Why Do the Rabbis Defame Daniel the Prophet? (Page 4) DontNeedChrist: LOL, not interested in "defeating" jesus or anyone. Get a grip. Just correcting your erroneous and misleading manipulation of Hebrew Scripture. Seems to hit a nerve. Don't be such a drama queen. Seriously! Apokalupto: you have yet to address the fact that I shed light on your manipulation of the text. you inserted a clear conditional statement that does not exist in the text, in other words you made it up to manipulate your Jewish propaganda. and then you thought your Hebrew word definitions disproves anything, which no one cares about because we know that you are a proven charlatan on that matter. but even from your perspective I just told you that Jesus took on the sin of the world, and Jesus said thus for this reason, my God my God why hast thou forsaken me. your little Hebrew explanation gives you no excuses. if you don't have Jesus you don't have the Father either. you're proving Jesus for us. : ) DontNeedChrist: You're just preaching from your pulpit again while abandoning the conversation. I keep handing your head to you on a platter and all you can do is call me a liar and a charlatan. You have nothing in your corner anymore. Your arsenal is empty. BTW, those were DAVID's words. Just because jesus screamed DAVID's words out to himself or his "father" or whomever doesn't mean anything. He couldn't even save himself. He has nothing to fear from a schmuck like me anyway. LOL! Apokalupto: if you give up and have no answers no rebuttal no reply do not address the points made, then it's an automatic loss for you, we don't have to admit to any winning, it's apparent at that point. all you have is insults to make your point, I told you you couldn't defeat Jesus ~_^ Apokalupto: "I keep handing your head to you on a platter"-DNM nice graphic anti-christian comment you got there. JX, I think I see a big sore loser, lol. he keeps disproving Judaism and proving Jesus Christ. he walked face first into that one didn't he. (referring to his kareit explanation) isn't it amazing and ironic how Dont-Need-Messiah just proves the Messiah Jesus for us? absolutely amazing, exquisite, I love it! (Edited by Apokalupto) DontNeedChrist: "Seventy weeks [of years] have been decreed upon your people and upon the city of your Sanctuary to terminate the transgression and to end sin, and to expiate iniquity, and to bring eternal righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies." Read the verse. It's a time frame for the Jews to stop straying from G-d. I didn't manipulate anything. What do you think will happen if they ignore the decree? Free ice cream for everyone? It's an ultimatum. You Jews have a set amount of time to get your act together or else. The plain reading of the text is obvious. Stop accusing me of manipulating scripture. I have no agenda and no need to manipulate scripture. You have to answer for adding "virgin" to Isaiah 7 and the like. Give me a break. My strength is the text itself as-is which I present unfiltered and un-manipulated. DontNeedChrist: And it's not a "kareit explanation." It's the exact definition. Your post makes no sense as usual. Apokalupto: you've still added a conditional statement that does not exist in the text. it's easy to manipulate things when you don't take things into context and that's exactly what you are doing, so you are unable to honestly claim that the text is your strength. looks to me like the text is determinant. 24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, -and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. the vision and prophecy must be sealed up that is to be completed. this is a determined prophecy. starting from verse 24 there is no indication whatsoever of a condition, the verses are connected determined prophecy. so you added the condition that does not exist. your explanation also makes no sense since the Jews cannot bring in everlasting righteousness, they have zero power to do that, and they don't decide to anoint the most holy as though if they just decided to do it he would just appear, God is the one who anoints the Messiah and he is the one who decides when he comes. when Cyrus was called the Lord's anointed, who anointed him, the jews? no. true anointing comes from the Lord, which is the holy Spirit. Jesus is the most holy anointed, he is priest and king, he was the priest king Messiah. he had heaps of anointing. you ask how Jesus fulfills it? I'm telling you. Psalm 80 Give ear, O Shepherd of Israel, thou that leadest Joseph like a flock; thou that dwellest between the cherubims, shine forth. Messiah is the shepherd of Israel, as was Moses, but Psalm 80 says that God is the shepherd who dwells between the cherubims where his glory rests, your little translation anoint the holy of