Topic: Passover Series #1... Daniel 9:20-27 (Read 6825 times)

Anthony Horvath · « **on:** April 17, 2006, 09:21:38 PM »

Quote

20 While I was speaking and praying, confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel and making my request to the LORD my God for his holy hill- 21 while I was still in prayer, Gabriel, the man I had seen in the earlier vision, came to me in swift flight about the time of the evening sacrifice. 22 He instructed me and said to me, "Daniel, I have now come to give you insight and understanding. 23 As soon as you began to pray, an answer was given, which I have come to tell you, for you are highly esteemed. Therefore, consider the message and understand the vision:

24 "Seventy 'sevens' are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy.

25 "Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven 'sevens,' and sixty-two 'sevens.' It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. 26 After the sixty-two 'sevens,' the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. 27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.' In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.

The book of Daniel. Information on Authorship and Dating: http://www.religioustolerance.org/daniel.htm

Naturally, I prefer the conservative dating, because the liberal dating sucks, mainly dwelling on presumptions and biases and question begging.

Pick your date of the 6th century BC or the Maccabean Revolts around 165 BC. My argument is strong either way, because even the Liberal date places the events in of the book in the 6th century.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #1 on:** April 18, 2006, 08:18:40 AM »

Hey, what's going on? 8 views and no responses? I've got a fabulous argument going on here!

Does anyone here deny that 1. Daniel was written before 150 BC and 2. Set in the sixth century BC?

Deep Thought · « **Reply #2 on:** April 18, 2006, 11:44:26 AM »

I haven't the foggiest about Daniel's dating, Johnny. I'm nowhere near enough-informed to make any definite decisions there. So I'm afraid I've got nothing to say.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #3 on:** April 18, 2006, 01:44:22 PM »

Alright, I'll just proceed. Perhaps the next steps may push you to go further, but as you'll see, either dating will allow my argument to have force.

Verse 25 says this:

"From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven 'sevens,' and sixty-two 'sevens.'"

We have lots of material to work with to sort out this prophecy. Too much, in fact. Daniel was in Babylon in the first place because the land of Judah had been laid waste in 586 BC by the Babylonians and most of the Jews carted off. Babylon was defeated by the Persians under Cyrus in 539 BC. http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/PERSIANS.HTM

Cyrus immediately sent the Jews home (539/8 BC). The book of Ezra records this, and points out that Jeremiah had prophesied about this. However, this doesn't appear to be the decree really authorizing the re-construction of Jerusalem and the temple, because another decree is actually recorded as being necessary to pull it off, both by Darius and Araxerxes (see this for a list of the Persian kings... http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/persians.html ) See this link for a discussion of which decree to begin doing our math with:

http://www.angelfire.com/ok/bibleteaching/seventiethweek.html

Its somewhat hindsighted, but I don't think extraordinarily so, or unreasonably so.

Let's start doing math. I found a site that looked to me like it did the math correctly, so I'll just copy and paste:

Quote

The seventy

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #4 on:** April 19, 2006, 09:57:23 PM »

bump.

shalom · « **Reply #5 on:** April 25, 2006, 06:16:26 AM »

Hi SntJonny,

I'm back home from Thailand. Just browzing about the site catching up on postings. Sorry to hear about GeeGee - hope all becomes better soon.

Quote from: sntjohnny

Shouldn't my Jewish friends be looking for somebody- the anointed most holy- to end sin, atone wickedness, bring in everlasting righteousness, and seal up vision and prophecy? Why blood? Why the blood of the firstborn? I'll leave it to my Jewish friends to propose a different explanation.

The idea of G-d needing blood to forgive sin is a Christian thought - it is not Jewish. As for firstborn - G-d said Israel was His Firstborn. Maybe that explains why G-d has allowed Israel to suffer so much pain, always living on the edge of extinction - yet we survive, the world is centered on that small piece of land, and continues to hate the only people who have the right to it, as stated by the G-d who first named them Israel?

Ok - that's Jewish preaching. Can I get a witness?

Quote

Happy Passover Fulfilled everyone!

