Daniel 9

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
It is unlawful to make a sacrifice anywhere except the temple in jerusalem. When it is rebuilt, sacrifices will resume.
He's afraid of getting stoned for his/her lifestyle. It's ok to sodomize because it doesn't hurt anyone.

Like all gnostics, they think they have the secret decoder ring, intimate details from God that has been shared with them, etc. Their universe consists of multiple gods much like the pagans of old.

Reality for them is no reality. It is all metaphor.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
So you can't name who you think is the TOR? Was it Harvey Milk?
I have read one opinion on it that suggested his name was Zakariah based on some clues in the Gospels. The Dead Sea Scrolls used cyphers for leader‘s names likely to avoid charges of blasphemy. Pharisees were itching to throw stones so it was prudent not to hand them the stones they would use. Now, do you have something intelligent to say or are you going to make more vain comments and unfunny jokes?
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
I have read one opinion on it that suggested his name was Zakariah based on some clues in the Gospels.
What clues?

The Dead Sea Scrolls used cyphers for leader‘s names likely to avoid charges of blasphemy. Pharisees were itching to throw stones so it was prudent not to hand them the stones they would use.
Interesting because it was the Sadducees that tracked down the early Christians and Saul/Paul was part of that.

Now, do you have something intelligent to say or are you going to make more vain comments and unfunny jokes?
Did you know Harvey?
 

rakovsky

Well-known member
It is unlawful to make a sacrifice anywhere except the temple in jerusalem.
It seems unlikely that Torah explicitly bans all sacrifices outside the Temple, because of the Hasidic Kapparot sacrifice of chickens.

newsweek.com/kapparot-why-thousands-chickens-will-die-israel-today-controversial-religious-1124404
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
It seems unlikely that Torah explicitly bans all sacrifices outside the Temple, because of the Hasidic Kapparot sacrifice of chickens.
Those aren't temple sacrifices and are merely done as a symbol. I don't do that.

Chickens weren't included in the sacrificial animals.

I just eat a bucket of fried chicken and wave it around my lips ;)
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
Because they are compared in the chapter to Jeremiah's 70 years, which were literal?
Jeremiah 29:10, 25:12; Isaiah 44:28-45:1,13; Ezra 1:2-3; 2 Chronicles 36:22-23; Daniel 9.

Docphin5 doesn't take things literally, but spiritualizes everything away. I wanted to see his answer.
 

rakovsky

Well-known member
"Now that I have your attention, can I turn it to my Hebrew question a few posts earlier?"
Once established, sacrifices were limited to Jerusalem and the altar at the temple.
Thanks. I meant my Hebrew question about Dan. 9:25 in Message #114:
 

Open Heart

Well-known member
It seems unlikely that Torah explicitly bans all sacrifices outside the Temple, because of the Hasidic Kapparot sacrifice of chickens.

newsweek.com/kapparot-why-thousands-chickens-will-die-israel-today-controversial-religious-1124404
Kaparot is controversial.
 

rakovsky

Well-known member
"By the way, why aren't the 490 years in Daniel allegorized, symbolic, since that's the approach you take for everything else?"

Jeremiah 29:10, 25:12; Isaiah 44:28-45:1,13; Ezra 1:2-3; 2 Chronicles 36:22-23; Daniel 9.

Docphin5 doesn't take things literally, but spiritualizes everything away. I wanted to see his answer.
Besides the 70 years of Jeremiah being literal, another argument can be made based on whether you believe that Daniel was written in the 2nd century BC. In this second argument, one imagines that Daniel was written in response to the Maccabean period and rule of Antiochus the Seleucid ruler. Thus, one would look for a counting of years that ran to the Maccabean period. Daniel's Book actually gives several different countings of years for apocalyptic events and some of them, if treated literally, do count to the Maccabean period of the early 2nd century AD (Daniel Chapter 8 being one chapter). This second argument brings in the concept of countings of years being literal in Daniel.

Josephus is sometimes pointed to as evidence for a counting that ends in the Maccabean period for the 70 years. I read all of Josephus' works, and in fact Josephus relates Daniel's prophecies to both the ruin of the Temple under Antiochus and ALSO to the 70 AD destruction of the temple. Josephus talks about a 3 1/2 year period of abuse under Antiochus, and also a 3 1/2 period of abuse in the events of the 70 AD. So Josephus is a third argument for treating the 70 years as literal.
 

rakovsky

Well-known member
Kaparot is controversial.
I mostly wanted to look for a pretext to get people's attention to get back to the Dan. 9 context.

