Just Ask Grandpa - A Christian answers tough questions and debunks common myths
Offline 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.
- Login to post comments
Offline 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.
- Login to post comments
Offline 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.
- Login to post comments
Offline 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.
- Login to post comments
Offline 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
- Login to post comments
Offline 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.
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.
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.
- Login to post comments
Offline 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
- Login to post comments
Offline 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.
- Login to post comments
Offline 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.
- Login to post comments
Offline
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.
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.
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.
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
- Login to post comments
Offline 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.
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.
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.
- Login to post comments
Offline 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.
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.
- Login to post comments
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
See above, not concise and clear.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'll see you there.
I'll just finish up this post to close out the conversation here.
Christianity is completely dependent and is rooted in Judaism. Catholicism is not rooted or dependent on atheism, so it has no comparison.
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.
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."?
yup
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
maybe, but that particular one makes it sound like I haven't done my homework. and you know me better than that.
Beer sounds great. I'll get one.. brb
...to be continued on the other thread referenced above