holies has no work around, we're talking about the Messiah here. the song has illusions to when Moses brought them out of Egypt with a strong hand. and it says in the Old testament that his holy spirit was with him and Moses raised his hand with the rod and parted the sea BECAUSE God was with him, and then they made the ark of the covenant where his glory rested, where we get the psalm that the shepherd dwells between the cherubims. every left turn you think you are taking to swerve away from Jesus leads straight back to Jesus Christ the Messiah. I'll make known once again the doctrine of the New testament about Jesus Christ which fulfills the scripture which you thought Christians shouldn't believe that Jesus was cut off exactly as it says in Daniel, this is some of the most basic fundamental Christian doctrine. lol 1-that Jesus was forsaken on the cross because he took on the sins of the world onto himself 2-and became sin for us 3-and took our punishment onto himself on our behalf who believe on him. these are new testament facts, call it preaching all you like, Jonah preached/proclaimed the will of God to Nineveh, it was a Divine edict. I'm not preaching, even if I were, preaching does not diminish the facts. you have nothing but insults and excuses and no answers. you are proving Jesus for us. (Edited by Apokalupto) Apokalupto: I'm not infallible, I could be wrong about your conditional statement but right now I'm not seeing a good argument from Daniel, you can't add extra words that are a conditional statement, you're going to have to find another way. also I'm not going to address the 70 weeks prophecy in full, I've already given a hint to the matter, and if anyone is really sharp and paying attention they know what I'm talking about. as far as the rest of that conversation is concerned, that's between you and JX right now. DontNeedChrist: I added nothing. Read the passage, it speaks for itself. It's a warning. An ultimatum. You're grasping for anything to discredit my words. Makes you look desperate. Apokalupto: allow me to assure you of something. only from your perspective of being in the dark does it appear that way if it even appears that way to you. it is a fact that whether it is conditional or not still works for us. this is Jesus speaking. Matthew 23 37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! 38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. 39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. this is why I assure you I am not "desperate" as you suggest, to make sure that Daniel passage is not conditional. Jesus is suggesting that had they believed on him he would have taken care of them but instead they rejected him and they are going to be left desolate. if you really want Daniel to be conditional then I can't really stop you can I, I'm just looking for a good argument and not for people to add words to the text and manipulate it. you did add words the first time. I am telling you every time you think that you're taking a left turn away from Jesus Christ, you are playing right into his hands. (Edited by Apokalupto) JX Amaro: DNC's lengthy response to my brief and efficient statements guarantee that virtually no one will read it, but I will give a paragraph by paragraph response, nonetheless. P1: He calls me “Mr Amalek.” Coming from a proven charlatan and enemy of God like DNC, I will take that as a compliment. P2-3: DNC denies that Jesus put an end to sin. Newsflash: Jesus on the cross died for the sins of all humanity and offered SALVATION for ALL. This is a “no-brainer.” But it does depend on being a Christian – fair enough. P4-5: This introduces what he thinks will be a refutation of the Start Date issue: Edict of Cyrus or Commission of Artaxerxes. Oh, let's begin! P6: DNC gives us the verses from 2 Chronicles. Thank you, DNC. Now even people too lazy to grab their Bible can see that I AM RIGHT! As I pointed out in my post, 2 Chron 36 says NOTHING about rebuilding the city. NOTHING. Show me where 2 Chron 36 says rebuild the city. It's not there. DNC objectively fails. P7: The exact same principle applies to the Ezra 1 quote. It says NOTHING about rebuilding the city. In both 2 Chron 36 and Ezra 1 the order is clear: build a “House” in Jersusalem. Thus, rebuild the temple, NOT THE CITY. Show me where it says rebuild the city in either the Ezra or the 2 Chron passages. Again, DNC objectively fails. P8: Here DNC engages in a “straw man argument.” (He does this a lot.) He claims that I say it is 483 years from the start date of rebuilding the city to the destruction of the temple. I do not. I use the 483 years from the Artaxerxes Commission to get to Jesus, which I calculated to 31/32 ce (depending on if you round up or round down). Again, read what I say, then read how DNC altered my