Pummeling Porphyry to Defend Daniel's "Evidence"?

[JohnClay]

nevermind - I was mentioning a site saying that the torment is not eternal.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Well, I have good reason to 'believe' that if the Bible is true, then an Orthodox Jew will 'rot in hell'. The reason I believe this... It says so in the very book in which you continue to assert truth

Where does it specifically say the Orthodox Jew will 'rot in hell'?

It states very clearly, you are not saved by works, but through Jesus the Christ alone. According to the 'fulfilled prophecy", in which is 'The Christ', the Jews continue to reject Him. In doing so, 'they shall burn.'

So until the rapture, all such practicing Orthodox Jews go to hell. If you again want evidence of this assertion, look no further than the most coveted and popular verses from the NT John 3:16-18.

The Orthodox Jew believes/believed in the Messiah. They all have faith in the Messiah.

I would agree that God could make a pact with each individual. Actually, if He does exist, He could of course do whatever He wishes. But such acts do represent favor. And it seems more logical and consistent to judge EACH individual upon their own accord, and not based upon traits which are not chosen, and including anyone within that entire race.

Example... Two people apply for a job, (a Jew and a Chinese person). The employer hires one over the other, because the employer favors Jews. Sure, the employer could scrutinize the Jew worker after employment, and punish or fire them if they are not 'up to snuff'. However, they were hired, based upon a bias or preference before hand.

Seems like an 'ungodly' trait, and more to the likes of a human quality. Which quite frankly, is what the Bible reads like...

God extended His forgiveness and favor with whomever accepted Jesus as their Savior. That includes the Chinese, North Korean, across the races the invitation is given. The fact that God favored the Jews due to their turning from paganism and false religions and coming to Him is not a racist element but one of reward towards those that chose Him. The fact that He brought in the Gentiles is a testament to His love of all mankind and not just the Jews.

 

[cvanwey]

Where does it specifically say the Orthodox Jew will 'rot in hell'?

We both know it does not say this (specifically), about Orthodox Jews (specifically). Neither did I state that the Bible states this (specifically). I stated, 'Well, I have good reason to 'believe' that if the Bible is true, then an Orthodox Jew will 'rot in hell'.

The reason I can state this with confidence, is John 3:16-18, and other unmentioned unnecessary verses at this time.

When NT scripture speaks of 'Lord', 'Me', or other, it speaks of the fulfilled prophecy, The Christ, Jesus, the Messiah whom fulfilled the said OT prophecies. (i.e.) the Holy trinity, Jesus is God, Father, son, Holy Ghost, etc...

Lord = Jesus/Yahweh
Me = Jesus/Yahweh

The Jews do not believe this. The Jews are still awaiting their Messiah. So please simply plug what you just stated, back into John 3:16-18, and tell me if an Orthodox Jew goes to heaven? The answer, according to NT scripture, is an emphatic 'no'. Such Jews would be going to the very same place as the Muslim, the Hindu, the atheist, the skeptic, etc...

The Orthodox Jew believes/believed in the Messiah. They all have faith in the Messiah.

Correct. But it is NOT Jesus. So please refer back to John 3:16-18.

God extended His forgiveness and favor with whomever accepted Jesus as their Savior. That includes the Chinese, North Korean, across the races the invitation is given.

This has nothing to do with my responses. I already know this. And I know this for the one set of verses already addressed, John 3:16-18.

The fact that God favored the Jews due to their turning from paganism and false religions and coming to Him is not a racist element but one of reward towards those that chose Him. The fact that He brought in the Gentiles is a testament to His love of all mankind and not just the Jews.

I'm saying every individual should always be judged upon their own individual merits. Not instead granting special concessions/circumstances to an entire race. It appears more consistent to not even bring up the fact that some are Jewish, in this context. You either believe or don't believe. You either do God's will, or don't do God's will. What does race have ANY part in such? The flesh is temporary. The flesh is not chosen.

Your response expresses everything I've been saying prior. You are invoking special circumstances, as if such acts appear fair, just, and equal. My point is that if any human performed the same type of act towards a specific populous, you would most likely label them prejudice, bias, or other. And in reading such story lines (i.e. the Bible), it does appear human invented, aligning with the thoughts and likes of the way many humans might think.

 

[Oncedeceived]

We both know it does not say this (specifically), about Orthodox Jews (specifically). Neither did I state that the Bible states this (specifically). I stated, 'Well, I have good reason to 'believe' that if the Bible is true, then an Orthodox Jew will 'rot in hell'.

The reason I can state this with confidence, is John 3:16-18, and other unmentioned unnecessary verses at this time.

