Could Christianity Have Argued the Christ Has Come Without Employing Daniel 9:26?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Could Christianity Have Argued the Christ Has Come Without Employing Daniel 9:26?

Post by Secret Alias »

While it is true that Jewish messianic arguments have been developed since 70 CE without Daniel 9:26 the explanation for this is quite clear - Jews are in agreement that Daniel's 70 weeks were fulfilled in 70 CE. The destruction of the temple is universally understood to have fulfilled the Seventy Weeks prophesy. Could a Jewish messianic movement like Christianity have made all of the stupid, subjective, made up apologetic 'explanations' of the hundred or so prophesies that DON'T explicitly use the word 'mashiach' and have also IGNORED Daniel 9:26 which is the only prophesy which explicitly mention the terminology? No I don't think that would be possible. What do you think?
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Could Christianity Have Argued the Christ Has Come Without Employing Daniel 9:26?

Post by Secret Alias »

Or perhaps also could the gospel of Mark use 9:27's reference to the "abomination that causes desolation" and somehow sidestep the previous the "messiah will be killed and disappear"? No, that is even less likely. Something is wrong when we see not a single Church Father employs the only explicit mention of the messiah in the Jewish scriptures and then says 'the Marcionites are evil because they don't acknowledge Jesus was the messiah from the scriptures.' Something doesn't quite add up.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Could Christianity Have Argued the Christ Has Come Without Employing Daniel 9:26?

Post by Ulan »

Your title question reads like "Do human beings have the ability to ignore evidence that doesn't gel with their preferred view of the world"?

Yeah...
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Could Christianity Have Argued the Christ Has Come Without Employing Daniel 9:26?

Post by Secret Alias »

But what is the evidence with regards to pre-70 CE messianic movements? The point seems to be - human judgment is subjective. Maybe. But what does the evidence suggest. I would go so far as to argue that given that Daniel was written with the events of the Maccabees and their revolt in mind, Judas Maccabeus must have been held to have been the messiah. Given that Newsom and Breed argue for a date of 167 BCE for the defiling of the temple and traditional dating of Judas's death of 160 BCE - you get a week (7 years) between the death of the messiah and the end of the 70 weeks. If Judas was a messiah or THE messiah of Daniel how many other messiahs do we know about in the period between Judas and 70 CE?
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Post Reply