Daniel 9

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
Your quote is not accurate because right off the bat, the Essenes did not sacrifice animals in the Temple. But more importantly, they allegorized the scriptures UNLIKE the Pharisees who literalized them. It is how Paul could say in one breath, "The Law is Holy", and in the other breath, "the Law is obsolete" because, just like the Essenes, Paul perceived its allegorical meaning as holy, and its letter as death. Pharisees followed the letter and the Essenes/Christians followed the Spirit of the Law. Which is why they could abrogate animal sacrifice, yet still promote the Law for its symbolic value.

The two cardinal rules of the Essenes were Sabbath observance and Circumcision which they claimed was practiced by the angels in heaven as an eternal ordinance. Taken literally (as the Pharisees would do) that is absurd (spirits do not have a penis to circumcise) but figuratively it makes sense for these eternal ordinances are two sides of the same coin from a heavenly perspective. It is seven days until the Holy Spirit has formed spiritual Israel or Jacob who is intimately connected to the Sabbath when the the heavenly host are gathered in, presumably to live in heaven. On the flip side, if the flesh is not removed on the eighth day then the male is "cut-off" from his God. Two sides of the same coin supporting an eternal truth practiced by the angels in heaven and SYMBOLIZED by the Mosaic Law. The circumcised flesh is also associated with the carnal nature (ie inordinate desire, passions, impulses, etc.) which is likely the true circumcision--the circumcision practiced by angels in heaven (and on earth).
She's quoting the article.
 
Last edited:

Open Heart

Well-known member
Your quote is not accurate because right off the bat, the Essenes did not sacrifice animals in the Temple. But more importantly, they allegorized the scriptures UNLIKE the Pharisees who literalized them. It is how Paul could say in one breath, "The Law is Holy", and in the other breath, "the Law is obsolete" because, just like the Essenes, Paul perceived its allegorical meaning as holy, and its letter as death. Pharisees followed the letter and the Essenes/Christians followed the Spirit of the Law. Which is why they could abrogate animal sacrifice, yet still promote the Law for its symbolic value.

The two cardinal rules of the Essenes were Sabbath observance and Circumcision which they claimed was practiced by the angels in heaven as an eternal ordinance. Taken literally (as the Pharisees would do) that is absurd (spirits do not have a penis to circumcise) but figuratively it makes sense for these eternal ordinances are two sides of the same coin from a heavenly perspective. It is seven days until the Holy Spirit has formed spiritual Israel or Jacob who is intimately connected to the Sabbath when the the heavenly host are gathered in, presumably to live in heaven. On the flip side, if the flesh is not removed on the eighth day then the male is "cut-off" from his God. Two sides of the same coin supporting an eternal truth practiced by the angels in heaven and SYMBOLIZED by the Mosaic Law. The circumcised flesh is also associated with the carnal nature (ie inordinate desire, passions, impulses, etc.) which is likely the true circumcision--the circumcision practiced by angels in heaven (and on earth).
The quote never said that they offered sacrifice. PLease read the quote again, as it is accurate.
"Like the Pharisees, the Essenes meticulously observed the Law of Moses, the sabbath, and ritual purity. They also professed belief in immortality and divine punishment for sin. But, unlike the Pharisees, the Essenes denied the resurrection of the body and refused to immerse themselves in public life."
 

Open Heart

Well-known member
then they did NOT "meticulously observe the Law of Moses."

Does not the Law of Moses command the ritual slaughter of animals?
Yes, they did, with the exception of the sacrificial laws. But shabbat, kashrut, etc? These they were very big on.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
Yes, they did, with the exception of the sacrificial laws. But shabbat, kashrut, etc? These they were very big on.
If the Mosaic Law is a buffet for picking and choosing what to obey then Christians are free to ignore all of it except those that please their moral consciousness. How about we just make it simple and follow one rule, "Love your neighbor as yourself"? Amazing, given that Paul arrived at that conclusion 2,000 years ago! And you gave up such freedoms to go back to what, so you can ritually kill animals someday?! Stone sinners!? Kill gay people just for being gay?!

The Essenes set the stage for later Jewish-Christians by emphasizing the spiritual meaning of the Mosaic Law and Paul just took it to its logical conclusion when he went to the Gentiles. The Pharisees or Rabbinical Judaism are stuck in the past wondering why the world has passed them by. Wondering why the Messiah did not come as predicted by Daniel. wondering why their nation was destroyed...wondering a lot of things.
 
Last edited:

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
If the Mosaic Law is a buffet for picking and choosing what to obey then Christians are free to ignore all of it except those that please their moral consciousness.
Gentile Christians along with Paul were already ignoring before the destruction.

How about we just make it simple and follow one rule, "Love your neighbor as yourself"?
You need the law for the details.

Amazing, given that Paul arrived at that conclusion 2,000 years ago! And you gave up such freedoms to go back to what, so you can ritually kill animals someday?! Stone sinners!? Kill gay people just for being gay?!
Capital punishment does wonders for reducing crimes.

