly is it that I am not seeing here in this article that "opposes my view"?  I must still be missing it.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:jcgadfly

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Except for when they did.

From http://www.followtherabbi.com/Brix?pageID=3393

"Ever since the Romans arrived on the scene in 64 BC, the Jewish people were divided over how to respond to the rule of their often corrupt governors or the Herod family who served them. The religious community, particularly the Pharisees, believed the Jewish people were to be God's instruments on earth, from whom the Messiah would come to institute that glorious age when Israel would be a great and free nation. Many others, especially the secular community and apparently some of the Sadducees, noted the present reality of the rule of Rome and determined that cooperation was the best policy. The tyrannical rule of Rome and the paganism of its religious and Hellenistic culture heightened the contrast between the situation at hand and the messianic hopes. This difference produced increasing fragmentation of the people, and several movements developed in response."

there were revolts but they stayed underground for the most part. When they became open, they were trashed.

Just think, if they were all Christians and read Paul's work none of this would have happened. Believers are to stay subservient to authority (as they are chosen by God). Christians revolting against Rome would have been unthinkable.

Don't believe me? Look it up.

Excellent article. I would have a hard time myself finding such an excellent article that portrays Rome's character so vividly matching the dreadful, terrible, and exceedingly strong 4th beast in chapter 7 or Daniel. And as a bonus we get an account of the devastation of Jerusalem along with the predictions of Jesus, and some insight into the current Jewish mentality.

Thanks

 

And it also blows apart your view that the majority of Jews weren't co-operating with Rome - nice of you to miss that.

I also see that you are in agreement that if they had had all been followers of Paul as you are, there would have been no revolts at all.

Then again, you're used to not seeing stuff that opposes your view, huh?

Of course the majority of the Jews cooperated with Rome. It is almost always that way when one group of people are under the control of another. Those who do not cooperate and rebel usually pay extreme consequences while those who do cooperate are either left alone or rewarded. I just do not see this as an issue that is relevant to the text.

I have not seen in these texts where the writer comments on whether or not the majority of the Jews would be cooperating with the powers being discussed. Any argument here would either be pure speculation, or reading something into the text that is not there.

The Jesus that Paul preached taught something very different. He taught people to "change the world" one person at a time. And it works. I have witnessed countless lives changed for the better through the power and teachings of Jesus. Through the years, I have also witnessed many significant positive world changes mostly due to the influence of Christianity.

There are also those who have done great damage by warping and manipulating biblical teachings for their own sinister purposes. That is due to the dark side of human nature. Clearly not in line with the teachings of Jesus.

Now what exactly is it that I am not seeing here in this article that "opposes my view"?  I must still be missing it.

You used your claim that the Jews didn't co-operate with Rome as a basis for your claim that Rome was different than all the other empires and therefore fit the fourth beast of Daniel.

Or was it the little horn? You like to play two for one so I get confused.

The Jesus that Paul preached taught people to "change the world" by lip service to their god and subservience to authority (aka not changing a damn thing). That's why it had nothing to do with a real person and was a construct of Paul's mind and other myths.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
???

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Except for when they did.

From http://www.followtherabbi.com/Brix?pageID=3393

"Ever since the Romans arrived on the scene in 64 BC, the Jewish people were divided over how to respond to the rule of their often corrupt governors or the Herod family who served them. The religious community, particularly the Pharisees, believed the Jewish people were to be God's instruments on earth, from whom the Messiah would come to institute that glorious age when Israel would be a great and free nation. Many others, especially the secular community and apparently some of the Sadducees, noted the present reality of the rule of Rome and determined that cooperation was the best policy. The tyrannical rule of Rome and the paganism of its religious and Hellenistic culture heightened the contrast between the situation at hand and the messianic hopes. This difference produced increasing fragmentation of the people, and several movements developed in response."

there were revolts but they stayed underground for the most part. When they became open, they were trashed.

Just think, if they were all Christians and read Paul's work none of this would have happened. Believers are to stay subservient to authority (as they are chosen by God). Christians revolting against Rome would have been unthinkable.

Don't believe me? Look it up.

Excellent article. I would have a hard time myself finding such an excellent article that portrays Rome's character so vividly matching the dreadful, terrible, and exceedingly strong 4th beast in chapter 7 or Daniel. And as a bonus we get an account of the devastation of Jerusalem along with the predictions of Jesus, and some insight into the current Jewish mentality.