statement so he could pretend to show me wrong. LOL. DNC objectively fails. P9-14: This section of the post seems like total whack-a-doodle. I don't even know what point he is trying to make. Septets? Shauvims? Semi-colons? Who cares? P15: This returns to the Cyrus Edict bit. I have already demonstrated that the Cyrus Edict was EXCLUSIVELY limited to: A) the return of the Jews; and B) an order to rebuild the temple. If that is not enough for you, let's use simple logic. IF the Cyrus Edict contained an order to rebuild the city, THEN Nehemiah would NOT have needed to get an order to rebuild the city from Artaxerxes!!! Simple, air-tight logic. Again, DNC objectively fails. P16: the 2 Chron 36 verses again. My point stands. NOWHERE do we see anything about REBUILDING THE CITY. DNC objectively fails. P17: Ditto the above, but now we have returned to the Ezra 1 verses. DNC objectively fails. P18: Again, DNC uses numbers and dates from the Cyrus Edict, not the Artaxerxes Commission. As I have demonstrated again and again (the thread-reader can read the verses as DNC has presented them for us) there is NOTHING about REBUILDING THE CITY vis-a-vis the Cyrus Edict. (This is getting tiresome.) DNC fails, again. P19-20: Here DNC is at his best when it comes to denying SELF-EVIDENT REALITY! Dogmatically, he dismisses the scriptural authority of Nehemiah 2:4-8: “What is your request?” replied the king. So I prayed to the God of heaven and answered the king, “If it pleases the king, and if your servant has found favor in your sight, I ask that you send me to Judah, to the city where my fathers are buried, so that I may rebuild it.” … And because the gracious hand of my God was upon me, the king granted my requests. Bang! This is the Royal Commission to REBUILD THE CITY. DNC denies scripture to suit his purpose, his dogma, his disinformation. Thus, DNC fails again. P21: DNC repeats the same “straw man argument” of saying that I claim it is 483 years between the Start Date (445bce) and the destruction of the temple. (See my comment on P8.) Again, DNC fails. P22: Here DNC uses the 483 years to arrive at the date 37 ce apparently to prove me wrong. This is yet another “straw man argument.” In my post, I point out the 38 ce date as too late; then I demonstrate (and show the math!) for reworking the years vis-a-vis the “Biblical Lunar Year.” In that way, I arrive at the 31/32 ce date – right on time. DNC is now engaging in BOLD FACE LYING. (And you, dear reader, can easily fact check this just by scrolling up to my post! You can even do the math for yourself as I show you the equation!) DNC fails again – this time disastrously. P23-27: Here DNC invokes Isaiah to validate his claim that the Cyrus Edict is the official Start Date. This is a mess. Isaiah is speaking generally that the temple and the city will be rebuilt in the future. However, this is the closest thing, so far, that DNC has produced to being an effective point in his favor. In response, let me reiterate what I stated above. If the Cyrus Edict had contained the order to rebuild the city, then Nehemiah would NOT have needed to get a royal commission to rebuild the city. This is obvious and simple logic. Moreover, if the Cyrus Edict had contained anything about rebuilding the city, then rebuilding of the temple wouldn't have stopped after the Samaritans wrote back to the Persians that the Jews were rebuilding the wall. Obviously, Cyrus's Edict was LIMITED to building the temple, and that is all. When the Jews tried to go beyond the LIMITED declaration – of building the temple – and tried to build the city wall (a preliminary to rebuilding the city), temple construction was ordered to stop. Why would temple construction be stopped for reason of building a wall if the Cyrus Edict contained an order to rebuild the city? See Ezra 4:1-23. The preponderance of evidence shows this to be another DNC fail. P28: Here DNC gives a lengthy quote from Josephus. OK, read it. It says the same thing I am saying. The Cyrus Edict did two things: 1) It ordered the return of the Jews; and 2) It gave the order to rebuild the temple. That's it. No order to rebuild the city. Show us where Josephus says there was an order to rebuild the city. DNC objectively fails again. P29-31: This is just a scattershot of DNC reiterating his previously claims. No further comment is needed. P32-36: Here DNC tries to explain his idea of how Daniel's 40 Weeks prophecy leads to an evil villain – apparently either Agrippa or Yannai. This is a totally confused mess, but it doesn't matter. Scholars and laypersons have debated virtually every word in this section. I could easily list 10s maybe 100s of books that analyze EVERY WORD in the pro-Christian way (including one by Sir Isaac Newton). As an unmerited charity, I will assume