Catholic FAQ


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #31  
Old Nov 28, '11, 7:09 am
ryanoneil ryanoneil is offline
Forum Supporter
 
Join Date: August 29, 2007
Posts: 3,461
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Daniel's 70 weeks - Need Input

Quote:
Originally Posted by beehumble View Post
Not all things spoken of in Matt 24 have happened yet.

From The End of the Present World and the Mysteries of the Future Life by Father Charles Arminjon:
"It is important, though, to consider that Christ, in His prophecy, combines in a single scene the signs relating to the end of the world and those relating to the destruction of Jerusalem. He does so, first, because of the analogy between the two events...Secondly, because in God there is no distinction or succession in time. The impending events and those more remote are clearly present to His mind, and He sees them as if they had occurred at the same moment....Hence in His prophecy He shows [the Apostles], as it were, two perspectives and two horizons, having analogous features and alike in relief, pattern, and coloring. In St. Matthew and St. Mark, the two events - the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the world - seem rather to be merged. In St. Luke, the two occurrences are very clearly distinguished: there are features that refer solely to the end of the world... " (page 13)
God bless you.
Everything has initially happened. The entire conversation was about the destruction of the Temple and the end of the Old Covenant age. All of it came to pass within the generation. But Jesus' words point to and prefigure his Second Coming.

Peace
__________________

scripturecatholic.com
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old Nov 28, '11, 7:51 am
ryanoneil ryanoneil is offline
Forum Supporter
 
Join Date: August 29, 2007
Posts: 3,461
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Daniel's 70 weeks - Need Input

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lev23 View Post
Matthew 16:28 was referring to the transfiguration of our Lord in chapter 17 and not all things spoken of in Matthew 24(and other scriptures) happened yet.
Surely, he was not only speaking about events that would happen six days later. And why would Jesus point out that some of them would not die in the next six days before that event? The transfiguration prefigured his resurrection and after rising he came in glory to the throne of God. The destruction of Jerusalem was the exact sign Jesus claimed would show the rejected Son of man was in Heaven, enthroned.

King Belshazzar witnessed God's coming in the Persian army as it meted out His judgement on Babylon. In the same way, the advance of the Roman army and its victory over Jerusalem was what Jesus was talking about. Jesus promised He would come in judgement on His accusers within their lifetme.

For the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he has done. Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will n ot taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. (Mt 16:27-28)
__________________

scripturecatholic.com
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old Nov 28, '11, 4:36 pm
beehumble's Avatar
beehumble beehumble is online now
Regular Member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2010
Posts: 1,855
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Daniel's 70 weeks - Need Input

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryanoneil View Post
Everything has initially happened. The entire conversation was about the destruction of the Temple and the end of the Old Covenant age. All of it came to pass within the generation. But Jesus' words point to and prefigure his Second Coming.

Peace
Father Arminjon and many other notables within the Church believed or believe the entire conversation was certainly not about the first century and the end of the Old Covenant age.

Preterism is one of several interpretations, but it is not accepted by most as the only interpretation.

The footnotes within the NAB explain that it is not all preterism, that Jesus referred to both times, the first century destruction of the Temple and the Second Coming:

Footnote for [Matthew 24:1–25:46]
The discourse of the fifth book, the last of the five around which the gospel is structured. It is called the “eschatological” discourse since it deals with the coming of the new age (the eschaton) in its fullness, with events that will precede it, and with how the disciples are to conduct themselves while awaiting an event that is as certain as its exact time is unknown to all but the Father (Mt 24:36). The discourse may be divided into two parts, Mt 24:1–44 and Mt 24:45–25:46. In the first, Matthew follows his Marcan source (Mk 13:1–37) closely. The second is drawn from Q and from the evangelist’s own traditional material. Both parts show Matthew’s editing of his sources by deletions, additions, and modifications. The vigilant waiting that is emphasized in the second part does not mean a cessation of ordinary activity and concentration only on what is to come, but a faithful accomplishment of duties at hand, with awareness that the end, for which the disciples must always be ready, will entail the great judgment by which the everlasting destiny of all will be determined.

Footnote - [Matthew 24:3]
The Mount of Olives: see note on Mt 21:1. The disciples: cf. Mk 13:3–4 where only Peter, James, John, and Andrew put the question that is answered by the discourse. In both gospels, however, the question is put privately: the ensuing discourse is only for those who are disciples of Jesus. When will this happen…end of the age?: Matthew distinguishes carefully between the destruction of the temple (this) and the coming of Jesus that will bring the end of the age. In Mark the two events are more closely connected, a fact that may be explained by Mark’s believing that the one would immediately succeed the other. Coming: this translates the Greek word parousia, which is used in the gospels only here and in Mt 24:27, 37, 39. It designated the official visit of a ruler to a city or the manifestation of a saving deity, and it was used by Christians to refer to the final coming of Jesus in glory, a term first found in the New Testament with that meaning in 1 Thes 2:19.