Ok, you have reason to believe except for the fact that you are skipping or ignoring other Scripture that opposes that belief.

The Orthodox Jew practiced Passover then and now. The sacrificial lamb of God, is one of the ways Jews showed recognition of the Messiah's salvation.

When NT scripture speaks of 'Lord', 'Me', or other, it speaks of the fulfilled prophecy, The Christ, Jesus, the Messiah whom fulfilled the said OT prophecies. (i.e.) the Holy trinity, Jesus is God, Father, son, Holy Ghost, etc...

Lord = Jesus/Yahweh
Me = Jesus/Yahweh

The Jews do not believe this. The Jews are still awaiting their Messiah. So please simply plug what you just stated, back into John 3:16-18, and tell me if an Orthodox Jew goes to heaven? The answer, according to NT scripture, is an emphatic 'no'. Such Jews would be going to the very same place as the Muslim, the Hindu, the atheist, the skeptic, etc...

That isn't what the Bible says.

And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
Luk 16:23

And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
Luk 16:24

¶
And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
Luk 16:25

But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
Luk 16:26

And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
Luk 16:27

¶
Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
Luk 16:28

For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
Luk 16:29

Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
Luk 16:30

And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
Luk 16:31

And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Correct. But it is NOT Jesus. So please refer back to John 3:16-18.

They believe and believed in the Messiah and the fact that they didn't recognize Him at the time doesn't negate the fact that they believe upon the Lamb of God. Much of of the Old Testament is about the coming Messiah and the Jewish traditions having a shadowing of Jesus in them.

This has nothing to do with my responses. I already know this. And I know this for the one set of verses already addressed, John 3:16-18.

I'm saying every individual should always be judged upon their own individual merits. Not instead granting special concessions/circumstances to an entire race. It appears more consistent to not even bring up the fact that some are Jewish, in this context. You either believe or don't believe. You either do God's will, or don't do God's will. What does race have ANY part in such? The flesh is temporary. The flesh is not chosen.

Your response expresses everything I've been saying prior. You are invoking special circumstances, as if such acts appear fair, just, and equal. My point is that if any human performed the same type of act towards a specific populous, you would most likely label them prejudice, bias, or other. And in reading such story lines (i.e. the Bible), it does appear human invented, aligning with the thoughts and likes of the way many humans might think.

It is unlikely that you have really researched anything about the country of Israel since the last few generations have been mislead to believe that the Jews took over a prosperous land which didn't belong to them but the fact is that Israel is the place where Jesus will rule from, it is where His kingdom will reign. He gifted the Jews due to their faithfulness and that is a reward that came from God and God gives many rewards regardless of race. I have said that they were a people set apart from the pagans of the time and there is nothing wrong with giving gifts to those who worship God. The Jewish people are about to become the main focus of God once again and prophecies have everything to do with them.

 

[cvanwey]

Ok, you have reason to believe except for the fact that you are skipping or ignoring other Scripture that opposes that belief.

The Orthodox Jew practiced Passover then and now. The sacrificial lamb of God, is one of the ways Jews showed recognition of the Messiah's salvation.

That isn't what the Bible says.

And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
Luk 16:23

And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
Luk 16:24

¶
And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
Luk 16:25

But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
Luk 16:26

And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
Luk 16:27

¶
Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
Luk 16:28

For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
Luk 16:29

Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
Luk 16:30

And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
Luk 16:31

And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

It's not about 'skipping'. Furthermore, the verses you provided validated everything I've stated prior. Even in the verse Luke 16:31, it states 'one rose from the dead'. Meaning, if they don't accept the former claims, they most likely will not accept the later. In the Orthodox Jew's case, they do accept the former, but not the later.

Based upon your reasoning, one might argue that God is the author of confusion (allowing other gospels to muddy the waters, out of order). However, not accepting a resurrection as 'fact', repenting to such for salvation, deems one to hell. But nice try.

Again, anyone whom does not accept Jesus, as The Christ, or God/the father/Lord/etc.., is damned.

They believe and believed in the Messiah and the fact that they didn't recognize Him at the time doesn't negate the fact that they believe upon the Lamb of God. Much of of the Old Testament is about the coming Messiah and the Jewish traditions having a shadowing of Jesus in them.

Yes, and they do not acknowledge Jesus as it. Otherwise, to call ones self an 'Orthodox Jew' is contradictory, wouldn't you think? Maybe you are arguing for 'Jews for Jesus?' In which case, yes, they might be saved, just like any other believer of non-Jewish decent as well.