Passover was fulfilled long before Christianity was a gleam in the Gentile eyes. I suggest Christians eat Rabbit on Easter. That would be a better custom than trying to re-interpret Jewish heritage.

Shalom

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #6 on:** April 25, 2006, 07:02:50 AM »

"The idea of G-d needing blood to forgive sin is a Christian thought - it is not Jewish."

Are you sure? For one thing, blood seems to be an important component in allowing God to 'passover' the households. Perhaps that is not 'forgiveness.' However I'm surprised that you think that this is a Christian thought when you are no doubt familiar with the book of Leviticus.

This is from Leviticus 4:

Quote

18. And he shall then place some of the blood on the horns of the altar that is before the Lord in the Tent of Meeting. And then he shall pour all the blood onto the base of the altar [used] for burnt offerings, which is at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting.
19. And he shall separate all its fat from it and cause it to [go up in] smoke on the altar.
20. He shall do to the bull just as he did to the bull of the sin offering thus he shall do to it. Thus the kohen shall make atonement for them [the community], and they will be forgiven.

So, I think we can dispense with this notion that the idea that blood is a necessary component for the reception of forgiveness being a Christian 'thought.'

I put the question to you again. Keep in mind that this is just one example out of many.

"As for firstborn - G-d said Israel was His Firstborn."

Can I see the passage you are thinking of? This still doesn't address the problem as to why the firstborn had to die in the Passover. Why single out the firstborn? This is incompatible with your next statements. In the passover, the firstborn is slain and put an end to. It doesn't follow, then, to focus on the survival of the Israelites as the 'firstborn' when in fact the passover focuses on the death of the Israelites. The justification could only hold if the Israelites, as firstborn, were completely wiped off the map... unless.... unless... perhaps on account of the shedding of blood they were passed over. At least, temporarily.

"Passover was fulfilled long before Christianity was a gleam in the Gentile eyes."

Oh, that is certainly true! Actually, that's the point.

"I suggest Christians eat Rabbit on Easter. That would be a better custom than trying to re-interpret Jewish heritage."

Oh, I think we are a long way from having to worry about that. If you wish to maintain that the shedding of blood for forgiveness is a Christian thought, and not a Jewish one, it is clear from the one example that I gave that it is the Jews re-interpreting their own heritage. If you are prepared to deny examples like that, or twist them so that they don't mean what they clearly on the face of it mean, you're guilty of your own charge.

Did you not have any problem with my Daniel argument?

shalom · « **Reply #7 on:** April 25, 2006, 07:08:55 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

"The idea of G-d needing blood to forgive sin is a Christian thought - it is not Jewish."

Are you sure? For one thing, blood seems to be an important component in allowing God to 'passover' the households. Perhaps that is not 'forgiveness.' However I'm surprised that you think that this is a Christian thought when you are no doubt familiar with the book of Leviticus.

StnJ you are missing the point. Go do your research and find all the times G-d forgave without one drop of blood being spilt. The accounts are there, even in Leviticus.

Quote

So, I think we can dispense with this notion that the idea that blood is a necessary component for the reception of forgiveness being a Christian 'thought.'

Maybe you can dispense - because you believe the writings of Paul are equal to our Scriptures and I believe he wrote "there is no remission of sin without the shedding of blood." - Well, guess what - Paul showed his ignorance by writing that line. Makes me wonder if Paul even wrote that or perhaps some mis-informed Gentile who, like so many today, think G-d requires blood for attonement.

Quote

"As for firstborn - G-d said Israel was His Firstborn."
Can I see the passage you are thinking of?

Exodus 4:22

Quote

This still doesn't address the problem as to why the firstborn had to die in the Passover. Why single out the firstborn?

The first of everything, even pumpkins, is significant in Judaism.

Quote

Did you not have any problem with my Daniel argument?

Not really. I consider it yet another example of misinterpretation to justify a bizzare notion of G-d. Akin to the scene in The Life of Brian when the audience misundersood, thinking Jesus said: "Blessed are the Cheese Makers" and then set about trying to determine what type of cheese to eat.

