Why did the Jews reject their Messiah when he DID come?

[Spartan]

No, according to most scholars, Daniel was never in Babylon at all. The book was written during the Maccabean war. Daniel is not considered a prophet.. Its a history and the reason it was written was to encourage the Jews who were suffering under Antiochus.. You really should learn some history.. You have been completely deceived by Scofield.
.

None of that is true. The "most scholars" isn't true. You should have written, "History-challenged liberal pundits" instead. And Daniel was considered a prophet:

The "Prophet Daniel" found in the Dead Sea Scrolls:

Comment: It is interesting to note that every chapter of Daniel is represented in these manuscripts, except for Dan 12. However, this does not mean that the Book lacked the final chapter at Qumran, since Dan 12:10 is quoted in the Florilegium (4Q174) - (Dead Sea Scrolls), which explicitly tells us that it is written in the Book of Daniel the Prophet.

Jesus confirms Daniel is a Prophet

The Lord Jesus Christ spoke of Daniel "the prophet" (Matthew 24:15; Mark 13:14).

Alexander the Great and Daniel

JOSEPHUS [Antiquities, 11.8.5] mentions that Alexander the Great had designed to punish the Jews for their fidelity to Darius, but that Jaddua (332 B.C.), the high priest, met him at the head of a procession and averted his wrath by showing him Daniel's prophecy that a Grecian monarch should overthrow Persia. Certain it is, Alexander favored the Jews, and JOSEPHUS' statement gives an explanation of the fact; at least it shows that the Jews in JOSEPHUS' days believed that Daniel was extant in Alexander's days, long before the Maccabees.

The Talmud refers to Daniel as a Prophet

"Hatach. Hatach is another name for the prophet Daniel. He was called Hatach (related to the Hebrew word for "cut") because he was "cut down," demoted from his position of greatness, which he held at the courts of the previous kings" (Megillah 15a). http://www.virtualpurim.org/scripts/tgij/paper/IndexPurim.asp?ArticleID=1436&...

What you have to believe if Daniel didn't write the Book of Daniel

The (critics of Daniel) cannot believe in miracles and predictive prophecy which involve nothing but a simple faith in a wise and mighty and merciful God intervening in behalf of his people for his own glory and their salvation; BUT THEY CAN BELIEVE that a lot of obstreperous and cantankerous Jews who through all their history from Jacob and Esau down to the present time have disagreed and quarreled about almost everything, or nothing, could have accepted, unanimously and without a murmur, in an age when they were enlightened by the brilliant light of Platos philosophy, and Aristotles logic, and the criticism of the schools of Alexandria, a forged and ficticious document, untrue to the well remembered facts of their own experience and to the easily ascertained facts concerning their own past history and the history of the Babylonians, Medes, Persians, and Greeks of whom the author (of the book of Daniel) writes. R.D. Wilson, Studies in the Book of Daniel, pages 268, 269

The Sanhedrin of the second century B.C. was composed of men of the type of John Hyrcanus; men famed for their piety and learning; men who were heirs of all the proud traditions of the Jewish faith, and themselves the sons of successors of the heroes of the noble Maccabean revolt. And yet we are asked to believe (by the critics of Daniel) that these men, with their extremely strict views of inspiration and their intense reverence for their sacred writings.used their authority to smuggle into the Jewish Canon a book which, ex hypothesi, was a forgery, a literary fraud, and a religious novel of recent date. R. Anderson, Daniel in the Critics Den, pages 104-105

Reasons why your late-dating of Daniel is way off base:

The Date of the Book of Daniel

 

[sooda]

None of that is true. The "most scholars" isn't true. You should have written, "History-challenged liberal pundits" instead. And Daniel was considered a prophet:

The "Prophet Daniel" found in the Dead Sea Scrolls:

Comment: It is interesting to note that every chapter of Daniel is represented in these manuscripts, except for Dan 12. However, this does not mean that the Book lacked the final chapter at Qumran, since Dan 12:10 is quoted in the Florilegium (4Q174) - (Dead Sea Scrolls), which explicitly tells us that it is written in the Book of Daniel the Prophet.

Jesus confirms Daniel is a Prophet

The Lord Jesus Christ spoke of Daniel "the prophet" (Matthew 24:15; Mark 13:14).

Alexander the Great and Daniel

JOSEPHUS [Antiquities, 11.8.5] mentions that Alexander the Great had designed to punish the Jews for their fidelity to Darius, but that Jaddua (332 B.C.), the high priest, met him at the head of a procession and averted his wrath by showing him Daniel's prophecy that a Grecian monarch should overthrow Persia. Certain it is, Alexander favored the Jews, and JOSEPHUS' statement gives an explanation of the fact; at least it shows that the Jews in JOSEPHUS' days believed that Daniel was extant in Alexander's days, long before the Maccabees.

