Daniel 9:24 – 27
“Seventy weeks have been decreed upon your people and upon your holy city to end the transgression, and to complete iniquity, and to expiate sin, and to bring everlasting righteousness, and to seal vision and prophet, and to anoint holy of holies. And you will know and understand from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem until anointed (a) leader, (is) seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks it will return and be built square and moat and in the travails of times. And following the sixty-two weeks (an) anointed (one) will be cut off and he has not, and the city and the sanctuary will be destroyed by the nation of the leader that comes, and his end will be with a torrent, and until the end wars it is decreed desolation. He will strengthen (a) covenant with many (for) one week, and (for) a half week he will abolish sacrifice and meal offering and upon the wing (of) abominations desolation and until extermination as decreed will be poured out upon (the) desolation.”
Before we begin with the various interpretations of this passage, it would be in order to clarify a few points. Both Christians and Jews understand that the seventy weeks of this passage, refer to sets of seven years. Scripture uses this term of reference in relation to the Sabbatical year mentioned in Leviticus 25:8. Christians and Jews likewise agree that the time period of the seventy weeks, generally parallels the Second Temple era. There are several Christian variations of the interpretation of these ambiguous verses, as well as several Jewish interpretations. We will try to provide a synopsis of both the Jewish and Christian interpretations. (Some Christian scholars agree to the Jewish understanding of the passage, we will be presenting a synopsis of those Christian interpretations that see this passage as a reference to Jesus.)
According to the missionaries, the seventy weeks began towards the beginning of the Second Temple era. The missionaries understand the verse that speaks of the coming of an anointed leader is to be read as follows – from the going forth of the word … until anointed leader is seven and sixty-two weeks. In other words, the anointed leader comes after sixty-nine weeks. For the missionary the rest of the verse is disconnected from the beginning. Thus the phrase “it will return and be built …” stands alone. The anointed one to be cut off after the sixty-two weeks is the same one who came after the sixty-nine weeks. Thus the anointed one is Jesus, and these verses refer to his arrival and death. The introductory verse to this passage, describing the ending of sin and the completion of iniquity is understood to be a description of Jesus’ purpose and mission.
The closing verse in this passage is understood by missionaries to be a reference to the seventieth week. There is disagreement amongst missionaries concerning this seventieth week. All of the missionaries understand that it is disconnected from the sixty-nine weeks. The question is, when will it, or was it, fulfilled. One group understands that the seventieth week was fulfilled with the destruction of the Temple, forty years after Jesus’ death. Others understand that the seventieth week will be fulfilled immediately before Jesus’ anticipated second coming.
This interpretation (or these interpretations) fails for several reasons. Most obvious, is the fact that the verse clearly implies that the cutting off of the anointed one is to occur together with the destruction of the city and the sanctuary, after sixty-two weeks. Jesus died several decades before the Romans sacked Jerusalem.
Another problem with the missionary interpretation of this passage is the fact that the passage speaks of two separate anointed ones. The first “anointed leader” is to come after seven weeks, with the second anointed to be cut off after sixty-two weeks. The missionary interpretation ignores this clear implication of the verse, and provides no reason why the sixty-nine week period should be subdivided into seven and sixty-two.
Furthermore, the missionary interpretation does not explain the main point of the passage. By inserting a space into the seventy weeks (either several decades or several thousand years), there is nothing special about these seventy weeks. They do not measure any particular time, nor do they accomplish anything unique. The missionary understanding of this passage can be compared to someone who tells his friend, “it is 50 miles from New York to Los Angeles.” When questioned by his friend about the accuracy of his statement, the fellow responds, “- well I’m sure you realize that there is a large gap between the forty-ninth and fiftieth miles.” In other words the original statement was meaningless.
