prophecy of suffering and glorified Messiah

[andrewcriddle]

Johnny Skeptic asked me to start a thread about prophecy so here goes.

In Luke 24:25-26 the risen Christ is described as saying 'O foolish men and slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken ! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer such things and enter into his glory ?' This is an example of a general NT claim that the OT predicted a suffering and then exalted Messiah.

The question is which scriptures did the NT writers and/or Jesus have in mind.

It seems very probable that the core passage is the vision of the 'Son of Man' in Daniel 7 who represents (among other things) the vindication by God of the suffering and persecuted righteous remnant in Israel.

'Son of Man' is among the central titles of Jesus in the Gospels and is probably primarily based on Daniel 7.

In early Christianity this passage in Daniel in a/ linked to the 'Suffering Servant' in Isaiah 52-53 and b/ regarded as Messianic.

Both of these interpretations can be supported. There are underlying similarities of though between Daniel and the Servant passages in Isaiah. (The references in Daniel to the 'wise' who wil 'make many understand' 11:33 and who will 'shine like the brightness of the firmament' 12:3 are paralleled in Isaiah 53:11 the servant will (according to the Septuagint and DSS) see light of the travail of his soul and by his knowledge make many to be accounted righteous). Some scholars even see these passages in Daniel as intended as an interpretation of the Servant passages in Isaiah.

It is more difficult to see the Son of Man in Daniel as Messianic. However it is unclear that there is really room in ones eschatology both for a prominent Danielic 'Son of Man' with an 'everlasting Dominion' and a prominent Davidic Messiah. We have other examples of a Messianic interpretation of the 'Son of Man' and/or Daniel 7 in a messianic way. (Apocalypse of Ezra AKA 2 Esdras and tradition attributed in (late) souirces to Rabbi Aqiba.)

The above is not intended to prove that the OT teaches a suffering and vindicated Messiah. It does however attempt to argue that IF one believes OT prophecy is a unified system and IF one gives the Apocalyptic element in the OT due weight then such an interpretation is at least very plausible.

Andrew Criddle

[Johnny Skeptic]

Following are excerpts from an article by Theodore Drange at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/bible.html:

Among the alleged messianic prophecies are ones contained within the description of the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53. And some of the alleged prophecies contained within that chapter claimed to have been fulfilled by Jesus are the following [with verse numbers indicated]:

(1) The Messiah's message would not be believed, supposedly fulfilled by Jesus at John 12:37-38.

(3) The Messiah would be despised and rejected, supposedly fulfilled by Jesus in that his own people did not believe in him, according to John 1:11, 7:5.

(5) The Messiah would be wounded, supposedly fulfilled by the scourging of Jesus at Mt 27:26.

(7) The Messiah would be silent before his accusers, supposedly fulfilled by Jesus at Mt 27:12 (and Ac 8:32-35).

(9) The Messiah would have a grave provided for him by a rich man, supposedly fulfilled for Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea at Mt 27:57-60.

(12) The Messiah would be arrested as a criminal (which is perhaps Jesus' own interpretation at Lu 22:37) or perhaps that the Messiah would be crucified with criminals, supposedly fulfilled by Jesus at Mt 27:38 and Mk 15:27 (with Mk 15:28 inserted later) and Lu 23:32.

(12) The Messiah would make intercession for his persecutors, supposedly fulfilled by Jesus at Lu 23:34.

But there are many problems with taking Isa 53 in such a way, among which are the following.

(1) According to Isa 53:3 in the Tanakh, the suffering servant was "despised [and] shunned by men". It seems doubtful that that is fulfilled by Jesus just in virtue of the fact that his own people did not accept him, for he apparently was widely accepted by the common people elsewhere. According to Lu 4:15, he taught in the synagogue and everyone praised him. And later, huge crowds supposedly followed him, and he was described as making a "Triumphal Entry" into Jerusalem (Mt 21:8-11; John 12:12-13,17-19).

