Daniel 9: 20-27

[Nihilist Virus]

Hi NV,

I disagree with your assessment of my heart, but that's not what this thread is concerning.

I have not come here in bad faith. I've just made the point that it's true in any discussion between two opposing ideas that some of one sides evidence will be rejected by the other. I think one would be a simpleton to not know and acknowledge that truth. I said I would look at any evidence offered, and I will.

Thank you for the clarification. I interpreted "I'll look at opposing evidence, but if I must agree with it, then yes I may reject it" as "I'll look at opposing evidence, but if I must agree with it [because it is indisputable], then yes I may reject it."

As it is written, your statement was unintelligible and I did my best to make a genuine inference.

But if you would ever hope to expect that anyone that you might discuss with will just always accept any evidence that you offer as being the truth of things then I'm afraid that you're likely to always be throwing up that gauntlet of, "well, they're closed minded because they don't agree with my evidence." So, I think that you are reading my position wrong.

Yes, I get that now.

I'm sorry that you feel that I've 'redacted and ignored' your main point.

Well, let's not put that on me. It's not just that I "feel" you did. It's objectively true that you did redact and ignore points that I made.

I reread your post, and I find that you make a couple of points.

Thanks.

You rephrased my position and asked me if your understanding was correct? I agreed that it was. Obviously, that must not have been your main point.



I addressed that issue, so obviously that is not your main point.




Prophecy is what is being addressed in this entire thread, so obviously that is not your main point.

Correct.

You then make the claim, which I must assume that you believe to be true:


I'm honestly not understanding why the Jews being terrified to look upon God or hear His voice, has any bearing on the issue of prophecy.

It was stated explicitly in the chunk of text you quoted from me here. Let me copy/paste it and highlight and annotate it for you.

Far-future prophecy is lunacy. Here's how it really works:

1. A prophet correctly predicts the near future
2. His prophecy comes true, indicating that he has contact with God
3. The prophet then speaks on behalf of God

Why is [the intercession of one person on behalf of the people] necessary? As it says in the passage, the Jews were terrified to look upon God or hear his voice. [Therefore, only one person would speak to God, and then he would relay the will of God to everyone. To confirm that he speaks for God, he needed to correctly predict the near future, not the far future, so that all those who are alive could corroborate his status as a prophet.]

If that's your main point then I'd ask you to rephrase in a more understandable wording by adding after that statement how that might have some bearing on prophecy.

Hopefully it makes sense now.

As far as your claim that 'Here's how it works', I would have to believe that you really haven't read much of the prophecies, nor understood that Jesus did recognize and quote many of the prophecies.

I've read the entire Protestant Bible.

According to the Scriptures, when he began his ministry he quoted several words from the prophet Isaiah and regularly referred to Isaiah as a prophet.

Relevance?

As I've already mentioned, he also referred to Daniel as a prophet.

Yes, Daniel was a prophet.

Practically every book of the gospel accounts quote some old covenant prophecy.

Again, what is the relevance? Do you mean to say that Old Testament prophecy is being fulfilled in the New Testament?

You are neither expressing yourself clearly, nor are you taking the time to correctly read what I am clearly expressing. I don't know what the issue is but if it continues then our dialogue will become more cumbersome than it is worth.

However, this exercise is strictly about the prophecy given to Daniel and I am first attempting to secure some agreement that it may have, I believe it absolutely was, but as you don't have the same worldview that I have, just some agreement that the words of Daniel may have been written in the 5th century B.C. or there abouts.

This sentence is unintelligible.

You have already agreed that such is a possibility and now I am attempting to secure that position.

Pretty much anything is a possibility, but I don't understand what you are even saying here.

Unlike you, I believe that the first thing to resolve is that the words of the Scriptures that are claimed to be prophetic, were written when it was claimed that they were. Because that's the frist issue to determine if they are, in fact, prophetic.

And again, I'm telling you that prophecy was established for a different reason. According to the typical Christian understanding, which you apparently share, there is literally no purpose to prophecy. A prophet predicts the future, and then it comes true. If you don't believe that the purpose of prophecy is to prompt action, or to secure trust that a prophet speaks for God, then what is the actual point? Is it merely a vulgar display of power by God?

BTW, I didn't say that I would reject offered arguments, but that I may. Just as you have the option in this discussion to reject arguments that I make or propose, I also hold that same right.

Are you saying that you might reject anything that I state merely on a whim, no matter how egregiously unreasonable you might be in doing so?

Let's face it, if you weren't rejecting my claims to support the earlier writing of Daniel, we wouldn't be having at least half of this discussion.

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

Surely you would allow me the same right of rejection of evidence that you yourself use.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

From the perspective of human rights or legal rights, you can say almost whatever you want here. But if you reject a statement that is indisputable, then you would surrender the right to be taken seriously.

 

[miamited]

Hi NV,

Why is [the intercession of one person on behalf of the people] necessary? As it says in the passage, the Jews were terrified to look upon God or hear his voice. [Therefore, only one person would speak to God, and then he would relay the will of God to everyone. To confirm that he speaks for God, he needed to correctly predict the near future, not the far future, so that all those who are alive could corroborate his status as a prophet.]

I'm not sure that one person interceding was necessary, so much as God seems to have felt that it was sufficient. As far as the prophets, many of them lived concurrent lives. It wasn't just one prophet at one time.

Do you mean to say that Old Testament prophecy is being fulfilled in the New Testament?

Absolutely!! When Isaiah spoke of the virgin with child, that wasn't fulfilled until the day that Jesus was born of a virgin. Jesus rose at one point in the Jewish synagogue during services in Nazereth and was handed the scroll of Isaiah to read: He stood up to read, and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written: “The Spirit of the Lord is on me,because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor.He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind,to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”

He ended by proclaiming to those in attendance that they were themselves witnesses to the very fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy. That he was the one that Isaiah had spoken of having the Spirit of the Lord upon him. That he was, right before their very eyes and within their very hearing anointed to proclaim good news to the poor and freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind. That he was the one that Isaiah was prophesying some 700 years previously who would come to free the oppressed and proclaim the year of the Lord's favor. Jesus was declaring to that very group of people that he was the promised Messiah.