Footnote for [Matthew 24:8]
The labor pains: the tribulations leading up to the end of the age are compared to the pains of a woman about to give birth. There is much attestation for rabbinic use of the phrase “the woes (or birth pains) of the Messiah” after the New Testament period, but in at least one instance it is attributed to a rabbi who lived in the late first century A.D. In this Jewish usage it meant the distress of the time preceding the coming of the Messiah; here, the labor pains precede the coming of the Son of Man in glory.

Footnote for [Matthew 24:9–12]
Matthew has used Mk 13:9–12 in his missionary discourse (Mt 10:17–21) and omits it here. Besides the sufferings, including death, and the hatred of all nations that the disciples will have to endure, there will be worse affliction within the church itself. This is described in Mt 24:10–12, which are peculiar to Matthew. Will be led into sin: literally, “will be scandalized,” probably meaning that they will become apostates; see Mt 13:21 where “fall away” translates the same Greek word as here. Betray: in the Greek this is the same word as the hand over of Mt 24:9. The handing over to persecution and hatred from outside will have their counterpart within the church. False prophets: these are Christians; see note on Mt 7:15–20. Evildoing: see Mt 7:23. Because of the apocalyptic nature of much of this discourse, the literal meaning of this description of the church should not be pressed too hard. However, there is reason to think that Matthew’s addition of these verses reflects in some measure the condition of his community.

[Pope Benedict referred to Maciel as a false prophet - a sign of the times..]

There are more footnotes that explain it, too much info to post, so here is the link:
http://www.usccb.org/bible/mt/24:01#48024001-1

[And that whole Roman legion thing representing the coming of the Son of Man - I have always felt that it did not adequately fit the text in Matthew and is too long of a stretch made by someone trying way too hard to force the words of Jesus in Matthew 24 to apply to the first century only. I feel the person who came up with that could not conceive and did not realize Jesus was speaking of both the first century AD and the last century at the same time.]

God bless you.
__________________
I will take Francisco and Jacinta [to Heaven] soon, but you must remain A While Longer. Jesus wishes to use you to make me better known and loved.
- Our Lady of Fatima to Lucia, 13 June 1917

Last edited by beehumble; Nov 28, '11 at 4:48 pm.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old Nov 28, '11, 8:02 pm
patrick457 patrick457 is offline
Forum Master
 
Join Date: September 7, 2006
Posts: 12,970
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Daniel's 70 weeks - Need Input

Quote:
Originally Posted by beehumble View Post
Father Arminjon and many other notables within the Church believed or believe the entire conversation was certainly not about the first century and the end of the Old Covenant age.

Preterism is one of several interpretations, but it is not accepted by most as the only interpretation.

The footnotes within the NAB explain that it is not all preterism, that Jesus referred to both times, the first century destruction of the Temple and the Second Coming:

Footnote for [Matthew 24:1口25:46]
The discourse of the fifth book, the last of the five around which the gospel is structured. It is called the “eschatological” discourse since it deals with the coming of the new age (the eschaton) in its fullness, with events that will precede it, and with how the disciples are to conduct themselves while awaiting an event that is as certain as its exact time is unknown to all but the Father (Mt 24:36). The discourse may be divided into two parts, Mt 24:1口44 and Mt 24:45口25:46. In the first, Matthew follows his Marcan source (Mk 13:1口37) closely. The second is drawn from Q and from the evangelist’s own traditional material. Both parts show Matthew’s editing of his sources by deletions, additions, and modifications. The vigilant waiting that is emphasized in the second part does not mean a cessation of ordinary activity and concentration only on what is to come, but a faithful accomplishment of duties at hand, with awareness that the end, for which the disciples must always be ready, will entail the great judgment by which the everlasting destiny of all will be determined.

Footnote - [Matthew 24:3]
The Mount of Olives: see note on Mt 21:1. The disciples: cf. Mk 13:3口4 where only Peter, James, John, and Andrew put the question that is answered by the discourse. In both gospels, however, the question is put privately: the ensuing discourse is only for those who are disciples of Jesus. When will this happen…end of the age?: Matthew distinguishes carefully between the destruction of the temple (this) and the coming of Jesus that will bring the end of the age. In Mark the two events are more closely connected, a fact that may be explained by Mark’s believing that the one would immediately succeed the other. Coming: this translates the Greek word parousia, which is used in the gospels only here and in Mt 24:27, 37, 39. It designated the official visit of a ruler to a city or the manifestation of a saving deity, and it was used by Christians to refer to the final coming of Jesus in glory, a term first found in the New Testament with that meaning in 1 Thes 2:19.

Footnote for [Matthew 24:8]
The labor pains: the tribulations leading up to the end of the age are compared to the pains of a woman about to give birth. There is much attestation for rabbinic use of the phrase “the woes (or birth pains) of the Messiah” after the New Testament period, but in at least one instance it is attributed to a rabbi who lived in the late first century A.D. In this Jewish usage it meant the distress of the time preceding the coming of the Messiah; here, the labor pains precede the coming of the Son of Man in glory.

