Have Brain Will Use It

Posting on topics and discussions that help grow knowledge and faith in Christ by reading and understanding the Bible in context with our heart, mind, and soul.

[Have Brain Will Use It @ThinkInContext]

@wordy_fiend @CharlesTingler @OpStCyprian Don't have the space, but generated quick summary. From it you can see why I said with the ancestral sin view the need for the emaculate conception is not needed. Mary did not need to be sinless because nobody is born guilty of sin.

[Have Brain Will Use It @ThinkInContext]

@wordy_fiend @CharlesTingler @OpStCyprian If you believe 1) moral guilt is not inherited by anyone, and 2) that we do inherit the physical corruption of our bodies and nature as a consequence of Adam's sin then you basically believe the ancestral sin view.

[Have Brain Will Use It @ThinkInContext]

@wordy_fiend @CharlesTingler @OpStCyprian No I read your original response wrongly assuming you understood ancestral sin view, stated it's main point that "moral guilt is not inherited by anyone" then said yes it's simpler but "wacked in the head" meaning ancestral sin view was wacked.

[Have Brain Will Use It @ThinkInContext]

@RogerSeheult @renewingprotest You're ripping that from the context and ignoring all the rest, including Isaiah.

Answer this, if the decree to rebuild Jerusalem wasn't until Artaxeres some 70+ years after Cyrus' death, how did Isaiah's prophecy come true? Was Isaiah wrong?

[Have Brain Will Use It @ThinkInContext]

@RogerSeheult @renewingprotest There's nothing there about rebuilding the city. In fact, it's almost exclusively on temple worship sending more priests, vessels, and offerings. Ezra 1:1-4 that already started with Cyrus decree Daniel knew of that authorized same. Is 44:28 goes against Artaxerxes decree too.

[Have Brain Will Use It @ThinkInContext]

@RogerSeheult @renewingprotest An Nehemiah decree isn't about rebuilding the temple or the city if you want to stick with rigid literal reading. It's only about the walls and gate.

And Haggai shows they we already rebuilding city under Cyrus' decree.

[Have Brain Will Use It @ThinkInContext]

@RogerSeheult @renewingprotest Because it's forcing a rigid literal precision on a the text the original readers would not have had to support picking a decree that works for the date you want. The overall context of Jeremiah's 70 years and the vision itself are not focused on the cut itself.

[Have Brain Will Use It @ThinkInContext]

@RogerSeheult @renewingprotest The hope or restoring worship in Jerusalem is at the center of return from Exile. Restoring Jerusalem is to restore it as the place God's presence with his people. Is 44:28 even predicted Cyrus would rebuild the city not Artaxeres.

[Have Brain Will Use It @ThinkInContext]

@RogerSeheult @renewingprotest The point is restoration of Jerusalem revolves around reinstitution of sacrifice and offering at the temple. Daniel's prophecy is asking when Jeremiah's prophecy will be fulfilled and the 70 weeks is the answer. Ezra 1:1 claims the decree there is fulfillment of Jeremiah's 70yrs.

[Have Brain Will Use It @ThinkInContext]

@RogerSeheult @renewingprotest The cycle predates Meton standardizing it in Greek world. It predates Daniel's time and was a well known cycle used in Babylon that he would have understood.

I find it more plausible than a 31 AD target date and using a layer decree date Daniel would never know about.

[Have Brain Will Use It @ThinkInContext]

@RogerSeheult @renewingprotest Babylonian and Hebrew calendars have a natural set of seven built into them. Over 19 years they cycle through seven intercalary months each cycle to align with the solar year. If you count those 7s as the first 7 Cyrus' decree works perfectly to 33 AD. Or simply Adar II 49 times.

[Have Brain Will Use It @ThinkInContext]

@RogerSeheult @renewingprotest The time is broken into sets of 7. Nothing demand weeks of years or the sets be the same unit. Splitting them up actually indicates they are somehow different. You assume it's all the same, weeks of years, but the vision doesn't. It even seals final 3 1/2 as another vision in 12.

[Have Brain Will Use It @ThinkInContext]

@RogerSeheult @renewingprotest You don't restore Jerusalem without the temple nor.offwe the offerings that Cyrus' provides for this in ERa without a temple.

[Have Brain Will Use It @ThinkInContext]

@RogerSeheult @renewingprotest He is told to know and discern from the time provided how long it will be. During his life it would have been impossible to do what he was told to do.

You assume Cyrus' decree has a chronological problem because you know a target date and have assumptions about calculating it.

[Have Brain Will Use It @ThinkInContext]

@RogerSeheult @renewingprotest 457 BC is chosen because it's wrongly assumed Cyrus' decree is too early to work. From there either the target date is modified and/or the calculation method changes to fit needed date and interpretation. Those trying to date to Antiochus instead of Christ do similar things.

[Have Brain Will Use It @ThinkInContext]

@RogerSeheult @renewingprotest The focus of the vision is to "restore and rebuild" the temple as proven by Ezra. The vision itself includes the full rebuilding of the second temple, the Messiah putting and end to temple sacrifices by being the sacrifice of the new covenant, and the destruction of the temple.

[Have Brain Will Use It @ThinkInContext]

@RogerSeheult @renewingprotest The problem is Daniel himself was told he was to know and dicern the time. Hard for him to do with decree that would not be made until he was easily over 160+ years old. In the context he is receiving the vision Cyrus' decree is only one he or his contemporaries would have used.

[Have Brain Will Use It @ThinkInContext]

@wordy_fiend @CharlesTingler @OpStCyprian My apologies. I wrongly assumed from same type behavior and topic you were a Calvinist.

I do stand by the verse and if anything it's the exact opposite of the original sin view which says all Adam's offspring are morally guilty for the father's sin.

[Have Brain Will Use It @ThinkInContext]

@RogerSeheult @renewingprotest It requires many assumptions that are unlikely to all be correct. It should be rejected as highly unlikely, but nothing is definite. What is definitely off is starting Daniel 9 from a date 60 years after the temple was rebuilt, ignoring decree given in Daniel's day in Ezra 1:1-4.