It is unlikely that you have really researched anything about the country of Israel since the last few generations have been mislead to believe that the Jews took over a prosperous land which didn't belong to them but the fact is that Israel is the place where Jesus will rule from, it is where His kingdom will reign. He gifted the Jews due to their faithfulness and that is a reward that came from God and God gives many rewards regardless of race. I have said that they were a people set apart from the pagans of the time and there is nothing wrong with giving gifts to those who worship God. The Jewish people are about to become the main focus of God once again and prophecies have everything to do with them.

You have again confirmed everything I have stated in prior posts. I wish not to repeat myself, yet again. Please re-read my other posts, if you wish. If not, so-be-it.

Furthermore, not sure why studying the country of Israel has anything to do with anything. I'm speaking about scripture, and what it states.

And since you are now making a claim, can we get a finite timeline? Or is this just another ambiguous ongoing claim, 2000+ years and running?

 

[Oncedeceived]

It's not about 'skipping'. Furthermore, the verses you provided validated everything I've stated prior. Even in the verse Luke 16:31, it states 'one rose from the dead'. Meaning, if they don't accept the former claims, they most likely will not accept the later. In the Orthodox Jew's case, they do accept the former, but not the later.

Based upon your reasoning, one might argue that God is the author of confusion (allowing other gospels to muddy the waters, out of order). However, not accepting a resurrection as 'fact', repenting to such for salvation, deems one to hell. But nice try.

Again, anyone whom does not accept Jesus, as The Christ, or God/the father/Lord/etc.., is damned.

The Bible clearly claims that Abraham was in heaven. We also know that Moses and Elijah as well as Elisha were in heaven. Prior to the birth of Christ the Jews were saved by Grace just as we are now. After the birth and death and resurrection of Christ, the Jews just like with all of the gentiles must accept Jesus to be saved.

Yes, and they do not acknowledge Jesus as it. Otherwise, to call ones self an 'Orthodox Jew' is contradictory, wouldn't you think? Maybe you are arguing for 'Jews for Jesus?' In which case, yes, they might be saved, just like any other believer of non-Jewish decent as well.

I think I misunderstood your remark earlier. Old Testament Jews prior to the rising of Jesus were judged by Grace, after the birth of Christ all people are in the same boat.



[/Quote]You have again confirmed everything I have stated in prior posts. I wish not to repeat myself, yet again. Please re-read my other posts, if you wish. If not, so-be-it.

Furthermore, not sure why studying the country of Israel has anything to do with anything. I'm speaking about scripture, and what it states.

And since you are now making a claim, can we get a finite timeline? Or is this just another ambiguous ongoing claim, 2000+ years and running?[/QUOTE] I did re-read it and I was taking your remark to mean Old Testament Jews being lumped in there too.

I suppose to get into what is taking place now as far as prophecy is concerned would veer off the thread. Time consuming as well, which I have very little of right now with Christmas and all.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Are you saying that you think that Jesus was a false prophet?

You're talking to an atheist.
By definition, there's no such thing as "true" prophets as far as atheists are concerned.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You're talking to an atheist.
By definition, there's no such thing as "true" prophets as far as atheists are concerned.

This shook me to my very soul, I was so unaware. Thank you for pointing this out.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Okay then... Matthew 25:41

'“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.'

Matthew 25:46

'And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

... you do know that I'm not permitted here to refute you on this point, right? Not that I want to, really, being that this thread pertains to the book of Daniel and all ...

So Daniel's prophecies aren't ambiguous, and are instead very specific, not left to interpretation?

Apparently, Porphyry thought some of Daniel's prophecies were specific enough that he felt he had to assume the book of Daniel was written after the historical fact(s) which are supposedly referred to. Porphyry decided this was a proper evaluation due to Daniel's general historical accuracy. But of course, I know you've completely read and watched both videos in the OP, so you already know what Porphyry's contentions were with Christians over this ...

My point stands substantiated. You are one puzzling individual

It's not puzzling; it's just that I have a different epistemological conception of all of this than you do. Your view seems to comport, and be in reaction to, an otherwise 'fundamentalistic' outlook. I've never had that luxury of being a fundamentalist, so I'm not prone to being stuck in the epistemic framework that you're emotionally attuned to.

You could speculate the 'why' and never come to a common consensus. However, the point is that the author asserted a claim which never likely happened, from the very book which claims truth. So let's speculate... He copied a story already in circulation, he was high on mushrooms, he was schizophrenic, he had a dream and thought it was real, temporary insanity, lying, or..... it was true and God provided him with facts as he transcribed it. Commence occam's razor. Wait, we don't even need to do that... The story is false, so who really cares what the author's motivation was, because again, the story is false

In this particular thread, I really couldn't care less if "the Flood" happened or not; I'm focusing on the complaints of Porphyry.