Footnote for [Matthew 24:9口12]
Matthew has used Mk 13:9口12 in his missionary discourse (Mt 10:17口21) and omits it here. Besides the sufferings, including death, and the hatred of all nations that the disciples will have to endure, there will be worse affliction within the church itself. This is described in Mt 24:10口12, which are peculiar to Matthew. Will be led into sin: literally, “will be scandalized,” probably meaning that they will become apostates; see Mt 13:21 where “fall away” translates the same Greek word as here. Betray: in the Greek this is the same word as the hand over of Mt 24:9. The handing over to persecution and hatred from outside will have their counterpart within the church. False prophets: these are Christians; see note on Mt 7:15口20. Evildoing: see Mt 7:23. Because of the apocalyptic nature of much of this discourse, the literal meaning of this description of the church should not be pressed too hard. However, there is reason to think that Matthew’s addition of these verses reflects in some measure the condition of his community.

[Pope Benedict referred to Maciel as a false prophet - a sign of the times..]

There are more footnotes that explain it, too much info to post, so here is the link:
http://www.usccb.org/bible/mt/24:01#48024001-1

[And that whole Roman legion thing representing the coming of the Son of Man - I have always felt that it did not adequately fit the text in Matthew and is too long of a stretch made by someone trying way too hard to force the words of Jesus in Matthew 24 to apply to the first century only. I feel the person who came up with that could not conceive and did not realize Jesus was speaking of both the first century AD and the last century at the same time.]

God bless you.
Did you read what Ryan wrote at the end? "But Jesus' words point to and prefigure his Second Coming." So no contest here.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old Nov 28, '11, 10:07 pm
ryanoneil ryanoneil is offline
Forum Supporter
 
Join Date: August 29, 2007
Posts: 3,461
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Daniel's 70 weeks - Need Input

Quote:
Originally Posted by patrick457 View Post
Did you read what Ryan wrote at the end? "But Jesus' words point to and prefigure his Second Coming." So no contest here.
Yes! Isaiah prophecied the the Lord would give the sign of a young woman conceiving and bearing a son, and it was fulfilled in Isaiah's day. But that fulfillment itself prefigured and pointed to another more significant fulfillment in Jesus.

Likewise, in the case of the Temple's destruction (the end of the Old Covenant age), that event prophecied and prefigured the still-future final fulfillment of Christ coming at the end of this age.
__________________

scripturecatholic.com
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old Nov 28, '11, 11:25 pm
ryanoneil ryanoneil is offline
Forum Supporter
 
Join Date: August 29, 2007
Posts: 3,461
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Daniel's 70 weeks - Need Input

Quote:
Originally Posted by beehumble View Post
Father Arminjon and many other notables within the Church believed or believe the entire conversation was certainly not about the first century and the end of the Old Covenant age.
Hi beehumble, I had to delete some of the footnotes to make everything fit. I didn't mean to give that impression. I meant to say everything in the Olivet discourse was fulfilled in the first century with the end of the Old Covenant age. But in his words Jesus is pointing to his coming at the end of this age.

Quote:
Preterism is one of several interpretations, but it is not accepted by most as the only interpretation.
I agree full preterism is short sighted if it doesn't point to the final fulfillment at the end of our age.

Quote:
The footnotes within the NAB explain that it is not all preterism, that Jesus referred to both times, the first century destruction of the Temple and the Second Coming:
I agree!

Quote:
Footnote for [Matthew 24:1–25:46]
The discourse of the fifth book, the last of the five around which the gospel is structured. It is called the “eschatological” discourse since it deals with the coming of the new age (the eschaton) in its fullness, with events that will precede it, and with how the disciples are to conduct themselves while awaiting an event that is as certain as its exact time is unknown to all but the Father (Mt 24:36). The discourse may be divided into two parts, Mt 24:1–44 and Mt 24:45–25:46. In the first, Matthew follows his Marcan source (Mk 13:1–37) closely. The second is drawn from Q and from the evangelist’s own traditional material. [/b]
I don't have a problem with the two parts, but Jesus is still talking about the Temples destruction near the end of chapter 24 and chapter 25 BUT also speaking of future eschatology.

Quote:
Footnote - [Matthew 24:3]
The Mount of Olives: see note on Mt 21:1. The disciples: cf. Mk 13:3–4 where only Peter, James, John, and Andrew put the question that is answered by the discourse. In both gospels, however, the question is put privately: the ensuing discourse is only for those who are disciples of Jesus. When will this happen…end of the age?: Matthew distinguishes carefully between the destruction of the temple (this) and the coming of Jesus that will bring the end of the age. In Mark the two events are more closely connected, a fact that may be explained by Mark’s believing that the one would immediately succeed the other. Coming: this translates the Greek word parousia, which is used in the gospels only here and in Mt 24:27, 37, 39. It designated the official visit of a ruler to a city or the manifestation of a saving deity, and it was used by Christians to refer to the final coming of Jesus in glory, a term first found in the New Testament with that meaning in 1 Thes 2:19.
If you read Luke you won't see a careful distinction. His presentation shows no division of different subjects, but refers to a single time of fulfillment (Lk 17:22-37) I'm not saying that Jesus is only refering to one or the other, but what I'm saying for example is: when Jesus talks about lightning in Mt 24:27 he talking about his coming judgement on the city of Jerusalem which ends the Old Coven ant age (while pointing to his Second coming in glory).