So yes, many, many of the old covenant prophecies found their fulfillment in the new covenant. Now, someone might say, on one or two seemingly fulfilled prophecies that it's just a fluke of luck, as has already been proposed about Daniel's prophecy by a believer!! But, this is exactly where I'm expecting reasonable minds to prevail. There are literally a couple of dozen very specific prophecies concerning the birth and life of Jesus and the equation of chance that even a dozen prophecies might be correct runs in the millions to one.

For the reasonable mind, God has given ample 'proof' that He does exist. Through prophetic writings and miraculous deeds, which is exactly what Jesus was using to prove himself the Son of God.

However, I want to keep this discussion focused on Daniel 9:20-27. It is literally, and not only by me, considered one of the greatest and most precise prophecies in all of Scripture. So let's deal with it! What is the evidence, other than I read in a book somewhere, that the writings of Daniel were actually penned in the 2nd Century B.C. As I've already mentioned, we have evidence that the writings of Daniel were just as they currently are, when the Septuagint was translated. The Septuagint was begun in the 3rd century B.C. and the Septuagint was not some new writing. It was a translation of the already existing Hebrew Scriptures. So consider, before it had to be accepted and written into the canon of the Septuagint, it has to have already been accepted and written into the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures. Now, the Hebrew Scriptures consider the writing of Daniel different than the major prophets, as the bible today places his writings, but that doesn't have any bearing on the fact that they writings were pre-existent to the Septuagint translation. They were pre-existent for at least a long enough period to have been accepted as part of the Hebrew Scriptures! I believe that's an important point! Some are trying to say that the 70 translators of the Septuagint just apparently made these writings of Daniel as they were writing the Septuagint, or suddenly decided to add them into the canon of the Septuagint, but that isn't the case at all.

The Septuagint was a Greek version of the Hebrew Bible made for Greek-speaking Jews in Egypt in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC and adopted by the early Christian Churches. Just like our NIV or ESV translations today, they are new translations using modern English language, but the words have existed in their written form for centuries. The group who translated the first NIV didn't just sit down and start writing an entirely new book of supposed godly events. No! They sat down with earlier versions, likely the KJV, which had been around already for centuries and translated, even using some evidences that predated the KJV, to confirm and write out the Scriptures using a more modern English. Sure, there's a word or two, or perhaps even a verse or two that might be different, but there is not one single book of the modern bibles that is not at least 90% exactly what the earlier versions said, but with different words and syntax.

So, I find this idea that the writings of Daniel hadn't been written prior to the Maccabean period, fairly ludicrous and not at all supported by any factual evidence.

nd again, I'm telling you that prophecy was established for a different reason. According to the typical Christian understanding, which you apparently share, there is literally no purpose to prophecy.

What??? You can't be reading my posts and understanding that I think that there is 'literally no purpose to prophecy'. We haven't actually gotten to the part of the discussion yet as to the purpose of prophecy, but your understanding of my understanding is very, very far afield from my understanding of the purpose of prophecy. Prophecy has a very, very important purpose in the plan of God!

Are you saying that you might reject anything that I state merely on a whim, no matter how egregiously unreasonable you might be in doing so?

No.

As far as the parts of my post that you aren't able to understand, we'll revisit those if you'd like.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Hi NV,



I'm not sure that one person interceding was necessary, so much as God seems to have felt that it was sufficient. As far as the prophets, many of them lived concurrent lives. It wasn't just one prophet at one time.

OK.

Absolutely!! When Isaiah spoke of the virgin with child, that wasn't fulfilled until the day that Jesus was born of a virgin.

That makes no sense. Have you read the context of that passage?

13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David: Is it a small thing for you to weary men, that ye will weary my God also?

14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

15 Butter and honey shall he eat, when he knoweth to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings thou abhorrest shall be forsaken.

So... the sign to the king is that Jesus will be born 500 years later?

Jesus rose at one point in the Jewish synagogue during services in Nazereth and was handed the scroll of Isaiah to read: He stood up to read, and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written: “The Spirit of the Lord is on me,because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor.He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind,to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”

He ended by proclaiming to those in attendance that they were themselves witnesses to the very fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy.

None of this is relevant to my point. Once again, how were the ancient Jews supposed to determine who was or wasn't a false prophet? If we start with that question, you'll understand my point.

That he was the one that Isaiah had spoken of having the Spirit of the Lord upon him. That he was, right before their very eyes and within their very hearing anointed to proclaim good news to the poor and freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind. That he was the one that Isaiah was prophesying some 700 years previously who would come to free the oppressed and proclaim the year of the Lord's favor. Jesus was declaring to that very group of people that he was the promised Messiah.

So yes, many, many of the old covenant prophecies found their fulfillment in the new covenant.

Again, the New Testament writers were taking the Old Testament out of context.

Now, someone might say, on one or two seemingly fulfilled prophecies that it's just a fluke of luck, as has already been proposed about Daniel's prophecy by a believer!! But, this is exactly where I'm expecting reasonable minds to prevail. There are literally a couple of dozen very specific prophecies concerning the birth and life of Jesus and the equation of chance that even a dozen prophecies might be correct runs in the millions to one.

Or... maybe the gospel writers took things out of context and jammed square pegs into round holes. As I've shown.

For the reasonable mind, God has given ample 'proof' that He does exist. Through prophetic writings and miraculous deeds, which is exactly what Jesus was using to prove himself the Son of God.

And here I am, pulling teeth trying to get you to answer me on how exactly the process works.

However, I want to keep this discussion focused on Daniel 9:20-27. It is literally, and not only by me, considered one of the greatest and most precise prophecies in all of Scripture. So let's deal with it!

I'm not inclined to do so until you answer the question I've been asking since before the creation of this thread.

Is what I'm asking off topic? Yep. And you're within your perfect manners to refuse me on those grounds. But I'm within my perfect manners to simply ignore this thread then as well.

What is the evidence, other than I read in a book somewhere, that the writings of Daniel were actually penned in the 2nd Century B.C. As I've already mentioned, we have evidence that the writings of Daniel were just as they currently are, when the Septuagint was translated. The Septuagint was begun in the 3rd century B.C. and the Septuagint was not some new writing. It was a translation of the already existing Hebrew Scriptures. So consider, before it had to be accepted and written into the canon of the Septuagint, it has to have already been accepted and written into the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures. Now, the Hebrew Scriptures consider the writing of Daniel different than the major prophets, as the bible today places his writings, but that doesn't have any bearing on the fact that they writings were pre-existent to the Septuagint translation. They were pre-existent for at least a long enough period to have been accepted as part of the Hebrew Scriptures! I believe that's an important point! Some are trying to say that the 70 translators of the Septuagint just apparently made these writings of Daniel as they were writing the Septuagint, or suddenly decided to add them into the canon of the Septuagint, but that isn't the case at all.