If the story is false, and the author asserts it's true, case closed. The rest is minutiae left for 'water cooler banter.'

No, I think the jury is still out for this one.

Nah, I doubt as much.

You doubt the nature of historical writing?

I do enjoy receiving countless inferences to how many books you have apparently read. Yes, we get it, you are well read. I even acknowledged as much. Not sure what you are trying to prove? Let the arguments speak for themselves. Place that brain power where it is needed; in the arguments

I don't offer arguments until I'm confident that a potential interlocutor actually wants to engage and interlocute. So far with you, I'm not convinced, so all you're going to get from me is name dropped references to various books.

So when I state that the prophecy of Daniel is no more or less ambiguous than any other mundane and unspecific prophecy, I don't know what I'm talking about? This must mean that his prophecy was extremely specific, and not left to wide debate, (because it is of course not ambiguous)?

....back to your pal, Porphyry!

Let's just fast forward to the end... I will re-iterate my question.

Is the resurrection truth? It is a yes or no question. It either happened or it didn't, independent of human opinion. Does the evidence lead towards or against it at least? So if this questions is not solvable, then is it really true?

In this thread, I'm more interested in whether Daniel's prophecies are relevant to religious belief ... nor not.

In the mean time, let's explore another 'truth'....

(rhetorical) The earth's shape is a spherical globe. Does it matter that some 'flat-earthers' state otherwise, and have read many books and can present arguments to the contrary? How do we know such a statement is true? (rhetorical)

Or how about this... Let's don't explore another truth, and say we didn't, ay?

You have missed my point again. Religion is segregated by distinct regions. They cannot all be true. So one must ask... 'Why' is this the case? Your explanation does not fit. But thanks anyways. Remember, 'a picture is worth a thousand words'

Again, this thread is about the book of Daniel.

 

[DogmaHunter]

This shook me to my very soul, I was so unaware. Thank you for pointing this out.

Well, you DID ask the question. You knew you were asking an atheist that question, did you not?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Well, you DID ask the question. You knew you were asking an atheist that question, did you not?

I did, knowing full well that it wasn't in regard to what he thought but what he was saying to me about what I should think.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I did, knowing full well that it wasn't in regard to what he thought but what he was saying to me about what I should think.

Didn't get that at all. Still don't, actually.
But nevermind then.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

@2PhiloVoid so... you're just going to pretend I said nothing, eh?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think the discussion is ballooning out of control a bit. There's one question you asked that I don't want to dodge, so I'll include it as a post script, but to focus the conversation can you please just answer me one question:

How did the Jews of the OT days know whether or not a prophet who claimed to be speaking on behalf of Jehovah actually was doing so and was not a false prophet?

Obviously, it wasn't by simply turning to Deut. 18:20-22 and seeing if "such a thing" actually took place in the prophet's own lifetime or not. Otherwise, this would scuttle what the writer just previously said in Deuteronomy 18:15-19, particularly 18:15, don't you think? Because, hey.............................................there was no other Prophet like Moses who came along within Moses' lifetime. I mean, that would be a huge "fail" right there, wouldn't it?

And being that the Rabbis will usually claim that there was ALSO an Oral Torah that was referred to along side the Written Torah, your argument does become a bit suspect in this case, don't you think? So, it sounds to me like there were likely a bevy of other contexts by which the Israelites/Jews would determine the scope of accuracy that might reside in any prophet's speech, and if you remember, this is alluded to in that link I posted earlier.

But, I'll link to it one more time below, just in case we have any stragglers who are coming in late:

PROPHET, FALSE - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Now, as for this:

"Rules in place or not...?" Well, saying this pretty nearly blows away the need for me to be concerned about discussing with you the nature of any existing rules about prophecy that may be in the Bible, doesn't it?

Let me just remark that we're having this discussion because of the problem of divine hiddenness. Yes, of course, if Jehovah revealed himself then all these discussions would be moot.

Sure. That's a valid point. The Hiddeness problem does stare us in the face ... which, to some extent, is to be expected if Biblical epistemological indices are what I think they are.

And of course he doesn't even have to reveal himself directly. Give some kind of advanced knowledge, like atomic theory or germ theory. Or a mathematical proof. Something. Oh, right, we get "prophecies." But not a single one is specific and closed to interpretation, aside from the ones that come true in the very next chapter.

Yep, prophecies. Drats!

It wouldn't matter that the Bible is inaccurate, self-contradictory, socially and ethically dated, and so on
IF the issue of Jehovah's existence were settled definitively and in your favor. Wouldn't matter because the issue would be solved. But until that happens, all we can go on is the Bible because, like it or not, it's the document that represents Christianity.

