If you feel condemned then that is your problem. I am simply pointing out a necessary difficulty and obstacle to your understanding and a roadblock to a truly thorough discussion. When you claim a mastery of the text and its understanding, this should be put within a certain context of full disclosure. You don't like that context or feel that my pointing it out is "condemning" when in fact, it is simple honesty.
I don’t feel “condemned”, I feel you are being rude far beyond what I would tolerate from a casual acquaintance, let alone someone who is an ordained rabbi. You know nothing about my educational background, where I was Bar Mitzvah or my Hebrew training, yet you continually assault my intelligence, my Hebrew and even my Jewishness. Further, I guarantee I know far more Greek than you but I’ve been careful to keep our NT discussions in plain English—as well as our OT discussions for the most part—so that others can be involved. Are you unaware of how patronizing your patter is of “Only people who really understand Hebrew and believe what I do about the Hebrew also know God’s Word”? This is demeaning to Jews and Gentiles alike who love God’s Word in English and many other languages, too.
Yes, that is precisely what I said. I cited those two verses and asked if you could explain something based on the reading of the text. You have yet to do that. I have already presented a reading of the same text which answers all of your questions. You had trouble with the auxiliary verbs in question.
No, I asked you regarding YOUR stance, since I already said it’s a Messianic passage and when you were rude again, THE Messiah, not “a Messiah” or “an anointed personage”.
Transgression began when people sinned.
I’ve asked you three or four (?) times regarding Daniel 9 how sinning ENDED per the chapter in the times of Jesus—without Jesus. Your waffling leaves me more convinced than before that Jews who abhor Y’shua don’t have a counter claim of substance.
It wasn't. It could have been. " in order that their transgressions should terminate, their sins should end, and their iniquities should be expiated," Note those pesky helping verbs again. Had you addressed the question I asked about the subject of the verb, you might have understood this. But you ignored it.
You can take a look at a complete time line (one understanding of it) here
http://drazin.com/?7._The_L-RD'S_Anointed just scroll down. It seems that your timeline is simply wrong, reverse engineered to account for things the way you like. Here are some other explanations
http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/13294/the-70-weeks-in-daniel-9 . Feel free to insist that your understanding is right. It doesn't matter. Your view doesn't conform with anything in Judaism so by attaching yourself to it, you are declaring your lack of connection to Judaism. Pretty straightforward.
I looked at both sites and read the texts, and I will insist. You likely know there are now four or five alternative timelines given by different secular, Jewish and Christian apologists. Regardless, Agrippa II did not end human transgression or reconcile Israel back to God. Daniel gave Israel 70 weeks to finish it ALL. There are hundreds of verses in Tanakh about the coming Day of the Lord. You can find sources online to see how Daniel’s 70th ties into the coming tribulation and Battle of Megiddo, if you have an interest.
Further, I have not severed my connections from Judaism nor declared my lack of connection to Judaism, as you wrote. Indeed, I still experience persecution for identifying as a Jew and as a Jewish Christian also. I don’t think you would like it in turn if I wrote, “You are not a rabbi, rabbis are kind!” but rather, I encourage you to be an adult, mature, and kind on these, their own merits. Please stop mocking me, and being rude.
I answered this already. The text reads, "the anointed one will be cut off, and he will be no more, and the people of the coming monarch will destroy the city and the Sanctuary, and his end will come about by inundation, and until the end of the war, it will be cut off into desolation." Agrippa was killed in 68ce. Where in that verse does it say "not for himself"?
Well, if I wasn’t certain before, at least I know that you are a Hasidic anti-missionary, since you declined to actually look at the Hebrew for yourself and took this “translation” off Chabad.org. At least the JPS has it more like reality:
“And after the threescore and two weeks shall an anointed one be cut off, and be no more; and the people of a prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; but his end shall be with a flood; and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. 27 And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week; and for half of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease; and upon the wing of detestable things shall be that which causeth appalment; and that until the extermination wholly determined be poured out upon that which causeth appalment.”
So I’m certain you can also tell us what this means:
“…he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week; and for half of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease…”
Thank you.