Quote:
Footnote for [Matthew 24:8]
The labor pains: the tribulations leading up to the end of the age are compared to the pains of a woman about to give birth. There is much attestation for rabbinic use of the phrase “the woes (or birth pains) of the Messiah” after the New Testament period, but in at least one instance it is attributed to a rabbi who lived in the late first century A.D. In this Jewish usage it meant the distress of the time preceding the coming of the Messiah; here, the labor pains precede the coming of the Son of Man in glory.
While I don't disagree, it applied just as much to the grief that overcame sinners when God came as judge in the first century.

Quote:
Footnote for [Matthew 24:9–12]
Matthew has used Mk 13:9–12 in his missionary discourse (Mt 10:17–21) and omits it here. Besides the sufferings, including death, and the hatred of all nations that the disciples will have to endure, there will be worse affliction within the church itself. This is described in Mt 24:10–12, which are peculiar to Matthew.
I apologize for not reading the link at this time (I will), but these verses apply just as much to the first century as they would to the future.

Quote:
[And that whole Roman legion thing representing the coming of the Son of Man - I have always felt that it did not adequately fit the text in Matthew and is too long of a stretch made by someone trying way too hard to force the words of Jesus in Matthew 24 to apply to the first century only. I feel the person who came up with that could not conceive and did not realize Jesus was speaking of both the first century AD and the last century at the same time.]
Well I don't really disagree that Jesus is talking about both. But it does accurately represent the Roman legion. Take (Isa 19:1) for example, "The Lord is riding on a swift cloud and comes to Egypt; and the idols of Egypt will tremble at His presence." It was fulfilled in Isa 20:1-6, but God did not make Himself visible in any physical mainfestation. God's coming on the cloud was actually fulfilled in the arrival of the Assyrian army! They were the tool of God's judgment. God gloriously came on the clouds, but what was physically seen was the Assyrian army. Do you see what I mean?

And the other apocalyptic language that Jesus uses can be explained in a similar way (without taking anything away from his reference to the end of this age). God bless you also!
__________________

scripturecatholic.com
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old Nov 29, '11, 3:12 am
patrick457 patrick457 is offline
Forum Master
 
Join Date: September 7, 2006
Posts: 12,970
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Daniel's 70 weeks - Need Input

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryanoneil View Post
Yes! Isaiah prophecied the the Lord would give the sign of a young woman conceiving and bearing a son, and it was fulfilled in Isaiah's day. But that fulfillment itself prefigured and pointed to another more significant fulfillment in Jesus.

Likewise, in the case of the Temple's destruction (the end of the Old Covenant age), that event prophecied and prefigured the still-future final fulfillment of Christ coming at the end of this age.
That's what I like about the interpretation of Biblical prophecies as having multiple layers of meaning: they are always 'fresh' for every generation that reads them, and you always discover something the deeper you dig in. We often imagine prophecies as having an one-on-one basis, pointing to only one thing (usually something in the future), but I don't see why we should be so narrow: prophecies could be relevant for the past AND the future (and also the present) IMHO.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old Dec 26, '11, 9:21 pm
JohnPaul0 JohnPaul0 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: August 8, 2004
Posts: 392
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Daniel's 70 weeks - Need Input

Well, I finally had time to summarize some of the posts here, and I sent them off to the fellow.

I really like Ivebeenshown's exegesis that the 70 weeks started from 457 BC.

Then, guess what? I was reading the proclamation of the birth of Christ on Christmas Eve, and it said that Christ was conceived "in the sixty-fith year of the prophet Daniel." Very interesting because it places the beginning of the 70 weeks about at the beginning of Ataxerxes reign in 465 BC, which is what an early post claimed:

https://sites.google.com/site/aquina...-7/dan-8/dan-9

The problem with that date is that there is no Biblical record of a decree from Ataxerxes at that time. We're only talking about 12 years difference from 465 to 457 BC, but the 70 weeks are supposed to be exact, so I'm officially stumped.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old Dec 27, '11, 9:51 am
JohnPaul0 JohnPaul0 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: August 8, 2004
Posts: 392
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Daniel's 70 weeks - Need Input

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnPaul0 View Post
Well, I finally had time to summarize some of the posts here, and I sent them off to the fellow.

I really like Ivebeenshown's exegesis that the 70 weeks started from 457 BC.

Then, guess what? I was reading the proclamation of the birth of Christ on Christmas Eve, and it said that Christ was conceived "in the sixty-fith year of the prophet Daniel." Very interesting because it places the beginning of the 70 weeks about at the beginning of Ataxerxes reign in 465 BC, which is what an early post claimed:

https://sites.google.com/site/aquina...-7/dan-8/dan-9

The problem with that date is that there is no Biblical record of a decree from Ataxerxes at that time. We're only talking about 12 years difference from 465 to 457 BC, but the 70 weeks are supposed to be exact, so I'm officially stumped.
Whoops! Math error!