Well.............there is the fact that 'the Bible' wasn't written in a historical vacuum, and this fact is the case for both Deuteronomy and Daniel.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Daniel was a eunuch slave.

...have you had time to reconsider lately the nature of this statement of yours, especially as it sits in relation to whether or not Daniel, or anyone else close to him for that matter, would have been able to write down anything while he was exiled in Babylon?

 

[devolved]

While I appreciate the suggestion you've made by way of the Alex Jones video, I still think that at least some of what he says is nullified by what Rabbi Benjamin Scolnic states in his second video, as well as by the evaluations made by Thomas Kelly regarding the ontology and conceptualization of evidence, for ANY field of study. (See Thomas Kelly's article:

Thomas, K. (2008). Evidence: Fundamental concepts and the phenomenal conception. Philosophy Compass, 3, 933-55.

I'm not dismissing Daniel as viable using the video as a demonstration. All I'm saying is that there are a number of issues with using prophesy as a "guiding light" and "proof" for validity of Christian theology, apart from the immediate context of the OT prophesy, which was more of an educational tool for conditional consequences via "told you so", than it was some hidden and shrouded depiction of the future that no one understands but you.

So, the former is rather boring to people, but that's what most of the OT prophesy is like.

The latter is more exciting, because it gives them some hidden insight of "secret knowledge" which can be written into a Dan Brown novel, along with the exciting promises of the end of the world and the rewards that all of the Biblical literalists are really banking on, but would likely not be disappointed to not find out that humanity is cyclical and they really do live on "in spirit" through their children and the effects on culture that they leave behind.

Yes, but again, see Kelly on this 10 heads in a row 'type' problem ...

I've read the paper, but I don't really see how it applies to my objection. My objection is not solely on the basis of some statistical problems with the approach. My objection is that I don't really see why one should spend so much time trying to conceptually dissect Daniel as though it's the key to unlock some "bonus level" of Christian mysteries.

How about focusing on the 1st and 2nd and 3rd ones first, and then when we resolve these, we can move on to the bonus?

SDA denomination is actually pointing that as "the Christian game expert players", because they claim they unlocked that "bonus level", so they are "it". But I really see that it's more as "demotivating" than it is motivating. If you are convinced that this world is about to collapse into oblivion, would you really work hard to solve long-term problems? It's no surprise that the literalist churches are 50+ average age churches. There will hardly be anyone left in 10 years, because all they care is to sit and "maintain the faith" until Jesus is back, which must be ... about now, because the world is getting worse... only it's not

What?

The Simpsons Predicted Donald Trump’s Presidency

No, I think there's more to it than just this, devolved. We need to be more expansive when handling Daniel. We need to take in as many Cons and Pros as possible in our personal journey of evaluation for this book (or for biblical eschatology and apocalyptic literature on the whole).

Well, you can't really assume that I haven't been expansive with Daniel before.

My home church is the SDA church, and the entire SDA enterprise hangs on certain interpretation of Daniel... and I can describe it to you if you want. It's extremely expansive:

Seventh-day Adventist eschatology - Wikipedia

But again, the issue with Adventist eschatology is that they live and die by it, and the church is actually formed from the remnant pieces of Millerites who wrongly predicted (on basis of their interpretation of Daniel's timeline) that Christ would come back in 1844. When that didn't happen, they shifted their interpretation to "The cleasing of the sanctuary began in 1844" which is a code word for "the end is near", and thus began a relentless focus of the SDA denomination as they progressed to now and here, in spite of every generation of pastors between then and now voicing their certainty that Jesus would return in their lifetime.

Of course, it doesn't prevent the present generation of pastors to focus on the 2nd Coming, because after all it is a "Adventist" church, who is rooted in fundamentalist literalism (7th day, meaning that Sabbath is Saturday, which is true if we trace it from Judaic tradition).

The further speculations tend to be more bizarre to most people who are unfamiliar with Adventist eschatology, and it's the idea that Catholic church (papacy institution), is the little horn of the Daniel, which arises out of the beast of Pagan Rome (which was the generic interpretation by protestants like Luther), would then go on and control the USA to institute the (virtually)global Sunday laws as means to enforcing of false Christian religion on the global population. Of course, the literal Satan pretending to be Jesus has much to do with this event, who convinces people that he wants then to worship on SUNday, and they persecute the Adventists and Jews who don't want to disobey God and so they are persecuted financially, since they are not able to buy or sell for the lack of employment or confiscation of their property, etc.

Of course, then Jesus comes, and all of the bad Christians realize how wrong they were, but it's too late, because good and faithful SDAs would meet him along with resurrected good Christians in the air and would be taken in a giant pyramid-like city floating in space, as they fly off into space and fly around in the city for a 1000 years "retro-actively judging everyone", but not really, since it's only to validate that judgement of God was correct in the end, while Earth is ruined by bad people.