The Talmud refers to Daniel as a Prophet

"Hatach. Hatach is another name for the prophet Daniel. He was called Hatach (related to the Hebrew word for "cut") because he was "cut down," demoted from his position of greatness, which he held at the courts of the previous kings" (Megillah 15a). http://www.virtualpurim.org/scripts/tgij/paper/IndexPurim.asp?ArticleID=1436&...

What you have to believe if Daniel didn't write the Book of Daniel

The (critics of Daniel) cannot believe in miracles and predictive prophecy which involve nothing but a simple faith in a wise and mighty and merciful God intervening in behalf of his people for his own glory and their salvation; BUT THEY CAN BELIEVE that a lot of obstreperous and cantankerous Jews who through all their history from Jacob and Esau down to the present time have disagreed and quarreled about almost everything, or nothing, could have accepted, unanimously and without a murmur, in an age when they were enlightened by the brilliant light of Platos philosophy, and Aristotles logic, and the criticism of the schools of Alexandria, a forged and ficticious document, untrue to the well remembered facts of their own experience and to the easily ascertained facts concerning their own past history and the history of the Babylonians, Medes, Persians, and Greeks of whom the author (of the book of Daniel) writes. R.D. Wilson, Studies in the Book of Daniel, pages 268, 269

The Sanhedrin of the second century B.C. was composed of men of the type of John Hyrcanus; men famed for their piety and learning; men who were heirs of all the proud traditions of the Jewish faith, and themselves the sons of successors of the heroes of the noble Maccabean revolt. And yet we are asked to believe (by the critics of Daniel) that these men, with their extremely strict views of inspiration and their intense reverence for their sacred writings.used their authority to smuggle into the Jewish Canon a book which, ex hypothesi, was a forgery, a literary fraud, and a religious novel of recent date. R. Anderson, Daniel in the Critics Den, pages 104-105

Reasons why your late-dating of Daniel is way off base:

The Date of the Book of Daniel

The Dead Sea Scrolls only date to 200 BC at the earliest and NO Daniel is NOT considered a prophet. Dan'el is a made up character in popular Canaanite poetry from 1500 BC.

The problem that you are dealing with is thinking any of the writings were ever intended as history.

Did you actually read Conklin's website? He doesn't know anything about Antiochus.. and he readily admits that scholars can't agree on how many authors there were who wrote Daniel.

The Date of the Book of Daniel

 

[sooda]

None of that is true. The "most scholars" isn't true. You should have written, "History-challenged liberal pundits" instead. And Daniel was considered a prophet:

The "Prophet Daniel" found in the Dead Sea Scrolls:

Comment: It is interesting to note that every chapter of Daniel is represented in these manuscripts, except for Dan 12. However, this does not mean that the Book lacked the final chapter at Qumran, since Dan 12:10 is quoted in the Florilegium (4Q174) - (Dead Sea Scrolls), which explicitly tells us that it is written in the Book of Daniel the Prophet.

Jesus confirms Daniel is a Prophet

The Lord Jesus Christ spoke of Daniel "the prophet" (Matthew 24:15; Mark 13:14).

Alexander the Great and Daniel

JOSEPHUS [Antiquities, 11.8.5] mentions that Alexander the Great had designed to punish the Jews for their fidelity to Darius, but that Jaddua (332 B.C.), the high priest, met him at the head of a procession and averted his wrath by showing him Daniel's prophecy that a Grecian monarch should overthrow Persia. Certain it is, Alexander favored the Jews, and JOSEPHUS' statement gives an explanation of the fact; at least it shows that the Jews in JOSEPHUS' days believed that Daniel was extant in Alexander's days, long before the Maccabees.

The Talmud refers to Daniel as a Prophet

"Hatach. Hatach is another name for the prophet Daniel. He was called Hatach (related to the Hebrew word for "cut") because he was "cut down," demoted from his position of greatness, which he held at the courts of the previous kings" (Megillah 15a). http://www.virtualpurim.org/scripts/tgij/paper/IndexPurim.asp?ArticleID=1436&...