The Septuagint was a Greek version of the Hebrew Bible made for Greek-speaking Jews in Egypt in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC and adopted by the early Christian Churches. Just like our NIV or ESV translations today, they are new translations using modern English language, but the words have existed in their written form for centuries. The group who translated the first NIV didn't just sit down and start writing an entirely new book of supposed godly events. No! They sat down with earlier versions, likely the KJV, which had been around already for centuries and translated, even using some evidences that predated the KJV, to confirm and write out the Scriptures using a more modern English. Sure, there's a word or two, or perhaps even a verse or two that might be different, but there is not one single book of the modern bibles that is not at least 90% exactly what the earlier versions said, but with different words and syntax.

So, I find this idea that the writings of Daniel hadn't been written prior to the Maccabean period, fairly ludicrous and not at all supported by any factual evidence.

I don't know whom you're arguing with here. I haven't proposed any evidence at all with regards to when Daniel was written.

What??? You can't be reading my posts and understanding that I think that there is 'literally no purpose to prophecy'. We haven't actually gotten to the part of the discussion yet as to the purpose of prophecy, but your understanding of my understanding is very, very far afield from my understanding of the purpose of prophecy. Prophecy has a very, very important purpose in the plan of God!

The purpose being what?

I've explained how I see it. The fulfillment of prophecy validates the prophet so that he can be the middleman between God and the people. Remember, the people were afraid to look upon God. Thus, an intermediary, called a prophet, is chosen to do it. The prophet is confirmed when his prophecy comes true. This means his prophecy must come true within his own lifetime. Additionally, false prophets are to be executed, which further bolsters my claim that prophecies were expected to be fulfilled within the lifetime of the prophet.

You've absolutely, 100% avoided these points. You've not touched them with a 10-foot pole. I don't understand how you think you're playing the part of a convincing apologist if you continue to dodge the same question over and over. Clearly you have no answer to it.

No.

As far as the parts of my post that you aren't able to understand, we'll revisit those if you'd like.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

OK.

 

[miamited]

Hi NV,

So... the sign to the king is that Jesus will be born 500 years later?

The sign was not to the king. Ahaz said that he didn't want a sign. So the Lord gave a sign unto the 'house of David' = Israel. When Ahaz refused to ask for a sign, God rebuked him through Isaiah's pronouncement against the 'house of David'.

But Ahaz said, “I will not ask; I will not put the LORD to the test.” Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also?

So God forced a sign on Israel. That sign was that the virgin will be with child and that child would be called Immanuel. Sure enough, Matthew accounts for us in the account of Mary finding out that she was with child: All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).

The sign was given to the nation of Israel and at least Matthew and Luke understood that the birth of Jesus was fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy. Also in Luke's account we find that the angel that visited Mary proclaimed that no word of God would ever fail.

Once again, how were the ancient Jews supposed to determine who was or wasn't a false prophet?

The Scriptures account that God's test for a false prophet was that if some prophecy was made that didn't come true, then that prophet did not speak for God. However, a prophecy to be fulfilled decades or centuries later wouldn't have been cause to fail a prophet.

You seem to think that prophecy needed to find some fairly immediate fulfillment so that people could apply the 'test'. Applying some test isn't the purpose of God's written prophecies. God's Scriptures are written for all mankind. Not just those living in the day that a particular prophecy may have been uttered. It wasn't needed for every prophetic word to be tested. Many great men wandered throughout Israel and prophesied for God. I think Israel had long understood that some prophecies were not going to be fulfilled while the present generation was alive.

Moses had prophesied of one to come who would be like him and that Israel should listen to him. That 'one' never came in the lifetime of the generation of people to whom Moses was speaking. Abraham was given a prophecy that his descendants would outnumber the stars. That prophecy obviously wasn't fulfilled for hundreds of years. A lot of the prophecies given to Abraham weren't fulfilled in Abraham's lifetime. That his descendants would be taken captive wasn't fulfilled until long after Abraham's death. Many of the prophecies that God gave unto Abraham's direct children weren't fulfilled in their lifetime's either.

I think this idea that you have that God's prophecies were each intended to be testable within the lifetime of the prophet who spoke, isn't well supported by the Scriptures themselves. I think also, that this idea you have that if a prophecy can't be tested then it really can't be accounted a prophecy, isn't supported either.

It is actually the longer range prophecies that give us substantial proof that God is. God is giving us a sign just as He gave Israel a sign. He utters things that are to come hundreds, sometimes even thousands of years later, as more sure proof that such an utterance could not have come from the wisdom of some man living generations earlier than the event prophesied.

Or... maybe the gospel writers took things out of context and jammed square pegs into round holes. As I've shown.

I'm not clear on how you've shown that yet.

I haven't proposed any evidence at all with regards to when Daniel was written.

I know! That's why I'm asking for it. That is, according to the OP of this thread, a large part of what we are here to discuss.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[miamited]

Hi NV,

I started this as a separate thread because it's a little long. You asked:

And here I am, pulling teeth trying to get you to answer me on how exactly the process works.

've explained how I see it. The fulfillment of prophecy validates the prophet so that he can be the middleman between God and the people.

You've absolutely, 100% avoided these points. You've not touched them with a 10-foot pole. I don't understand how you think you're playing the part of a convincing apologist if you continue to dodge the same question over and over. Clearly you have no answer to it.

According to the Scriptures, about 6,000 years ago, give or take a couple of hundred, God created man upon this planet, existing in this realm, for which He had spent the previous six days creating as a home for man. After getting off to a rocky start and being so aggrieved by the propensity of man's heart to sin, and destroying all living things upon the dry ground, God's word claims that He made a promise to Noah and then called a man by the name of Abram from Ur of the Chaldeans. God made several promises to Abram, later named Abraham, as he was to be the father of many nations.

"No longer will you be called Abram ; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations".