The difference between 465 BC and 457 BC is only 8 years. As a matter of fact, all the numbers come out very close to Christ being born in 2 BC, which is the end of the 65th week of Daniel if we start counting from 457 BC:

457 BC = start of 1st week.
65 weeks = 65 *7 = 455 years.
457 - 455 = 2 BC.

So, if Christ was born in 2 BC, at the end of the 65th week of Daniel, that leaves 4 weeks (28 years) until the end of the 69th week. That is exactly where Ivebeenshown places the beginning of Christ's public ministry, in 27 BC (remember there is no year "0"), when Our Lord states that "the time is fulfilled" (Mk 1:15). Way cool!!!

-JohnPaul
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old Feb 10, '12, 9:50 pm
Daniel Gracely Daniel Gracely is offline
Observing Member
 
Join Date: February 10, 2012
Posts: 12
Religion: Evangelical
Default Re: Daniel's 70 weeks - Need Input

Hi JohnPaul0,

I realize you’re seeking a Catholic response to Daniel’s 70 weeks, but I’d like to put my 2 cents in. I’m a Dispensational-leaning Evangelical who last year studied in-depth Daniel’s prophecy about when the Messiah would be crucified. I’ll give mostly my conclusions, but unpack any particular points in the future, should you wish.

First, only Artaxerxes’ decree in his 20th year specifically addresses the rebuilding of Jerusalem. Those believing it came earlier (i.e. 457 B.C., etc.) have a hard time explaining why nearly 40 verses in Nehemiah 3 detail the building of the wall of Jerusalem, if in fact it began 13 years earlier. One commentator here points to Ezra 4:21 to suggest the city was then being built. But this was a claim by the Jews’ enemies, not a fact in evidence recognized by Artaxerxes or the Jews. In fact, in Ezra 4:24 Nehemiah states that because of this complaint the Jews left off building the HOUSE (not City) of God. Furthermore, Josephus notes that the Jews’ enemies saw the incredible height of the Temple’s walls and naturally made no such fine distinction between what seemed to them the building of the fortress and the building of a city.

Others claim Cyrus, not Artaxerxes, gave the command to rebuild Jerusalem, based on 2 passages in Isaiah. I’ll unpack these in detail if you wish, but the first is only a prophecy [of Cyrus], not an order; and the second (Is. 45:13) is a Messianic passage which exhibits a change in addressement from 2nd person (in verse 1) to 3rd person (in verse 13).

Now observe further that an Egyptian papyrus dated Jan. 2, 464, is double-dated to Xerxes’ 21st year and the ascension year of Artaxerxes. This means that Artaxerxes did not ascend immediately after his father’s assassination in August 465, but ascended at some point after the 1st of Tishri (the Jews’ 7th month). The 5th century BC Jewish colony at Elephantine reckoned the anniversary of a king’s years from Tishri, not Nisan (the Jews’ 1st month). Nehemiah also reckoned years thus, because in Ne. chaps 1 and 2, Nehemiah speaks of an event in Chislev, the 9th month, and then a later event in Nisan, the 1st month, as BOTH is Artaxerxes’ 20 year. This shows that a king’s year was considered by the Jews to run from Tishri to Tishri. In summary, Artaxerxes’ 1st year of reign would have therefore commenced upon Tishri, 464, meaning his 20th year began upon Tishri, 445, with the Nisan in the 20th year falling in the spring, 444 BC. Incidentally, a near universal mistake by Dispensationalists holding to a spring, 444 BC beginning ‘bookend’ date for Daniel’s 69 weeks, is that they put it on March 5. But calendars found at Elephantine show that in 14 instances during the 5th century, Jews marked the beginning of Nisan anywhere from March 26 to April 24 (within a day). Even if we expand this parameter one or two weeks earlier, it still falls too short. Therefore Nisan in 444 BC actually began a lunar month later, about April 2 or 3, 444 BC.

If we accept the premise of a 360-day ‘prophetic’ year, (probably not the best term, as I’ll explain in a minute), the 483 years of 360 days brings us to (Julian date) Monday, April 27, 33 AD. A careful harmonization of the gospels shows that this marks the Day of the Triumphal Entry. (‘Palm Sunday’ is a church tradition. The gospels do not state that it fell on the first day of the week. Again, a careful harmonization shows it to be Monday. I’ll detail this if you wish.) Christ died on the following Friday, Julian date of May 1, 33 AD, thus “after 69 weeks” as Daniel foretold. And Christ was resurrected on Sunday, May 3, 33 AD. In terms of the proleptic-Gregorian calendar, the Julian dates of May 1 and 3 work out ‘seasonally’ to about April 28 and 29.

IMO there are two interesting things in all this. The first is that Christ thus fulfilled Old Testament symbolism of the 10th, 14th, and 16th days of Nisan during Passion Week. This is because on the 10th of Nisan the lamb was separated from the flock (i.e., Christ the Lamb of God was set apart from the rest of Israel, as he rode into Jeruslaem); the 14th of Nisan the lamb was slain (in 33 AD this happened on ‘Good Friday’); and the 16th of Nisan was the Offering of First Fruits, which stands for Resurrection.