According to the Jewish commentators, the seventy weeks are contiguous. They end with the destruction of the Temple and the sacking of Jerusalem. The seventy weeks are divided into two periods, the first consisting of seven weeks, with the second consisting of sixty-two. The seventieth week is split between these two periods. The understanding of this interpretation can be compared to the following situation. We are told that the distance between point A and point C is fifty miles. Then we are told that the distance between point A and point B is four miles, while the distance between B and C is forty-five miles. In reality, point B is four and a half miles from point A, and forty-five and a half miles from point C, but we understand that the fractions are being rounded off. The closing verse that speaks of the one week, refers to the last of the sixty-two weeks, and describes the events of that seven-year period.
In order to understand the purpose of the seventy-week period, we must focus on the context of this passage and on the only other passage in scripture that uses the term of weeks to describe sets of seven years. The chapter opens with Daniel contemplating the prophecy of Jeremiah. The Temple was destroyed, the city of Jerusalem was in ruins, and Jeremiah had prophesied that after a seventy-year period Jerusalem would be restored. According to Daniel’s calculations Jeremiah’s seventy years had passed, and the city was still in ruins. Daniel prayed that God have compassion upon His people, and restore the city and the Temple.
In response to Daniel’s prayer God dispatches the angel Gabriel. The passage quoted above, was Gabriel’s response to the prayer of Daniel. Gabriel was telling Daniel that he had misunderstood two separate points. Firstly he had miscalculated the seventy years predicted by Jeremiah. This is the meaning of the phrase “you will know and understand from the going forth of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem.” In other words, Daniel had not understood when it is that the word to rebuild Jerusalem actually went forth, and now he should reevaluate his calculations. Daniel had assumed that the seventy years predicted by Jeremiah began with the first Babylonian invasion, in which the Jews lost their independence to Nebuchadnezzar. In reality he was to count from the third and final Babylonian invasion, when the city and Temple were actually destroyed. Thus the angel tells him that the “word” (of God through Jeremiah) was related to the rebuilding of the city, therefore it was to begin with the destruction of the same.
The second point that the angel clarified to Daniel, was that the rebuilding of the Temple was not going to be final; the Temple was going to be destroyed again. Daniel had been hoping that the prophecies of all the prophets were going to be fulfilled in their entirety, and God will come to dwell amongst His people as in the days of Moses and Solomon. This was not to be. Gabriel told Daniel, that his nation must undergo a purging process of seventy weeks, and only then can the sin begin to be expiated as well as the process of ushering in eternal righteousness. First the nation and the land must make expiation for the particular sin of neglecting the Sabbath of the land. It is for this reason that angel speaks of groups of seven years as “weeks.” This serves as a pointer to the passage in Leviticus in which we are told that the land must undergo a purging period for the expiation of this particular sin. Only after this process is complete, can the national purging process begin; the process that will refine the nation and bring them to the anointing of holy of holies, and everlasting righteousness – according to the visions of the prophets.
The two “anointed ones” that Gabriel makes reference to, are Cyrus – the Persian monarch, and the last high priest to serve in the Second Temple. From the going forth of the word until Cyrus, whom Isaiah (45:1) had already identified as the anointed one who will restore the city, will be seven full weeks. This will be followed by sixty-two weeks of the city being rebuilt, but in troubled times (not as Daniel had hoped.) After the sixty-two weeks the high priest would be cut off without any continuity and the city will be destroyed. When Ezekiel prophecies about the restored high-priesthood in the Third Temple, he tells us that it will not be a continuation of the corrupt Sadducee high-priesthood. Rather, the priests who did not stray from God will serve in the Third Temple, and they will teach the people the Laws of God.
According to the Jewish interpretation, Gabriel’s words are a direct answer to Daniel’s prayer. Daniel had assumed that with the completion of Jeremiah’s seventy years, all of the Messianic prophecies will come to fruition. The main point of Gabriel’s words are that seventy weeks of years were decreed upon Daniel’s people and upon his city, before the Messianic prophecies can begin to be fulfilled. The seventy-week period is the thrust of Gabriel’s message, as the passage clearly implies.