God's promise to Abraham was conditioned upon his obedience to several covenants.

Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come".

So, through the next generations, God held the people of Abraham's descendants under His covenental care. He watched over and protected them, although not always protected from every bad event to come upon them because they were so unfaithful in keeping their part of the covenant. But God promised that there would always be a remnant of Abraham's descendants.

Why was God doing this? Well, it wasn't just so there could be a Jewish nation upon the earth. God was working out a plan to bring salvation back for those who would repent of what they had become in trying to shun Him from their lives. But, before He could culminate that plan, He wanted people to know what the plan was and how He had set it in place.

So, God caused, through His Holy Spirit, for His people to create a written account of all that He had done and was doing for our benefit. But God, knowing how a man thinks, knew that He had to prove that this plan offered to all mankind through the writings of the Jews, was the truth. I mean, you've lived long enough to know that we have at least a dozen fairly major religions and that a lot of people don't believe God's written word at all. So, how could God prove to reasonably thoughtful men and women that it was these words brought forth to us through His people, that truthfully described to us the reality of life? Prophecy!

However, these prophecies weren't given just so that the Jews would believe who God was. In fact, God had already proven to the Jews who He was by the mighty miracles He performed by bringing them out of Egypt and as they wandered in the wilderness. Also, despite your claim to the contrary, prophecy wasn't given so Israel could know who was a true prophet of God. No. Prophecy had a much more important role to play in God's great plan of salvation for those who would believe.

It's easy to think that a prophet who would say that next week or next month such and such was going to happen, could be doctored. But, for someone to say that 400-500 years from now something is going to happen...and it does...well, that's a bit more difficult to fudge. God knew this. God is wiser than you or I could ever hope to imagine. However, the world has always worked to deny the truth of God. So, in order for the world to say that God doesn't exist, then they have to deny the prophetic words of God.

So, I think you should reconsider this idea that prophecy needs to be a short term thing. The strongest proof that a prophecy can provide, that someone other than the man who gave the prophecy exists to give the prophecy, is if it does cover a span of hundreds of years. If a man makes a prophecy that is supposed to be fulfilled in his lifetime and it doesn't come true? Then he just erases that prophecy or does something to make it appear to have come true. But a man who writes down a prophecy that isn't going to be fulfilled for hundreds of years? Well that prophet has no control over its fulfillment or any ability to erase the prophecy from history.

God was talking to you when He told Israel to test the prophets and any prophet who spoke something that didn't come to pass wasn't from Him. He wants you to know that He's using prophecy and its fulfillment hundreds of years later, as sure proof that He does exist. He wants you to understand that yes!, He did give Daniel a prophecy. He wants you to be able to understand that such a prophecy as wouldn't be fulfilled for 500 years didn't come from the mind of Daniel, but as Paul declares of the Scriptures, that Daniel was writing as the Spirit of God led him along.

That is the purpose of prophecy in the Scriptures. God's plan is perfect and God spent 1500 years or so working through the descendants of Abraham to get to the point where His Son would look up from a cross planted in the dirt on a hill called Galgotha and declare: It is finished!! When Jesus died on that cross, he was completing the final step of God's revelation of Himself to all of mankind through His people, Israel. A plan that began one day in a city called Ur in the Chaldeans. A plan that began with God working through the efforts of a man by the name of Abram. A plan that consisted of ancient and holy writings that are choc-a-block full of fulfilled prophecies and prophecies yet to be fulfilled.

It wasn't like Jesus could have dropped out of the sky one day and died for sin and ascended back into heaven. For God's great plan of salvation to work, whereby men would repent of their sin and believe in Him, He needed to present us with a complete overview that would point us to that Jesus when he came. For 1500 years, God worked on all of that great plan and then one day, Jesus came. He came to fulfill the law and provide us with the true testimony about God and, just as those same Scriptures declared, lay down his life for our sin. So as Jesus hung on that cross, about to give up his last breath, he looked up to heaven and declared to his God and Father...It is finished!

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Hi NV,


The sign was not to the king. Ahaz said that he didn't want a sign. So the Lord gave a sign unto the 'house of David' = Israel. When Ahaz refused to ask for a sign, God rebuked him through Isaiah's pronouncement against the 'house of David'.

But Ahaz said, “I will not ask; I will not put the LORD to the test.” Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also?

So God forced a sign on Israel. That sign was that the virgin will be with child and that child would be called Immanuel. Sure enough, Matthew accounts for us in the account of Mary finding out that she was with child: All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).

The sign was given to the nation of Israel and at least Matthew and Luke understood that the birth of Jesus was fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy. Also in Luke's account we find that the angel that visited Mary proclaimed that no word of God would ever fail.

No, that's just not correct. Read the entire context. To summarize:

The king is worried about an impending invasion. Isaiah tells the king to not worry, and that he will be delivered. Further, Isaiah tells the king that he can seek a sign from God to confirm that he will be delivered. Despite the king declining, a sign is given anyway: that a virgin* will give birth to a child, and name him Emmanuel. In the following chapter, Isaiah gathers witnesses to watch him have sex with a woman. Compare Isaiah 8:4 with Isaiah 7:16.

Yes, I know that the child is not named Emmanuel. But neither was Jesus.

Your whole argument hinges upon "the House of David" referring to the descendants of King Ahaz, but of course it could equally refer to the king and his royal court. Your interpretation fails to take into account too many details.


*or maiden

The Scriptures account that God's test for a false prophet was that if some prophecy was made that didn't come true, then that prophet did not speak for God. However, a prophecy to be fulfilled decades or centuries later wouldn't have been cause to fail a prophet.

But it does mean that everyone will believe he's a false prophet, and that he should be put to death. That would make it highly unlikely that they would record what they believe are false prophecies for centuries and continue to recopy them over and over.

You seem to think that prophecy needed to find some fairly immediate fulfillment so that people could apply the 'test'. Applying some test isn't the purpose of God's written prophecies. God's Scriptures are written for all mankind. Not just those living in the day that a particular prophecy may have been uttered. It wasn't needed for every prophetic word to be tested. Many great men wandered throughout Israel and prophesied for God. I think Israel had long understood that some prophecies were not going to be fulfilled while the present generation was alive.

And where does it say this? Should I take your speculation over what I can read in the Bible?