Shalom

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #8 on:** April 25, 2006, 07:48:26 PM »

You completely avoided my comments about Leviticus. Shalom, you would be silly if you thought that I would come to a Jew and try to demonstrate anything from the NT. What kind of idiot do you think you are discussing things with? If I didn't think I could make the case from the OT, I wouldn't have said anything. Now, you aren't going to win any points by avoiding a clear reference in Leviticus connecting the shedding of blood and forgiveness. Unless you think it was really the priest that gave the forgiveness, and not something with the sacrifice?

As for the other issues, I'll let them slide for now, except for one, the subject of the Daniel prophecy. I am not at all persuaded that a blunt dismissal constitutes an argument. If you understand the text differently, this is your opportunity to show how. Specifically...

Here is a translation from a Jewish source (as my leviticus passage was, as well) on Daniel:

Quote

Seventy weeks [of years] have been decreed upon your people and upon the city of your Sanctuary to terminate the transgression and to end sin, and to expiate iniquity, and to bring eternal righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies.

Specifically, why don't you share with the class what this text tells us about when to expect the termination of transgression, the end of sin, the expiation of iniquity, and the brining of eternal righteousness?

I know what Nojc's answer is, and it was pretty sad. What's yours?

If you're simply going to hide behind "I'm a Jew and you're not" you certainly aren't acting in the spirit of Jonah, are you?

Quote

Now should I not take pity on Nineveh, the great city, in which there are many more than one hundred twenty thousand people who do not know their right hand from their left, and many beasts as well?

Have you no message for the gentiles? Clearly God cares about them. Or is it your view that your 'message' is too esoteric to be presented and defended outside of initiates? Are you a closet gnostic? If not, open the expanse of your wisdom and explain how the Leviticus passage does not connect forgiveness with the shedding of blood and how we are to form our expectations about the anointing of the most holy?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #9 on:** April 25, 2006, 08:05:50 PM »

Ok, not completely ignored, but definately evaded.

Let's look at my statement again to see if we can figure out what happened:

I said: "Why blood? Why the blood of the firstborn?

I'll leave it to my Jewish friends to propose a different explanation."

To this, all you've done so far is affirm the importance of the firstborn in Judaism. Sorry, that's not really a revelation, as it was something that I pointed out. WHY BLOOD? This you avoided. You said:

"The idea of G-d needing blood to forgive sin is a Christian thought - it is not Jewish"

Now. My dear Shalom. Where did I say that God needed blood? In fact, blood seems to be pretty arbitrary to me, which is really the point. He managed to do kick some Egyption butt 9 times, several of those times distinguishing between the Jews and the Egyptians, without either of them having to perform any kind of ritual at all. Why blood? And then when the law was delivered, why was blood given such a prominent role? WHO SAID ANYTHING ABOUT GOD NEEDING BLOOD? Not me. You. Which brings us to my next response:

"For one thing, blood seems to be an important component in allowing God to 'passover' the households."

I only say its 'an important component.'

Later on, when I talk about it being necessary, it is only in response to your own terminology. So what happened? I know what happened. You saw two key words 'blood' and 'forgiveness' and the speaker 'a Christian' and you made an unfair jump. The truth is, I should care less about what is written in the NT book of Hebrews about blood.

The fact that God forgave people in the OT without the shedding of blood is a problem for you, not me. Because what it means is that bloodshed was not really important, was it? God didn't need it, did he? But he demanded it, anyway. Didn't he?

The whole temple structure was built around the priestly sacrificial system, so you're just hoping that I'm illiterate and unable to detect that in the OT to say otherwise. My question to you is, WHY. WHY.

What was the point of killing all those animals and drenching one's body, and the walls, and the altar, with blood?