But as for Kapparot, my point is that Torah must not explicitly ban any and all sacrifices outside of Jerusalem. Rather, the Temple prescribes certain sacrifices for the Temple, and those specifically prescribed sacrifices would logically arguably not be performed elsewhere if there was no Temple. Kapparot serves as an illustration, because if Torah explicitly banned any and all sacrifices outside the Temple, then the Hasidics would recognize the ban.
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
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
This is true, which is why I've said there are two anointed in Daniel 9. One after 7 weeks, and another after the other 62 weeks.
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
I mostly wanted to look for a pretext to get people's attention to get back to the Dan. 9 context.

But as for Kapparot, my point is that Torah must not explicitly ban any and all sacrifices outside of Jerusalem. Rather, the Temple prescribes certain sacrifices for the Temple, and those specifically prescribed sacrifices would logically arguably not be performed elsewhere if there was no Temple. Kapparot serves as an illustration, because if Torah explicitly banned any and all sacrifices outside the Temple, then the Hasidics would recognize the ban.
It's not a sacrifice. That's the difference.
 

rakovsky

Well-known member
This is true, which is why I've said there are two anointed in Daniel 9. One after 7 weeks, and another after the other 62 weeks.
There's a couple factors that give me pause however on this topic, one being the Jewish ancient translations putting 7 weeks with 62 weeks.

This mix of reasonable arguments makes me consider the possibility that the author could have been deliberately open ended and allowed for either reading - (A) that the anointed prince is a person whom the author knew from recorded history like Cyrus or a Persian-era Jewish prince, or (B) that the anointed prince is a more apocalyptic figure who comes after 69 weeks from the order to restore Jerusalem.

This kind of dual meaning shows up elsewhere in Jewish writings, especially in the figure of David. Rabbinical tradition sees David as a real historical ruler, but also as a prefigurement of the Davidic Messiah, so that some statements made in Tanakh about David can apply also by extension to Messiah.

In Isaiah 55, for instance, there is a prediction about the Israelites being under David a "commander of nations", which could imply the resurrected literal David who ruled the nation of Israel. David would resurrect according to Tanakh, and historically conquered some neighboring groups like some of the Philistines. But the prophecy seems more Messianic in Isaiah 55, as the Messiah would be a literal "commander of nations" in far greater number.
 

rakovsky

Well-known member
It's not a sacrifice.
He repeats the verses three times, and then places his hands on the rooster’s head, in the manner used for a sacrifice in the Temple, and slaughters the rooster. It is customary to give the rooster to the poor to atone for one’s soul (by doing charity), and to throw the intestines on the roof to feed the birds (of prey).”


Kapparot (Hebrew: כפרות, Ashkenazi transliteration: Kapporois, Kappores) is a customary atonement ritual practiced by some Jews on the eve of Yom Kippur. This is a practice in which a chicken or money is waved over a person's head and the chicken is then slaughtered in accordance with halachic rules.


Amram Gaon explains that male Jews took a rooster and female Jews a hen on the day before the holiday of Yom Kippur. He writes: “He places his hand upon the head of the rooster, as a sort of s’mikhah [the biblically required placing of one’s hands upon as animal that is being brought as a sacrifice in the Temple]. He lays his hands upon it and slaughters it immediately, following the rule prescribed for sacrifices, which is that the slaughtering of the sacrificial animal must follow immediately the ceremony of the laying of the hands.”

Why is Kapparot Seen as a Sacrifice?

...
Originally, as previously stated, the ceremony was seen as a bribe that was offered to Satan, similar to the Azazel bribe described in Leviticus 16. A rooster was chosen for the bribe because (1) it was an animal that was not allowed to be sacrificed to God, and therefore an appropriate sacrifice for a devil, and (2) the masses thought that this bird resembled Satan: it had horns like Satan and its feet resembled the demon’s feet. The rooster was slaughtered with the sacrificial formality of laying of hands so that it would be accepted as a suitable sacrifice/bribe by Satan to induce the demon not to disparage Jews before God during Yom Kippur when Jews believed that their future fate was being determined by God in a heavenly judicial proceeding in which Satan served as prosecutor.
...
Commenting upon the Babylonian Talmud, Hullin 95b, Asher ben Jehiel (known as Asheri, c. 1259–1328) states that the ancient custom of kapparot was to toss the entrails of the sacrificed rooster on the roof of one’s house. Like the water, the masses were convinced that the roof was a dwelling place of demons.
 
Top