Thanks

 

And it also blows apart your view that the majority of Jews weren't co-operating with Rome - nice of you to miss that.

I also see that you are in agreement that if they had had all been followers of Paul as you are, there would have been no revolts at all.

Then again, you're used to not seeing stuff that opposes your view, huh?

Of course the majority of the Jews cooperated with Rome. It is almost always that way when one group of people are under the control of another. Those who do not cooperate and rebel usually pay extreme consequences while those who do cooperate are either left alone or rewarded. I just do not see this as an issue that is relevant to the text.

I have not seen in these texts where the writer comments on whether or not the majority of the Jews would be cooperating with the powers being discussed. Any argument here would either be pure speculation, or reading something into the text that is not there.

The Jesus that Paul preached taught something very different. He taught people to "change the world" one person at a time. And it works. I have witnessed countless lives changed for the better through the power and teachings of Jesus. Through the years, I have also witnessed many significant positive world changes mostly due to the influence of Christianity.

There are also those who have done great damage by warping and manipulating biblical teachings for their own sinister purposes. That is due to the dark side of human nature. Clearly not in line with the teachings of Jesus.

Now what exactly is it that I am not seeing here in this article that "opposes my view"?  I must still be missing it.

You used your claim that the Jews didn't co-operate with Rome as a basis for your claim that Rome was different than all the other empires and therefore fit the fourth beast of Daniel.

Or was it the little horn? You like to play two for one so I get confused.

The Jesus that Paul preached taught people to "change the world" by lip service to their god and subservience to authority (aka not changing a damn thing). That's why it had nothing to do with a real person and was a construct of Paul's mind and other myths.

Whether or not the Jews cooperated with Rome was not as issue of mine. It was PJTS that brought this one up. I have always contended that this is a non-issue.

I will take issue with your claim that the Jesus that Paul taught has not "changed a damn thing". The gospel and teachings of Christianity has had more impact on society, the world we live in, and the lives of individuals, than any other power, force, or teaching than I can bring to mind. 

That is one reason to believe that it was based on a real Jesus, and not the construct of just one, misguided, dishonest, and irrational man.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:jcgadfly

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Except for when they did.

From http://www.followtherabbi.com/Brix?pageID=3393

"Ever since the Romans arrived on the scene in 64 BC, the Jewish people were divided over how to respond to the rule of their often corrupt governors or the Herod family who served them. The religious community, particularly the Pharisees, believed the Jewish people were to be God's instruments on earth, from whom the Messiah would come to institute that glorious age when Israel would be a great and free nation. Many others, especially the secular community and apparently some of the Sadducees, noted the present reality of the rule of Rome and determined that cooperation was the best policy. The tyrannical rule of Rome and the paganism of its religious and Hellenistic culture heightened the contrast between the situation at hand and the messianic hopes. This difference produced increasing fragmentation of the people, and several movements developed in response."

there were revolts but they stayed underground for the most part. When they became open, they were trashed.

Just think, if they were all Christians and read Paul's work none of this would have happened. Believers are to stay subservient to authority (as they are chosen by God). Christians revolting against Rome would have been unthinkable.

Don't believe me? Look it up.

Excellent article. I would have a hard time myself finding such an excellent article that portrays Rome's character so vividly matching the dreadful, terrible, and exceedingly strong 4th beast in chapter 7 or Daniel. And as a bonus we get an account of the devastation of Jerusalem along with the predictions of Jesus, and some insight into the current Jewish mentality.

Thanks

 

And it also blows apart your view that the majority of Jews weren't co-operating with Rome - nice of you to miss that.

I also see that you are in agreement that if they had had all been followers of Paul as you are, there would have been no revolts at all.

Then again, you're used to not seeing stuff that opposes your view, huh?

Of course the majority of the Jews cooperated with Rome. It is almost always that way when one group of people are under the control of another. Those who do not cooperate and rebel usually pay extreme consequences while those who do cooperate are either left alone or rewarded. I just do not see this as an issue that is relevant to the text.

I have not seen in these texts where the writer comments on whether or not the majority of the Jews would be cooperating with the powers being discussed. Any argument here would either be pure speculation, or reading something into the text that is not there.

The Jesus that Paul preached taught something very different. He taught people to "change the world" one person at a time. And it works. I have witnessed countless lives changed for the better through the power and teachings of Jesus. Through the years, I have also witnessed many significant positive world changes mostly due to the influence of Christianity.

