2300 day/year prophecy of Daniel 8 - correct timeline - wrong event.

[EastCoastRemnant]

I will agree that knowledge is nothing without action or as you put it, harvestable fruit. If Christ is not in us and we obedient to His Commands then all else is loss.

 

[BobRyan]

I would assume that not understanding the scriptures the same way would be when dialogue was required. I ask you by what authority do you regard all of the Bible is the word of God; maybe the Church fathers, a Roman emperor?,

2 Tim 3:16 "ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God AND is to be used for doctrine, correction, reproof".

Jesus taught from "ALL of scripture" Luke 24:27

There has never been any significant disagreement in the Christian church - on "what is the NT text of scripture" and as we see in Luke 24:27 there was no disagreement among the disciples about the OT text of scripture.

 

[sparow]

2 Tim 3:16 "ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God AND is to be used for doctrine, correction, reproof".

Jesus taught from "ALL of scripture" Luke 24:27

There has never been any significant disagreement in the Christian church - on "what is the NT text of scripture" and as we see in Luke 24:27 there was no disagreement among the disciples about the OT text of scripture.

You grossly misuse the scripture. Jesus taught no such thing. Luke 24:27, And beginning from Moses and from All the Prophets (which is the Law and the Prophets or the OT), He interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning Himself.

Clearly the things concerning Himself are not all the OT yet in this verse He clearly defines ALL SCRIPTURE as the Law and the Prophets. It is most likely Paul was referring to the Law and the Prophets also when he said ALL SCRIPURE.

How sad it is that there has been no significant disagreement in the Christian Church; you must have forgotten the Christian martyrs and their blood shed by the Papacy's agents.

I give you a quote from Bishop J C Ryle even though I don't know who he was.

Quote. Controversy in religion is a hateful thing. It is hard enough to fight the devil, the world and the flesh, without private differences in our own camps. But there is one thing even worse than controversy; and that is false doctrine tolerated, allowed, and permitted without protest or molestation. . . . There are times when controversy is not only a duty, but a benefit. Give me a mighty thunderstorm rather than the pestilential malaria. The one walks in darkness and poisons in silence, and you are never safe. The other frightens and alarms for a little season. But it is soon over, and it cleans the air. It is plain scriptural duty to "contend earnestly for he faith once for all delivered to the saints."unquote

As an SDA you should be familiar with the three angels msg, "the Ever Lasting Gospel," whether it be past , future or both the Ever Lasting Gospel is identical to the nuts and bolts of the Old Covenant; this is what most if not all Christians have abrogated; you appear to tolerate this without significant disagreement.

 

[BobRyan]

I would assume that not understanding the scriptures the same way would be when dialogue was required. I ask you by what authority do you regard all of the Bible is the word of God; maybe the Church fathers, a Roman emperor?,

2 Tim 3:16 "ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God AND is to be used for doctrine, correction, reproof".

Jesus taught from "ALL of scripture" Luke 24:27

There has never been any significant disagreement in the Christian church - on "what is the NT text of scripture" and as we see in Luke 24:27 there was no disagreement among the disciples about the OT text of scripture.

You grossly misuse the scripture. Jesus taught no such thing.

all wishful statements - please give us facts.

Luke 24:27, And beginning from Moses and from All the Prophets (which is the Law and the Prophets or the OT)

That much is true.

, He interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning Himself.

Clearly the things concerning Himself are not all the OT yet in this verse He clearly defines ALL SCRIPTURE as the Law and the Prophets. It is most likely Paul was referring to the Law and the Prophets also when he said ALL SCRIPURE.

1. The term "All scriptures" is fully defined according to Luke such that he only need refer to it as "all scripture" - which is ALL the OT - "The Law and the prophets" as a phrase even the Jews would tell you is all of Hebrew scripture.

2. Jesus said "Scripture cannot be broken" John 10:35 -- He did not say "some of the scripture cannot be broken" as you have so eisegeted and speculated. We prefer Bible facts. At the time He is speaking it references all of Hebrew scriptures which even Josephus admits is canonized and frozen in place in the Temple --as it had been for over 400 years by the time Christ said this.

3. Mark 7:6-13 proves just how Christ affirms this sola scriptura test and expected everyone else to freely apply that same test.

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Jesus does not say "some of scripture is the Word of God" or "you could not possibly know that this is a part of scripture that matters vs all the scripture that you should be ignoring"

It is Jesus' support of scripture that brings war between him and the leading religionists of His day.