Moses had prophesied of one to come who would be like him and that Israel should listen to him. That 'one' never came in the lifetime of the generation of people to whom Moses was speaking.

It was Joshua.

Abraham was given a prophecy that his descendants would outnumber the stars. That prophecy obviously wasn't fulfilled for hundreds of years.

That was a prophecy from God, so there is no need to apply a test. The test is just to see if the person can be trusted to relay a message from God. If it's coming directly from God, why do you think I'm saying there would have to be a test? I think this counterexample of yours is pretty dishonest and I'm disappointed.

A lot of the prophecies given to Abraham weren't fulfilled in Abraham's lifetime. That his descendants would be taken captive wasn't fulfilled until long after Abraham's death. Many of the prophecies that God gave unto Abraham's direct children weren't fulfilled in their lifetime's either.

Again, I'm disappointed that you're making this case.

I think this idea that you have that God's prophecies were each intended to be testable within the lifetime of the prophet who spoke, isn't well supported by the Scriptures themselves.

I gave you the scripture that supports it directly. Your arguments nullify that portion of scripture.

I think also, that this idea you have that if a prophecy can't be tested then it really can't be accounted a prophecy, isn't supported either.

It is actually the longer range prophecies that give us substantial proof that God is. God is giving us a sign just as He gave Israel a sign. He utters things that are to come hundreds, sometimes even thousands of years later, as more sure proof that such an utterance could not have come from the wisdom of some man living generations earlier than the event prophesied.



I'm not clear on how you've shown that yet.



I know! That's why I'm asking for it. That is, according to the OP of this thread, a large part of what we are here to discuss.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Hopefully it's more clear now where I'm coming from.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Hi NV,

I started this as a separate thread because it's a little long. You asked:






According to the Scriptures, about 6,000 years ago, give or take a couple of hundred, God created man upon this planet, existing in this realm, for which He had spent the previous six days creating as a home for man.

I think you'll find that if you talk with the other Christians on this forum, this is more or less considered to be a "wacko" belief. No offense. I used to believe this also.

After getting off to a rocky start and being so aggrieved by the propensity of man's heart to sin, and destroying all living things upon the dry ground, God's word claims that He made a promise to Noah and then called a man by the name of Abram from Ur of the Chaldeans.

The flood story is also quite bonkers. All plant life underwater for a year...? I'm not sure how the freshwater fish and brine fish both survived. And the logistics of the ark are mind boggling. And then there's the issue of the whole world being infertile due to being covered in salt. And the list goes on and on.

God made several promises to Abram, later named Abraham, as he was to be the father of many nations.

"No longer will you be called Abram ; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations".

God's promise to Abraham was conditioned upon his obedience to several covenants.

Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come".

So, through the next generations, God held the people of Abraham's descendants under His covenental care. He watched over and protected them, although not always protected from every bad event to come upon them because they were so unfaithful in keeping their part of the covenant. But God promised that there would always be a remnant of Abraham's descendants.

Why was God doing this? Well, it wasn't just so there could be a Jewish nation upon the earth. God was working out a plan to bring salvation back for those who would repent of what they had become in trying to shun Him from their lives. But, before He could culminate that plan, He wanted people to know what the plan was and how He had set it in place.

So, God caused, through His Holy Spirit, for His people to create a written account of all that He had done and was doing for our benefit. But God, knowing how a man thinks, knew that He had to prove that this plan offered to all mankind through the writings of the Jews, was the truth. I mean, you've lived long enough to know that we have at least a dozen fairly major religions and that a lot of people don't believe God's written word at all. So, how could God prove to reasonably thoughtful men and women that it was these words brought forth to us through His people, that truthfully described to us the reality of life? Prophecy!

However, these prophecies weren't given just so that the Jews would believe who God was. In fact, God had already proven to the Jews who He was by the mighty miracles He performed by bringing them out of Egypt and as they wandered in the wilderness. Also, despite your claim to the contrary, prophecy wasn't given so Israel could know who was a true prophet of God. No. Prophecy had a much more important role to play in God's great plan of salvation for those who would believe.

If the purpose of prophecy is to prove to us that God is real, then why are they all cryptic, imprecise, and poetic? Oh, and yanked out of context. I mean, take the "piercing of my hands and feet" so-called prophecy. Just read Psalm 22. It's talking about arena combat with deadly animals. Nothing to do with crucifixion at all.

It's easy to think that a prophet who would say that next week or next month such and such was going to happen, could be doctored. But, for someone to say that 400-500 years from now something is going to happen...and it does...well, that's a bit more difficult to fudge.

All we see is Matthew fudging the details repeatedly. How about another one. "Out of Egypt I have called my son." Out of context!

God knew this. God is wiser than you or I could ever hope to imagine. However, the world has always worked to deny the truth of God. So, in order for the world to say that God doesn't exist, then they have to deny the prophetic words of God.

You're the one denying the prophetic words of God. I've explained to you that false prophets are to be put to death. This absolutely mandates that their prophecies come to pass before they die. Yet you seem to think that in an era where a book costed the modern equivalent of a new car, these people would preserve unfulfilled prophecies for centuries. The gymnastics here are astounding.

So, I think you should reconsider this idea that prophecy needs to be a short term thing.

Then merely explain the logic of how a person from 1000 BC could tell the difference between a legitimate prophet and a false prophet.

The strongest proof that a prophecy can provide, that someone other than the man who gave the prophecy exists to give the prophecy, is if it does cover a span of hundreds of years.

Let's just assume for this paragraph that your understanding of prophecy is correct. And let's further assume that your understanding of Isaiah 7 is correct. What are we left with? How do we know Mary was a virgin? How do we know Mary and Joseph were visited by angels? If we assume that Mary was 14 years old when she was impregnated by the holy spirit, and then we add 34 years for the pregnancy and life of Christ, and then roughly 30 years until the first gospel being written, we have Mary at age 78. Long, long past life expectancy back then. In short, the gospel writers were not present to witness the angel talking to Mary and Joseph, nor do the gospel writers share how they came about the information, nor is it reasonable to assume that Mary was available for interviewing at the time. We basically just have fiction flowing from the pen, and it proves nothing. It certainly doesn't prove that a prophecy was fulfilled just because someone wrote it down!

If a man makes a prophecy that is supposed to be fulfilled in his lifetime and it doesn't come true? Then he just erases that prophecy or does something to make it appear to have come true.