And then Satan will be sent to that "ruined Earth corner" with everyone dead to think about what he's done. And then after 1000 years, the city touches down on Earth, and God resurrects everyone, but they are scared and there's enormous amount of people, and there are some of the best military minds who decide to take the city as Satan leads them. And they go and storm the city, but the fire comes down from the sky and burns everyone up, including the Satan (which is what Bible refers to as burning in hell, which is not eternal), and then the Earth is re-created anew, and the righteous are walking on the ashes of the wicked as they live happily ever-after, with an added bonus of "superman powers" of flying through space and visiting other planets and people who live there.

The end.

The point being is that "eschatology wormhole" can take you in a rather bizarre corners that are extremely difficult to climb out of. Since SDAs have gradually and collectively backed off the yearly "Prophesy seminars" and instead began to focus on basic Christianity as they should, especially given that the world isn't moving in the projected direction of "Republicans will take over the government and force Roman Catholicism by proxy via Sunday worship laws". Given the generic rejection of belligerent religions by the next generation of Americans, it's a highly unlikely scenario at this point.

We re probably as far from that as we ever were.

BUT

If tomorrow the economy collapses, and amid the crisis and commotion Jesus arrives on the world media stage, and convinces government that instituting Sunday laws is a fantastic idea that will encourage unity and would remedy the situation and that Catholicism is true religion. Guess what? SDAs would be shouting for joy and screaming their pants of warning the world about the "fake Jesus" and "the world is near", and you may even find me among them

Until then, it's a rather bizarre take on eschatology that I see very little reason to take seriously, and actually it would be my generic attitude towards eschatology in general. The generic point of eschatology still falls in line with Christian principles, so whether a Christian is aware of what will transpire, or they are not... these core principles are guiding them through any time of history. So, I really don't need to see a present reason to conjure up bizarre applications of prophesy and trying to solve the puzzle that may not even meant to be solved, as Daniel puts it "locking up the book until then".

I think the point is... when you see it, you will recognize it.

 

[devolved]

There's of course the traditional Judaism eschatology:

Year 6000 - Wikipedia

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm not dismissing Daniel as viable using the video as a demonstration. All I'm saying is that there are a number of issues with using prophesy as a "guiding light" and "proof" for validity of Christian theology, apart from the immediate context of the OT prophesy, which was more of an educational tool for conditional consequences via "told you so", than it was some hidden and shrouded depiction of the future that no one understands but you.

...it's funny, but despite what some here already seem to assert in this thread, I don't think I've actually said that Daniel is "proof" for anyone's faith. My whole point here since introducing the OP is to simply bring up some discussion on the possibilities that a book like Daniel may (or may not) bolster a person's Christian faith. But, bolstering and proving are, in my epistemology, two different things.

So, the former is rather boring to people, but that's what most of the OT prophesy is like.

Of course it is, especially for people today because they want "plug and play" concepts. But, unfortunately, God doesn't typically play up to our epistemic preferences.

The latter is more exciting, because it gives them some hidden insight of "secret knowledge" which can be written into a Dan Brown novel, along with the exciting promises of the end of the world and the rewards that all of the Biblical literalists are really banking on, but would likely not be disappointed to not find out that humanity is cyclical and they really do live on "in spirit" through their children and the effects on culture that they leave behind.

Well, if it's secret knowledge everybody is just hankering for, I know I'm fresh out, except for whatever the presence of a 2,000 year old Gospel might afford to us.

I've read the paper, but I don't really see how it applies to my objection. My objection is not solely on the basis of some statistical problems with the approach. My objection is that I don't really see why one should spend so much time trying to conceptually dissect Daniel as though it's the key to unlock some "bonus level" of Christian mysteries.

Somehow, I think the last chapter of Daniel kind of cuts off our chances for ever reaching a "bonus level" of understanding in the here and now. And that's even with the book of Revelation at hand.

How about focusing on the 1st and 2nd and 3rd ones first, and then when we resolve these, we can move on to the bonus?

1st, 2nd and 3rd 'what,' devolved? You've lost me.

SDA denomination is actually pointing that as "the Christian game expert players", because they claim they unlocked that "bonus level", so they are "it". But I really see that it's more as "demotivating" than it is motivating. If you are convinced that this world is about to collapse into oblivion, would you really work hard to solve long-term problems? It's no surprise that the literalist churches are 50+ average age churches. There will hardly be anyone left in 10 years, because all they care is to sit and "maintain the faith" until Jesus is back, which must be ... about now, because the world is getting worse... only it's not



The Simpsons Predicted Donald Trump’s Presidency




Well, you can't really assume that I haven't been expansive with Daniel before.