(2) Verse 3 in the Tanakh also declares that the suffering servant was "familiar with disease", and verse 4 says that he was "stricken by God", where the Hebrew word for "stricken" is one that is used in the Hebrew Scriptures to stand only for leprosy (as at Le 13:3,9,20 and 2Ki 15:5). But Jesus is not known to have suffered from leprosy or any other disease, so those verses are not applicable to him. It may even be part of some forms of Christian doctrine that Jesus needed to be perfectly healthy in order to adequately play the role of "sacrificial lamb" (which by law needed to be "without blemish"). It is clear that the suffering servant of Isa 53 could not adequately play such a role.

(3) As for Jesus being silent before his accusers (thereby satisfying verse 7), that seems not to work either. Verse 7 says (twice): "He did not open his mouth." But according to John 18:33-37, 19:11, Jesus said much to Pontius Pilate. In each of the four gospels Jesus opened his mouth and said something before his accusers. Hence, Jesus did not actually fulfill that part of the prophecy.

(4) In verse 9 it says of the suffering servant "his grave was set among the wicked, and with the rich, in his death." It is unclear how that applies to Jesus, for there were no other bodies in the tomb in which Jesus' body was placed. The verse definitely does not say that the servant would have a grave provided for him by a rich man, so that part of the alleged prophecy is sheer invention.

(5) According to verse 10, "the Lord chose to crush him by disease, that if he made himself an offering for guilt, he might see offspring and have long life, ..." That seems totally inapplicable to Jesus, for Jesus was not crushed by disease, nor did he see any offspring, nor did he have a long life.

(6) Isaiah 53 does not actually mention the Messiah. In fact, when we look closely at the chapter, it is hard to find anything in it that is applicable to either the (Jewish) Messiah or to Jesus. Verse 1 does not actually say that the servant's message would not be believed, but merely asks, "Who can believe what we have heard?" There seems to be no prophecy there at all. Nor is there any indication that the servant would be arrested as a criminal or scourged or crucified with criminals or make intercession for his persecutors. None of that is in there. Verse 6 does say, "the Lord visited upon him the guilt of us all," but there are other interpretations of that than the Christian one.

(7) There is a Judaic interpretation of Isa 53 that seems plausible. The suffering servant is the nation of Israel which is represented by King Uzziah, who was its king in Isaiah's time and who died of leprosy. According to Shmuel Golding, Isaiah's message may have been: "Here is your leprous king, who is in type suffering under God's hand for you the backslidden servant nation of Israel" (which explains verse 6). Uzziah was taken away from the royal palace because of his affliction as a leper and spent his remaining years in isolation, which fits verse 8. Golding says the following:

Israel is portrayed as a suffering servant on account of its anointed leader being stricken with leprosy. Israel, like the leper, is a suffering servant of God. Both have suffered humiliation at the hand of their fellowmen: the leper because of his unsightly appearance; Israel through its defeat at the hands of the Babylonians. The gist of the message is that Israel like the leper has suffered, but nevertheless will retain its identity in the form of the exiled Jewish people and that they will prosper in this form. [5]

This interpretation of Isaiah 53 seems preferable to the Christian one because it does not suffer from drawbacks (1) - (6) mentioned above. It would also better explain the many changes of tense that occur in the chapter. And Israel is indeed referred to as "God's servant" (e.g., at Isaiah 49:3). However, the given interpretation does not make the chapter into a prophecy so much as an explanation of Israel's situation at around the time of Isaiah. At the very least, it shows, I think, that Isaiah 53 is not a clear example of a fulfilled prophecy (or set of fulfilled prophecies) in the Bible. So it is not any good support for premise (1) of the Argument from the Bible. End of quotes.

Drange’s bio is as follows:

I have been teaching philosophy at West Virginia University since 1966 (at the rank of full professor since 1974). Prior to that I taught philosophy at Brooklyn College (1960-62), the University of Oregon (1962-65), and Idaho State University (1965-66).

My teaching specialties are Philosophy of Religion, Philosophy of Language, and Theory of Knowledge. I have also taught many other subjects, including Logic, Philosophy of Mind, and Philosophy of Science. Two courses which I invented and which I teach on occasion at WVU are Philosophy of Games and Philosophy of Fundamentalism. The latter course is a critical study of the doctrines of Christian fundamentalism and their philosophical implications.

I received my B.A. degree in 1955 from Brooklyn College (which is now part of CUNY) and my Ph.D. from Cornell University in 1963.

