Daniels 70 weeks made Simple

[Ged]

Ged,

Now you are just being ridiculous. These series of visions--- whenever they were purported to have been seen were about the same events. The abominations, desececrations, reconsecrations (even Daniel 9:24 talks about the holy place being annointed--- you know, the temple). You are simply being dishonest here because you want chapter 9 to be about Jesus---- when it parrellels chapters 8 and 11 which clearly are about Antiochus. So is chapter 9.

Read the first verses - Dan 2:1, 7:1, 8:1, 9:1, 10:1. They are different visions received at different times. Even if Daniel was written after Antiochus (as you probably think) the author has compiled a number of different scenes and made clear date distinctions between them. Chapter 9 is about a new covenant that would supersede the old system of atonement.

Chapter 8 is an overview of Alexanders Empire; chapter 9 is the countdown to Messiah and his New Covenant; chapter 10 pertains to Persia; chapter 11 gives more detail on the Ptolemy and Seleucid period.

If you try to merge the separate visions, your countdown will never come to 490 years.

[ficino]

I place the 70th week at ad26/27 – ad33/34. The temple was destroyed in ad70 like you say.

Christ simply means “anointed one”, and sure enough, he was baptized late ad26 beginning his work early ad27 on the switch-point of the 69th and 70th weeks.

26 CE is too early to date Jesus' (purported) baptism with confidence, if you accept the accuracy of Luke 3:1-2. The fifteenth year of Tiberius' principate can be put at the earliest in the period from autumn 27 to autumn 28. You also have to allow for Pilate to be in office in Judea, and he arrived in autumn 27. So if you allow some time for John's ministry to pick up steam, Jesus' ministry at the earliest will have started in late 27/early 28, acc. to Luke.

Problems already arise from Luke's location of Jesus' birth in the time of Quirinius' governorship, since Jesus would not become "around 30 years old" (Luke 3:23) until 36. Fudging "around" to allow a birth date of c. 2 BCE, so as to make Jesus close to 30 in 27/28, stretches too much Luke's usual range in "around date X" expressions.

It won't help to count the years of Tiberius' coregency with Augustus (from 12-14) as part of the years of Tiberius' principate of Luke 3:1 because:
-- we have no evidence from documents or coins that the years of the coregency were included when people would state a given year of Tiberius' principate;
-- it makes Jesus' ministry even harder to reconcile with Luke's birth date. You have to posit an earlier, unknown first governorship of Quirinius in the time of Herod the Great in order to get that to work.

I don't know whether your commitments include a commitment to the inerrancy of Luke, ged, but only with major special pleading can you maintain Luke's accuracy AND locate Jesus' ministry in the year you want Daniel to prophesy it.

[Tenorikuma]

It's even worse if you take into account the fact that John the Baptist's imprisonment and execution took place about 36 CE according to Josephus.

[Kris]

If you try to merge the separate visions, your countdown will never come to 490 years.[/quote]

And neither will you--- you admitted that your view has events outside of the. 490 years----but I guess that is ok for you but not me! All of these visions are talking about the end---- some have more history than others, but the culmination is during macabeean times. Read Collins, laquoque, and many others--- and they will tell you the same thing. Critical scholars Ones who spend their entire lives on this stuff. But, it doesn't matter--- you will see what you want to see---- kind of like reading tea leaves. But, as you an see from what others have written--- even your dates are in question.

[Ged]

--- you admitted that your view has events outside of the 490 years----but I guess that is ok for you but not me!

It IS ok for me to say so, because that is how Dan 9:26 reads.

"After the sixty-two weeks Messiah (Jesus) shall be cut off, but not for himself;
and the people (Roman troops in ad 70) of the prince who is to come (Titus, a roman general and prince) shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, and till the end of the war desolations are determined."
(Dan 9:26)

I dont like to insert notes into the text, but have done so here because of your pre-decided conclusion about Onias. Read it. As you can see, the traditional view fits better with Daniels description.

The fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple was not said to take place within the actual seventy weeks; the prophet was simply providing information of the aftermath to the weeks in order to explain what the eventual outcome would be.

[Kris]

And you are ignoring verse 24 that states all of this will happen in the 70 weeks.

[Kris]

This link explains in detail my position, provides a specific timeline along with Historical support, and even a pretty chart. Another clear interpretation that has nothing to do with Jesus.

http://www.jhsonline.org/Articles/article_104.pdf

[Ged]

26 CE is too early to date Jesus' (purported) baptism with confidence, if you accept the accuracy of Luke 3:1-2. The fifteenth year of Tiberius' principate can be put at the earliest in the period from autumn 27 to autumn 28.

It won't help to count the years of Tiberius' coregency with Augustus (from 12-14) as part of the years of Tiberius' principate of Luke 3:1 because:
-- we have no evidence from documents or coins that the years of the coregency were included when people would state a given year of Tiberius' principate;

I beg to differ ficino. Yes, Tiberius became sole emperor on the death of Augustus in ad14. However, the well-known co-regency with his ailing father from ad12 is where we start. In that year he was made co-regent as well as supreme military commander over Caesar's armies and provinces.

I’m sorry to contradict, but there is evidence of coinage displaying the head of Tiberius during the co-regency period. Thus, his inauguration in AD 14 as emperor was only a formalisation of a reign that had begun two years earlier and the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius would make it ad 26-27. Jesus would have been baptised late ad26 and his ministry began early ad27.

[Ged]

And you are ignoring verse 24 that states all of this will happen in the 70 weeks.

Verse 24 refers to the new covenant and the holy temple that would supersede the old method of atonement. Verse 26b refers to the old temple being destroyed.

This link explains in detail my position, provides a specific timeline along with Historical support, and even a pretty chart. Another clear interpretation that has nothing to do with Jesus.

http://www.jhsonline.org/Articles/article_104.pdf

Thanks, I'll read it.

[ficino]

26 CE is too early to date Jesus' (purported) baptism with confidence, if you accept the accuracy of Luke 3:1-2. The fifteenth year of Tiberius' principate can be put at the earliest in the period from autumn 27 to autumn 28.

It won't help to count the years of Tiberius' coregency with Augustus (from 12-14) as part of the years of Tiberius' principate of Luke 3:1 because:
-- we have no evidence from documents or coins that the years of the coregency were included when people would state a given year of Tiberius' principate;

I beg to differ ficino. Yes, Tiberius became sole emperor on the death of Augustus in ad14. However, the well-known co-regency with his ailing father from ad12 is where we start. In that year he was made co-regent as well as supreme military commander over Caesar's armies and provinces.

I’m sorry to contradict, but there is evidence of coinage displaying the head of Tiberius during the co-regency period. Thus, his inauguration in AD 14 as emperor was only a formalisation of a reign that had begun two years earlier and the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius would make it ad 26-27. Jesus would have been baptised late ad26 and his ministry began early ad27.

Ged, you give away your method with your "is where we start" phrase. You admit you are picking a date; it just so happens to be the date that gives you the year you want for your claims about Daniel, i.e. 26-27 CE for the beginning of Jesus' ministry. This is special pleading.

What you say about coins is not to the question. It does not matter whether there are coins minted during the co-regency period with T's head on them. No one is questioning the co-regency period. But we do not, as far as I know, have coins FROM TIBERIUS' SOLE PRINCIPATE that enumerate the year of Tiberius' principate so as to include the years of the co-regency in the enumeration. Nor documents. The point is, when people said "in the X year of Tiberius" they were referring to his sole principate, beginning from 14 CE. Cf:

http://www.nowoezone.com/NTC12.htm