WHO or WHICH is most important?

[Limnor]

Either Jesus was a false prophet, or the writers of the gospels were putting false prophecies into his mouth.

There’s probably an easier objection. He rose from the dead? Riiiight.

[Shulem]

Is it possible that there is a shift there? Answering the two questions “when will the temple be destroyed” and “when is the end of the age?”

I see no shift. The generation and time was an era in which all things were to be fulfilled and Christ would rule the earth as King, forever and ever. The only shift is that after his 1,000 year reign, the devil would be set loose for a little season to deceive the world again and then the earth would be transformed.

[Shulem]

Either Jesus was a false prophet, or the writers of the gospels were putting false prophecies into his mouth.

There’s probably an easier objection. He rose from the dead? Riiiight.

No, he did not rise from the dead. That was all a trick -- smoke and mirrors, a faith promoting scam committed by the apostles. Joseph Smith and his accomplices pretty much did the same sort of thing. You know that to be so.

[Limnor]

Is it possible that there is a shift there? Answering the two questions “when will the temple be destroyed” and “when is the end of the age?”

I see no shift. The generation and time was an era in which all things were to be fulfilled and Christ would rule the earth as King, forever and ever. The only shift is that after his 1,000 year reign, the devil would be set loose for a little season to deceive the world again and then the earth would be transformed.

Fair enough. I understand your reading now. I’m still not convinced there isn’t a transition, but I appreciate you explaining your interpretation.

[Shulem]

Fair enough. I understand your reading now. I’m still not convinced there isn’t a transition, but I appreciate you explaining your interpretation.

Thank you for your consideration and polite responses.

[bill4long]

I’m not sure why you think I have some prior commitment to a particular outcome,

I don't. I didn't mean it to indicate that you do. Just a hypothetical. I don't take you as the apologist type at all.

but I’m really glad for the opportunity to discuss such difficult things.

Indeed.

I’d ask that question back though, is there some reason that Jesus “must” be a false prophet?

Not for me.

[Limnor]

I’m not sure why you think I have some prior commitment to a particular outcome,

I don't. I didn't mean it to indicate that you do. Just a hypothetical. I don't take you as the apologist type at all.

but I’m really glad for the opportunity to discuss such difficult things.

Indeed.

I’d ask that question back though, is there some reason that Jesus “must” be a false prophet?

Not for me.

Ok thanks.

Any thoughts on Josephus? Too much of a stretch?

[LittleNipper]

Please regard the following: Daniel 9:24-27 is a key biblical passage. It is the only Old Testament passage which refers to the Messiah as “Messiah.” ...

That's because Daniel 9:24-27 is not referring to the one commonly called "the Messiah", but simply a high priest who was murdered.

You didn't address the fact of glaring omission that none of the New Testament writers cited Daniel 9:24-27 with respect to Jesus.

Exactly what is meant by “seventy weeks”?

Did you watch any of Tovia Singer's videos?

If so, prove it by providing a synopsis of his handling of Daniel 9:24-27 to demonstrate that you actually understand his position. If not, you're not a serious interlocutor; you're just parroting apologia like you always do.

If you understand Tovia's position, and "your" view is right, you should be able to tell me why he's wrong, point by point. Thanks in advance.

A prophecy can certainly have more than one reality, and both can be true.

Tovia Singer uses mistranslations to twist and distort meaning. Such maybe unintentional on his part; however, it does reveal that he maybe fervently willing to disregard the full picture in order to prove his point. Here is an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88PTOiNSA1A

Singer said if you have 445 BCE and you add 483 years which puts you in 39 BCE and Christ would have already been dead.
the problem that Singer misses is as follows... Most theologians who study this biblical event do not use a standard 365-day solar year for this specific calculation. Many scholars, such as Sir Robert Anderson in The Coming Prince, suggest the 483 years represent 360-day prophetic years (based on ancient calendars).The Correct Timeline: Using the 360-day calendar, 483 years equals roughly 476 solar years. When you calculate 476 solar years starting from the 445 BCE decree placing you at approximately 32 to 33 CE — perfectly aligning with the traditional timeline of Christ's life and crucifixion, not his death prior to 39 BCE. There is also the lose of one year when one moves from BCE to CE

[Shulem]

Any thoughts on Josephus? Too much of a stretch?

Stretched and broken. It is hardly worth discussing.

Roman Josephus was a practicing Jew and would not have supported ideas of Christ appearing in the sky in fulfillment of Christian prophecy. The case for the Christians was closed. The world did not witness the coming of Christ! Josephus provided context for political and cultural events which has nothing to do with the Second Coming. Preterism is a poor apologetic excuse and is nonsense that is not supported by secular scholarship. It was a closed book for the self-proclaiming king of the Jews.

[Limnor]

Any thoughts on Josephus? Too much of a stretch?

Stretched and broken. It is hardly worth discussing.

Roman Josephus was a practicing Jew and would not have supported ideas of Christ appearing in the sky in fulfillment of Christian prophecy. The case for the Christians was closed. The world did not witness the coming of Christ! Josephus provided context for political and cultural events which has nothing to do with the Second Coming. Preterism is a poor apologetic excuse and is nonsense that is not supported by secular scholarship. It was a closed book for the self-proclaiming king of the Jews.

Yes, you indicated before that you had no interest in Josephus. I was wondering if Bill did. Additionally, I’m not arguing for preterism, I’ve been arguing for partial-preterism with a dual fulfillment.

These are the sections of Josephus I’m thinking about, Bill:

Chapter 5.3: Besides these, a few days after that feast, on the one and twentieth day of the month Artemisius, [Jyar,] a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared: I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable; were it not related by those that saw it; and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals. For, before sun setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armour were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities. Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost; as the priests were going by night into the inner [court of the] temple,as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said, that in the first place they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise: and after that they heard a sound, as of a multitude, saying, “Let us remove hence.”

Chapter 6.1: And now the Romans, upon the flight of the seditious into the city, and upon the burning of the holy house itself, and of all the buildings round about it, brought their ensigns to the temple, and set them over-against its eastern gate. And there did they offer sacrifices to them: and there did they make Titus Imperator with the greatest acclamations of joy.