Among my publications are two books. One is in the philosophy of language entitled Type Crossings (The Hague: Mouton & Co., 1966). The other is in the philosophy of religion entitled Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1998).

There are also several articles published in print journals, the most recent ones being the following:

"Liar Syllogisms", Analysis 50 (1990), pp. 1-7.

"The Argument from Non-belief", Religious Studies 29 (1993), pp. 417-432.

"Slater on Self-referential Arguments", Analysis 54 (1994), pp. 61-64.

"Biblical Contradictions Regarding Salvation", Free Inquiry 14 (Summer 1994), pp. 56-57.

"Nonbelief vs. Lack of Evidence: Two Atheological Arguments," Philo 1, no. 1 (Spring-Summer 1998), pp. 105-114.

"Incompatible-Properties Arguments: A Survey," Philo 1, no. 2 (Fall-Winter 1998), pp. 49-60.

Andrew, a much simpler approach is one that skeptics have long maintained, that some of the supposedly fulfilled prophecies mentioned in the Gospels were written with the Old Testament in mind, not necessarily because they were actually fulfilled prophecies. Micah 5:2 is one example. Jesus being buried in a rich man’s tomb in another example. Neither is reasonably provable. Regarding Micah 5:2, the prophecy predicted a future ruler in Israel. Jesus did not become ruler in Israel. Regarding Joseph of Arimathea, a good deal of scholarship disputes the claim that Jesus was buried in his tomb.

There is not even a hint of the Resurrection in the Old Testament, even though it was to become the supposedly most important event in human history. Isaiah 53:5 says “But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.� There is no evidence at all that Jesus “was wounded for our transgressions.� The most that can be said with any degree of certainty is that the Jews hated Jesus and had him killed.

[andrewcriddle]

But there are many problems with taking Isa 53 in such a way, among which are the following.

..........................................

(2) Verse 3 in the Tanakh also declares that the suffering servant was "familiar with disease", and verse 4 says that he was "stricken by God", where the Hebrew word for "stricken" is one that is used in the Hebrew Scriptures to stand only for leprosy (as at Le 13:3,9,20 and 2Ki 15:5). But Jesus is not known to have suffered from leprosy or any other disease, so those verses are not applicable to him. It may even be part of some forms of Christian doctrine that Jesus needed to be perfectly healthy in order to adequately play the role of "sacrificial lamb" (which by law needed to be "without blemish"). It is clear that the suffering servant of Isa 53 could not adequately play such a role.

(CH)LY appears to have a wider meaning than literal sickness see eg Ecclesiastes 6:2 RSV 'sore affliction' As for NGE (stricken) Isaiah 53:4 and 2 Kings 15:5 is the verb whereas Leviticus 13:3,9,20 are the noun. Both have a wider reference than leprosy, for the verb see eg Psalm 73:14 for the noun Psalm 39:11 and Deuteronomy 21:5. The specific use of the noun for leprosy may be secondary from the primary meaning of blow.

(3) As for Jesus being silent before his accusers (thereby satisfying verse 7), that seems not to work either. Verse 7 says (twice): "He did not open his mouth." But according to John 18:33-37, 19:11, Jesus said much to Pontius Pilate. In each of the four gospels Jesus opened his mouth and said something before his accusers. Hence, Jesus did not actually fulfill that part of the prophecy.

Even in John Jesus refrains from making a legally valid defence.

(4) In verse 9 it says of the suffering servant "his grave was set among the wicked, and with the rich, in his death." It is unclear how that applies to Jesus, for there were no other bodies in the tomb in which Jesus' body was placed. The verse definitely does not say that the servant would have a grave provided for him by a rich man, so that part of the alleged prophecy is sheer invention.
As prophetic fulfilments go being buried in a rich man's tomb would probably count.
(5) According to verse 10, "the Lord chose to crush him by disease, that if he made himself an offering for guilt, he might see offspring and have long life, ..." That seems totally inapplicable to Jesus, for Jesus was not crushed by disease, nor did he see any offspring, nor did he have a long life.