Huh? Erase the prophecy? No, he'd be executed. Do you mean to say he would write it down and not show anyone until after the events occur? Then no one would believe him when he shows his prophecy. Prophets had to put themselves on the hook, and if their predictions failed, their lives were required of them. This is a culture that executed a guy for picking up firewood on the Sabbath. What do you think they would do to a false prophet?

But a man who writes down a prophecy that isn't going to be fulfilled for hundreds of years? Well that prophet has no control over its fulfillment or any ability to erase the prophecy from history.

And again, who is going to take custodial care of those prophecies for hundreds of years? Even with today's technology, where we can store novels in practically microscopic storages, we still wouldn't bother keeping a prediction of the future for hundreds of years as it continues to not come true. Yet you want to have me believe that they were maintaining these predictions for hundreds of years in an era of history where books were cripplingly expensive!

God was talking to you when He told Israel to test the prophets and any prophet who spoke something that didn't come to pass wasn't from Him. He wants you to know that He's using prophecy and its fulfillment hundreds of years later, as sure proof that He does exist.

Alternatively, Jesus could've given just three or four lines about germ theory and that would've been vastly more effective.

He wants you to understand that yes!, He did give Daniel a prophecy. He wants you to be able to understand that such a prophecy as wouldn't be fulfilled for 500 years didn't come from the mind of Daniel, but as Paul declares of the Scriptures, that Daniel was writing as the Spirit of God led him along.

That is the purpose of prophecy in the Scriptures. God's plan is perfect and God spent 1500 years or so working through the descendants of Abraham to get to the point where His Son would look up from a cross planted in the dirt on a hill called Galgotha and declare: It is finished!! When Jesus died on that cross, he was completing the final step of God's revelation of Himself to all of mankind through His people, Israel. A plan that began one day in a city called Ur in the Chaldeans. A plan that began with God working through the efforts of a man by the name of Abram. A plan that consisted of ancient and holy writings that are choc-a-block full of fulfilled prophecies and prophecies yet to be fulfilled.

It wasn't like Jesus could have dropped out of the sky one day and died for sin and ascended back into heaven. For God's great plan of salvation to work, whereby men would repent of their sin and believe in Him, He needed to present us with a complete overview that would point us to that Jesus when he came. For 1500 years, God worked on all of that great plan and then one day, Jesus came. He came to fulfill the law and provide us with the true testimony about God and, just as those same Scriptures declared, lay down his life for our sin. So as Jesus hung on that cross, about to give up his last breath, he looked up to heaven and declared to his God and Father...It is finished!

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Alternatively, God could've just forgiven us as an act of will.

 

[BigV]

So God forced a sign on Israel. That sign was that the virgin will be with child and that child would be called Immanuel.

You probably know that a 'virgin' was used by Greek translators, where as the original Hebrew did not use "virgin".

Can you clarify on what do you believe the word of God is? Is God inspiring only the originals or also translations, including mistranslations?


Secondly, lets grant that virgin is to conceive. How could this sign be verified? What use is there for this sort of a sign?

 

[miamited]

Hi NV,

Well, let me repeat that I wanted this thread to try and stick to the prophecy of Daniel 9:20-27. However in response to:

Your whole argument hinges upon "the House of David" referring to the descendants of King Ahaz, but of course it could equally refer to the king and his royal court. Your interpretation fails to take into account too many details.

I'm using the same reasoning that the Jewish writers of the new covenant used in declaring that the prophecy given to king Ahaz was understood to be fulfilled in the birth of Jesus.

But it does mean that everyone will believe he's a false prophet, and that he should be put to death.

Although I've tried to explain that it doesn't, you could at least look at what happened to them to know that there doesn't seem to be a single hue and cry from any of the Jews that it should. You could also consider that these writings are still found in the Jewish tanach, and it would seem pretty clear to me that if the Jews, even today, didn't still consider these men as prophets of their God, they wouldn't be there.

So, you could allow the historical record of the Scriptures and how they were accepted by Judaism, or not, to guide your understanding. There has never been a single complaint with any merit, raised that Isaiah was not a prophet of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Besides offering to you my understanding of this issue of putting prophets to death or not believing a particular prophet, there is an historical account of how those who wrote down the Scriptures understood these things. As I mentioned in another post, one of the things that the Jews were extremely careful about, despite their oft repeated rebellion to God, was their care and concern for the Scriptures. According to Paul, that was one of their God given responsibilities and they did seem to handle that part of their duties pretty well. Which, BTW, is exactly what you agreed:

That would make it highly unlikely that they would record what they believe are false prophecies for centuries and continue to recopy them over and over.

Although, you think they copied them for centuries because you believe that they must have been fulfilled in that day, despite there being a shred of evidence that most of them were.

And where does it say this? Should I take your speculation over what I can read in the Bible?

No! You should take the evidence of the history of the Jews as evidence that there doesn't seem to be a single prophet that is put to death for any of the prophecies found in the Scriptures, despite there not being any acknowledgment that so many of the prophecies do not have any historical fulfillment beyond what is written in the Scriptures.

It was Joshua.

No, it wasn't. Joshua was not a prophet. There is absolutely no recognition within Judaism that Joshua was ever considered a prophet in Israel.

The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him.

why do you think I'm saying there would have to be a test?

I honestly don't know. The Scriptures never offer or infer that a prophet's words must be always be tested. They only say that if what a prophet says does not come to pass, do not listen to him. That prophet should be put to death. As I have repeated now, the historical record of Judaism would certainly offer evidence that the Jews didn't see things the way you do. What was the fulfillment of the virgin with child? What was the near time fulfillment of Micah's words: “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”

I've explained to you that false prophets are to be put to death. This absolutely mandates that their prophecies come to pass before they die.

Yes, you have explained your position and seem fairly tenacious in holding on to it. Despite the historical record that most of the prophecies of the prophets found in the Scriptures did not find fulfillment within their lifetimes and none of them seemed to be even considered that they should die.
This seems to be just a way for you to deny the truth, of which man finds many, but unwilling to even consider that the historical record denies what you so tenaciously hold to.

Unable to even consider that prophecy was not always written for that present generation to even understand how it would be fulfilled. That the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob used prophecy not only to prove His foreknowledge to them that lived in the day that some of the prophesies were spoken, but also to you and I, and future generations to come.