The second interesting thing is the 360 day year. From statements about Noah’s age during the Flood, we know that the year was 360 days long at the time of the creation. It is my belief that the Jews were meant to countdown 483 years of 360 days each because the Messiah, if he were accepted when he came, intended to restore the earth as it was at the beginning. This would be part of the Messiah’s general agenda of restoration during His kingdom. In fact, Christ states on the Day of Triumphal Entry that the Jews should have known their “visitation”, and “in this thy day” the things pertaining to their peace. This was the very day that ended the 69 weeks. Thus we have the theme of Jerusalem’s rebuilding and restoration to receive the King Himself. But because the Jews missed it, they missed their Messiah.
(part 2 follows)
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old Feb 10, '12, 9:51 pm
Daniel Gracely Daniel Gracely is offline
Observing Member
 
Join Date: February 10, 2012
Posts: 12
Religion: Evangelical
Default Re: Daniel's 70 weeks - Need Input

(part 2 of 2)
However, Jesus’ statement raises the question why Jesus thought the Jews should have been counting off 360-day years to begin with? For what in their history suggested they should do so? Well, it is also my belief that the exact length of the Exile was a year shy of what the Jews had anticipated, being 70 years of 360 days each. For this equals 69 years and 2 days of ‘normal’ solar years. Thus the Jews should have noted the year difference, and asked themselves why this should be. And after further reflection they should have realized that creation had a 360 days year, and that Daniel’s weeks should be understood in similar terms. Therefore the ‘prophetic’ year is really the original Divine intent for a year, because it was the length of a solar year at the time of creation. Now, of course, the Jews would have continued to observe their lunar-solar calendar as usual, in order to celebrate their feasts in their proper seasons. But as an abstract way of counting down the years in anticipation of the Messiah, they also should have been counting off 360-day years in anticipation of his coming. (Note here that Daniel in the beginning of chapter 9 states that he is reflecting on Jeremiah and when the Exile should end.) Incidentally, my study of the reign of kings in biblical and extra-biblical history seems to confirm the claim by atheists (but others, I suppose) that the Exile could not have lasted 70 ‘normal’ solar years. However, a case can be made for an Exile lasting up to 69 years and about 16 days. Thus an Exile of 69 years and 2 days is possible. This involves a lot of detail I won’t unpack here (unless asked).

Well, that is a brief summary of my study. The dates for the 69 weeks, then, are (Julian dates) April 6, 444 BC to April 27, 33 AD.

Incidentally, the derision among some commentators here, over the idea of a hiatus between the 69th and 70th weeks is unfounded. There are about a half dozen reasons why a hiatus is taught in Scripture, but this, too, I won’t unpack unless asked (as this comment is already so long!). Suffice it to say that if the 70th week was contiguous, Daniel should have stated that the Messiah would be cut off in the beginning of the 70th week, not after the 69th week. But as I say, there are other reasons as well.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old Feb 11, '12, 12:02 am
onemangang's Avatar
onemangang onemangang is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: September 10, 2010
Posts: 715
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Daniel's 70 weeks - Need Input

Here is a writing from Julius Africanus

Julius Africanus, the father of Christian chronography, on Daniel 9

Africanus (160-240 A.D.)
"The section thus expressed gives much strange information. But here I will make the necessary examination of the times and the matters connected with them. It is clear, then, that the coming of the Christ is foretold as to occur after seventy weeks. For in the time of our Saviour, or after His time, sins are done away and transgressions ended. And by this remission iniquities are blotted out (c) by a propitiation together with unrighteousness, eternal righteousness is published beyond that of the law, visions and prophecies (last) until John, and the Holy of holies is anointed. For these things existed in expectation only before our Saviour's Coming. And the angel explains we must count the numbers, that is to say the seventy weeks, which are 490 years, from the going forth of the word of answer and from the building of Jerusalem. This took place in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, King of Persia. For Nehemiah his cup-bearer made the request, (d) and received the answer that Jerusalem should be rebuilt, and the order went forth to carry it out. For till that date the city lay desolate. For when Cyrus after the seventieth year of the Captivity spontaneously allowed every one who wished to return, those with Joshua the High Priest and Zerubbabel went back, and those afterwards with Ezra, and were at first prevented from building the Temple, and the wall of the City, as no order had been given for it; and so |125 there was a delay until Nehemiah and the reign of Artaxerxes and the one hundred and fifteenth year of the Persian Empire. And this was 185 years from the taking of Jerusalem. It was then that King Artaxerxes gave the order (390) for it to be built. And Nehemiah was sent to take charge of the work, and the street and wall were built, as it had been prophesied. And from that date to the coming of Christ is seventy weeks. For if we begin to count from any other point but this, not only the dates will not agree, but many absurdities arise. If, for instance, we begin counting the seventy weeks from Cyrus and the first Mission, the period will be too long by more than a century, if from (b) the day the angel prophesied to Daniel still longer, and longer still if we start from the beginning of the Captivity. For we find the length of the Persian Empire to be 230 years, and of the Macedonian 300, and from then to the sixteenth year of Tiberius Caesar 60 years. And from Artaxerxes to the time of Christ seventy weeks are (c) completed according to Jewish reckoning. For from Nehemiah, who was sent by Artaxerxes to rebuild Jerusalem, in the one hundred and fifteenth year of the Persian Empire, and in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, and in the fourth year of the eighty-third Olympiad up to that date, which was the second year of the two hundred and second Olympiad, and the sixteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, there are 475 years, or 490 according to Hebrew reckoning. For they reckon years by the course of the moon, I ought to (d) tell you, counting 354 days, while the course of the sun is 365 ¼ days, twelve lunar revolutions, being exceeded by one solar by 11¼ days. Therefore the Greeks and the Jews add three intercalary months to every eighth year. For eight times 11¼ days makes three months. So then 465 years, in eight-year cycles, makes fifty-nine years and three months. Since adding the three intercalary months every eighth year, we have a few days short of fifteen years. And these added (391) to the 475 years complete the seventy weeks." (Fifth Book of his Chronography, Quoted in Demonstratio Evangelica (Proof of the Gospel) ; BOOK VIII)