DNC could produce at least some scholarly works to defend his position. Needless to say, debating the meaning of at times highly symbolic language will only be an exercise in futility and will never be resolved on a Wire Forum. I'm moving on. P37-38. Finally we reach the end – thank God! DNC finishes with name-calling, and then he hypocritically complains about being victimized by (wait for it...) name-calling! Jeesh! Talk about double standards! In my view, every point DNC made was utterly destroyed, with 1 potential exception. The bits in Isaiah are the only thin line he has, and I say Isaiah is only speaking generally to the future and not specifically to the Cyrus Edict (see my P23-27 response). I am sure DNC will disagree. At this point, the reader – if there is one – will have to make their own judgment. Buenos Dias JX Amaro: For a detailed study of the Biblical Lunar Calendar as 360 days, go to this link: http://truebiblecode.com/understanding4.html Apokalupto: it's really saying something when the person who thinks they're making arguments against you are really proving your point. but get this, even such a person who does this (DNM) still won't give credit where credit is due! so does anyone really think that you can convince such a person who unknowingly gives credit to the other side but then won't give it once they realize they're helping the other side accidentally? it's like trying to give life to a withered, dried up dusty old root... only God can do that. (Edited by Apokalupto) JX Amaro: XP is correct that DNC is unwittingly making the Christian argument for us. I wish I could say that I was smart enough to have set a trap for him, but it just turned out that way. The focus of this thread is on Daniel the Prophet. The word for word analysis of Chapter 9 is beside the point. But it does make the point. Chapter 9 is OBVIOUSLY a prophecy. It is OBVIOUSLY a Messianic prophecy. It OBVIOUSLY sets out and time stamps the coming of the Messiah. You can argue over start dates and lunar or solar years and you can debate whatever else. That really doesn’t matter. Only Christianity offers a plausible explanation of the 40 Weeks prophecy. The HERETICAL CULT of Judaism, on the other hand, has to deny the obvious and come up with whack-a-doodle counter-explanations that don’t explain anything. It is easy to see why Madman Rambam (aka Maimonides) put a curse on anyone who tried to work out the coming of the Messiah (ie, anyone who tried to work out Daniel 9). It is easy to see why Daniel the Prophet is a “No-Go Zone” in Judaism. It’s easy to see why Judaism becomes “blind as a bat,” as XP might put it, when it comes to seeing Daniel as one of the most important OT prophets! DNC, through his own blundering and folly, has proved our point for us! Thank you very much, DNC! DontNeedChrist: Here's the deal. We could go back and forth until the TRUE Moshiach comes. To what end? It's all just one-upmanship. It's name calling and insults and misguided information. You two claim the Jews don't know their own sacred writings. The christians have it all figured out and as AA says "the Jews got it wrong." How can there be any intelligent response to something so grossly opinionated and baseless? You will say that I was defeated or out witted or proved jesus for you. All falsehoods. Do I honestly care how two jesus freaks interpret Hebrew scripture? Not really. I offer to educate you but your minds are closed and you have your agenda cemented. As I've said before you've proved nothing but your complete arrogance and ignorance on topics you truly don't have a basic understanding of. JX Amalek says, "Septets? Shauvims? Semi-colons? Who cares?" Of course you don't care. You rely on skewed and bad translations. Not my problem. If you studied these writings in their native language you would see how sadly mistaken you are. (shrug). This is my final post in this thread. You will get your last words. You will high five and do your victory dances but how hollow it all is. You didn't sway me or any Jewish reader – that I can guarantee. As I've said before, go ahead and worship whomever or whatever you wish. That is your choice. But you will never convince me or any knowledgeable Jew to accept or follow your man/god. As a matter of fact you drive us all away further with each vile post. When things are said that we are "blind as a bat", "whack-a-doodle", "sleazy", a "death cult", a "heretical cult", etc. you show you have no credibility, you have disdain for Jews and Judaism, and it's no longer a conversation anymore. It never was. So here's me taking the high road waving goodbye to you two anti-semites. I don't need your garbage in my life. It serves no purpose. If your god were to come back he would be quite horrified of your treatment of Jews and