One final point about this prophecy; According to the missionary, the seventy weeks were not decreed “upon your people and upon your holy city.” The seventy weeks are particular components in time that have no direct bearing upon the Jewish people or Jerusalem. In fact the entire Christian vision of the Messiah negates the people whom Daniel considered his own, as well as the city that Daniel considered holy. An unbiased reading of the Jewish scriptures will reveal that the entire focus of the Messianic vision is upon the Jews whom Daniel considered his own, and upon the city that Daniel considered holy.
Pingback: The Applicant with 353 References | 1000 Verses
Dan 9:24 ….”to end the transgression, and to complete iniquity, and to expiate sin, and to bring everlasting righteousness, and to seal vision and prophet, and to anoint holy of holies”.
I know Michael Brown makes a big deal about this particular section saying that Jsus did these things (He clearly did not) and that if Jsus isnt the messiah, no one can be.
It seems to me, that if he had done those things, (again, he clearly didnt) then the Temple would not have been destroyed and the messianic era would have been ushered in at that point. So, clearly the man from Nazareth failed.
Hello. A great passage this one. I was wondering though? You state the priest will be cut off. Being a christian my Bible states ” Messiah prince” will be cut off, but not for Himself. What is the the original hebrew wording here?
Are you saying the priests in the third temple will serve instead of the corrupt priests from the second temple (Yes I think), so that raises a few questions. If someone had previously mentioned, which Im sure they have. They would have said this and that in regard to Jesus and the issues He had with the Jewish/priests leaders on various points. Someone would have defended the leaders and said that it was Jesus and His followers were corrupt for not obeying the laws etc. The sabbath being the big one. Are you now saying that is was the priests of that time that were corrupt? Which is it. Corrupt or holy? So Is this the corruption which lead to the temple distruction and the present non temple service?
Are the priests in the third temple levites, if so, how do you know who is and who is not a levite. Or does it not matter in the third temple period, can we find any reference in the scriptures to this? and finally when does the temple service begin again? I mean prohectically, is it when Messiah comes? You might have mentioned it, I might have misread the blog.
Thanks.
Paul
the Hebrew says “annointed” leader – the word “annointed” is used in reference to the high priest many times (Leviticus 4:3). urthermore – it does not say “and not for himself” – it says “and not to him” which implies that he has no continuity
The reference about the corrupt priesthood is Ezekiel 44:15.
Paul you can’t believe the Christian Scriptures about the rejection of Jesus any more than you can believe the Koran about the rejection of Mohammed – they are both works of propaganda
Ok Thanks for info. What do you mean by, “No continuity”?
Ezekiel 45:15.I do see these verses as the Third temple period, but Are you saying that the sons of Zadok will minister, if so the question still remains. How do you know who are the sons of Zadok are, I mean today that is?
Are saying that it wasnt the priesthood etc who had Christ handed over to the Romans for crucifixtion. If so who was it that had Him handed over? Was it some other group maybe, His followers?? Or are you stating that the whole period of the Gospels is a propaganda conspiracy against Israel and the Jews, and nothing really happened at all?
Plus for the record you are definatley stating that the priesthood of the second temple period were corrupt, and were ultimatley responsible for the devine destruction of the temple in AD70?
Thanks x
Paul, I was wondering, that since not all Jews in Judea, the Galilee, or “the Diaspora” were destroyed in ancient Rome’s 3 major wars against Jews, that it was true that priests and Levites also survived, and so statuses, roles, traditions, and history also survived and were passed down through the generations. If God chose Rome to do severe damage to Jews, whether they were corrupt or were innocent, those crushed are always restored to their former lands; those “punished” are always rewarded according to the prophets or else they surrender their identity to the nations (lost & unknown until the end times). Many family lines have died out over the centuries, but not all, and historically, we know who some of the “priests” or Levites are. And statistically or mathematically, we also can be sure of those facts. It may be that Man does not know, but what really matters is that God knows who the Levites, priests, or Sons of David are. God kept alive some Holy Servants and has kept their lines “clean”, despite the protests or wishful thinking of anti-Jews. God has that ability, especially if His prophets could be made out to be liars by Men, who will also make God a liar (and a man or a fiction). BTW, when I read Josephus’s “Against Apion”, I see a different Judea & “the Jews”, then I often see in the NT (or as pictured by some modern church cults), which is sometimes closer to the views of Apion or Apollinius or Rome.