SML · « **Reply #10 on:** April 25, 2006, 09:02:45 PM »

Shalom, I'm begging you, answer please! I have no understanding of the Jewish perspective and I really, really WANT to understand. I do, btw, happen to believe that the OT specifically speaks of Israel becoming a nation once again in its God-given land in the last days for the glory of God's name. Not completely clear on what I really believe about those last days... still exploring it...

shalom · « **Reply #11 on:** April 26, 2006, 05:34:25 PM »

Quote from: Maj73

Shalom, I'm begging you, answer please! I have no understanding of the Jewish perspective and I really, really WANT to understand. I do, btw, happen to believe that the OT specifically speaks of Israel becoming a nation once again in its God-given land in the last days for the glory of God's name. Not completely clear on what I really believe about those last days... still exploring it...

I'm trying to read through the thread to identify the key point. If it is why blood then and not now - then I can only point out that Israel existed before the 1st Temple, after the 1st Temple, during the 2nd Temple - even when sacrifices were forbidden, and after the 2nd Temple. I know of only a handful of Jews (and non personally) who believe without a doubt that temple sacrifices will be reinstituted. Israel has processed through various phases in our relationship with G-d. There were the Patriarchs, Slavery in Egypt, Exodus, Judges, Kings, 1st Temple, Diasporah into Babylon, 2nd Temple, Hellinistic era, and finally today Rabbinical Judaism (as we call it ourselves). Our scriptures speak of our G-d wanting obedience above sacrifice, and prayer as a sacrifice. Why G-d setup the Temple system may best be undersood in context of what was taking place at the time - in other cultures. Consider also that the Covenant is not Torah anymore than a Marriage is the pre-nup. The covenant is the relationship, just as the core of the marriage is in the relationship. My marriage is far different today after 37 years than it was when we started. Many behaviors have changed, but our covenant is intact.

When Christians read our Scriptures they do so wearing Christian glasses. They see things that simply are not there. They consider G-d becoming a man by impregnating a virgin, they accept a human sacrifice as acceptable, and efficatious for their salvation, they see a G-d who is willing to reject eternally anyone who does not follow their interpretation of scripture, they accept as Messiah someone who's followers did more harm than good for Israel.

I don't know about you, but I can understand reasoning I don't agree with. I can see why people (in this case Christians) believe the way they do. That does not mean I agree with their position.

You can do the samething yourself - but it may take some work, depending upon your ability to separate your own convictions from that of others. In other words, how easily can you step into someone elses shoes. But once you get there - you'll at least understand why Jews reject Christianity.

Hope this helps,
Shalom

shalom · « **Reply #12 on:** April 26, 2006, 05:52:33 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

"The idea of G-d needing blood to forgive sin is a Christian thought - it is not Jewish"....... I know what happened. You saw two key words 'blood' and 'forgiveness' and the speaker 'a Christian' and you made an unfair jump. ....... The whole temple structure was built around the priestly sacrificial system, so you're just hoping that I'm illiterate and unable to detect that in the OT to say otherwise. My question to you is, WHY. WHY.

What was the point of killing all those animals and drenching one's body, and the walls, and the altar, with blood?

I said Christian, because in the Christian Scriptures (Hebrews 9:22 I believe) it is written "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin." Therefore I conclude that the requirement for blood to obtain attonement is a Christian idea, not Jewish. It had nothing to do with you personally.

While I was answering your post directly, my audience was the Christian in general. If my words made you think I was giving you personal attention, I'm sorry. I may have used the "you" word one too many times. That is a tricky word to use in this medium. It can be understood in the plural, or direct, and in some cases it can be used as if pointing a finger. I never wish to appear to be pointing a finger.

I believe I replied to the core question in my answer to Maj73.

Shalom

Zagzagel · « **Reply #13 on:** May 10, 2006, 04:28:06 PM »

Concerning the starting date of Daniels prophecy, others have calculated that to be 446 BC. http://www.geocities.com/athens/parthenon/3021/ (see under Bible Prophecy - The dates of Jesus DRA Calculated)

Personally, I don't care to much about what year/month/day the command went out to restore/rebuid Jerusalem/Temple, but its interesting that all the suggested starting dates centre around the time of Christ Jesus' public ministry and death/resurrection. Also interesting is how the ministry of Jesus parallels the Jewish Festivals.