Judaism. Hope you find the error in your ways but I seriously doubt that will ever happen. Enjoy your celebration boys. Don't drink and post. Apokalupto: while JX was exposing falsehoods in the OP DNC used these words and phrases to defend those falsehoods. There is no reason to crawl down into the sewer I refuse to jump in the mud to play with pigs. You're an embarrassment and a clown. these clowns So you admit jesus failed to do it. I see quite clearly. Thank you for admitting that much. (lie) I prefer having conversations with adults. tweedle dumb and tweedle dumber I keep handing your head to you on a platter Such delusion. So sad. jesus freaks anti-semites _______________ if the point is to keep tabs on who's casting insults nobody wins. I presented Christian doctrine that actually demonstrate how Jesus fits the bill to a perfect t in fulfilling the prophecy of Daniel 9:24-26 just admit it and be a big boy, that you walked off with nothing but insults and no scriptural evidence to the contrary- you gave up. saying that the passage in Daniel was an ultimatum doesn't remove Jesus from the passage, I already showed scriptural evidence that you had no answer to that had they believed Jesus he would have taken care of them, but instead he says your house is left unto you desolate. there's your ultimatum, and Jesus still fulfills the prophecy. dnc-"יִכָּרֵ֥ת / yikkarét / he will be cut off and will exist no longer;" The Hebrew here is כרת -- kareit and it is a spiritual punishment because it is carried out by G-d -- an excommunication of the soul. . . This word is not used to speak of human's killing another human (as in execution)." this is why Jesus said on the cross "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" he was forsaken by the Father at that moment in order to take on the punishment. I just have to say Amen to the rest of your quote because we don't believe in human sacrifice, the Father punished Jesus Christ on the cross on our behalf as he took on the sin of the world unto himself and nailed it to the cross. there's your spiritual punishment. Acts 2 27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. 31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. 32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. we have been victorious through Jesus Christ for over 2000 years. : ) you, a Jew, knowing nothing about Jesus Christ the only real Messiah, unwittingly gave answers that support Christian doctrine and Jesus Christ redeeming sacrifice on the cross. AMEN! (Edited by Apokalupto) JX Amaro: Eh, I was going to practice Christian virtue and write some magnanimous words to the effect that DNC made a spirited argument that made us all work a bit harder, but then he had to go play the “anti-semite” card. Oy vey… As per XP, anyone who reads these threads can tell he is a righteous person and one who has said some very beautiful and inspiring things here and there on the threads. As per me, I freely admit that some of my rhetoric is over-the-top and outrageous. Some readers might be shocked. Sometimes that’s the point. Sometimes I’m just having fun. When people who show Jesus and Christians ZERO respect get up on a high horse and pretend like they have the moral high ground it is either laughable or psychotic – take you pick. Anyway, Christ is risen, the faith is TRUE. Christiandom waits at the end of the rainbow. Hallelujah! Apokalupto: by his own standard he's an anti Jesus and an anti-christian and anti New Testament. more importantly, the Bible says that those who deny the Father and the Son are antichrist. while being humble is great, I have to say I really enjoyed reading your posts JX. (Edited by Apokalupto) Apokalupto: It's nice to have another warrior for Christ in the forums here. I look forward to any other threads you may have in the future. Apokalupto: I'm going to drive this point home one more time. remember when I said for no one to go along with DNM's little yikkarét explanation? he inevitably leaves out facts and adds extra emphasis to slant his biased anti-christian, antichrist, Jewish opinion/views toward his favor. also the word does not mean to exist no longer, he added that extra definition, only the context can supply that meaning. כרת is a word used to cut a covenant. the term is used in Genesis 15:18 when God makes a covenant with Abram. this is when God told Abram to take the animals and cut them in half, and the tradition or custom was that those who are making the covenant would walk past or walk through the guts to finalize/bind the covenant. it's called cutting a covenant, another term of ancient people is to cut a curse which is synonymous with cutting a covenant and it means to make a covenant, and if you broke the covenant then you would be liable to receiving that