There are also those who have done great damage by warping and manipulating biblical teachings for their own sinister purposes. That is due to the dark side of human nature. Clearly not in line with the teachings of Jesus.

Now what exactly is it that I am not seeing here in this article that "opposes my view"?  I must still be missing it.

You used your claim that the Jews didn't co-operate with Rome as a basis for your claim that Rome was different than all the other empires and therefore fit the fourth beast of Daniel.

Or was it the little horn? You like to play two for one so I get confused.

The Jesus that Paul preached taught people to "change the world" by lip service to their god and subservience to authority (aka not changing a damn thing). That's why it had nothing to do with a real person and was a construct of Paul's mind and other myths.

Whether or not the Jews cooperated with Rome was not as issue of mine. It was PJTS that brought this one up. I have always contended that this is a non-issue.

I will take issue with your claim that the Jesus that Paul taught has not "changed a damn thing". The gospel and teachings of Christianity has had more impact on society, the world we live in, and the lives of individuals, than any other power, force, or teaching than I can bring to mind. 

That is one reason to believe that it was based on a real Jesus, and not the construct of just one, misguided, dishonest, and irrational man.

If by "impact" you mean "piles of corpses" - no argument there.

It may be a non-issue with you but it takes Rome out of contention for the prophecy.

A real Jesus or a real miracle working son of a deity? The first I have no problem with as Paul needed deity making material. There is no justification for the second.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Welcome redneF

redneF wrote:

gramster wrote:

Explain evidence is huge in scope, and could take hundreds and maybe thousands of pages to do in depth so I will be as brief as possible.

Stop BS'ing.

In order for there to be an actual god, there would have to be more than simply the 'conjuring' of said god.

As such, 'we' (theists and atheists alike) have nothing more than a theory to observe.

gramster wrote:
God says "come let us reason together"

Being that the 'theorists' of the 'god' theory, have not satisfied even the most simplest of empirical evidence to support their assertions, it is completely inane to carry on in such an oblivious fashion with the presupposition of what a 'god' may have, or have not done, if one is truly honest with themselves (let alone anyone else).

I have the full awareness that people can, and will, be dishonest with themselves. As such, I have no expectation of honest appraisals from anyone.

Cognitive dissonance exists within humans, and has been proven absolutely.

gramster wrote:
God claims to be able to see the future and predict it.

Then it would be entirely nonsensical to begin with, for him to have created the entire universe, and man, and for him to not dismantle and rearrange it, if it doesn't behave in the manner in which he intended it to.

It would be a lack of intelligence to keep attempting to 'fix' what was obviously malfunctioning, being that there would be unlimited time and resources to simply redo it.

It would actually be 'insane' to 'command' people to obey, rather than to simply design them to accurately follow the intended 'programming'.

 

But of course, logically, this would make us 'robots'. And that's a 'tough sell', even for religion, that prays on ignorance and suspension of rational thinking.

Face it. Philosophically speaking, the theory of a 'god' is of a 'dude' who wants his 'robots' to stick with the program...

 

Greetings redneF. Welcome to this thread.

Yes, I agree. God is more than just "conjuring up of said god".

The God I worship is very real based upon my personal "observations", and "experiences". These observations and experiences are certainly "repeatable", as I have witnessed in my own life. But that means nothing to you, as obviously you have not had anything similar in your life to relate to.

As a Christian I base my faith on a variety of experiences and evidence.

I see the amazing complexity of life as evidence of an intelligent creator. It is nonsense to me for one to believe that this all just happened by itself.

Man claims that life came into existence by accident, yet with all of his great resources and scientific advances, still fails to be able to create one minute strand of life out of 100% non-living materials. That to me is not rational.

I look at the bible and see an amazing book with an amazing history that could not possibly be simply a construct of man. And I am expected to believe that it is nothing more than a human hoax. That I find beyond irrational.

The events and experiences in my own life and others point powerfully to an intelligent creator. But that means nothing to you.

You say that you have a better plan for an omnipotent God? He should just "dismantle" (wipe out), and "rearrange", or start over. Rather than the course He has taken.

I believe His current plan is best. He is simply taking man on a brief (roughly 6000 year) journey. Over the course of this journey, He will have put an end to the "disease" of rebellion and sin that is the cause of the great suffering we are now witnessing on earth. This is a topic that would require considerable time to discuss properly.