Luke 6:26 "woe to you when all men speak well of you"

Matt 10
32 “Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. 33 But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.
34 “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 36 and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household.
37 “He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.

============================

sparow said: ↑
I would assume that not understanding the scriptures the same way would be when dialogue was required. I ask you by what authority do you regard all of the Bible is the word of God; maybe the Church fathers, a Roman emperor?,

your attack on the Bible as not being the Word of God - is a logical place for your argument to dead-end. you know of course that most Christians on CF are not about to attack the Bible as not being the Word of God.

But if you need to go down such a dark alley - then you have free will and can choose - just as Adam and Eve chose.

2 Tim 3:16 "ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God AND is to be used for doctrine, correction, reproof".

Jesus taught from "ALL of scripture" Luke 24:27

 

[sparow]

2 Tim 3:16 "ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God AND is to be used for doctrine, correction, reproof".

Jesus taught from "ALL of scripture" Luke 24:27

There has never been any significant disagreement in the Christian church - on "what is the NT text of scripture" and as we see in Luke 24:27 there was no disagreement among the disciples about the OT text of scripture.



all wishful statements - please give us facts.




That much is true.



1. The term "All scriptures" is fully defined according to Luke such that he only need refer to it as "all scripture" - which is ALL the OT - "The Law and the prophets" as a phrase even the Jews would tell you is all of Hebrew scripture.


He did not say "some of the scripture cannot be broken" as you have so eisegeted and speculated. We prefer Bible facts. At the time He is speaking it references all of Hebrew scriptures which even Josephus admits is canonized and frozen in place in the Temple --as it had been for over 400 years by the time Christ said this.

3. Mark 7:6-13 proves just how Christ affirms this sola scriptura test and expected everyone else to freely apply that same test.

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Jesus does not say "some of scripture is the Word of God" or "you could not possibly know that this is a part of scripture that matters vs all the scripture that you should be ignoring"

It is Jesus' support of scripture that brings war between him and the leading religionists of His day.

Luke 6:26 "woe to you when all men speak well of you"

Matt 10
32 “Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. 33 But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.
34 “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 36 and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household.
37 “He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.

============================



your attack on the Bible as not being the Word of God - is a logical place for your argument to dead-end. you know of course that most Christians on CF are not about to attack the Bible as not being the Word of God.

But if you need to go down such a dark alley - then you have free will and can choose - just as Adam and Eve chose.

2 Tim 3:16 "ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God AND is to be used for doctrine, correction, reproof".

Jesus taught from "ALL of scripture" Luke 24:27

I am not interested in repeating myself or futile debate.

<<2. Jesus said "Scripture cannot be broken" John 10:35 -->>
There is an assumption in this quote that the scriptures are valid.
And the prophesy, "He will change Laws and Times" is predicting the breaking of some scripture.
The Papacy's abrogating the Law is breaking of ALL SCRIPTURE and replacing the Law with the Papacy's own law is breaking scripture; when the Papacy claims it's authority to change the Sabbath to Sunday comes from one verse where Jesus said this is the rock on which I will build my church; isn't this breaking scripture; other wise what is the breaking the of scripture Jesus referred to, if not wrong interpretation, wrong knowledge, wrong facts and lies.

I believe you have already conceded that the Trinity doctrine or tradition that you believe is a doctrine of men.

If my opinions constitute an attack then it is not on the Bible but your perceptions on the Bible.

 

[BobRyan]

I believe you have already conceded that the Trinity doctrine or tradition that you believe is a doctrine of men.

Not in real life.

In real life - you just quoted "you" --

If you would like to quote me and then object to something I actually said - go ahead.

As it is -- I provided these texts --
Sunday at 11:12 AM #64

And you did not respond to them.

 

[sparow]

Not in real life.

In real life - you just quoted "you" --

If you would like to quote me and then object to something I actually said - go ahead.

As it is -- I provided these texts --
Sunday at 11:12 AM #64

And you did not respond to them.

<<2 Tim 3:16 "ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God AND is to be used for doctrine, correction, reproof".

Jesus taught from "ALL of scripture" Luke 24:27

There has never been any significant disagreement in the Christian church - on "what is the NT text of scripture" and as we see in Luke 24:27 there was no disagreement among the disciples about the OT text of scripture.

↑
You grossly misuse the scripture. Jesus taught no such thing.

all wishful statements - please give us facts.>>

A fact, "You grossly misuse scripture".

This one and a quarter verse theology you are using has no context out side of themselves; not even a Biblical context.

Paul clearly refers to the scriptures that existed at the time he made the statement to Timothy; and because Paul uses the term, "third heaven", Paul also includes the Babylonian Talmud in "all scripture."

Luke 24:27 is different, "all scripture" is coincidental; the topic being discussed or debated was the Pharisees were caught flat footed, Christ had came upon them like a thief in the night and now He was showing them from scripture that they were without excuse.

"All scripture" that Jesus used was before the State Church of Rome and Jewish Rabbi's decided what would and what would not be included in their cannon, our Bible.

""OLD TESTAMENT CANON: In AD 90, Jewish rabbis at the Council of Yavneh (also known as Jamnia) formally recognized (rather than established ) thirty-nine books as authoritative Scripture for the Jewish faith — the texts the Jewish people had for centuries already received as authoritative. These books are the same that appear in Protestant Bibles today. The Old Testament canons of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches include several books (deuterocanonical, or apocryphal ) that do not appear in the Jewish canon. See also apocrypha; Bible; Marcion of Sinope.""

It does appear that the process of determining what would be included in the NT began in the second centaury and ended in the fourth centaury. I have read a transcript of a debate between Church fathers deciding the fate of one of the minor prophets, God didn't appear to be involved.

There is nothing in Luke 24:27 regarding disagreement among the apostle during their apprenticeship with Rabbi Jesus but whether there was disagreement during the Roman era proves nothing other than our knowledge of history. Agreement does not mean right; the kingdom of God is not a democracy.

 

[Dave-W]

Paul clearly refers to the scriptures that existed at the time he made the statement to Timothy; and because Paul uses the term, "third heaven", Paul also includes the Babylonian Talmud in "all scripture."

The Mishnah was not written for another 140 years AFTER Paul's death, and the Babylonian Talmud came 300 years after that. (circa 500 ad)

So when Paul says "all scripture" he is referring ONLY to what we call the Old Testament.

 

[BobRyan]

2 Tim 3:16 "ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God AND is to be used for doctrine, correction, reproof".

Jesus taught from "ALL of scripture" Luke 24:27

There has never been any significant disagreement in the Christian church - on "what is the NT text of scripture" and as we see in Luke 24:27 there was no disagreement among the disciples about the OT text of scripture

1. The term "All scriptures" is fully defined according to Luke such that he only need refer to it as "all scripture" - which is ALL the OT - "The Law and the prophets" as a phrase even the Jews would tell you is all of Hebrew scripture.

2. Jesus said "Scripture cannot be broken" John 10:35 -- He did not say "some of the scripture cannot be broken" as you have so eisegeted and speculated. We prefer Bible facts. At the time He is speaking it references all of Hebrew scriptures which even Josephus admits is canonized and frozen in place in the Temple --as it had been for over 400 years by the time Christ said this.

3. Mark 7:6-13 proves just how Christ affirms this sola scriptura test and expected everyone else to freely apply that same test.

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Jesus does not say "some of scripture is the Word of God" or "you could not possibly know that this is a part of scripture that matters vs all the scripture that you should be ignoring"

It is Jesus' support of scripture that brings war between him and the leading religionists of His day.

Luke 6:26 "woe to you when all men speak well of you"

Matt 10
32 “Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. 33 But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.
34 “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 36 and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household.
37 “He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.

============================


2 Tim 3:16 "ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God AND is to be used for doctrine, correction, reproof".

Jesus taught from "ALL of scripture" Luke 24:27

As just noted in that quote --


2 Tim 3:16 "ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God AND is to be used for doctrine, correction, reproof".

Jesus taught from "ALL of scripture" Luke 24:27

You grossly misuse the scripture. Jesus taught no such thing.

At some point it will serve you to use something closer to observable "fact" to support your statements here.

rant-alone is pure fluff. Easily ignored.

Bible text please.

Paul clearly refers to the scriptures that existed at the time he made the statement to Timothy;

That much is true. Then you return to "speculation alone" as your proof for "Paul also includes the Babylonian Talmud in all scripture."

Which is total nonsense.

Who came first Noah or Babylon?

and because Paul uses the term, "third heaven", Paul also includes the Babylonian Talmud in "all scripture."

Pure speculation

"All scripture" that Jesus used was before the State Church of Rome and Jewish Rabbi's decided what would and what would not be included in their cannon

Pure fluff - rejected even by Jewish historians such as Josephus writing in the first century and declaring that the Hebrew Bible had already been canonized for over 400 years by the time of Christ.

Your appeal to "making stuff up" noted but not accepted as supporting fact.




The clearest testimony of the extent of the Hebrew canon comes from the first century writer Flavius Josephus (A.D. 37-100). He said that the Jews held as sacred only twenty-two books (which include exactly the same as our present thirty-nine books of the Old Testament). He wrote:

We have but twenty-two [books] containing the history of all time, books that are justly believed in; and of these, five are the books of Moses, which comprise the law and earliest traditions from the creation of mankind down to his death. From the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes, King of Persia, the successor of Xerxes, the prophets who succeeded Moses wrote the history of the events that occurred in their own time, in thirteen books. The remaining four documents comprise hymns to God and practical precepts to men (William Whiston, trans., Flavius Josephus against Apion, Vol. I, in Josephus, Complete Works, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1960, p. 8).

And how firmly we have given credit to those books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add anything to them or take anything from them, or to make any change in them; but it becomes natural to all Jews, immediately and from their very birth, to esteem those books to contain divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be, willing to die for them. For it is no new thing for our captives, many of them in numbers, and frequently in time, to be seen to endure racks and deaths of all kinds upon the theatres, that they may not be obliged to say one word against our laws, and the records that contain them (Josephus, Ibid. p. 609).

What We Learn From Josephus

There are at least four important things can be derived from this statement of Josephus.

1. Josephus includes the same three divisions of the Hebrew Scripture, as had the Prologue to Ecclesiasticus and Philo.
2. He limits the number of canonical books in these three divisions to twenty-two. This would be the same as the current twenty-four – Ruth was attached to Judges, and Lamentation attached to Jeremiah.

1. He says there has been no more authoritative writings since the reign of Artaxerxes, son of Xerxes (464-424 B.C.). This is the same time of Malachi – the last book in the Old Testament.
   We know that Artaxerxes ruled for forty years. Ezra came to Jerusalem in the seventh year of his rule. The Bible says:

Ezra arrived in Jerusalem in the fifth month of the seventh year of the king (Ezra 7:8).

Nehemiah came in his twentieth year:

In the month of Nisan in the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes, when wine was brought for him, I took the wine and gave it to the king. I had not been sad in his presence before (Nehemiah 2:1).

Therefore the last canonical books were composed in this period.

1. Between the time of Malachi and Josephus’ writing (425 B.C. to A.D. 90) no additional material were added to the canon of Scripture. Consequently there was the notion of a long period of time without a divinely authoritative Word from God.

 

[sparow]

The Mishnah was not written for another 140 years AFTER Paul's death, and the Babylonian Talmud came 300 years after that. (circa 500 ad)

So when Paul says "all scripture" he is referring ONLY to what we call the Old Testament.

I have to disagree; the dates you give are different to other sources; but basically they are irrelevant; you have probably heard the saying, "in this case the facts are irrelevant."

It has been my understanding that the Babylonian astrology involving the seven heavens is included in the Babylonian Talmud and in the past I got this from the internet, I didn't make it up; I vaguely recall the third heaven is defined by the orbits of mercury and the moon.

Also I recall seeing a list of the books in the Talmud that included the Book of Enoch; the list I find now is:

The Babylonian Talmud
Translated by Michael L. Rodkinson
[1918]
Book 1: Tract Sabbath
Book 2: Tracts Erubin, Shekalim, Rosh Hashana
Book 3: Tracts Pesachim, Yomah and Hagiga
Book 4: Tracts Betzh, Succah, Moed Katan, Taanith, Megilla and Ebel Rabbathi or Semahoth
Book 5: Tracts Aboth, Derech Eretz-Rabba, Derech Eretz-Zuta, and Baba Kama (First Gate)
Book 6: Tract Baba Kama (First Gate), Part II and Tract Baba Metzia (Middle Gate)
Book 7: Tract Baba Bathra (Last Gate)
Book 8: Tract Sanhedrin: Section Jurisprudence (Damages)
Book 9: Tracts Maccoth, Shebuoth, Eduyoth, Abuda Zara, and Horioth
Book 10: History of the Talmud

I would presume that these books existed independently long before the were collected into one of the Talmuds or the Oral Law. These books are all written in the Babylonian language which probably does not prove a lot because there was a Jewish King of Babylon 600 AD.

To say Paul didn't have access to the Babylonian teaching of the seven heavens would be the same as saying Jesus did not have access to the OT (I quote Luke 24:27 in case Bob Ryan reads this) because the OT was not compiled until 60 years after the crucifixion and compiled by His enemies the Jews, 15 years after the Temple was destroyed. I would not expect the Jews to add anything but the could have omitted a lot.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

I have to disagree; the dates you give are different to other sources; but basically they are irrelevant; you have probably heard the saying, "in this case the facts are irrelevant." So that I don't repeat myself I will continue this case with Bob Ryan.

So... facts aren't relevant and you're are just arguing with Bob for the sake of?? What's the point of dialoguing with you if you don't care about truth?

 

[sparow]

As just noted in that quote --


2 Tim 3:16 "ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God AND is to be used for doctrine, correction, reproof".

Jesus taught from "ALL of scripture" Luke 24:27



At some point it will serve you to use something closer to observable "fact" to support your statements here.

rant-alone is pure fluff. Easily ignored.

Bible text please.



That much is true. Then you return to "speculation alone" as your proof for "Paul also includes the Babylonian Talmud in all scripture."

Which is total nonsense.

Who came first Noah or Babylon?



Pure speculation





Pure fluff - rejected even by Jewish historians such as Josephus writing in the first century and declaring that the Hebrew Bible had already been canonized for over 400 years by the time of Christ.

Your appeal to "making stuff up" noted but not accepted as supporting fact.




The clearest testimony of the extent of the Hebrew canon comes from the first century writer Flavius Josephus (A.D. 37-100). He said that the Jews held as sacred only twenty-two books (which include exactly the same as our present thirty-nine books of the Old Testament). He wrote:






What We Learn From Josephus

There are at least four important things can be derived from this statement of Josephus.

1. Josephus includes the same three divisions of the Hebrew Scripture, as had the Prologue to Ecclesiasticus and Philo.
2. He limits the number of canonical books in these three divisions to twenty-two. This would be the same as the current twenty-four – Ruth was attached to Judges, and Lamentation attached to Jeremiah.

1. He says there has been no more authoritative writings since the reign of Artaxerxes, son of Xerxes (464-424 B.C.). This is the same time of Malachi – the last book in the Old Testament.
   We know that Artaxerxes ruled for forty years. Ezra came to Jerusalem in the seventh year of his rule. The Bible says:

Ezra arrived in Jerusalem in the fifth month of the seventh year of the king (Ezra 7:8).

Nehemiah came in his twentieth year:

In the month of Nisan in the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes, when wine was brought for him, I took the wine and gave it to the king. I had not been sad in his presence before (Nehemiah 2:1).

Therefore the last canonical books were composed in this period.

1. Between the time of Malachi and Josephus’ writing (425 B.C. to A.D. 90) no additional material were added to the canon of Scripture. Consequently there was the notion of a long period of time without a divinely authoritative Word from God.

The question I would ask Josephus, is he Jewish, Christian or Atheist so that would know which drum he was beating.

 

[sparow]

So... facts aren't relevant and you're are just arguing with Bob for the sake of?? What's the point of dialoguing with you if you don't care about truth?

So now you show your true colours, you are argumentative. The facts discussed were the dates of the Talmuds and the oral law and every web page gives different dates and my arguments did not require a date, the date was not relevant.

I have previously told bob I was not interested in futile debate and have since gave him the courtesy of a response.

Facts and truth are always subjective, they can not exist in their own right and unless they are pure mathematics or SDA legalism and ideology they are always disputable.

This is my last dialogue on this part of the forum.

 

[Dave-W]

I have to disagree; the dates you give are different to other sources; but basically they are irrelevant; you have probably heard the saying, "in this case the facts are irrelevant."

The Mishnah started to be compiled immediately following the destruction of the Temple in 70 ad and really took off after 100 ad. It was finally agreed on and published circa 200 ad. Its stated purpose was to codify for posterity the "teachings and practices of the late 2nd temple period." The Mishnah (one large book) became pretty much an outline for the Talmuds. (btw - there are 2 of them) The Tractate structure of Mishnah is duplicated in the Talmuds.

Babylonian Talmud is published in 73 volumes (pub circa 500 ad)
Jerusalem Talmud is published in 36 volumes (pub circa 350 ad)

I would presume that these books existed independently long before the were collected into one of the Talmuds or the Oral Law.

The oral tradition (that Paul called "the customs of our fathers" in Acts 28.17) was established in the various Pharisaic Yeshivot (rabbinic schools) in the first century bc. Prior to the Mishnah, it was forbidden to write them down.

These books are all written in the Babylonian language

Make that Aramaic.

http://www.artscroll.com/Categories/TLM.html

 

[Dave-W]

The question I would ask Josephus, is he Jewish, Christian or Atheist so that would know which drum he was beating.

Josephus was a Jew who was a slave/adviser to Roman general (later emperor) Vespasian.

Hebrew name: Yosef ben Matityahu
Roman name: Titus Flavius Josephus

 

[BobRyan]

The question I would ask Josephus, is he Jewish, Christian or Atheist so that would know which drum he was beating.

A great many people would sooner quote the first century author and Jewish historian - Josephus on the subject of what the Jews did or did not have historically at that period of time ... rather than "sparrow" as I am sure you would also agree.

 

[Sabbathkeeper&Wife]

Back to the post for a minute. We know what the daily sacrifice was, correct? ..and the transgression of desolation? What gets transgressed in the bible? God's laws ? And the meaning of desolate? Absent, empty? We understand host, correct? What about the sanctuary? It's the heavenly one, no doubt there. What does it entail? The Holy place? The most holy? IF it is part of ALL, then the arc containing It makes laws within its boundaries. What was the result of the 1844 deal of Miller? One, Daniel was unsealed, thus Revelations. The trampling of God's 4th commandment was realized as well as the importance of the 2nd advent, so 1844 was of the greatest historical importance. Possibly the greatest one we'll ever know of because there is no telling how many lives were changed and possibly salvaged as a result of that one event. It shot an unsealable hole in the Counter-Reformation for anyone that would take the time to study it with an open mind. Miller made the world realize that prophecy could be understood, especially when that other dude, studying the way he did, called the fall of the Ottomans- to the MONTH, before it happened. So something happened in 1844 and folks just subtracted 2300 years and saw where it landed, 457 BC. IF the 2300 day prophecy is for another time, AND ITS POSSIBLE due to being one of the shortest and most vague, we surely won't know it until something EQUALLY incredible happens and we can subtract 2300 days again to see where it falls. I personally don't see anything happening with that much influence on restoration and truth, than the second coming itself. We're just about all out of seals and I'd suppose that apostacy will be the WIND that casts the untimely figs to the ground- out of season. The sad part will be that it will be God's own figs or they wouldn't be figs, just like 5 of the 10 virgins who know the truth. At least it wasn't 8 out of 10.

 

[Dave-W]

and the transgression of desolation?

That is an unusual rendering of וְהַפֶּשַׁע שֹׁמֵם from Daniel 8.13.

The first word pesha פֶּשַׁע means "rebellion." When Our Lord mentions in in Matt 24 and Mark 13, it is rendered "abomination." The Greek word there is βδέλυγμα bdelygma which means something utterly detestable and is usually affiliated with idol worship.

What gets transgressed in the bible? God's laws ?

This is more than just transgressing a law. It is detestable idol worship.

We saw that happen in the 170s and 160s bc when Antiochas Epiphenes** (aka antiochas epimines***) erected an idol of zeus in the Holy Temple and sacrificed pigs on that altar; later cleansed by Judah Maccabee and his brothers. That was definately an abomination that caused desolation. (the vacating of the temple of God's manifest presence)

But since Our Lord mentioned that as a future event some 2 centuries after the Maccabees, something similar is to happen again. Detestable idol worship that drives the Spirit of God out from His Temple.

What about the sanctuary? It's the heavenly one, no doubt there.

I sincerely doubt that God could be driven out of His own Heavenly abode. I submit there must be another explanation.


** Antiochas Epiphenes = Antiochas, the revelation from the gods
*** Antiochas epimines = Antiochas, the madman (called that by the Jews)

 

[Sabbathkeeper&Wife]

Neither do I, but his laws being trampled on could mean "polluted" . When his intended assemblance of order recognized could be represented as cleansing when it was not before, restoration, for lack of a better word. Thanks. You folks have a wonderful day.

 

[Sabbathkeeper&Wife]

On a quickie here, idols. If we blatantly disregard one of his commandments, following an order full of them, then at best, we too would also be the idol we follow. Self. Just food for thought.....