Anyway, let's get back to Daniel. You have made your position known that you aren't a believer in the fulfillment or purpose of prophecy. Got it! So, what's your position on the writings of Daniel? Written in the days of Daniel, or some other time period?

My final word regarding all of the other prophecies of the Scriptures that you are now bringing up to digress from the purpose of the thread, is that the Scriptures themselves show that the Jews did not kill these prophets despite there being no obvious fulfillment in the days that they were spoken. Joshua is not once considered, nor even today considered to have been a prophet. Joshua was a leader who followed what God told him to do. There is one single account of Joshua making a single statement regarding future events.

At that time Joshua pronounced this solemn oath: “Cursed before the Lord is the one who undertakes to rebuild this city, Jericho:

“At the cost of his firstborn son
he will lay its foundations;
at the cost of his youngest
he will set up its gates.”

We find in the book of 1 Kings the fulfillment of that curse. Keep in mind, for your benefit, that this is some 600 years after Joshua made his pronouncement. So again, your 'test' of a prophet fails.

In Ahab’s time, Hiel of Bethel rebuilt Jericho. He laid its foundations at the cost of his firstborn son Abiram, and he set up its gates at the cost of his youngest son Segub, in accordance with the word of the Lord spoken by Joshua son of Nun.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[miamited]

Hi NV,

Thanks for your response:

Alternatively, God could've just forgiven us as an act of will.

No he couldn't have. It's worth reading the Scriptures through and understanding, as I wrote previously, the 'plan' of God. God created all that is. Man sinned and God knew that he would sin. After all, man was made lower than the angels and they sinned. However, in this realm of His creating, He instituted a plan for man's salvation. That plan causes, within a man's heart, the realization that there is a God and He deserves honor and glory for all that He has done that we might even have life. That there is oxygen within the atmosphere of the earth that we might even have our next breath or the first one we took as we came from the womb of our mother. As I have said previously, that plan took some 1500 years of God working through His people to come to the point where His Son would declare that, "It is finished."

The final purpose of God's plan is found in the book of the Revelation of Jesus, chapter 21.

Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.” He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!” Then he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.” He said to me: “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water without cost from the spring of the water of life. Those who are victorious will inherit all this, and I will be their God and they will be my children. But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”

All those who considered the plan and understood what God was doing through all of these centuries and millennia of life on this created earth; those who agreed with God and, as His Son says, "love(d) the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and soul, God's plan is that those people, not everyone who has ever been born, will enjoy an eternal existence with Him. An existence that Jesus tells us will be one of peace and security in our lives for all eternity. So no, God cannot just forgive everyone as an act of His will. If He were to do that, then the eternal existence would be just like our present existence. We would have the wicked living with the righteous.

God is wiser than you or I could ever hope to be and His plan is, as everything that God conceives, perfect! It allows life to go on in this present realm, yet allows us the opportunity to choose life with God. Where we will be His people, and He will be our God. It is a plan, that seems to be clearly unfolding throughout the old covenant, and then, once completed, as Peter writes, leads us into the days of God's mercy and patience. Where He is merciful to allow us to continue to draw breath despite our sin, but patient in waiting for those who will believe, to come into the knowledge of that belief.

"The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance".

Friend, it's a perfect plan. As one studies the Scriptures, and asks for the wisdom and knowledge of the Holy Spirit in that effort of study, the plan becomes quite obvious. God's desire has never been that the prophets be held accountable unto death, nor that Judaism be some everlasting religion. It was merely the part of His great and perfect plan, to use His people to make known to all mankind His power and majesty, patience and mercy, love and compassion...for man. The purpose for which all things in this realm were created.

God does love you and He wants you to know Him. He desires that in that knowledge of knowing Him, that you also love Him. All of this in fulfillment of Jesus' words to his disciples, "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father."

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Hi NV,

Well, let me repeat that I wanted this thread to try and stick to the prophecy of Daniel 9:20-27.

Then I will cease and desist after responding to these last two posts of yours.

However in response to:


I'm using the same reasoning that the Jewish writers of the new covenant used in declaring that the prophecy given to king Ahaz was understood to be fulfilled in the birth of Jesus.

Given all of my counterpoints, this is inadequate.

Although I've tried to explain that it doesn't, you could at least look at what happened to them to know that there doesn't seem to be a single hue and cry from any of the Jews that it should. You could also consider that these writings are still found in the Jewish tanach, and it would seem pretty clear to me that if the Jews, even today, didn't still consider these men as prophets of their God, they wouldn't be there.

That's exactly the point. They wouldn't record prophecies unless they actually considered them to be prophetic.

So, you could allow the historical record of the Scriptures and how they were accepted by Judaism, or not, to guide your understanding. There has never been a single complaint with any merit, raised that Isaiah was not a prophet of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

We're clearly not communicating well. I've never claimed that Isaiah was not a prophet. I said the exact opposite. I said that he made a prophecy in Isaiah 7 and that it came true in the next chapter, exactly in line with my model of how prophecy works.

Besides offering to you my understanding of this issue of putting prophets to death or not believing a particular prophet,

You've not offered me your understanding. You've completely ignored the issue. I've absolutely not gotten an explanation as to how false prophecy is handled in your view.

there is an historical account of how those who wrote down the Scriptures understood these things. As I mentioned in another post, one of the things that the Jews were extremely careful about, despite their oft repeated rebellion to God, was their care and concern for the Scriptures. According to Paul, that was one of their God given responsibilities and they did seem to handle that part of their duties pretty well. Which, BTW, is exactly what you agreed:

At this point we're just going in circles.

Although, you think they copied them for centuries because you believe that they must have been fulfilled in that day, despite there being a shred of evidence that most of them were.

Do you mean, "...despite there not being a shred of evidence..."?

I gave you evidence. Isaiah 7:16 cf. Isaiah 8:4. There's also plenty of poetry that is misconstrued as prophecy, such as Psalm 22.

No! You should take the evidence of the history of the Jews as evidence that there doesn't seem to be a single prophet that is put to death for any of the prophecies found in the Scriptures, despite there not being any acknowledgment that so many of the prophecies do not have any historical fulfillment beyond what is written in the Scriptures.