But early Christian history is a whole lot fuzzier. Except for pretenders or those unknowingly are ignorant, there are large gaps in the history. The followers of Jesus, who before 70 c.e., supposedly expected their messiah to return soon, to cleanse or preserve (or at least rebuild later, but also soon) the physical, stone Temple (the same one Jesus thought was worthy and he also tried to cleanse), are very hard to find after 70 c.e. According to many believers (but few scholars), there are no canonical, non-heretical Christian writings after about 66-68 c.e., or at least not after John’s writings guessed to be about 90 c.e. After the bar Kochba revolt middle of the 2nd century or even before, according to the early church fathers, there is no known group that is claiming to be direct descendants of the 1st followers of Jesus. Only legends or unprovable theories. Over 10 thousand missing followers and no trace of where they went or what happened to them. No one, except a few Christians and heretics, mainly Gentiles. Non-Christian Jewish history (outside of Josephus) is sparse, but better preserved and more consistent with the histories written by non-Jews.
There are some who believe the visions of the prophet John of Patmos are to be taken literally. If they are true prophecies, then shouldn’t they be taken literally or else which scripture says that certain things in a vision are literally true and others are open to individual, subjective interpretation? Are visions really prophetic and who can show objectively that the words apply to the Churches or believers today and not to the people who were actually to be given the message by John? Where is the Ephesus Church of Revelation 2:4 “But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first.”? Did they repent & go back and do the works that they did at first? Was their lampstand taken from them and who in the Churches today can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are or are not of that church? Do they still hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate” (Rev 2:6)? Where is the church of Smyrna (modern day Izmar?) that was rich but impoverished and harassed by “Jews who weren’t Jews”? Was that a literal 10 days or was it to be taken as soon or a short time in their lifetimes before Christ returned in glory in 10 years or did the preacher not mean to speak to the real church and it was only meant as a generalized prophecy to future churches 1900 years or 10000 years later? When and where or who was or is the Church of Pergamum, “who hold on to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the people of Israe, and so that they would eat food sacrificed to idols and practice fornication”, while yet holding fast to the name of Jesus”? Which Church is Thyatira in Rev 2:19-21, “I know your works—your love, faith, service, and patient endurance. I know that your last works are greater than the first. But I have this against you: you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet and is teaching and beguiling my servants to practice fornication and to eat food sacrificed to idols. I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her fornication”. Followers of Jesus can be corrupt & idolatrous and yet they can be praised for their love & faith and for their service to Jesus. Similar words are directed to Sardis & to Laodicea, a livey but dead Church or one that is neither “hot or cold” – room temperature – that is rich & blessed but poor in spirit. There is another Greek city, in between, that is praised because they also had patient endurance and kept the name. Jesus will keep them (not us today?) from the hour of trial that would SOON be coming on the whole world. It wasn’t them then, so who can prove that they are of that persecuted Church today?
Paul
We still know who the priests are – the messenger will come to purify the sons of Levi as God promised (Malachi 3:3)
Some of the political leaders of the priesthood collaborated with the Romans – it was those people who were corrupt – The vast majority of the priests were not
Hi,
Yes of course i agree with your point. Not all were corrupt. But Im afraid the majority were, not sure what percentage? I suppose by deduction and common sense it but have been quite conciderabe. Otherwise God would not have taken your temple service from you. Just a few as you state would not justify Gods devine wrath upon the whole nation of the children of Israel. Not just then at the time, but the last 2000 yrs also.
