The Prophecy of the 70 weeks of Daniel

I see three problems with the arguments in the OP.First, it is incumbent upon anyone making a claim of prophesy fulfilled - biblical or otherwise - to produce iron clad evidence that the prophesy was indeed made before the actual events predicted. The BURDEN OF PROOF is on the plaintiff, not the naysayers. As I see no evidence that the OP has done this, there seems to be a failure on point one.Second, we have all read about Nostradamas predicting this and that in modern world history. But again, no one has documented a case of being able to predict something next year based on reading Nostradamas - in other words, the prophesy is not useful for predicting real events - all we have is people saying AFTERWARD - yes Nostradamas predicted 9-11, etc. It seems to me Daniel has the same problem. And Revelations, for that matter. How many "marks of the beast" and Antichrists have been identified over the years?Third - I have always had a problem with the story of Jesus and the donkey. How useful is a prophesy if someone does something to make sure it "fulfills the prophesy?" It smacks of contrivance to say the least on the part of the followers writing it down. Of course if OUR GUY did something in line with prophesy it adds to his credibility with the people who care about such stuff, doesn't it? Isn't it just as likely that the donkey story was invented after the fact to make things line up? (There is also the problem that the disciples actually stole the donkey, if the text is correct, but delving into the implications of that would definately be off-topic.)

I am underwhelmed. Either you repeat the basic mantra that it had to be dated to such and such a time because the writer mentioned certain things (that is what is known as a circular argument.) or you kiss it off with some quip. And no one is arguing that the book of Daniel was not available to New Testament writers. So I fail to see the point there.The Nostradamas example was to point out that claims of fulfillment of ancient predictions are a dime a dozen and how are the Daniel predictions/fulfillments any different? In other words, name ONE prophesy from Daniel which has been used to successfully predict a modern event BEFORE it happened. Be specific so that the evidence can be examined and other explanations ruled out.You didn't even try to address the point of the donkey story. "There are so many things......" What things in connection with this incident? It was cited as fulfillment of prophesy. I pointed out the obvious fallacy of that. You didn't give an adequate defense.Edited by deerbreh, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Well, you see, patterns repeat themselves, and often , patterns are imagined where there are none existing. This is the basis of 'end of times' prophecy.
I see people taking vague symbolism, and reinventing what it was meant to portray. When someone sagely quotes this vague symbolism, and insist it means 'thus and thus', sorry, but it isn't clear their claim is valid.

​

I have yet to see any prophecy that does not do that.

---

And you are not likely to. I have been following this stuff since I was a wide eyed kid and believed it all. Let's just say I have a little different prespective now. The amazing thing to me is that folks will believe these end times guys even as the dates for certain predicted events come and go with nary a successful hit.

"Elaborate hoaxes" "forgeries" and "Conspiracies" are your constructions, not mine. Take your strawmen elsewhere.The dates cannot be substantiated. The authorships cannot be substantiated. That doesn't mean there were hoaxes going on. I would put it more in the category of wishful thinking - just as you are doing. The fact that texts are "revered" and part of the canon means little. A lot of people revere and canonize the Book of Morman. Does that mean it has to be true in a literal sense? No.

quote:

---

Terms for what would have had to have happened if your unsupportable dream doubts about a solidly evidenced book were valid at all.

---

No. You do not get to characterize the arguments of others - that is the logical fallacy known as the "strawman argument." There are reasons other than conspiracies and hoaxes why the text of any ancient book should not be taken literally - epic myth for example.

quote:

---

As it stands, the dates cannot be unsubstantiated!!!

---

Classic logical fallacy of someone without a solid argument - demanding that someone "prove a negative". Sorry - the burden of proof is on the person making the claim that an event occured at a certain time in a certain place - not on the skeptic. Edited by deerbreh, : No reason given.

quote:

---

You seem to be looking for the foretelling of a future event that is yet to take place that is stated in the Bible.

​

I would like to point out a couple.

---

I think it is more like what skeptics need is an example of something that was predicted actually having occured and someone using the scripture to predict it before it happened - not something yet to occur, as we can't verify the future - and not something that happened yesterday and then someone saying, "Oh yeah, that was predicted in the Bible" followed by a long explanation of how this means that and this is symbolic of that, blah blah blah.

And do we know that the Gospel writer WROTE it down before it (temple destruction in 70 AD) happened? No. I rather think you proved my point.

quote:

---

So, who gets to say who has the positive, and who has the negative!? You? Don't think so. That is a plumb wrong notion fallacy.

---

Direct quote from Starman:

quote:

---

As it stands, the dates cannot be unsubstantiated!!!