What you have to believe if Daniel didn't write the Book of Daniel

The (critics of Daniel) cannot believe in miracles and predictive prophecy which involve nothing but a simple faith in a wise and mighty and merciful God intervening in behalf of his people for his own glory and their salvation; BUT THEY CAN BELIEVE that a lot of obstreperous and cantankerous Jews who through all their history from Jacob and Esau down to the present time have disagreed and quarreled about almost everything, or nothing, could have accepted, unanimously and without a murmur, in an age when they were enlightened by the brilliant light of Platos philosophy, and Aristotles logic, and the criticism of the schools of Alexandria, a forged and ficticious document, untrue to the well remembered facts of their own experience and to the easily ascertained facts concerning their own past history and the history of the Babylonians, Medes, Persians, and Greeks of whom the author (of the book of Daniel) writes. R.D. Wilson, Studies in the Book of Daniel, pages 268, 269

The Sanhedrin of the second century B.C. was composed of men of the type of John Hyrcanus; men famed for their piety and learning; men who were heirs of all the proud traditions of the Jewish faith, and themselves the sons of successors of the heroes of the noble Maccabean revolt. And yet we are asked to believe (by the critics of Daniel) that these men, with their extremely strict views of inspiration and their intense reverence for their sacred writings.used their authority to smuggle into the Jewish Canon a book which, ex hypothesi, was a forgery, a literary fraud, and a religious novel of recent date. R. Anderson, Daniel in the Critics Den, pages 104-105

Reasons why your late-dating of Daniel is way off base:

The Date of the Book of Daniel

Josephus wasn't born until 37 AD.

 

[sooda]

“…who would vanquish the enemies of the Jews.” Doesn’t the Bible say if the Jews obey God’s teaching, God will define them from their enemies. Could it be the Messiah doesn’t “vanquish the enemies of the Jews”, he makes it known to the Jews God’s teaching will “vanquish the enemies of the Jews”?

That seems pretty convoluted.. Vanquish is to defeat. The Jews didn't defeat the Romans.

Any observer of the day could see that the Jewish factions were fighting each other and the Romans. It was bound to turn out badly.

 

[sooda]

And all the Jews had to do was ceremoniously clean it.
Rome burned and then pulled down the temple - and built over the top
of it. This is what Daniel alluded to when he said "while the temple still
stands" (if I recall the wording.)

Rome didn't build over the Temple site.. It was the city garbage dump.

During the reign of Emperor Justinian (I think) circa 300AD they tried to rebuild the Temple but it was repeatedly destroyed by fire and earthquakes.

 

[Spartan]

Josephus wasn't born until 37 AD.

It doesn't matter. He was a Jewish / Roman historian who had access to historical information about Daniel and many other subjects.

 

[Spartan]

The Dead Sea Scrolls only date to 200 BC at the earliest and NO Daniel is NOT considered a prophet. Dan'el is a made up character in popular Canaanite poetry from 1500 BC.

The problem that you are dealing with is thinking any of the writings were ever intended as history.

Did you actually read Conklin's website? He doesn't know anything about Antiochus.. and he readily admits that scholars can't agree on how many authors there were who wrote Daniel.

The Date of the Book of Daniel

The information I provided in Post # 841 destroys your narratives about Daniel. Apparently you didn't read it. But here it is again:

The Date of the Book of Daniel

 

[PruePhillip]

Rome didn't build over the Temple site.. It was the city garbage dump.

During the reign of Emperor Justinian (I think) circa 300AD they tried to rebuild the Temple but it was repeatedly destroyed by fire and earthquakes.

I don't care either way on this point, but in Google I read:

Aelia came from Hadrian's nomen gentile, Aelius, while Capitolina meant that the new city was dedicated to
Jupiter Capitolinus, to whom a temple was built on the site of the former Jewish temple....

 

[sooda]

I don't care either way on this point, but in Google I read:

Aelia came from Hadrian's nomen gentile, Aelius, while Capitolina meant that the new city was dedicated to
Jupiter Capitolinus, to whom a temple was built on the site of the former Jewish temple....

In ROME not in Jerusalem. Jeez.

 

[PruePhillip]

The information I provided in Post # 841 destroys your narratives about Daniel. Apparently you didn't read it. But here it is again:

The Date of the Book of Daniel

I did a search of Conklin's material here. There's no mention of Rome or the Messiah
in any substantial way. Yet Rome is obviously the nation that would destroy the temple
and Jerusalem, and "cut off" even the Messiah (who will not die for himself but for his
people - modern translations mangle this badly)
No other nation destroyed Jerusalem except Rome
No other nation killed the Messiah but the Romans.

Therefore, when was Daniel written?
Either
1 - when it's claimed to be written, ie Babylon times
2 - anytime after the third Jewish war (Bar Kokbah revolt)

 

[PruePhillip]

In ROME not in Jerusalem. Jeez.