Just to "wipe out and start over" with robots would, as you say, be quite shallow, and defy rational thinking indeed.

I would like to get into this deeper, but am committed to staying on track with my current discussions about the book of Daniel. So further discussions on this topic presently will be brief. Unfortunately.

 

 


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
"Piles of Corpses"

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Except for when they did.

From http://www.followtherabbi.com/Brix?pageID=3393

"Ever since the Romans arrived on the scene in 64 BC, the Jewish people were divided over how to respond to the rule of their often corrupt governors or the Herod family who served them. The religious community, particularly the Pharisees, believed the Jewish people were to be God's instruments on earth, from whom the Messiah would come to institute that glorious age when Israel would be a great and free nation. Many others, especially the secular community and apparently some of the Sadducees, noted the present reality of the rule of Rome and determined that cooperation was the best policy. The tyrannical rule of Rome and the paganism of its religious and Hellenistic culture heightened the contrast between the situation at hand and the messianic hopes. This difference produced increasing fragmentation of the people, and several movements developed in response."

there were revolts but they stayed underground for the most part. When they became open, they were trashed.

Just think, if they were all Christians and read Paul's work none of this would have happened. Believers are to stay subservient to authority (as they are chosen by God). Christians revolting against Rome would have been unthinkable.

Don't believe me? Look it up.

Excellent article. I would have a hard time myself finding such an excellent article that portrays Rome's character so vividly matching the dreadful, terrible, and exceedingly strong 4th beast in chapter 7 or Daniel. And as a bonus we get an account of the devastation of Jerusalem along with the predictions of Jesus, and some insight into the current Jewish mentality.

Thanks

 

And it also blows apart your view that the majority of Jews weren't co-operating with Rome - nice of you to miss that.

I also see that you are in agreement that if they had had all been followers of Paul as you are, there would have been no revolts at all.

Then again, you're used to not seeing stuff that opposes your view, huh?

Of course the majority of the Jews cooperated with Rome. It is almost always that way when one group of people are under the control of another. Those who do not cooperate and rebel usually pay extreme consequences while those who do cooperate are either left alone or rewarded. I just do not see this as an issue that is relevant to the text.

I have not seen in these texts where the writer comments on whether or not the majority of the Jews would be cooperating with the powers being discussed. Any argument here would either be pure speculation, or reading something into the text that is not there.

The Jesus that Paul preached taught something very different. He taught people to "change the world" one person at a time. And it works. I have witnessed countless lives changed for the better through the power and teachings of Jesus. Through the years, I have also witnessed many significant positive world changes mostly due to the influence of Christianity.

There are also those who have done great damage by warping and manipulating biblical teachings for their own sinister purposes. That is due to the dark side of human nature. Clearly not in line with the teachings of Jesus.

Now what exactly is it that I am not seeing here in this article that "opposes my view"?  I must still be missing it.

You used your claim that the Jews didn't co-operate with Rome as a basis for your claim that Rome was different than all the other empires and therefore fit the fourth beast of Daniel.

Or was it the little horn? You like to play two for one so I get confused.

The Jesus that Paul preached taught people to "change the world" by lip service to their god and subservience to authority (aka not changing a damn thing). That's why it had nothing to do with a real person and was a construct of Paul's mind and other myths.

Whether or not the Jews cooperated with Rome was not as issue of mine. It was PJTS that brought this one up. I have always contended that this is a non-issue.

I will take issue with your claim that the Jesus that Paul taught has not "changed a damn thing". The gospel and teachings of Christianity has had more impact on society, the world we live in, and the lives of individuals, than any other power, force, or teaching than I can bring to mind. 

That is one reason to believe that it was based on a real Jesus, and not the construct of just one, misguided, dishonest, and irrational man.

If by "impact" you mean "piles of corpses" - no argument there.

It may be a non-issue with you but it takes Rome out of contention for the prophecy.

A real Jesus or a real miracle working son of a deity? The first I have no problem with as Paul needed deity making material. There is no justification for the second.

Like I stated earlier, some have used Christianity for their own sinister purposes. This is clearly not in line with the teachings of Jesus. Others have used the belief that there is no God to commit atrocities. One can focus on this also if he wishes.

Christianity, as taught by Jesus does not result in man oppressing or brutalizing man. The opposite is true.

I am still waiting for an explanation as to how this "takes Rome out of contention", as the text does not address the level of cooperation of Jews to the powers discussed. Please make your case.