---

Classic example of asking that someone "prove a negative". Your words. Doesn't matter what I say. You impaled yourself on the logical fallacy.

quote:

---

Basically, yes we do. Jesus died a certain year. Check your calendar to get the general time, it is set to Him after all, the year of our Lord!!!! Jesus was the one that prophesied it!! Some say He alluded to a Daniel prophesy the prophesied the same!!

---

Basic logic eludes you doesn't it? The fact that we may know that Jesus died before AD 70 does not mean he actually made the prediction. We only have the the gospel of Matthew account that he made the prediction and we do not know that the book of Matthew was written before AD 70. People's memories play tricks on them, particularly when they are trying to "build up" the reputation of a revered leader as a prophet. We don't even know for sure WHO wrote the book of Matthew, WHEN it was written, or which words are part of the original account and which words might have been ADDED later by some overzealous scribes trying to enhance the reputation of Jesus as a prophet. You seem to have the quaint notion that the disciples were following Jesus around taking notes in their little spiral bound stenographer's notebooks. Unlikely, to say the least. The disciples of Jesus were a rough hewn lot - likely for the most part illiterate. The disciple Matthew was supposedly a tax collector, we do not know that he was literate. It was not the prestigious occupation of a scholarly man - more like the patronage job of a political hack. There is some disagreement as to whether he was the actual author of the gospel bearing his name. 'Both the style of Greek used and the means of describing events lead some to conclude that the author of the gospel was not a companion of the historic Jesus. Some use the designation "Matthew the Evangelist" to refer to the anonymous gospel author, and "Matthew the Apostle" to refer to the Biblical figure described.' (Matthew the Apostle - Wikipedia)
In any event ascribing those words to Jesus cannot be proven one way or the other, so it cannot count as a verified prediction.

quote:

---

Are you going to now try to make Daniel after 70 AD as well!!??

---

No. And why would I? It is immaterial as to whether Jesus actually said it or not. And it is quite a stretch to say that Daniel predicted the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Again, make your own arguments. Stop trying to make mine. Besides being the logical fallacy of a strawman, it is quite rude.In any event, predicting the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple was not exactly a brilliant prophesy for someone in the time of Daniel or in the first century. Jerusalem had lots of enemies in both periods and one thing that victorious enemies did in both periods was knock down cities and temples in a scorched earth policy when there were wars or rebellions.

quote:

---

You are assuming that the disciple Matthew wrote anything. What we have is the Gospel according to Matthew, which is an anonymous work.

---

Hear hear. Misplaced sarcasm by ICANT when one considers that contemporary biblical scholarship places the authorship of the Gospel of Matthew at the end of the first century by an anonymous author.
Gospel of Matthew - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Do you know the date of the earliest gMat we have?

---

I suspect ICANT can't tell you that.

quote:

---

All four Gospels are anonymous, a fact that isn't publicised very often.

---

As I pointed out earlier, the notion that the motley crew known as the disciples were following Jesus around taking notes is just silly.

I don't believe I made any claims at all - just challenged your claim that the dates etc. could be substantiated - which you still haven't done. All you do is go back to the text itself and that is circular logic. You can't prove the accuracy of the text with the text. Again, it is not up to me to disprove your claim - it us up to you to prove your claim. Ball is still in your court as it has been all along.

quote:

---

we knew that that record was Matthew's.

---

Who is "We"? Actually WE don't know that. That is not the consensus of modern Biblical scholars, anyway. Not if you mean the disciple Matthew. In fact, WE really don't know much about the authorship of any of the Gospels. There is little evidence that any of them were authored by disciples of Jesus.

quote:

---

I can understand why you would not make such notes.

​

But why do you conclude from your prospective what someone else would do.

---

It has nothing to do with what I would do in the 21st century. It has everything to do with what mostly illiterate followers of Jesus would do in the 1st century with the writing technology which was available.Writing was a profession (why do you think they were called scribes?)- not something the average joe would/could do.Even if someone were literate, writing instruments, paper, etc. were expensive and cumbersome - not something you could carry around like a reporter's notebook and ballpoint pen.

quote:

---

Irenaeus, quoted Papias, a follower of John and a companion of Polycarp as quoted by Eusebius. So Papias existed.

​

He said Matthew was written in Hebrew. This dates to 60 AD.

​

Irenaeus (130-200) (Adv. Haer. 3.1.1; also quoted by Eusebius, H.E. 5.8.2): said Matthew brought forth a written gospel in Hebrew while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome.

---

So you have true believer folks quoting true believer folks who were quoting other true believer folks. And then you have modern unbiased biblical scholarship with ability to do linguistic and textual analysis. The unbiased biblical scholars say Matthew was written in Greek. The true believer folks quoting true believer folks say it was written in Hebrew. Hmmm. (Balance motions with right and left hands) Whom to believe?The antiintellectualism of fundamentalist literalism is breathtaking to behold.