IF we see this as fulfilled by Jesus then his vindication is beyond his death with the resurrection and founding of the church

(6) Isaiah 53 does not actually mention the Messiah. In fact, when we look closely at the chapter, it is hard to find anything in it that is applicable to either the (Jewish) Messiah or to Jesus. Verse 1 does not actually say that the servant's message would not be believed, but merely asks, "Who can believe what we have heard?" There seems to be no prophecy there at all. Nor is there any indication that the servant would be arrested as a criminal or scourged or crucified with criminals or make intercession for his persecutors. None of that is in there. Verse 6 does say, "the Lord visited upon him the guilt of us all," but there are other interpretations of that than the Christian one.
I agree that applying this passage to Jesus is only one of the ways it can be interpreted.

(7) There is a Judaic interpretation of Isa 53 that seems plausible. The suffering servant is the nation of Israel which is represented by King Uzziah, who was its king in Isaiah's time and who died of leprosy. According to Shmuel Golding, Isaiah's message may have been: "Here is your leprous king, who is in type suffering under God's hand for you the backslidden servant nation of Israel" (which explains verse 6). Uzziah was taken away from the royal palace because of his affliction as a leper and spent his remaining years in isolation, which fits verse 8. Golding says the following:

Israel is portrayed as a suffering servant on account of its anointed leader being stricken with leprosy. Israel, like the leper, is a suffering servant of God. Both have suffered humiliation at the hand of their fellowmen: the leper because of his unsightly appearance; Israel through its defeat at the hands of the Babylonians. The gist of the message is that Israel like the leper has suffered, but nevertheless will retain its identity in the form of the exiled Jewish people and that they will prosper in this form. [5]

This interpretation of Isaiah 53 seems preferable to the Christian one because it does not suffer from drawbacks (1) - (6) mentioned above. It would also better explain the many changes of tense that occur in the chapter. And Israel is indeed referred to as "God's servant" (e.g., at Isaiah 49:3). However, the given interpretation does not make the chapter into a prophecy so much as an explanation of Israel's situation at around the time of Isaiah. At the very least, it shows, I think, that Isaiah 53 is not a clear example of a fulfilled prophecy (or set of fulfilled prophecies) in the Bible. So it is not any good support for premise (1) of the Argument from the Bible.
Frankly I think the explanation in terms of King Uzziah is unlikely. Isaiah 53 is presumably from Deutero-Isaiah which is written c 550-540 BCE long after Uzziah.

Andrew, a much simpler approach is one that skeptics have long maintained, that some of the supposedly fulfilled prophecies mentioned in the Gospels were written with the Old Testament in mind, not necessarily because they were actually fulfilled prophecies. Micah 5:2 is one example. Jesus being buried in a rich man’s tomb in another example. Neither is reasonably provable. Regarding Micah 5:2, the prophecy predicted a future ruler in Israel. Jesus did not become ruler in Israel. Regarding Joseph of Arimathea, a good deal of scholarship disputes the claim that Jesus was buried in his tomb.
Some passages in the Gospels may have been shaped so as to increase the fit with prophesy but this is rather a different argument than the claim that the fit is not good anyway. IF the stories have been drastically altered to increase the fit with prophecy then your initial claim that the fit is very weak becomes rather surprising.

There is not even a hint of the Resurrection in the Old Testament, even though it was to become the supposedly most important event in human history. Isaiah 53:5 says “But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.� There is no evidence at all that Jesus “was wounded for our transgressions.� The most that can be said with any degree of certainty is that the Jews hated Jesus and had him killed.
In my OP I suggested that the vindication of the righteous sufferer may be found in Daniel which (see chapter 12) has a clear doctrine of resurrection. The claim that Jesus was wounded for our transgressions is I agree not something for which one can provide strictly historical evidence.

Andrew Criddle

[Johnny Skeptic]

Andrew, a much simpler approach is one that skeptics have long maintained, that some of the supposedly fulfilled prophecies mentioned in the Gospels were written with the Old Testament in mind, not necessarily because they were actually fulfilled prophecies. Micah 5:2 is one example. Jesus being buried in a rich man’s tomb in another example. Neither is reasonably provable. Regarding Micah 5:2, the prophecy predicted a future ruler in Israel. Jesus did not become ruler in Israel. Regarding Joseph of Arimathea, a good deal of scholarship disputes the claim that Jesus was buried in his tomb.

Some passages in the Gospels may have been shaped so as to increase the fit with prophecy, but this is rather a different argument than the claim that the fit is not good anyway. IF the stories have been drastically altered to increase the fit with prophecy then your initial claim that the fit is very weak becomes rather surprising.

There is no evidence at all that the fit was good. In fact, it was a size 4 foot in a size 12 shoe. In other words, there is for instance no evidence at all that Jesus was buried in with the wicked and the rich, that he rode a donkey into Jerusalem, and that he became ruler in Israel as promised in Micah 5:2.

There is not even a hint of the Resurrection in the Old Testament, even though it was to become the supposedly most important event in human history. Isaiah 53:5 says “But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.� There is no evidence at all that Jesus “was wounded for our transgressions.� The most that can be said with any degree of certainty is that the Jews hated Jesus and had him killed.

In my OP I suggested that the vindication of the righteous sufferer may be found in Daniel which (see chapter 12) has a clear doctrine of resurrection. The claim that Jesus was wounded for our transgressions is I agree not something for which one can provide strictly historical evidence.

Okay, let’s take a look at Daniel chapter 12 in its entirety.

12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

12:3 And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.

12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

12:5 Then I Daniel looked, and, behold, there stood other two, the one on this side of the bank of the river, and the other on that side of the bank of the river.

12:6 And one said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, How long shall it be to the end of these wonders?

12:7 And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.

12:8 And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things?

12:9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

12:10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.

12:11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

12:12 Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.

12:13 But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.

Andrew, you said “In my OP I suggested that the vindication of the righteous sufferer may be found in Daniel which (see chapter 12) has a clear doctrine of resurrection,� but I said that there is not even a hint of “the� Resurrection in the Old Testament. There is a big difference between the two.

Verse 2 says “And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt,� but it says nothing at all about everlasting life depending on believing in the words and accomplishments of a messiah, or for that matter that a messiah would ever come. Old Testament believers who were aware of the teaching would definitely have concluded that Yahweh himself would awaken the dead.

Verse 7 says “him that liveth for ever………� Verse 11 says “…..the daily sacrifice shall be taken away…..� I remind you about what I said in my previous post about the Gospel writers writing with the Old Testament in mind.

There are about 248 articles at the Secular Web about Daniel chapter 12. I suggest that you take a look at some of them.

[andrewcriddle]

There is no evidence at all that the fit was good. In fact, it was a size 4 foot in a size 12 shoe. In other words, there is for instance no evidence at all that Jesus was buried in with the wicked and the rich, that he rode a donkey into Jerusalem, and that he became ruler in Israel as promised in Micah 5:2.
Do you mean that there is no evidence outside the NT that Jesus was buried in a rich man's tomb or that he rode into Jerusalem on a donkey ? In which case I would entirely agree.

Or do you mean that there is no evidence even in the NT ? In which case I would refer you to Mark 11:1-10 and parallels and to Matthew 27:57-60.



Okay, let’s take a look at Daniel chapter 12 in its entirety.

.........................................................................................
Andrew, you said “In my OP I suggested that the vindication of the righteous sufferer may be found in Daniel which (see chapter 12) has a clear doctrine of resurrection,� but I said that there is not even a hint of “the� Resurrection in the Old Testament. There is a big difference between the two.

Verse 2 says “And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt,� but it says nothing at all about everlasting life depending on believing in the words and accomplishments of a messiah, or for that matter that a messiah would ever come. Old Testament believers who were aware of the teaching would definitely have concluded that Yahweh himself would awaken the dead.

Verse 7 says “him that liveth for ever………� Verse 11 says “…..the daily sacrifice shall be taken away…..� I remind you about what I said in my previous post about the Gospel writers writing with the Old Testament in mind.

There are about 248 articles at the Secular Web about Daniel chapter 12. I suggest that you take a look at some of them.
I agree that Daniel 12 is not explicitly messianic. My point is that IMO it is not talking about the general resurrection of everybody but about the resurrection of specific groups for punishment (the apostates) or reward and vindication (the righteous sufferers).

IF one sees the righteous and vindicated sufferer in Daniel represented in Daniel 7 by the 'Son of Man' as a messianic figure then it becomes plausible to interpret Daniel 12 in this light.

In my OP I gave reasons why the 'Son of Man' would be liable to be interpreted as messianic and evidence that such an interpretation is wider than Christianity.

Andrew Criddle

[Johnny Skeptic]

Andrew, let’s take a look at your opening post:

In Luke 24:25-26 the risen Christ is described as saying 'O foolish men and slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer such things and enter into his glory?' This is an example of a general NT claim that the OT predicted a suffering and then exalted Messiah.

The question is which scriptures did the NT writers and/or Jesus have in mind.

It seems very probable that the core passage is the vision of the 'Son of Man' in Daniel 7 who represents (among other things) the vindication by God of the suffering and persecuted righteous remnant in Israel.

'Son of Man' is among the central titles of Jesus in the Gospels and is probably primarily based on Daniel 7.

In early Christianity this passage in Daniel in a/ linked to the 'Suffering Servant' in Isaiah 52-53 and b/ regarded as Messianic.

Both of these interpretations can be supported. There are underlying similarities of though between Daniel and the Servant passages in Isaiah. (The references in Daniel to the 'wise' who will 'make many understand' 11:33 and who will 'shine like the brightness of the firmament' 12:3 are paralleled in Isaiah 53:11 the servant will (according to the Septuagint and DSS) see light of the travail of his soul and by his knowledge make many to be accounted righteous). Some scholars even see these passages in Daniel as intended as an interpretation of the Servant passages in Isaiah.

It is more difficult to see the Son of Man in Daniel as Messianic. However it is unclear that there is really room in one’s eschatology both for a prominent Danielic 'Son of Man' with an 'everlasting Dominion' and a prominent Davidic Messiah. We have other examples of a Messianic interpretation of the 'Son of Man' and/or Daniel 7 in a messianic way. (Apocalypse of Ezra AKA 2 Esdras and tradition attributed in (late) sources to Rabbi Aqiba.)

The above is not intended to prove that the OT teaches a suffering and vindicated Messiah. It does however attempt to argue that IF one believes OT prophecy is a unified system and IF one gives the Apocalyptic element in the OT due weight then such an interpretation is at least very plausible.

“Due weight� is of course a matter of interpretation. There are not any good reasons at all for anyone to assume that Old Testament prophecy is a unified system. Daniel chapter 12 does not in the least show a suffering and vindicated messiah, nor does Isaiah 53.

Regarding Daniel 12, the chapter reads as follows:

12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

The verse does not mention a suffering, vindicated messiah.

12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

The verse mentions suffering and vindicated believers, but not a suffering, vindicated messiah. Otherwise stated, the verse promises the vindication of believers, but there is no external evidence at all that such vindication has taken place, or that it ever will take place.

12:3 And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.

The verse does not mention a suffering, vindicated messiah.

12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

The verse does not mention a suffering, vindicated messiah.

12:5 Then I Daniel looked, and, behold, there stood other two, the one on this side of the bank of the river, and the other on that side of the bank of the river.

The verse does not mention a suffering, vindicated messiah.

12:6 And one said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, How long shall it be to the end of these wonders?

The verse does not mention a suffering, vindicated messiah.

12:7 And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.

The verse does not mention a suffering, vindicated messiah.

12:8 And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things?

The verse does not mention a suffering, vindicated messiah.

12:9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

The verse does not mention a suffering, vindicated messiah.

12:10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.

The verse does not mention a suffering, vindicated messiah.

12:11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

The verse does not mention a suffering, vindicated messiah.

12:12 Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.

The verse does not mention a suffering, vindicated messiah.

12:13 But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.

The verse does not mention a suffering, vindicated messiah.

Ok, now let’s discuss Isaiah 53.

Isaiah 53:3-12 say “He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.�

There is not any external evidence at all that Jesus bore our griefs and carried our sorrows. In fact, there is not even any external evidence at all that Jesus actually said what the Gospels writers said that he said.

Andrew, when I asked you to start a new thread on a fulfilled prophecy, I neglected to ask you to pick a prophecy that was made and fulfilled in the Old Testament. I have no problem continuing these discussions with you, but will you please start a new thread on a prophecy that was fulfilled in the Old Testament?