So as you can see corrupt priests rejected their Messiah/God. Corrupt priests led the children of Israel astray. If they had accepted their Messiah as it is written in the books of Moses then YOU would have done also. Lost and blind sheep following lost and blind shepherds is a sorrowful blight. And today you are still paying the price. Of course until the day you repent of your fathers sin.
Deut ch 32 v 5!
x
Paul
In Joshua 7 we see that one man sins and the whole nation suffers – in any case the suffering that we endured was bad – but we choose this suffering anytime over the suffering that the followers of Jesus suffered – we suffered, they hated and killed
Hello
Joshua 7??? Im a little confused,
Why quote this? v26b ” So the Lord turned from the fierceness of His anger” (Forgiveness) Then ch 8. The Lord then encourages Joshua not to be affraid. All is forgiven and Joshua is to continue in his work. Like I previously stated, Israel has to repent. Your fathers past sin.(Singular)
Can you please help me with your quote ” Followers of Jesus suffered- we suffered, they hated and killed”??
Sorry, I dont understand.
Thanks
x
Paul
My quote from Joshua was to demonstrate to you that your assumption that the majority of us have to sin in order for God to get angry at all of us is unbliblical
Yes we need to repent and that will be a return to the Law of Moses as God clearly teaches in Deuteronomy 30:2
My point was that while the Jews suffered terrible physical persecution – the followers of Jesus suffered a deep spiritual darkness which is a far worse punishment
Hello
OK, The way you wrote your last message, in my veiw was the very point which now you are arguing against??!! I wasnt trying to say, or I wasnt just assuming that God gets angry with a majority, generally that is……I do see, I think what you might mean. But you do have to remember that the priests and leaders were just that. Leaders. The average common person looked up to the leaders for guidance. They were in a postion of great power and authority.Thats just common sense thoughout any consitution….. But the point I was talking about is of a specific sin that resulted in a specific judgement, which were corrupt priests, which was stated not by me, but by somebody on this blog. The point was made that QUOTE; ” It was the corrupt priests that were running the second temple period, and when the third temple comes, it will be run by Holy preists unlike the last second corrupt temple. Hence the reason for no temple today. The person made it very clear.
So my question was; ” Are you stating that the priests, who rejected Jesus as being the Messsiah were actually corrupt?”. Without being rude my friend, the answer is either Yes or No.
Secondly you say that you would rather be where you are now, spiritually, than where followers of Messiah are. How do you see yourselfs spiritually, now without the temple service. You mentioned about repenting and going back to the Law of Moses. The whole Law was sanctified with blood. If it was important then, the Law, blood etc. How have you been atoning and how have your sins being forgiven. You dont even have a priest. I dont understand!? You mentioned that you are in a period of no Law. If you can be sanctified without blood and no law, whats the point of having one in the future? Are you in a special dispensation of grace? I thought the whole concept, say Day of Atonement was for the Priest first, then the nation, by the sprinkling of the blood, so that the sins of Israel were forgiven for that year. Do you believe that as Jew you dont need the blood atonement anymore? The whole idea of once having such Holy ordinances in place, and now not having them seems somewhat strange. Dont get me wrong I believe in the Blood ordinance, thats why I ask the question.