curse. I'm going to show this in Hebrew for everyone to see so you will have to pay attention to these three letters so you can find them... the word/root **כרת** will have asterix around it. the Hebrew is from chabad.org Genesis 15:18 יחבַּיּ֣וֹם הַה֗וּא **כָּרַ֧ת** יְהֹוָ֛ה אֶת־אַבְרָ֖ם בְּרִ֣ית לֵאמֹ֑ר לְזַרְעֲךָ֗ נָתַ֨תִּי֙ אֶת־הָאָ֣רֶץ הַזֹּ֔את מִנְּהַ֣ר מִצְרַ֔יִם עַד־הַנָּהָ֥ר הַגָּדֹ֖ל נְהַר־פְּרָֽת: Genesis 15:18 In the same day the LORD made (כָּרַ֧ת/cut) a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates: Genesis 21:27 כזוַיִּקַּ֤ח אַבְרָהָם֙ צֹ֣אן וּבָקָ֔ר וַיִּתֵּ֖ן לַֽאֲבִימֶ֑לֶךְ **וַיִּכְרְת֥וּ** שְׁנֵיהֶ֖ם בְּרִֽית: Genesis 21:27 And Abraham took sheep and oxen, and gave them unto Abimelech; and both of them made (cut) a covenant. the word used in this sentence is "וַיִּכְרְת֥וּ" if you're paying close attention you can see in the middle of this word the root "כרת" in the above. Genesis 21:32 לבוַיִּכְרְת֥וּ** בְרִ֖ית בִּבְאֵ֣ר שָׁ֑בַע וַיָּ֣קָם אֲבִימֶ֗לֶךְ וּפִיכֹל֙ שַׂר־צְבָא֔וֹ וַיָּשֻׁ֖בוּ אֶל־אֶ֥רֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּֽים Genesis 21:32 Thus they made (cut) a covenant at Beersheba: then Abimelech rose up, and Phichol the chief captain of his host, and they returned into the land of the Philistines. Genesis 26:28 כחוַֽיֹּאמְר֗וּ רָא֣וֹ רָאִ֘ינוּ֘ כִּֽי־הָיָ֣ה יְהֹוָ֣ה | עִמָּךְ֒ וַנֹּ֗אמֶר תְּהִ֨י נָ֥א אָלָ֛ה בֵּֽינוֹתֵ֖ינוּ בֵּינֵ֣ינוּ וּבֵינֶ֑ךָ **וְנִכְרְתָ֥ה** בְרִ֖ית עִמָּֽךְ Genesis 26:28 And they said, We saw certainly that the Lord was with thee: and we said, Let there be now an oath betwixt us, even betwixt us and thee, and let us make (cut) a covenant with thee; Exodus 34:10 .....יוַיֹּ֗אמֶר הִנֵּ֣ה אָנֹכִי֘ **כֹּרֵ֣ת** בְּרִית֒ נֶ֤גֶד כָּל־עַמְּךָ֙ אֶֽעֱשֶׂ֣ה Exodus 34:10 And he said, Behold, I make a covenant: before all thy people I will do marvels,..... Jeremiah 31:31 .....לאלֹ֣א **כַבְּרִ֗ית** אֲשֶׁ֚ר **כָּרַ֙תִּי֙** אֶת־אֲבוֹתָ֔ם בְּיוֹם֙ KJV verse 32 Not according to the **covenant** that I **made** with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord: there are variations of this word, it has prefixes and suffixes etc etc, sometimes it's referring to cutting off evil people, sometimes it's used to cut a covenant, sometimes it's referring to never freeing a bondman etc. there is a boatload of more verses that use this word in reference to "cut a covenant" which means to make a covenant. This is fascinating that this is the same word used with the Messiah in Daniel 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off (יִכָּרֵת), but not for himself: ........ this word makes sense with the Messiah since the Messiah is associated with the covenant. however, in Daniel it is being used to refer to Messiah being cut off, but since the word is often used to cut a covenant, the reader would immediately see the connection or implication of "to cut a covenant" since this word is being associated with the Messiah as well. what this meant for Jesus was that he was cut off on the cross, God forsook him on the cross because he had taken all of the sin of the world onto himself and it had to be judged in the body, and by his sacrifice Jesus "cut a covenant" by his death on the cross, which took our punishment on to himself. in Genesis 15, God cuts a covenant with Abram, but Abram does not walk past the carcass, instead God puts Abram into a deep sleep and Gods glory passed through the carcasses twice by a smoking furnace and a burning lamp. Daniel says that the Messiah will be cut off, "but not for himself." what is the point of saying this? what Messiah is ever cut off for himself? why even say "not for himself" since no Messiah is ever cut off for himself? nothing in God's word is accidental or coincidental. from DNMs perspective, this is referring to a Roman ruler or general of some kind, what sense does it make to call him a messiah? none at all. you don't call a Roman ruler messiah because he's an evil person and needs to be destroyed. that is a nonsense interpretation. Cyrus was called the Lord's anointed not because he wanted to kill the Jews, or enslave them, but because God used him to liberate them from the captivity, he let them go so they could serve God and rebuild Jerusalem. the Messiah liberates he redeems, and and King Cyrus was called the Lord's Messiah for this reason. again, there's no sense at all in calling random evil and oppressive Roman rulers "messiah." biblically it is unjustifiable. (Edited by Apokalupto) DontNeedChrist: Oh where to begin. If this post is not the most contrived, deceiving and flat out false narrative I don’t know what is. This one takes the prize and proves your complete ignorance of Hebrew. We’ll start with the basics. כרת- K’ARET means cut down or cut off ברית- BRIT means covenant, contract, treaty The two words