Google
Jupiter Capitolinus, to whom a temple was built on the site
of the former Jewish temple....

 

[sooda]

Google
Jupiter Capitolinus, to whom a temple was built on the site
of the former Jewish temple....

In ROME... on Capitolina Hill in ROME.

Capitoline Hill - Wikipedia

 

[sooda]

Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_of_Jupiter_(Capitoline_Hill)
The Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, also known as the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus was the most important temple in Ancient Rome, located on the Capitoline Hill. It was surrounded by the Area Capitolina, a precinct where numerous shrines, altars, statues and victory trophies were displayed. The first building was the oldest large temple in Rome, and, like many temples in central Italy, shared …

 

[sooda]

I did a search of Conklin's material here. There's no mention of Rome or the Messiah
in any substantial way. Yet Rome is obviously the nation that would destroy the temple
and Jerusalem, and "cut off" even the Messiah (who will not die for himself but for his
people - modern translations mangle this badly)
No other nation destroyed Jerusalem except Rome
No other nation killed the Messiah but the Romans.

Therefore, when was Daniel written?
Either
1 - when it's claimed to be written, ie Babylon times
2 - anytime after the third Jewish war (Bar Kokbah revolt)

Conklin is a Scofield futurist. Daniel is essential to Lindsey and Lahaye.

Its a story written by a group of writers during or immediately after the horrific abuses of Antiochus.

 

[PruePhillip]

Conklin is a Scofield futurist. Daniel is essential to Lindsey and Lahaye.

Its a story written by a group of writers during or immediately after the horrific abuses of Antiochus.

Doesn't match the history.
Greeks didn't destroy the temple, Jerusalem or the Messiah.
This "LIndsey and Lahaye" - are they "explaining Daniel" or "explaining Daniel away" ?

 

[PruePhillip]

Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_of_Jupiter_(Capitoline_Hill)
The Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, also known as the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus was the most important temple in Ancient Rome, located on the Capitoline Hill. It was surrounded by the Area Capitolina, a precinct where numerous shrines, altars, statues and victory trophies were displayed. The first building was the oldest large temple in Rome, and, like many temples in central Italy, shared …

Could you please contact the authors of the Wikipedia entry and get them to correct this?
Plus, every other web site making the same mistake of thinking there was a Roman temple
on the Jerusalem mount up to the time of the Muslim hordes?

 

[sooda]

Could you please contact the authors of the Wikipedia entry and get them to correct this?
Plus, every other web site making the same mistake of thinking there was a Roman temple
on the Jerusalem mount up to the time of the Muslim hordes?

You may have misunderstood what you read. It happens. There was NOTHING at the Temple Mount site when Omar conquered the city.

Omar asked them where the Temple had stood. They showed him. He had the garbage clear away and soon began construction of Haram al Sharif.

 

[sooda]

@PruePhillip

I see now why you are confused. Hadrian did build a new Jerusalem on the ruins of the city, he did NOT build a new temple on Temple Mount.

Aelia Capitolina (/ˈiːliə ˌkæpɪtəˈlaɪnə/; Latin in full: COLONIA AELIA CAPITOLINA) was a Roman colony, built under the emperor Hadrian on the site of Jerusalem, which was in ruins following the siege of 70 AD, leading in part to the Bar Kokhba revolt of 132–136 AD. Jul 31 2019
Aelia Capitolina - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aelia_Capitolina

 

[PruePhillip]

You may have misunderstood what you read. It happens. There was NOTHING at the Temple Mount site when Omar conquered the city.

Omar asked them where the Temple had stood. They showed him. He had the garbage clear away and soon began construction of Haram al Sharif.

I don't really have a dog in this fight (!)
I just read the first Wiki entry and quoted it.
Never really looked into it.
But.. if Rome colonized Jerusalem then the temple
mount is a good place to look to if you want your own
temple.

 

[sooda]

I don't really have a dog in this fight (!)
I just read the first Wiki entry and quoted it.
Never really looked into it.
But.. if Rome colonized Jerusalem then the temple
mount is a good place to look to if you want your own
temple.

Hadrian built a new Jerusalem NOT a temple.

Aelia Capitolina (/ˈiːliə ˌkæpɪtəˈlaɪnə/; Latin in full: COLONIA AELIA CAPITOLINA) was a Roman colony, built under the emperor Hadrian on the site of Jerusalem, which was in ruins following the siege of 70 AD, leading in part to the Bar Kokhba revolt of 132–136 AD. Jul 31 2019
Aelia Capitolina - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aelia_Capitolina