Finally where do you get you information from in regard to followers of Jesus as suffering spiritual darkness? The Lord has taken your Temple away not Christians. Thats not physical punishment but spiritual punishment, isnt it??
x
How can one (on the outside of the one supposedly “spiritally punished”) determine that “spiritual punishment” of the other, especially when the poor examples given are all of the “physical”? (and based on misunderstandings of the Tanach). In the bible, when the prophets said Israel was punished (other than by drought or plagues), the nation was punished by “enemies of God”, who later were “destroyed” or “punished” & God’s people were restored (after the prophet also promised restoration). But Jesus came before the Temple was destroyed (the very same physical Temple that Jesus sought to cleanse, but he failed). Jesus allowed “his Father’s Temple” to be destroyed by the “enemies of God”. In fact, with his promises that he would back “soon”, he caused his followers to believe that they should win the war against Rome. But his followers (if any part of the NT is history & not myth or Roman propaganda) were perhaps all annihilated around or within the walls of the physical Temple. His promises led them to bring about the destruction “of the Temple of the God of Jesus”. Another failure to “cleanse the Temple” & not yet rebuilt. That promise of a new Temple of God & a new Jerusalem was also promised by Jesus. The “Law of God” (that many Jews still consider worthy & Holy before Rome taught otherwise) that “not even one letter shall be taken away from”, until some “end time” when that “Law is written on the hearts of all people”. Then, Jesus, supposedly on the throne in heaven, allowed his name to be glorified & exalted as a man-god, like a pagan idol, by the destroyers of his Father’s Temple. When did Jesus determine that the once Holy Law of God was no longer valid & a new “spirit”, taught & promoted by Rome, was the true “spirit” of the “true law”?
It was the enemies of God who said then & still say, that God’s Law is also obsolete and has been replaced with “a new law” that in many areas contradicts the Words of God, supposedly of the same God as the God of Jesus. However, it is almost entirely the words of Jesus or Yeshua, that have been used to justify persecution, exile, & murder of Jews. It is almost entirely the words of Jesus that brought about this “spiritual darkness” upon many non-Jews, many nations, which can be seen as trying to “destroy the light”. If Jesus was given authority over all the earth before he even died, why should he not be held accountable for his failures?
They “looked up to Jesus” & he failed his followers & corruption in his priesthood soon ensued.
It is the “Law of Moses” which supposedly justifies Jesus. Not one dot can be removed (especially since not all was yet “fulfilled”). The so-called “blood ordinance” only remains in effect as long as the Law is in effect. Without “the law of Moses & of God” being in effect, Jesus’s un-kosher human “blood” or his “god blood” (based on blood ordinances of pagan laws) can not “atone”. So if the blood on or covering non-Jews has a positive effect, that blood of Jesus on or covering the Jews (as related in the gospels) also should have a salvation effect. Grace is not earned, it was given to all.
Putting aside Torah Laws, let us look generally (even as given by heathens) at the nature of sacrifices. Now a sacrifice is a gift from Man to God (or their god). A rather small, rather pitiful, & feeble attempt at giving back to God (or their god), who already owns what a person is giving to God. The one who sacrifices, bears a cost, whether the gift is sincere or not. It is a sign of worship of God (or their god). God can’t sacrifice and especially God doesn’t sacrifice to God. Nor does God worship Man and offer a sacrifice to appease Man; so there is no real sacrifice, but only a muddled idea by Man of Who God (or their god- although their gods can be even worse then people). In some myths, the minor god might get “saved”; the dying sun-god will be born again soon; but this serves only to try to temporarily calm the fears of humans & not because the god needs a re-birth. We can also say that a “resurrection” undoes all of “the sacrifice” (I give you a dollar & I get it back, there was no loss- so no real sacrifice & no real gift- perhaps only a charade). Now, if I give a gift to an evil being, then I in effect devote my worship to the “evil one”. I might say, “no, I am giving a ransom”, but that is an admission that we are under the authority of the evil one; the god is sub-subservient to evil. Unless that is only a temporary ploy to get the evil one to give up the “hostage” (if the evil one is fairly decent & honest -a “man of his words” & does not make it a “real sacrifice”, doubled). But one does not want the evil one to “slip away for many ages” & terrorize us still night & day.
Good points Naaria.
Hello
If Im reading you correctly here, are you saying that it was Jesus and His failed promises that led/caused (via Rome) the destruction of the second temple?