The Essenes set the stage for later Jewish-Christians by emphasizing the spiritual meaning of the Mosaic Law and Paul just took it to its logical conclusion when he went to the Gentiles. The Pharisees or Rabbinical Judaism are stuck in the past wondering why the world has passed them by. Wondering why the Messiah did not come as predicted by Daniel. wondering why their nation was destroyed...wondering a lot of things.
No, we know why the temple was destroyed. Rejecting Messiah wasn't one of the reasons. Maybe accepting a false one?
 

Open Heart

Well-known member
If the Mosaic Law is a buffet for picking and choosing what to obey then Christians are free to ignore all of it except those that please their moral consciousness.
You are talking about the Essenes, which were a HERETICAL group, and which died out long ago. My point is that even as heretics, they diligently observed the Shabbat, ate only kosher food, etc.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
@American Gothic

I was perusing the biblearchaology.org website on Daniel 9 and they had an article going on and on about the Artaxerxes decree basically ignoring the Cyrus decree, and I was wondering why. Then it clicked for me. The explicit goal of this website is, "A Christian Apologetics Ministry Dedicated to Demonstrating the Historical Reliability of the Bible." Right up front they concede their bias, that is, to defend Christian doctrines using archaeology. They are not there to defend Truth but to defend Christian doctrines, so, of course they choose to ignore the Cyrus decree in preference for a subsequent decree to prove Christian doctrines.

Anyways, I thought of you and wondered if you are not doing the same thing. Picking from history what supports your bias, that is, Messiah came in the first century AD, and ignoring the evidence which might present an alternative to Christian doctrine, that Messiah first came in the first century BC.

Here is my point: Messiah actually comes three times in the "Last Days" according to the Essenes in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Therefore, the TOR would have been the first manifestation, Paul would have been the second (in the first century AD), and the third would be Messiah's return at the end of this age. Which would mean that the Gospel Jesus and the Gospel John the Baptist would be cyphers for Paul and the Teacher of Righteousness (1) respectively, the "two anointed ones" in the "last days". In this way, the true archaeological history (e.g. the Cyrus decree) fits with the first anointed one AND allows for a second visitation of Christ in the first century A.D. according to the authors of the Gospels. I know that is a lot to process but it is the best explanation for why Daniel predicts the anointed one in the first century B.C. that harmonizes with Christianity. IOW, THREE visitations of Messiah in the "last days", not two, not one!

1) The one who founded "The Way", who first REVEALED the Christ in scripture, namely, the "Prince of Truth"; who established the "Lords' Supper", and the "Lord's baptism", and who coined the term, "Sons of Light" later used by the apostles, etc. This means that when Paul, Peter, James, and John refer to the Lord on earth that they are referring to the first visitation of Messiah, namely, the Teacher of Righteousness, who lived in the first century B.C. It is a paradigm shift! It explains soooo many things.
 
Last edited:

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
@American Gothic

I was perusing the biblearchaology.org website on Daniel 9 and they had an article going on and on about the Artaxerxes decree basically ignoring the Cyrus decree, and I was wondering why. Then it clicked for me. The explicit goal of this website is, "A Christian Apologetics Ministry Dedicated to Demonstrating the Historical Reliability of the Bible." Right up front they concede their bias, that is, to defend Christian doctrines using archaeology. They are not there to defend Truth but to defend Christian doctrines, so, of course they choose to ignore the Cyrus decree in preference for a subsequent decree to prove Christian doctrines.

Anyways, I thought of you and wondered if you are not doing the same thing. Picking from history what supports your bias, that is, Messiah came in the first century AD, and ignoring the evidence which might present an alternative to Christian doctrine, that Messiah first came in the first century BC.

Here is my point: Messiah actually comes three times in the "Last Days" according to the Essenes in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Therefore, the TOR would have been the first manifestation, Paul would have been the second (in the first century AD), and the third would be Messiah's return at the end of this age. Which would mean that the Gospel Jesus and the Gospel John the Baptist would be cyphers for Paul and the Teacher of Righteousness (1) respectively, the "two anointed ones" in the "last days". In this way, the true archaeological history (e.g. the Cyrus decree) fits with the first anointed one AND allows for a second visitation of Christ in the first century A.D. according to the authors of the Gospels. I know that is a lot to process but it is the best explanation for why Daniel predicts the anointed one in the first century B.C. that harmonizes with Christianity. IOW, THREE visitations of Messiah in the "last days", not two, not one!

1) The one who founded "The Way", who first REVEALED the Christ in scripture, namely, the "Prince of Truth"; who established the "Lords' Supper", and the "Lord's baptism", and who coined the term, "Sons of Light" later used by the apostles, etc. This means that when Paul, Peter, James, and John refer to the Lord on earth that they are referring to the first visitation of Messiah, namely, the Teacher of Righteousness, who lived in the first century B.C. It is a paradigm shift! It explains soooo many things.
Can you give a name to the TOR?
 