I am well aware of the "Maccoby Myth", and all it's speculations. We will continue to differ on this point.

 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
the fourth beast is to be an

the fourth beast is to be an empire "different from all others", right? You've been shown where Rome isn't different from all others - this throws Rome out of the running for the 4th beast.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Different?

jcgadfly wrote:

the fourth beast is to be an empire "different from all others", right? You've been shown where Rome isn't different from all others - this throws Rome out of the running for the 4th beast.

Let's see, Babylon, Media and Persia, and the 4 divisions of the "Grecian" empire were all Monarchy's. Rome was not. Rome was a republic, had a senate, elections... After the breakup of Rome, in it's "latter stages", there was Papal Rome, and the divided territories of the western Roman Empire that was also quite different than the previously mentioned powers.

How ever you want to look at it "Rome" was certainly "different". One must put on blinders not to recognize this.

I have been shown how Rome isn't different? Do you mean because Rome had armies, soldiers, swords, and conquered territories? You must be joking.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:jcgadfly

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

the fourth beast is to be an empire "different from all others", right? You've been shown where Rome isn't different from all others - this throws Rome out of the running for the 4th beast.

Let's see, Babylon, Media and Persia, and the 4 divisions of the "Grecian" empire were all Monarchy's. Rome was not. Rome was a republic, had a senate, elections... After the breakup of Rome, in it's "latter stages", there was Papal Rome, and the divided territories of the western Roman Empire that was also quite different than the previously mentioned powers.

How ever you want to look at it "Rome" was certainly "different". One must put on blinders not to recognize this.

I have been shown how Rome isn't different? Do you mean because Rome had armies, soldiers, swords, and conquered territories? You must be joking.

Papal Rome has as much to do with the prophecy as China's empires - why do you bring it up?

Also, lest we forget - a republic is not an empire. The states that existed after the Roman Empire's fall never went after Palestine.

Are you going to keep shooting yourself in the foot or would you like to stop and reload?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:gramster

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

the fourth beast is to be an empire "different from all others", right? You've been shown where Rome isn't different from all others - this throws Rome out of the running for the 4th beast.

Let's see, Babylon, Media and Persia, and the 4 divisions of the "Grecian" empire were all Monarchy's. Rome was not. Rome was a republic, had a senate, elections... After the breakup of Rome, in it's "latter stages", there was Papal Rome, and the divided territories of the western Roman Empire that was also quite different than the previously mentioned powers.

How ever you want to look at it "Rome" was certainly "different". One must put on blinders not to recognize this.

I have been shown how Rome isn't different? Do you mean because Rome had armies, soldiers, swords, and conquered territories? You must be joking.

Papal Rome has as much to do with the prophecy as China's empires - why do you bring it up?

Also, lest we forget - a republic is not an empire. The states that existed after the Roman Empire's fall never went after Palestine.

Are you going to keep shooting yourself in the foot or would you like to stop and reload?

Once again I take the long view when reading Daniel. When the author uses the terms "latter days", or "last days", I take this as referring to the later days of the earths history. I believe the text will bear this out. 

With that perspective everything else falls right into place. The 4th beast covers a lot of territory.

When the Jews rejected the Messiah, the followers of Jesus became the "holy people of God", or "Abraham's seed". or spiritual Israel. But that's right, you don't believe in Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, or in the NT. It is hard to reason with someone who is living on a completely different planet.

Later chapters will shed more light of this.

Of course a republic is not an empire. If you have read the text, you are aware that the little horn started out small (not yet an empire), and waxed great (into a mighty empire). That is exactly what happened with Rome.

After the Roman Empire's fall, Palestine was no longer relevant, as the Jews were no longer the unique "holy people of God".

Shooting oneself in the foot is disregarding Jesus as the Messiah, and throwing out the NT. At this point, you are unable to walk.

 


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Back to Daniel

gramster wrote:

Now comes the interesting part.

vs 12 "And a host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practiced and prospered."

AE IV did defile the temple, and in a sense "cast down the truth" as pointed out by Cowles. He hardly "prospered". He was fairly quickly to come to an untimely end.

vs 13 "Than I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, how long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?"

vs 14 "And he said to me, unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed."

This very specifically states that both the sanctuary and the host would be "trodden under foot" for a period of 2300 days, or 6 years, 3 month, and 20 days.