Thanks x
Paul on Jan 30: Not exactly, I was presenting a few alternatives that seem to make more sense and that can be better supported or aligned with plain readings of the Biblical prophets and can be better reconciled with the history as both Jews and Christians seen it then and how Christian scholars present it now. For instance, Josephus & Jews in the 2nd century c.e. & later, as well, claimed that the destruction of the temple, was in large part due to “the zealots” and messianics who believed the time was right for a messiah and men had to act and then God would soon move (how could the Roman army win if God was on the side of “the zealots”). Those expecting a messiah to come (or “come back soon”) would have had little fear of the Roman army (shouting like American revolutionaries in 1770′s, “live free or die” or -like 1 madman preacher/prophet Josephus tells us of, “repent the end is near”). If God (Jesus to some) would be coming to Mount Zion soon, you would want to be there. If one believes followers of a messiah would rather “flee” than “see the messiah”, well those theorists have to explain why those “many who escaped” never came back to preach “see I told you so” & start or reestablish their “new kingdom on earth, on earth as it was in heaven). Those who thought the Jews were virtually annihilated (or captured as slaves) especially, since their God “had died, or at least was mortally wounded since His House was destroyed”, were surprised to see instead that Jews persisted or “were resurrected”. Those Jews that survived did not have a messiah, especially not a resurrected one, and they weren’t expecting one soon. But Rome was amazed that the Jews arose after 70 c.e., then after 119 c.e., again after 137 c.e., and again at ____, without a messiah & without the one that Rome soon declared was “their messiah” that they “rejected”. The Jews persisted as if “God indeed was with them”.
One of the 4 popular faces or views of Jesus was that he was a revolutionary, the lion of Zion who came bringing a sword. One disciple was called “Simon the Zealot”, he was associated with the “bojarnes” and with the “sons of thunder”, who lived at the same & in the same area that Jesus supposedly lived in, and who were the sons of a messianic leader, Judah “the Galilean”. Two of the messianic leaders were a John (of Gischala) & a “Jesus” from the Galilee. So, “30-35 years after his death”, if Jesus had more than a small handful of followers who lived in the Galilee or in Judea, they had to be somewhere (other than “raptured” away) or they had to go somewhere (beside a place mentioned in one legend, where they would be protected by & would have collaborated with “Caesar” in the war against the Jews) or they surrendered to Rome or they would have died defending their land, their homes, their families, Zion & the “City of David, City of God”, and the same physical Temple (“Jesus’s house” or his Father’s house that Jesus felt needed to be cleansed in the same manner as Judah “the Galilean”). If there was a Jesus, his followers were hard to find. Just as “Paul’s” story in Acts ends abruptly & in silence, even the NT ends abruptly and is silent several years before 70 c.e. Just at that precise time when you would expect that the “followers of Jesus” would shout in victory and joyfully proclaim “their lord” to all the world, especially to their hopeless, depressed & demoralized Jewish brothers & sisters, they are silent. No “see, we were right. Now repent & join us”. No hope, no Jesus taught to the hopeless ones eager for “some good news”, even any small amount. Even according to church history, nothing much happening with Jesus until the middle of the 2nd century c.e. even with the “Gentiles” and that was so lackluster, that they figured there were only a few thousand Christians worldwide at the beginning of the 3rd c.e.
Just wondering about people & things & times & places that the NT, the church, and most Christians are silent about.
Paul
You were quoting me – and that is NOT what I wrote – in any case there were corrupt priests during the Second Temple period many of which held high power (these were Sadducees) – the rejection of Jesus is the holiest thing the Jews did in that time period – http://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/isaiah-53-micah-7-and-isaiah-62/
Our sins are being forgiven through repentance – your statements about the law being dependant on the blood is unbiblical
By the way I never said we are in a period of “no law”
I don’t see the point of interacting with you if you keep on putting words into my mouth
You want to know where I get the information about the followers of Jesus suffering spiritual darkness? read history – this might help – http://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2011/12/04/a-tale-of-two-schools/ – your friend Dr. Fruchtenbaum having to fabricate messianic miracles to mislead people is another example of spiritual darkness
Please don’t respond until you have tried to understand what I wrote
Ok. Well one step at a time. If you want to put comments on this blog and want everyone just to agree with you on all your statements, thats fine, but why bother replying?? I dont really see the point. Unless you feel like argueing for the sake of it, or unless as previously stated by someone else all you want to do is to use this as a “christian bashing blog”.and vent some anger! (I hope not)
We having a saying here in the UK. ” If you cant stand the heat then get out of the kitchen”
Sorry if you feel affended, but Hey! you started it with this blog! LOL!!!
In regard to your first response here. You say that by rejecting Jesus, it was the holiest act the pharisees did…… Way back at the beginning of the Dan blog, it was stated that the pharisees were corrupt, hence no temple! My only question then and still now is , How can someone who is corrupt make a Holy decision? I dont mean live a total sinless life, perfect in all things, but corrupt enough to have the temple destroyed.
That was it. No hidden agendas.
Your second statement about blood not being dependant in regard to the Law. Leviticus 17:11 says; For the Life of the flesh is in the blood,I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the life.
Need help here? Does it say repentance or blood, that makes atonement for the soul? Does it mean then that the word repentance is the same act as the physical shedding of blood?
Ps I never actually said that you said “you have no Law” Its was an open question for you. Not a quote.
x
Are you disagreeing with Lev 17:11 & other surrounding verses and saying that blood is blood and its “atoning power” is absolute? Is it ok then to shed blood “outside the camp”? Does the blood offered to “goat-demons” still atone? If a “corrupt” priest accidentally cuts himself and then throws some fat with his blood on it upon the altar, are the sins of all the people atoned for, are his sins forgiven forever and he is no longer “corrupt”? Does the blood of a pig or a serpent or a human child atone, even outside the “tent” or temple, as long as one pours the blood on the ground & cover it with dirt? Whether or not that the blood is shed & offered as a sacrifice and even if I found the dead animal beside the road? Because after all it is blood & it had & still may have life in the blood, or must one say some words like “I offer this blood to you as an atonement for all my sins, whether past or any i might commit in the future, and for all the sins of my family members & 3 of my 4 neighbors”? So, the temple is not needed (since the temple did not even exist at the time when Lev 17 was first written) for ones sins to be forgiven? Despite what Lev 17 says, is it ok to eat (or drink) blood of a “special” person? Can one eat the flesh of a person that one considers holy, as long as they first pour our the blood & cover it with dirt?
Does Leviticus 17 say that people didn’t have to make an offering as long as they believed someone else’s offering was “by the law” (although it was not but it seemed as a sincere offering) and whether or not they meant their offering for me? That way people could save money (or their animal) & “belief on blood” is easier and much cheaper and therefore better than “worthless repentance” or foolish ideas like asking God for forgiveness or giving back money that one stole?
I just now was wondering if “corrupt priests” might be that way because they picked some biblical verses (like v. 11) to obey (and/or misinterpreted) while ignoring the context of the verses and ignoring the many other verses and commandments? It seems to me that the most cultish & most corrupt persons or groups build a basis on a relatively small number of bible verses (the smaller the better) & then build a whole complex & “foreign” theology on those isolated & oft-repeated favorite verses.
Paul
an argument is when to people present what they think are logical points and they listen to each other’s points – what you are doing is screaming past me without listening to what I am saying – I am not talking about agreeing – I am talking about getting my position straight and not attributing opinions to me that I never said
For example – I never said the Pharisees were corrupt
As for Leviticus 17:11 – does it say that there is no atonement without blood? – all it says is that blood atones – to jump from there to “there is no atonement without blood” is like if I would say the sun came up today and you would jump to the conclsuion that it never came up any other day