Even if people use some different dating that posits Christ death a few years earlier or later, the focus has always been that it was a fulfilled prophesy in Christ day!

Peace and Love in Christ
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old Feb 11, '12, 9:29 pm
Daniel Gracely Daniel Gracely is offline
Observing Member
 
Join Date: February 10, 2012
Posts: 12
Religion: Evangelical
Default Re: Daniel's 70 weeks - Need Input

I suppose if only for the sake of historical interest, it might be worth noting onemangang’s quote of [Sextus] Julius Africanus. But that JA’s opinion should be accepted merely because he is said to be the “father” of Christian chronology, is false. For even if it be true that he wrote more extensively than other contemporaries about Christian chronology, this hardly proves he is necessarily right about any particular thing that he wrote. His work is not so superior to warrant a free pass from the same historical scrutiny applied to others. In short, we don’t want to embrace the logical fallacy of credentialism.

We also do not want a spirit of “almost counts” to encourage too much our embrace of prophecy. For many say (in effect) “So what, whether the fulfillment it is here or there—a month or 7 years this way or that?” In fact, it matters a great deal to the skeptic and even to the skeptical believer, who find it more difficult to believe apart from more exacting proofs. But why shrink from providing this? Is not God able to give such proofs?

So then, concerning the specific statements of Julius Africanus, the following should be noted.

First, archaeological records have since proven that Julius Africanus’ interpretation of the 70 weeks is false. The evidence lies in the aforementioned double-dated Egyptian papyrus dated Jan. 2, 464, but also in conjunction with 5th century BC records at Elephantine, in which 14 dates are given for the 1st of Nisan in both the Jewish and Egyptian calendars from which only specific years may be deduced, showing that Artaxerxes’ 20th year could not have been in 390 BC, as Julius Africanus claims. Rather, it proves that Artaxerxes ascended the throne between the 1st of Tishri 465 and Jan. 2, 464. This means the 1st year of Artaxerxes’ reign began on the 1st of Tishri, 464, meaning his 20th year ran from 445/444 BC. Thus JA’s claim of 390 BC for Artaxerxes’ 20th year means a difference of 30-50 years compared to today’s commonly accepted beginning ‘bookend’ dates of Daniel’s prophecy. Such a span of time hardly invites a settled feeling about Africanus’ timeline. Indeed, such a span could only satisfy those who are prepared to accept a prophecy so generalized as to be meaningless.

Second, JA claims that the 20th year of Artaxerxes was 185 years after the capture of Jerusalem. But from early Babylonian records and II Kings, we know that Jerusalem was captured on March 16, 597. The interval between this year and 444 BC is 153 years (or about 158, according to JA’s supposition of Jewish ‘lunar’ years). Therefore Africanus is incorrect by over 25 years. Today, we also know that the Persian kingdom began on October 29, 539 BC, when a military commander under Cyrus entered Jerusalem. This means that Artaxerxes’ 20th year fell about 90 years into the Persian kingdom, not 115, as Africanus claims.

JA also claims that the Jewish calendar was corrected only every eighth year, and then by an intercalation of three months. But such a practice could not have been possible, since such a drift in the calendar over eight years would have made it impossible in certain years for Jews to observe The Offering of First Fruits (barley) in its proper season (on the 16th of Nisan). Today the correct view is understood—that the Jews must have averaged one month intercalations about 7 times in 19 years.

I could go on, but I trust the point is made. The real point is that if onemangang actually believes JA’s chronology is anything more than a passing historical curiosity, such that we can feel good that

Quote:
Even if people use some different dating that posits Christ death a few years earlier or later, the focus has always been that it was a fulfilled prophesy in Christ day!
he has, I think, unwittingly added to the cacophony of voices and unproved opinions which has long fueled skeptics into saying that, since Christians themselves cannot agree at all about the timing of Daniel’s prophecy, obviously the prophecy is so plastic as to be meaningless. This explains their frequent charge of numerology. And so we ought to do everything we can to pinpoint the historical accuracy of Daniel 9:25-26a beyond a reasonable doubt. For while even that won’t likely impress any atheists, it is our duty nonetheless.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old Feb 11, '12, 10:50 pm
onemangang's Avatar
onemangang onemangang is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: September 10, 2010
Posts: 715
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Daniel's 70 weeks - Need Input