We find from 1 Mac 1:54-59, and 4:52-54 that the temple services were suspended for a period of 3 years and 10 days, or 1105 days. This is no where close to 2300 days.

Cowles makes a vigilant attempt to make this fit AE IV by stretching and skewing the facts.

He asserts that Jason's attack on Jerusalem, and Menelaus' execution of Onias a high priest and other Jews should be attributed to AE IV, as his minions. He further asserts that thus the host were trodden under foot for a longer period of time, making the prophecy fit.

This does not work. A close look at history and facts show that this was not the case.

Jason became high priest in 175 BC, and payed AE IV for the honor of occupying the office.

Menelaus outbid Jason and became high priest in 172 BC and Jason fled Jerusalem.

Menelaus "robbed the temple" to meet his obligations. Onias the high and other Jews objected, and were executed by Menelaus.

Jason, thinking that AE IV was dead attacked Jerusalem in 168 BC and Menelaus fled Jerusalem.

Also in 168 BC, AE IV made a 2nd "attack" on Egypt where he was met by Popillius, a single ambassador of Rome, who told AE IV to withdraw his armies from Egypt, or consider himself to be at war with Rome. AE IV left immediately.

Angered by Jason's replacing his appointed high priest, and believing Jerusalem to be rejoicing in his supposed death and in a state of revolt, AE IV attacked Jerusalem. He slaughtered many, and defiled the temple.

There is no way that the actions of Jason, or Menelaus can be attributed to AE IV. They were clearly acting on their own, and not in conformity with his wishes.

Thus we are back to the 1105 days instead of the predicted 2300. Cowles tries to gain some insurance against this also, as he suggests "rounding" as a possible solution. I could see 1105 being rounded to 1100, 1110, 1150, maybe even to 1200, but it could hardly be rounded to 2300.

For reference, the above was taken from 1+2 Maccabees, Cowles on Daniel ch 8, and Wikipedia, which all are in agreement on the dates and events. I have found no sources that dispute these well established facts.

I see this as a very big problem for the Antiochus theory for not only Cowles, but also for the 2nd century BC writer advocate.

A 2nd century writer who was recording "history as it happened", right up to the death of AE IV and beyond, could hardly have made such a gross error. He would have known these dates and facts much better than that.

So once again, Cowles and the 2nd century writer theories "fall off the cliff".

 

Verses 9 to 12 put things into perspective for us.

Vs 9 states specifically that this little horn comes out of one of the 4 winds, and not out of one of the 4 horns. We can determine this from the word gender study. If the author had been referring to AE IV, he almost certainly would have used word genders referring to one of the horns.

Vs 9 also states that this little horn would grow exceedingly great which Rome did, and AE IV did not.

Vs 10 states that this power would cast some of the hosts, and stars to the ground and trample them. It is universally understood that this refers to the people of God, and their leaders. It is not agreed to whether this is referring to the Jews, or Christians.

Vs 11 states that this power exalts himself to the Prince of the host which I believe is referring to Jesus. I am sure you do not agree. And that is takes away the continual sacrifice and the place of the sanctuary, which Rome did in AD 70.

Vs 12 states that this power would oppose the daily sacrifices, and cast the truth to the ground. I believe this to be a reference to Papal Rome, and the dark ages. I am sure you do not agree. Later chapters will shed more light on this.

This takes us to vs 13.

 


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Daniel 13 to 17

Vs 13 the question is asked, how long will the sanctuary and host be trodden under foot.

Vs 14 the question is answered, unto 2300 days than shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

Vs 15 Daniel does not understand the vision, and is seeking understanding.

Vs 16 The angel Gabriel is instructed to give Daniel understanding of the vision.

Vs 17 Gabriel tells Daniel that this vision refers to the "time of the end".

Here is what we can determine with certainty from these texts.

1. A specific time period is given for the fulfillment of this prophecy.

2. Daniel does not understand this vision.

2. This vision refers to "the time of the end".

Now from a 2nd century BC writers perspective, these texts would not make any sense. If this were referring to the acts of AE IV and written in that time period, Daniel would certainly understand the vision. What's not to understand?

On the other hand, if this was written hundreds of years earlier by a real person named Daniel. And if this Daniel were to be of the understanding that this was history given in advance down to the end of time, and if he were to understand the year for a day principle, he would certainly be both confused, and vexed.

This seems to be the case.