Other interesting info, which I yet to dig deeper into, is that there was a sudden figure entering history at that particular time with a high and lofty claim. For example: John the baptizer pointing to Jesus as God's Lamb. Jesus reading a passage from the Hebrew scriptures and applying it to himself. etc. The suggestion is that Jesus was the only person during that specific time who just may be the Ruler/Messiah of Daniels book. Finally, another strong indication that a Messiah/Ruler should come before the 70 weeks are finished is Daniels words of the destruction of the city and sanctuary. And don't forget that this Ruler/Messiah was to yikaret (implies a sudden death/vanishing?) at the end of the 69th week, or at the mid-point of the 70th week.

G.

nojc4me · « **Reply #14 on:** May 12, 2006, 07:16:15 PM »

sntj asked:

Have you [shalom] no message for the gentiles? Clearly God cares about them. Or is it your view that your 'message' is too esoteric to be presented and defended outside of initiates?

It's not unknown to you. His message is that you already had/have a covenant with G-d since before you ever heard the vile name of that false messiah, jesus.
What G-d wants from you is your obedience. Obedience to the Seven Universal Laws of Noah.
No blood sacifice - especially not the blood of a human, even that of a volunteer - has any magical or divine power to wipe away sins. Not even the sacrifice of a firstborn.
Blood sacrifices are acceptable and efficatious - or they were when they were offered on G-d's holy Altar in G-d's Holy Temple - but they were never required.
That's probably why shalom considered the questions of why blood, and why the firstborn are not worth following up on.
The premise of your quesstion was faulty.
There's no need to discuss why they're so very important when they're NOT all that important.

[E]xplain how the Leviticus passage does not connect forgiveness with the shedding of blood

That, as I'm sure you know, is ludricrous. Of course the verse connects blood with forgiveness. But Paul's lie that Shalom finds fault with is that there is no remission without blood. Leviticus doesn't say there's no remission without blood.
Unless you can find a verse in Torah that says there is no remission without blood, we'll continue to consider Paul's words lies.

Bdean · « **Reply #15 on:** May 12, 2006, 07:37:30 PM »

Quote

Unless you can find a verse in Torah that says there is no remission without blood, we'll continue to consider Paul's words lies.

nojc4me - Do you take the position that any religious teaching not present in the Torah is a lie? Or is your position instead that any religious teaching that directly contradicts what is in the Torah is a lie?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #16 on:** May 12, 2006, 07:40:35 PM »

"But Paul's lie that Shalom finds fault with is that there is no remission without blood. Leviticus doesn't say there's no remission without blood."

The problem, my friend, is that Shalom tried to invoke this several times already. He said:

"The idea of G-d needing blood to forgive sin is a Christian thought - it is not Jewish."

And yet up to that point I hadn't said ANYTHING about God NEEDING blood. In fact, the exact quote was simply:

"Why blood? Why the blood of the firstborn?"

When I confronted Shalom with the fact of what I actually said, he replied:

"Maybe you can dispense - because you believe the writings of Paul are equal to our Scriptures and I believe he wrote "there is no remission of sin without the shedding of blood." - Well, guess what - Paul showed his ignorance by writing that line."

So, what do we see here? Even though I not only made no mention at all that God NEEDED blood, and in fact pointed out that I hadn't said that, what did Shalom do? He repeated his connection to Paul. How hard is it to notice that I'm making my argument strictly from the OT?

My point seems to be going clean over both of your heads. Here it was again:

Quote

The fact that God forgave people in the OT without the shedding of blood is a problem for you, not me. Because what it means is that bloodshed was not really important, was it? God didn't need it, did he? But he demanded it, anyway. Didn't he?

That God does not NEED the shedding of blood and yet demands it left and right anyway requires an explanation. By running and hiding behind what you think is an error by Paul (the author of Hebrews is actually unknown, if you must know) only reveals that you really don't have an answer.

So, between the two of you, you've invoked Paul three times, arguing against a claim that I did not make.

It makes one wonder if there is a reason why you are afraid to explain why God made the shedding of blood such a central part of the forgiveness rituals WHEN IN FACT IT WAS NOT NEEDED AT ALL.