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Gracely View Post


he has, I think, unwittingly added to the cacophony of voices and unproved opinions which has long fueled skeptics into saying that, since Christians themselves cannot agree at all about the timing of Daniel’s prophecy, obviously the prophecy is so plastic as to be meaningless.
Lets take the same paradigm and apply it to ecclesiology! I think, unwittingly added to the cacophony of voices and unproved opinions which has long fueled skeptics into saying that, since Christians themselves cannot agree at all about.....What Christ did. Did He build a Church? Is He is truly present in the Eucharist? Salvation? And a host of other things like birth control and abortion!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Gracely View Post
This explains their frequent charge of numerology. And so we ought to do everything we can to pinpoint the historical accuracy of Daniel 9:25-26a beyond a reasonable doubt. For while even that won’t likely impress any atheists, it is our duty nonetheless.
If your position is correct and we PROVE without a shadow of the doubt a timeline, what would it matter? OK so all these events lead us to the cross or an undetermined future event that can't be known. Either way we are left with the expectation of Christ return. The bible doesn't give you a date for that. It would just be, yet another prophesy fulfilled, piled onto the ones we have already, like Wisdom 2:12-20, that point to the Messiah. Non-believers would scoff at yet another one. The Spirit of God moves men towards faith, not timelines. You can show a,b,c,d, right down the line and people with a presupposition that denies the supernatural will reject it as coincidence.

I am not familiar with the dispensational view other than they get the "missing 7 years" from interpreting Daniel 9 and somehow those 7 years have turned into almost 2000. Wow, I'd hate to have a judge give me a sentence that says you'll be out in 10 years and after the ten years was up, and I'm looking to get out, he said "There was a gap after year number 3 and year number 4 will start sometime in the future" Then I die in prison 60 years later.

I don't hold to JA's timeline, the point being is that he viewed it as fulfilled. 490 years came and went, whether it be at the cross, or 3 1/2 years after Christ passion. I don't know, I have heard the case for the 490 years starting at Ezra 7 or Nehemiah 2. To me, it makes very little difference being that it's been more than 490 years since either date. I don't hold to some halt of the timeline. The timeline was important to the jewish people and I don't think God is out to confuse people, because He is not the author of confusion but of peace, which I have, knowing that the Catholic Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth.

I was in an Evangelical community (Calvary Chapel) that tried to teach dispensationalism. They were so confused, and without a study bible, they were twisted into pretzels. The Rapture, Predestination, Election and free will, same stuff over and over.

Personally I feel that not only is the 70 weeks of Daniel a past event, but much of Revelation too! So Yeah, I fall into the Partial Preterism camp, but more importantly the Catholic camp!
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old Feb 12, '12, 6:05 am
Daniel Gracely Daniel Gracely is offline
Observing Member
 
Join Date: February 10, 2012
Posts: 12
Religion: Evangelical
Default Re: Daniel's 70 weeks - Need Input

Hi Onemangang,

It is a false dichotomy to say the Spirit moves men towards faith, not timelines. For [proper] timelines are faithful representations of historical events supporting a viewpoint, so that one may have faith. And so it does matter, at least to the skeptic who is honestly searching. As for those who have faith in the prophecy and feel historical proof makes no matter, they are left to explain what exactly is the object of their faith? That Daniel’s prophesy is somehow fulfilled? But how does such a position compel belief in others? However, I agree with you that for the one who presupposes there is no such thing as fulfilled prophecy, all reasonable arguments will be lost on him.

In passing, I’m sorry to hear what sounds like your Calvinistic or semi-Calvinistic, Calvary Church experience. A few years ago I was told by a concerned Calvary Church pastor that the ‘intellectuals’ in the CC movement were mostly lining up behind Calvinism. Hence your subjection to Predestination, Election, etc. Probably no one disagrees with Calvinism more than I. In fact, my website [xCalvinist.com] is a free online read of a lengthy book I wrote against Calvinism. It demonstrates that Calvinistic doctrines are all based on arguments of special pleading, since Calvinists forsake the historical-grammatical hermeneutic. In other words, Calvinists simply define words differently when, e.g., God is the grammatical subject and one of their doctrines is at stake. Consequently, one hears statements from Calvinists like: “The word foreknowledge, when used in the New Testament, when God is the subject, means…” Such arguments are false, because words do not change meaning depending on the grammatical subject.

But back to Daniel’s prophecy. I realize how absurd it appears to you that a hiatus could occur between the 69th and 70th weeks. But the scriptural reasons for this are not a few. So I will discuss this in a separate comment.

Last edited by Daniel Gracely; Feb 12, '12 at 6:15 am.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8350Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: awsiukiewicz
5089CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: UpUpAndAway
4409Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: DesertSister62
4037OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: eschator83
3858SOLITUDE
Last by: tuscany
3679Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: RJB
3268Poems and Reflections
Last by: tonyg
3247Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: Amiciel
3218Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: memphian
3085For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: flower lady



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 7:29 am.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.