 

 


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
gramster

gramster wrote:

<..................>

Now from a 2nd century BC writers perspective, these texts would not make any sense. If this were referring to the acts of AE IV and written in that time period, Daniel would certainly understand the vision. What's not to understand?

On the other hand, if this was written hundreds of years earlier by a real person named Daniel. And if this Daniel were to be of the understanding that this was history given in advance down to the end of time, and if he were to understand the year for a day principle, he would certainly be both confused, and vexed.

This seems to be the case.

 

I have been following this thread waiting for something resembling concrete evidence.  All I have seen is someone stating an interpretation that suits their own prejudices.

I think Kapkao's bored cat picture might fit here.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:jcgadfly

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

the fourth beast is to be an empire "different from all others", right? You've been shown where Rome isn't different from all others - this throws Rome out of the running for the 4th beast.

Let's see, Babylon, Media and Persia, and the 4 divisions of the "Grecian" empire were all Monarchy's. Rome was not. Rome was a republic, had a senate, elections... After the breakup of Rome, in it's "latter stages", there was Papal Rome, and the divided territories of the western Roman Empire that was also quite different than the previously mentioned powers.

How ever you want to look at it "Rome" was certainly "different". One must put on blinders not to recognize this.

I have been shown how Rome isn't different? Do you mean because Rome had armies, soldiers, swords, and conquered territories? You must be joking.

Papal Rome has as much to do with the prophecy as China's empires - why do you bring it up?

Also, lest we forget - a republic is not an empire. The states that existed after the Roman Empire's fall never went after Palestine.

Are you going to keep shooting yourself in the foot or would you like to stop and reload?

Once again I take the long view when reading Daniel. When the author uses the terms "latter days", or "last days", I take this as referring to the later days of the earths history. I believe the text will bear this out. 

With that perspective everything else falls right into place. The 4th beast covers a lot of territory.

When the Jews rejected the Messiah, the followers of Jesus became the "holy people of God", or "Abraham's seed". or spiritual Israel. But that's right, you don't believe in Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, or in the NT. It is hard to reason with someone who is living on a completely different planet.

Later chapters will shed more light of this.

Of course a republic is not an empire. If you have read the text, you are aware that the little horn started out small (not yet an empire), and waxed great (into a mighty empire). That is exactly what happened with Rome.

After the Roman Empire's fall, Palestine was no longer relevant, as the Jews were no longer the unique "holy people of God".

Shooting oneself in the foot is disregarding Jesus as the Messiah, and throwing out the NT. At this point, you are unable to walk.

 

So is the Rome the little horn or the 4th beast? Or does that depend on what you need when? I'm aware you take the long view when reading this. It just seems to be way longer than is needed.

Could Jesus have been the Messiah? Sure, I have no problem with that. following Jesus as Messiah would make me a Jew who believes Jesus is the Messiah. that does not make the Messiah God or his son.

It took Christianity to make him a god and add him to the pantheon. If Jesus is only the Messiah, why is he your idol? I thought idolatry was still a sin...wait, I forgot - Christianity doesn't have sin.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:So is the

jcgadfly wrote:

So is the Rome the little horn or the 4th beast? Or does that depend on what you need when? I'm aware you take the long view when reading this. It just seems to be way longer than is needed.

 

That's okay, because Greece is either a goat or a leopard depending on what he needs when.  No big deal about Rome.  Same -- same.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Waiting for you to finish

gramster wrote:

Vs 13 the question is asked, how long will the sanctuary and host be trodden under foot.

Vs 14 the question is answered, unto 2300 days than shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

Vs 15 Daniel does not understand the vision, and is seeking understanding.

Vs 16 The angel Gabriel is instructed to give Daniel understanding of the vision.

Vs 17 Gabriel tells Daniel that this vision refers to the "time of the end".

Here is what we can determine with certainty from these texts.

1. A specific time period is given for the fulfillment of this prophecy.

2. Daniel does not understand this vision.

2. This vision refers to "the time of the end".

Now from a 2nd century BC writers perspective, these texts would not make any sense. If this were referring to the acts of AE IV and written in that time period, Daniel would certainly understand the vision. What's not to understand?

On the other hand, if this was written hundreds of years earlier by a real person named Daniel. And if this Daniel were to be of the understanding that this was history given in advance down to the end of time, and if he were to understand the year for a day principle, he would certainly be both confused, and vexed.

This seems to be the case.  

When you finish presenting all of Chapter 8 I'll comment on your views, otherwise you may never get done.