My home church is the SDA church, and the entire SDA enterprise hangs on certain interpretation of Daniel... and I can describe it to you if you want. It's extremely expansive:

Seventh-day Adventist eschatology - Wikipedia

But again, the issue with Adventist eschatology is that they live and die by it, and the church is actually formed from the remnant pieces of Millerites who wrongly predicted (on basis of their interpretation of Daniel's timeline) that Christ would come back in 1844. When that didn't happen, they shifted their interpretation to "The cleasing of the sanctuary began in 1844" which is a code word for "the end is near", and thus began a relentless focus of the SDA denomination as they progressed to now and here, in spite of every generation of pastors between then and now voicing their certainty that Jesus would return in their lifetime.

Of course, it doesn't prevent the present generation of pastors to focus on the 2nd Coming, because after all it is a "Adventist" church, who is rooted in fundamentalist literalism (7th day, meaning that Sabbath is Saturday, which is true if we trace it from Judaic tradition).

The further speculations tend to be more bizarre to most people who are unfamiliar with Adventist eschatology, and it's the idea that Catholic church (papacy institution), is the little horn of the Daniel, which arises out of the beast of Pagan Rome (which was the generic interpretation by protestants like Luther), would then go on and control the USA to institute the (virtually)global Sunday laws as means to enforcing of false Christian religion on the global population. Of course, the literal Satan pretending to be Jesus has much to do with this event, who convinces people that he wants then to worship on SUNday, and they persecute the Adventists and Jews who don't want to disobey God and so they are persecuted financially, since they are not able to buy or sell for the lack of employment or confiscation of their property, etc.

Of course, then Jesus comes, and all of the bad Christians realize how wrong they were, but it's too late, because good and faithful SDAs would meet him along with resurrected good Christians in the air and would be taken in a giant pyramid-like city floating in space, as they fly off into space and fly around in the city for a 1000 years "retro-actively judging everyone", but not really, since it's only to validate that judgement of God was correct in the end, while Earth is ruined by bad people.

And then Satan will be sent to that "ruined Earth corner" with everyone dead to think about what he's done. And then after 1000 years, the city touches down on Earth, and God resurrects everyone, but they are scared and there's enormous amount of people, and there are some of the best military minds who decide to take the city as Satan leads them. And they go and storm the city, but the fire comes down from the sky and burns everyone up, including the Satan (which is what Bible refers to as burning in hell, which is not eternal), and then the Earth is re-created anew, and the righteous are walking on the ashes of the wicked as they live happily ever-after, with an added bonus of "superman powers" of flying through space and visiting other planets and people who live there.

The end.

Thanks for the summation of the SDA's point of view.

The point being is that "eschatology wormhole" can take you in a rather bizarre corners that are extremely difficult to climb out of. Since SDAs have gradually and collectively backed off the yearly "Prophesy seminars" and instead began to focus on basic Christianity as they should, especially given that the world isn't moving in the projected direction of "Republicans will take over the government and force Roman Catholicism by proxy via Sunday worship laws". Given the generic rejection of belligerent religions by the next generation of Americans, it's a highly unlikely scenario at this point.

Yeah, if anything, it seems things would have to go in a different direction than that.

We re probably as far from that as we ever were.

BUT

If tomorrow the economy collapses, and amid the crisis and commotion Jesus arrives on the world media stage, and convinces government that instituting Sunday laws is a fantastic idea that will encourage unity and would remedy the situation and that Catholicism is true religion. Guess what? SDAs would be shouting for joy and screaming their pants of warning the world about the "fake Jesus" and "the world is near", and you may even find me among them

Until then, it's a rather bizarre take on eschatology that I see very little reason to take seriously, and actually it would be my generic attitude towards eschatology in general. The generic point of eschatology still falls in line with Christian principles, so whether a Christian is aware of what will transpire, or they are not... these core principles are guiding them through any time of history. So, I really don't need to see a present reason to conjure up bizarre applications of prophesy and trying to solve the puzzle that may not even meant to be solved, as Daniel puts it "locking up the book until then".

I think the point is... when you see it, you will recognize it.

oh, I think I've recognized a few things now of late. But just a few. I've never been one to proffer a dogmatic or a comprehensive interpretation of any of the Biblical apocalyptic materials.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

There's of course the traditional Judaism eschatology:

Year 6000 - Wikipedia

2239-40? That might be more feasible, but I'd hate to become a date setter in supporting this expectation.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Obviously, it wasn't by simply turning to Deut. 18:20-22 and seeing if "such a thing" actually took place in the prophet's own lifetime or not. Otherwise, this would scuttle what the writer just previously said in Deuteronomy 18:15-19, particularly 18:15, don't you think? Because, hey.............................................there was no other Prophet like Moses who came along within Moses' lifetime. I mean, that would be a huge "fail" right there, wouldn't it?

My position is that this is a rule about prophecy, and it isn't a prophecy itself. There's nothing to come true or not. It's just a rule. At least by how I read it.

The football rule that a safety is worth two points is not a prediction that a safety will be scored in a game. Some rules are hypothetical by nature.

So this paragraph of yours is silly. You are mixing my position together with your initial assumptions and acting like you've discovered some new problem. We already knew our positions were incompatible.

And being that the Rabbis will usually claim that there was ALSO an Oral Torah that was referred to along side the Written Torah, your argument does become a bit suspect in this case, don't you think? So, it sounds to me like there were likely a bevy of other contexts by which the Israelites/Jews would determine the scope of accuracy that might reside in any prophet's speech, and if you remember, this is alluded to in that link I posted earlier.

I don't understand how additional material makes my point invalid. Or are you saying it's contradicted? But don't most Christians hold the Bible higher than the Talmud? Shouldn't my point override yours even if there is a conflict?

But, I'll link to it one more time below, just in case we have any stragglers who are coming in late:

PROPHET, FALSE - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Ok, let's take a look.


Criteria.
The criteria by which a prophet is distinguished as false are, in the view of rabbinical jurisprudence, partly expressed and partly implied in the Deuteronamic dicta:

• (1) One who has "spoken to turn you away from the Lord" (xiii. 6 [A. V. 5])...

We can ignore this first one. Recall I said,

How did the Jews of the OT days know whether or not a prophet who claimed to be speaking on behalf of Jehovah actually was doing so and was not a false prophet?

This brings us to the next criteria:

• (2) When the things predicted "follow not, nor come to pass" (Deut. xviii. 22). This test is applicable only when the alleged revelation has reference to the near future, as in the case of Zedekiah, who in God's name prophesied success to Ahab's arms, and in that of Micaiah, who predicted disaster from the impending war (I Kings xxii. 11 et seq.). Where his prediction concerns a distant period the skeptic will say (Ezek. xii. 27): "The vision that he seeth is for many days to come, and he prophesieth of the times that are far off." But even where the prophecy concerns the immediate future this test is not always applicable. It is conclusive only when a prediction of prosperity fails, because then it is seen that the alleged revelation did not emanatefrom the All-Merciful (comp. Jer. xxviii. 9); but the failure of a prediction of disaster is not conclusive, the fulfilment of such predictions being always conditioned by the conduct of the people (Jer. xviii. 7, 8; xxvi. 19; Ezek. xviii. 21, xxxiii. 11; comp. Yer. Sanh. xi. 30b).

So first of all they're taking directly from Deuteronomy 18. Shocking!

With regards to prophecy of the far future, this proves my point exactly. Look where they quote Ezekiel 12:27. The skeptics scoff at far-future prophecies (indicating they wouldn't be bothered to write it down, especially in an era where writing something down is not cheap or easy). Further, look at it in context. Ezekiel 12:26-28 says,


26 Again the word of Jehovah came to me, saying, 27 Son of man, behold, they of the house of Israel say, The vision that he seeth is for many day to come, and he prophesieth of times that are far off.

28 Therefore say unto them, Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: There shall none of my words be deferred any more, but the word which I shall speak shall be performed, saith the Lord Jehovah.


So we see that Jehovah sees little value in far-future prophecies and he's expediting it. This is my point EXACTLY.

Sure. That's a valid point. The Hiddeness problem does stare us in the face ... which, to some extent, is to be expected if Biblical epistemological indices are what I think they are.

Yep, prophecies. Drats!

Well.............there is the fact that 'the Bible' wasn't written in a historical vacuum, and this fact is the case for both Deuteronomy and Daniel.

Well if you're talking about how Deuteronomy was actually written then we have to get into Josiah and his wartime propaganda. But who knows, maybe you think Moses actually existed.

...have you had time to reconsider lately the nature of this statement of yours, especially as it sits in relation to whether or not Daniel, or anyone else close to him for that matter, would have been able to write down anything while he was exiled in Babylon?

We were never talking about whether he would be able to write it down. We are talking about whether scribes would preserve it for centuries if they thought he was a false prophet. And if his prophecies hadn't come true, wouldn't they think he's a false prophet? Or... if they were of the understanding that the prophecies were for the far future, why, then, did they reject Jesus? Your position makes no sense at all.