No, it wasn't. Joshua was not a prophet. There is absolutely no recognition within Judaism that Joshua was ever considered a prophet in Israel.

If the above images do not load, simply Google "was joshua a prophet" and also look at his Wikipedia page.

The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him.


I honestly don't know. The Scriptures never offer or infer that a prophet's words must be always be tested. They only say that if what a prophet says does not come to pass, do not listen to him. That prophet should be put to death.

Yes, exactly correct.

As I have repeated now, the historical record of Judaism would certainly offer evidence that the Jews didn't see things the way you do.

That's your opinion and clearly you won't be swayed.

What was the fulfillment of the virgin with child?

This is simply aggravating. I explained in detail that it was in the very next chapter. Again, Isaiah gathered witnesses to watch him have sex with a woman and then a couple verses later the child quoted Isaiah 7:16.

What was the near time fulfillment of Micah's words:

“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”

I don't know. I haven't looked into that one. And the way this is going, I'm not inclined to bother.

Yes, you have explained your position and seem fairly tenacious in holding on to it. Despite the historical record that most of the prophecies of the prophets found in the Scriptures did not find fulfillment within their lifetimes and none of them seemed to be even considered that they should die.
This seems to be just a way for you to deny the truth, of which man finds many, but unwilling to even consider that the historical record denies what you so tenaciously hold to.

Unable to even consider that prophecy was not always written for that present generation to even understand how it would be fulfilled. That the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob used prophecy not only to prove His foreknowledge to them that lived in the day that some of the prophesies were spoken, but also to you and I, and future generations to come.

Anyway, let's get back to Daniel. You have made your position known that you aren't a believer in the fulfillment or purpose of prophecy. Got it!

No, sir, you're the one who is not a believer in the purpose of prophecy. I've explained what the purpose is. Your explanation is silly to me. Again, if God wants to implant evidence of divine foreknowledge, he could've explained germ theory rather than these poetic, cryptic bits of passage that you call prophecy.

So, what's your position on the writings of Daniel? Written in the days of Daniel, or some other time period?

I haven't investigated who the author of Daniel was. However, what I do know is that it was mostly the educated Jews that were taken into Babylonian captivity. I know Daniel was a eunuch, so he might've been a servant of female royalty. So it's conceivable that he was educated. These are all things that I could look up rather easily if I were so inclined, of course.

My final word regarding all of the other prophecies of the Scriptures that you are now bringing up to digress from the purpose of the thread, is that the Scriptures themselves show that the Jews did not kill these prophets despite there being no obvious fulfillment in the days that they were spoken.

Again, we simply disagree. I've shown where there was local fulfillment. The rest, as I said, are poems misconstrued as prophecy. You've given me something from Micah that I can't be bothered to deal with. Other than that, I've answered everything. I'm shaking the dust off my sandals!

Joshua is not once considered, nor even today considered to have been a prophet. Joshua was a leader who followed what God told him to do.

I've already refuted that above.

There is one single account of Joshua making a single statement regarding future events.

At that time Joshua pronounced this solemn oath: “Cursed before the Lord is the one who undertakes to rebuild this city, Jericho:

“At the cost of his firstborn son
he will lay its foundations;
at the cost of his youngest
he will set up its gates.”

We find in the book of 1 Kings the fulfillment of that curse. Keep in mind, for your benefit, that this is some 600 years after Joshua made his pronouncement. So again, your 'test' of a prophet fails.

Another one I haven't looked into. If my understanding requires revision, then I'm not afraid to do so.

In Ahab’s time, Hiel of Bethel rebuilt Jericho. He laid its foundations at the cost of his firstborn son Abiram, and he set up its gates at the cost of his youngest son Segub, in accordance with the word of the Lord spoken by Joshua son of Nun.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Hi NV,

Thanks for your response:


No he couldn't have.

Of course he could.

It's worth reading the Scriptures through and understanding, as I wrote previously, the 'plan' of God. God created all that is. Man sinned and God knew that he would sin. After all, man was made lower than the angels and they sinned. However, in this realm of His creating, He instituted a plan for man's salvation. That plan causes, within a man's heart, the realization that there is a God and He deserves honor and glory for all that He has done that we might even have life. That there is oxygen within the atmosphere of the earth that we might even have our next breath or the first one we took as we came from the womb of our mother. As I have said previously, that plan took some 1500 years of God working through His people to come to the point where His Son would declare that, "It is finished."

The final purpose of God's plan is found in the book of the Revelation of Jesus, chapter 21.

Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.” He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!” Then he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.” He said to me: “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water without cost from the spring of the water of life. Those who are victorious will inherit all this, and I will be their God and they will be my children. But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”

All those who considered the plan and understood what God was doing through all of these centuries and millennia of life on this created earth; those who agreed with God and, as His Son says, "love(d) the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and soul, God's plan is that those people, not everyone who has ever been born, will enjoy an eternal existence with Him. An existence that Jesus tells us will be one of peace and security in our lives for all eternity. So no, God cannot just forgive everyone as an act of His will. If He were to do that, then the eternal existence would be just like our present existence. We would have the wicked living with the righteous.

God is wiser than you or I could ever hope to be and His plan is, as everything that God conceives, perfect! It allows life to go on in this present realm, yet allows us the opportunity to choose life with God. Where we will be His people, and He will be our God. It is a plan, that seems to be clearly unfolding throughout the old covenant, and then, once completed, as Peter writes, leads us into the days of God's mercy and patience. Where He is merciful to allow us to continue to draw breath despite our sin, but patient in waiting for those who will believe, to come into the knowledge of that belief.

"The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance".

Friend, it's a perfect plan. As one studies the Scriptures, and asks for the wisdom and knowledge of the Holy Spirit in that effort of study, the plan becomes quite obvious. God's desire has never been that the prophets be held accountable unto death, nor that Judaism be some everlasting religion. It was merely the part of His great and perfect plan, to use His people to make known to all mankind His power and majesty, patience and mercy, love and compassion...for man. The purpose for which all things in this realm were created.

God does love you and He wants you to know Him. He desires that in that knowledge of knowing Him, that you also love Him. All of this in fulfillment of Jesus' words to his disciples, "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father."

God bless,
In Christ, ted

OK, thanks for that. Personally, I find the idea of being reincarnated on another planet to be a little... weird. But if that's what you want to cling to, that's your prerogative.