I am pretty well over the back and forth discussion that goes no where. 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:gramster

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

the fourth beast is to be an empire "different from all others", right? You've been shown where Rome isn't different from all others - this throws Rome out of the running for the 4th beast.

Let's see, Babylon, Media and Persia, and the 4 divisions of the "Grecian" empire were all Monarchy's. Rome was not. Rome was a republic, had a senate, elections... After the breakup of Rome, in it's "latter stages", there was Papal Rome, and the divided territories of the western Roman Empire that was also quite different than the previously mentioned powers.

How ever you want to look at it "Rome" was certainly "different". One must put on blinders not to recognize this.

I have been shown how Rome isn't different? Do you mean because Rome had armies, soldiers, swords, and conquered territories? You must be joking.

Papal Rome has as much to do with the prophecy as China's empires - why do you bring it up?

Also, lest we forget - a republic is not an empire. The states that existed after the Roman Empire's fall never went after Palestine.

Are you going to keep shooting yourself in the foot or would you like to stop and reload?

Once again I take the long view when reading Daniel. When the author uses the terms "latter days", or "last days", I take this as referring to the later days of the earths history. I believe the text will bear this out. 

With that perspective everything else falls right into place. The 4th beast covers a lot of territory.

When the Jews rejected the Messiah, the followers of Jesus became the "holy people of God", or "Abraham's seed". or spiritual Israel. But that's right, you don't believe in Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, or in the NT. It is hard to reason with someone who is living on a completely different planet.

Later chapters will shed more light of this.

Of course a republic is not an empire. If you have read the text, you are aware that the little horn started out small (not yet an empire), and waxed great (into a mighty empire). That is exactly what happened with Rome.

After the Roman Empire's fall, Palestine was no longer relevant, as the Jews were no longer the unique "holy people of God".

Shooting oneself in the foot is disregarding Jesus as the Messiah, and throwing out the NT. At this point, you are unable to walk.

 

So is the Rome the little horn or the 4th beast? Or does that depend on what you need when? I'm aware you take the long view when reading this. It just seems to be way longer than is needed.

Could Jesus have been the Messiah? Sure, I have no problem with that. following Jesus as Messiah would make me a Jew who believes Jesus is the Messiah. that does not make the Messiah God or his son.

It took Christianity to make him a god and add him to the pantheon. If Jesus is only the Messiah, why is he your idol? I thought idolatry was still a sin...wait, I forgot - Christianity doesn't have sin.

 

Rome is the 4th beast in chapter 7, and the little horn that grows exceedingly great in chapter 8. And yes this is taking way longer than needed. When one must take considerable time discussing non issues like whether or not Rome is in any way different, at every turn along the way, it does drag things out.

As to blogging about Paul making up Christianity, and deifying the Messiah, I will not continue to waste time beating that dead horse.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

Vs 13 the question is asked, how long will the sanctuary and host be trodden under foot.

Vs 14 the question is answered, unto 2300 days than shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

Vs 15 Daniel does not understand the vision, and is seeking understanding.

Vs 16 The angel Gabriel is instructed to give Daniel understanding of the vision.

Vs 17 Gabriel tells Daniel that this vision refers to the "time of the end".

Here is what we can determine with certainty from these texts.

1. A specific time period is given for the fulfillment of this prophecy.

2. Daniel does not understand this vision.

2. This vision refers to "the time of the end".

Now from a 2nd century BC writers perspective, these texts would not make any sense. If this were referring to the acts of AE IV and written in that time period, Daniel would certainly understand the vision. What's not to understand?

On the other hand, if this was written hundreds of years earlier by a real person named Daniel. And if this Daniel were to be of the understanding that this was history given in advance down to the end of time, and if he were to understand the year for a day principle, he would certainly be both confused, and vexed.

This seems to be the case.  

When you finish presenting all of Chapter 8 I'll comment on your views, otherwise you may never get done.

I am pretty well over the back and forth discussion that goes no where. 

 

Thank You, CJ has good reason to be bored. I will focus on the rest of Daniel 8.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Well, as this is the first

Well, as this is the first time you've been specific in answer to the question, taking too long is your own fault.

As you've been told that Rome fits the prophecies in no instance save the one in your mind (just like your position on Christianity), I agree that further discussion is pointless.

Feel free to ignore those problems and go on. I look forward to PJTS bringing you more evidence so you can ignore it.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin