Biblical Prophecy Fulfilled

"Conspired?" You're closer then you think, considering that Matthew and Luke appear to have used Mark as a source.

You laugh a lot, don't you? I'm glad you have a sense of humor, since you seem to have so little else going for you.

Let's consider a few non-Canonical texts. Hm, let me see ... The Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Judas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, the Acts of Paul and Thecla, and the Apocalypse of Peter. Those will do for a start. Do you think that these books form an accurate portrait of Jesus. For example, do you agree with the author of Thomas that Jesus espoused Gnostic philosophy? Do you think that as a child, he struck people dead on a whim?

... You don't?

You think the authors of the gospels, acts, and apocalypse I just listed made stuff up?

And yet when I suggest that the authors of the canonical Gospels also made things up, you act like it's the funniest thing in the world, and you need only (poorly) rephrase my suggestion for every body to see how ludacrous it is.

You really haven't thought this all the way through, have you?

Originally posted by Gregory
Let's consider a few non-Canonical texts. Hm, let me see ... The Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Judas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, the Acts of Paul and Thecla, and the Apocalypse of Peter. Those will do for a start. Do you think that these books form an accurate portrait of Jesus. For example, do you agree with the author of Thomas that Jesus espoused Gnostic philosophy? Do you think that as a child, he struck people dead on a whim?

... You don't?

You think the authors of the gospels, acts, and apocalypse I just listed made stuff up?

And yet when I suggest that the authors of the canonical Gospels also made things up, you act like it's the funniest thing in the world, and you need only (poorly) rephrase my suggestion for every body to see how ludacrous it is.

You really haven't thought this all the way through, have you?

But you would definitely not agree on that.

Don't quit your day job, kid; the psychic gig isn't for you. Of course most of the books aren't by their alleged authors. The same sort of research has shown that some of the letters of Paul are almost certainly not by Paul. And of course, Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John aren't by the people they're names after (well, they never claim to be).

Do you ... do you have a point? Other then insulting me, I mean? It's not as if I claimed those books were divinely inspired; all I said was that since you believe those books were made up, you can't just wave your hand and dismiss the idea of Mark, Mattew, Luke, and John being made up (and I never claimed that they were entirely made up, you seem to have a bad habit of putting words into my mouth) with a 😂

I mean, you can, but not convincingly.

Originally posted by Gregory
I suppose when you have absolutely no argument, insulting the other person is as good a technique as any.

"Know therefore, and understand, that from the going out in the world to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of the anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks." (Daniel 9:25 ESV) The actualy building process would take sixty-two weeks. "Seven weeks" = 483 years? You know, Daniel also says that it would be the followers of the Messiah who would destory the city. Of course, Jerusalem was never actually destroyed (your wonderful website mixes up the destruction of the Second Temple with the destruction of Jerusalem), and when the Second Temple was destroyed, it was by the Roman army, not the "Prince's people." So, uh, yeh. I guess when that's the best you have, it's not terribly surprising that you'd have to resort to insults.

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. 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.

I want you to do something for me, Feceman. Did you see the "ESV" by my quotation? Did you wonder what it meant? It stands for "English Standard Version." Now. I want you to find a copy of the English Standard Version of the Bible--your local library probably has one--and read that passage.

I'm completely serious about this; if you get the same edition as I have in front of me, it will be on page 904.

Have you read it? Good.

I will now accept your apology for implying that I misread the passage, should you choose to offer one.

Still, that might take some time. Until then, do you believe that Jerusalem was destoryed? Do you believe that "the people of the Prince" (the Messiah's followers) destroyed it?

And because I am amazingly, almost cripplingly nice, I'm going to offer you a hint. Let's take your numbers: "seven 'sevens,' and sixty-two 'sevens.'" Seven sevens and sixty-two sevens makes 483 days. This is about 1.3 years. So, if it will really make you happy, I'll amend my statement:

1.3 years = 483 years?

I offered you a hint, and I completely forgot to give it! I am such a tease. But don't worry, here it is:

Four hundred eighty-three years is exactly 25,185 "sevens." You can nitpick my figures and argue with the ESV's translation, but unless you can get 25,1825 sevens out of that passage, it simply does not say what the author of your web page claims it says.

Daniel was in prayer, confessing Israel's sins and pleading for the end of the exile and restoration of Jerusalem (vv.3-19);22 when the angel Gabriel appeared to him (v.21) again (8:16), and revealed this vision of the seventy `weeks' to him. `sevens' Heb. shebu`im "periods of sevens." The Heb. here is masculine, whereas the normal gender of seven, as in a seven-day week, is feminine, indicating time units other than ordinary seven-day weeks. The Heb. has the "sevens" first for emphasis, i.e. "sevens, seventy." These are heptads (series' of sevens) rather than weeks (series' of seven days). That is, seventy sevens of years, a total of 490 years are decreed Heb. hatak "to cut."

You, uh, plan to tell me where you got that from? I hope you don't expect me to believe it on faith.

I also asked you whether you think Jerusalem was destroyed by the messiah's people, as foretold in Daniel. You forgot to answer, so I'll repeat the question.

Originally posted by Gregory
You, uh, plan to tell me where you got that from? I hope you don't expect me to believe it on faith.

I also asked you whether you think Jerusalem was destroyed by the messiah's people, as foretold in Daniel. You forgot to answer, so I'll repeat the question.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/dn924-27.html

I didn't say that you made it up.

I don't want to destract you from answering my question about the messiah's people destroying Jerusalem, so I won't say anything more.

Edit: Yes I will. Stephen E Jones thinks that evolution can't be true because humans can understand mathematics. Can you maybe give me a source that isn't written by a crackpot? But don't let it distract you too much.

"The people of the ruler who will come" are not those of the Messiah.

Oh, of course not. Just because Daniel is predicting the coming of the messiah, refers to him explicitly as "a prince," and then refers to "the prince who is to come" ... how on earth could I have thought he was referring the the messiah?

... of course the prince who is to come is the messiah.

And even if "the prince who is to come" is goddamn Ronald McDonald, it doesn't change the fact that Jerusalem was prophecies for destruction after the anointed one was "cut off." This did not happen, assuming you think Jesus was the messiah. There was unpleasentness, but the city was not destoryed, it did not end in a flood, and all was certainly not desolation.

1. After the Medo-Persians had conquered the Babylonian empire about 2540 years ago, they ruled a vast empire that included the land of Israel. About 2446 years ago (about 445 BC), Persian king Artaxerxes gave permission to the Jews to rebuild Jerusalem, which was still in ruins after having been destroyed earlier by the Babylonians.

2. The Jews rebuilt the Temple and the city of Jerusalem.

3. Then, in about 33 AD, Jesus entered Jerusalem as the Messiah who had been promised by Old Testament prophets. But, many people rejected Jesus as the Messiah and He was crucified by the Romans.

4. About 40 years after Jesus was crucified, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple. (The Temple has not been rebuilt since then).

http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/weeks.htm

He says it better than I could.

EDIT: And, furthermore...

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

And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof [shall be] with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

Does he indeed. So the Romans destroyed Jerusalem. With a flood?

I care nothing for the KJV.

Originally posted by Gregory
Does he indeed. So the Romans destroyed Jerusalem. With a flood?

I care nothing for the KJV.

"original" 😆

I fully admit that the flood probably isn't supposed to be literal, actually. I'm very tired.

KJV is the original translation, and one of the worst; don't mistake antiquity with authority.

Quick: In what year did Artaxerxes give Ezra permission to rebuild the temple?

(It's a trick question, I'm afraid; the books Ezra and Nehremiah both answer the question, but the answer is different in each one. Which is a bit of a problem, since we sort of need that date if we're going to try to extrapolate like Dr. Ross wants to.)

Originally posted by Alliance
"original" 😆

You know what I mean, asshat.

Originally posted by Gregory
I fully admit that the flood probably isn't supposed to be literal, actually. I'm very tired.

KJV is the original translation, and one of the worst; don't mistake antiquity with authority.

Quick: In what year did Artaxerxes give Ezra permission to rebuild the temple?

(It's a trick question, I'm afraid; the books Ezra and Nehremiah both answer the question, but the answer is different in each one. Which is a bit of a problem, since we sort of need that date if we're going to try to extrapolate like Dr. Ross wants to.)

I know it's a title; in this context, it would refer to Artaxerxes I.

The date Ross uses is 458 BC, which is seven years into the reign of Artaxerxes I. Ezra 7:1 comes closest to explicitly supporting this.

Nehemiah, on the other hand, explicitly states that permission was given in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes' reign (2:1), which would be 445 BC and place the start of Jesus' ministry (if you were inclined to believe that that is indeed what was being prophecised) at 38AD.

Permission was given to two different people, and the rulers were not the same.