Open Heart

Well-known member
I know, right?! She wants to call them Jewish only to prevent Christianity from claiming them, but readily casts them out when they claim to be Jewish. She will not let them gain any ground one way or the other. Sounds like a true sectarian.
The Essenes were a heretical Jewish sect. They were not Christians. YOu are really making stuff up out of whole cloth.
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
I know, right?! She wants to call them Jewish only to prevent Christianity from claiming them, but readily casts them out when they claim to be Jewish. She will not let them gain any ground one way or the other. Sounds like a true sectarian.
Rotfl... you're a true gnostic, who happen to be sectarians, etc.
 

rakovsky

Well-known member
One question that I have had about Daniel 9 is whether a Hebrew reader would put the "62 weeks" in verse 25 with the 7 weeks about the period from the city's rebuilding until "anointed prince", or put it with the part about the rebuilding of the streets. The verse runs:

ותדע ותשכל מן־מצא דבר להשיב ולבנות ירושלם עד־משיח נגיד שבעים שבעה ושבעים ששים ושנים תשוב ונבנתה רחוב וחרוץ ובצוק העתים׃
Therefore know and understand
From the going forth of the command to restore and to build Jerusalem until anointed/moshiach prince
weeks seven and weeks sixty and two
again and shall be built the street and the wall
and even in troublesome times
I don't know Hebrew, but my sense is that the expression "7 weeks and 62 weeks" sounds clunky, unless the author wants to use a cryptic or poetic manner of speaking. To avoid this clunkiness, my guess is that it's more natural to put the 62 weeks at the start of the next part, to make it say, "And 62 weeks, the street and wall shall be built again..." This makes me lean more towards dividing the 7 weeks and 62 weeks into two separate sentences.

However, Daniel does use a kind of cryptic or poetic manner of speech about counting time like this, particularly in Daniel 7:25 and again in Dan. 12:7:
Daniel 7:25:
He shall speak pompous words against the Most High, Shall persecute the saints of the Most High, And shall intend to change times and law. Then the saints shall be given into his hand For a time and times and half a time.

ומלין לצד [עליא כ] (עלאה ק) ימלל ולקדישי עליונין יבלא ויסבר להשניה זמנין ודת ויתיהבון בידה עד־עדן ועדנין ופלג עדן׃
It would be more natural in normal Hebrew speech for Daniel to say just "times" or "times and a half", because a definite "time" can be mathematically put into an indefinite "times" (eg. a day can be fit into a set of days). But instead, Daniel wants to break up the time periods into specific sections.

I have seen arguments on both sides of this issue of whether to put the 7 weeks and 62 weeks together in one phrase.

I find it noteworthy that the three ancient Jewish translations of Daniel 9 into Greek all put the 7 weeks together with the 62 weeks. One of these translations was the "Old Greek" version, which rephrases parts of verses 24-27 into a sentence beginning, "After the 7 weeks and the 70 weeks and the 62 weeks". Second was Theodotion's 2nd century AD version (he is considered Jewish, but it's not clear if he was Christian too), and third was the 2nd century non-Christian Jewish translator Aquila. Theodotion and Aquila gave a generally straight translation of verse 25 (unlike the Old Greek version), and they used a phrase for the time period until the anointed prince like "... for 7 weeks and 62 weeks."

The medieval Masoretic version puts an Atnah between the 7 weeks and 62 weeks, and an atnah often signifies a disjunction. However, the ancient Hebrew text of Daniel did not use atnahs for punctuation.

I gave arguments on both sides of this issue that I came across here:

Peace - Shalom
 
Last edited:

docphin5

Well-known member
The Essenes were a heretical Jewish sect. They were not Christians. YOu are really making stuff up out of whole cloth.
On the contrary, he is more Christian than Christians for he founded it, he gave it form, he established the sacraments for it, he named it ”The Way”, etc. Your just mad that he survived being martyred by the Pharisees and his legacy goes on in Christianity. Moreover, Daniel 9 points to him. The Gospels refer to him as “John the Baptizer” who passed the Spirit to Paul, also referred to as “Jesus” or Joshua in the same Gospels. Keep wondering what it all means…

BTW, don’t you have some animals you need to ritually kill? Or stone some people who are “heretics”. That is what your Mosaic Law commands.
 
Last edited:

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
On the contrary, he is more Christian than Christians for he founded it, he gave it form, he established the sacraments for it, he named it ”The Way”, etc. Your just mad that he survived being martyred by the Pharisees and his legacy goes on. Moreover, Daniel 9 points to him. Keep wondering what it all means…
Name him.

BTW, don’t you have some animals you need to ritually kill?
Mmmm... steak. I had some last night.

Or stone some people who are “heretics”.
We're hunting them down as we speak.

That is what your Mosaic Law commands.
What God commands, yes.
 

Open Heart

Well-known member
BTW, don’t you have some animals you need to ritually kill? Or stone some people who are “heretics”. That is what your Mosaic Law commands.
It is unlawful to make a sacrifice anywhere except the temple in jerusalem. When it is rebuilt, sacrifices will resume.
 
Top