k’aret and brit DO NOT share the same root. One starts with the letter caf the other bet. The word k’aret alone - WITHOUT the word brit - in no way implies a covenant as is the case with this Daniel verse. In other words Daniel makes no mention of a covenant here in regards to the one cut off. Some other terms: ברית בין הבתרים- brit ben habetarim- covenant of parts כריתת ברית- kritat brit- cutting a contract ספר כריתת- sefer kritat- divorce contract Kritat brit means literally- cutting a contract- same as is said in English. Cut a contract- cut a deal- make a contract – make a deal. In other words the terms are separated and spelled out – the contract is made. In Deuteronomy 24:1 we read sefer kritat meaning divorce contract. A marriage is terminated by the process of separating. Marriage joins two people into one, so ending a marriage is like cutting a single body into two parts. Today we call it a “get.” In I Samuel 17:51 we read yikrat et rosho-- meaning cut off his head – speaking about Goliath. In Leviticus 18:29 we read nikratu ha'nfashot ha'osot m'kerev amam – meaning cut off from their people. In Numbers 15:31 we read tikaret ha'nefesh- meaning cut off the soul, the warning against idolatry. So we understand there are different types of k’aret. One of body and one of soul. Body k’aret is someone who has more virtue than sins but he committed serious intentional k’aret – worthy sins like idolatry or forbidden marital relations or eating blood. He dies young but his soul is able to enter olam haba. Soul k’aret is someone who has more sins than virtue and he committed serious intentional k’aret worthy sins. After he dies his soul does not enter olam haba. However his time here in this world will be a long life. So basically- one receives punishment in olam hazeh- the other in olam habah. Either way it’s a punishment and we know the only way to atone is to do teshuvah – to leave sin and repent for the past. You say this word makes sense with the Messiah since the Messiah is associated with the covenant. FALSE. If Daniel was referring to a covenant he would have used the word BRIT. But it’s not there, There is no context of a covenant in this Daniel verse. I challenge you to show any reference to a covenant here. Then you go on to claim Daniel writes that the Messiah will be cut off, "but not for himself." what is the point of saying this? what Messiah is ever cut off for himself? NOWHERE DOES IT SAY “BUT NOT FOR HIMSELF.” This is a christian rewriting of the passage. It’s mistranslated, misrepresented and completely false. Want proof? Go to these two Jewish sources which you yourself have used in the past: SEFARIA.ORG Daniel 9:26 – “And after those sixty-two weeks, the anointed one WILL DISAPPEAR AND VANISH.” JUDAICA PRESS (CHABAD.ORG) “And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one will be cut off, AND HE WILL BE NO MORE.” It DOES NOT say “cut off for himself.” You obviously used the KJV or some other awful mangled MIStranslation. So did jesus disappear and vanish? Is he no more? You would disagree. So Daniel cannot be writing about jesus according to your flawed evidence. Take away the mangled Hebrew and you have nothing. And to your misguided comment about an anointed one referring to a Roman ruler or general…Jews are not only messiahs. Cyrus was a gentile king who was anointed thereby a messiah. The Queen of England was anointed so technically she is a messiah. Anyone who is deemed worthy of anointing can be a messiah. I have proven through the timeline the first anointed one Daniel writes about is Cyrus. The second which is not named was clearly evil and deserved the punishment of k’aret so was excommunicated, ostracized, cut off from his people spiritually and disappeared and was no more. Sound like jesus? Your call. Your boyfriend Amalek is fond of Rashi and Rashi says it was Agrippa. Not just Rashi, Malbim and Metzudot David say it’s Agrippa. Some say it was Alexander Yannai (Jannaeus) (103–76 B.C.E.) who was the Hasmonean ruler of Judea. Yannai reigned for 27 years and was nicknamed “The Hangman” for his cruel behavior and bloody reign. He was evil and was killed at the age of 59. K’aret in both body and soul. You should have quit while you thought you were ahead but you had to pump up your ego and seek out CHRISTIAN sources for JEWISH scripture yet again for something you have zero understanding of. You failed miserably yet again. Just leave it be already. You keep embarrassing yourself. One last thing. I see your bio pic is a screen shot of a Talmud tractate. You constantly trash the Talmud as corrupt from evil man and ungodly. Make up your mind. Seems you’re fine with parts of it enough to represent yourself on Wire. Pure hypocracy. | Religion Chat Room 30 People Chatting Similar Conversations |