Don't you see? I'm perfectly content for the sake of discussion to agree that the shedding of blood is not needed to obtain forgiveness. All you have to do is tell me why it was demanded at all in that case.

Quote

There's no need to discuss why they're so very important when they're NOT all that important.

[E]xplain how the Leviticus passage does not connect forgiveness with the shedding of blood

That, as I'm sure you know, is ludricrous. Of course the verse connects blood with forgiveness

Clearly this is you talking out of both sides of your mouth.

You'll have to pardon me if I find such escapes as amounting to nothing more than special pleading.

"but they were never required."

So why have them?

Simple question. If you invoke Paul one more time, you have revealed yourselves as completely discredited.

Zagzagel · « **Reply #17 on:** May 12, 2006, 09:16:31 PM »

Sntj, said:

Quote

That God does not NEED the shedding of blood and yet demands it left and right anyway requires an explanation.

Quote

It makes one wonder if there is a reason why you are afraid to explain why God made the shedding of blood such a central part of the forgiveness rituals WHEN IN FACT IT WAS NOT NEEDED AT ALL.

I've been waiting for an answer too...

Quite frankly, the whole blood thing is quite creepy to me.

The point you made also, sntj....

Quote

Now. My dear Shalom. Where did I say that God needed blood? In fact, blood seems to be pretty arbitrary to me, which is really the point. He managed to do kick some Egyption butt 9 times, several of those times distinguishing between the Jews and the Egyptians, without either of them having to perform any kind of ritual at all. Why blood? And then when the law was delivered, why was blood given such a prominent role?

[emphasis mine]

...did catch my attention!

Yup, G-d surely made his presence known both to the Jews and Egyptians...but then came this blood thing? Creepy

nojc4me · « **Reply #18 on:** May 13, 2006, 08:52:19 PM »

Bdean asked:

nojc4me - Do you take the position that any religious teaching not present in the Torah is a lie?

No. And try to stay on topic. We're discussing whether Paul can make up new laws, not whether real laws need to be written into the text explicitly. I believe mere implication would be enough if the ruling otherwise conformed with Torah law. But I could be wrong.

There is no line, passage, or chapter in Tanakh that says there is no remission of sin without the shedding of blood.
On the other hand, there are passages in the Tanakh that explain methods of recieving forgiveness of sin without blood sacrifice.
There is also the historical record of the times where there was no Temple. If G-d knows the future (and the Jews [and I] believe He does), then He would have set up a system whereby those generations could find forgiveness of sin. In those days, there certainly must have been one or more methods for forgiveness of sin without blood. Such methods would of course still be efficatious while there IS a Temple, because there will be people too disstant from the Temple to offer sacrifices there.
So there's no reason to believe blood is required.
Repentence is always a major factor. Blood is NOT always a major factor. It is SOMETIMES a factor, but not always.
So there never was a need for jesus to die for the forgiveness of the sins of anyone other than himself.
Therefore, Paul's claim needs backing from G-d's Torah, or Paul's words are worthless.
That's just the way it's going to have to be.

Or is your position instead that any religious teaching that directly contradicts what is in the Torah is a lie?

A) There's no such teaching. It's impossible for such a situation to exist.
B) You must always remember that the straight literal or figurative meaning of the Text is under the perview of the Rabbis, so what they say it says is what it says. You know that, right?
For example, if the Rabbis were to say that the first line of the Torah [B'reisheet barah elokim et ha-shamayim v'et ha-aretz."] [paraphrased] says, "For the sake of the First Fruits was the Universe created by G-d," then that's what it means. Whether you like to think so or not.
You do realize that, right?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #19 on:** May 13, 2006, 09:12:28 PM »

Quote

No. And try to stay on topic. We're discussing whether Paul can make up new laws, not whether real laws need to be written into the text explicitly. I believe mere implication would be enough if the ruling otherwise conformed with Torah law. But I could be wrong.

There is no line, passage, or chapter in Tanakh that says there is no remission of sin without the shedding of blood.

And Nojc has discredited himself. Just. Like. That.

Author Topic: Passover Series #1... Daniel 9:20-27 (Read 6825 times)