[andrewcriddle]

“Due weight� is of course a matter of interpretation. There are not any good reasons at all for anyone to assume that Old Testament prophecy is a unified system. Daniel chapter 12 does not in the least show a suffering and vindicated messiah, nor does Isaiah 53.

I agree that the belief that OT prophecy is a unified system is a faith claim and not one that can be demonstrated objectively.

However it is a faith claim that would have been shared both by early Jewish Christians and by early Jewish opponents of Christianity.

Andrew Criddle

[Johnny Skeptic]

I agree that the belief that OT prophecy is a unified system is a faith claim and not one that can be demonstrated objectively.

However, it is a faith claim that would have been shared both by early Jewish Christians and by early Jewish opponents of Christianity.

Andrew Criddle

But Andrew, I asked you to prove that a Bible prophecy, or prophecies in this case, came true, not to prove what people back then believed. I also asked you to start another thread on a prophecy that was made and fulfilled in the Old Testament. Do you plan to do so?

Regarding "early Jewish Christians," I don't see any good reasons to believe that there were more than just a few of them during the first few decades after Jesus died. The book of Acts claims that there were "many thousands" of Christian Jews, but if that was true, how do you explain their very small presence in subsequent centuries? There is in fact no evidence at all that there have ever been a sizeable number of Christian Jews.

[andrewcriddle]

But Andrew, I asked you to prove that a Bible prophecy, or prophecies in this case, came true, not to prove what people back then believed. I also asked you to start another thread on a prophecy that was made and fulfilled in the Old Testament. Do you plan to do soSee Jeremiah and return from exile (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=133232) which I started yesterday.

Regarding "early Jewish Christians," I don't see any good reasons to believe that there were more than just a few of them during the first few decades after Jesus died. The book of Acts claims that there were "many thousands" of Christian Jews, but if that was true, how do you explain their very small presence in subsequent centuries? There is in fact no evidence at all that there have ever been a sizeable number of Christian Jews.
We have good evidence for aubstantial number of Ebionites or Jewis-Christian believers in the early centuries CE. Probably they were eventually absorbed in either mainstream Christianity or mainstream Judaism.

Andrew Criddle

[Johnny Skeptic]

We have good evidence for a substantial number of Ebionites or Jewis-Christian believers in the early centuries CE. Probably they were eventually absorbed in either mainstream Christianity or mainstream Judaism.

Please provide corroborative external evidence, and external evidence that explains why a "substantial" Jewish presence in later centuries became conspicuous by its absence.

[andrewcriddle]

Please provide corroborative external evidence, and external evidence that explains why a "substantial" Jewish presence in later centuries became conspicuous by its absence.
I'm not sure what you mean by external evidence but I'll assume you mean evidence from non-Christian sources.

The main evidence would be from Jewish sources. We have various references in early Jewish sources to heretics or minim. A benediction against the minim became part of the synagogue prayers probably in the early 2nd century CE.

These minim were probably mainly Jewish Christians (see the account in Tosefta Hullin chapter 2 where the minim are apparently followers of Jesus ben Pantira.)

This seems to indicate that enough people of Jewish background were following Jesus to be a source of concern for 2nd century rabbis.

As to their decline and disappearance, there were probably never very large amounts of Jewish Christians in absolute terms. (Until the 2nd century there were less than 100,000 Christians in total.) Hostility from both mainstream Jews and mainstream Christians would eventually lead to their disappearance as a distinct group, but we lack the evidence to describe events in detail.

Andrew Criddle

[Johnny Skeptic]

I'm not sure what you mean by external evidence but I'll assume you mean evidence from non-Christian sources.

The main evidence would be from Jewish sources. We have various references in early Jewish sources to heretics or minim. A benediction against the minim became part of the synagogue prayers probably in the early 2nd century CE.

These minim were probably mainly Jewish Christians (see the account in Tosefta Hullin chapter 2 where the minim are apparently followers of Jesus ben Pantira.)

This seems to indicate that enough people of Jewish background were following Jesus to be a source of concern for 2nd century rabbis.

As to their decline and disappearance, there were probably never very large amounts of Jewish Christians in absolute terms. (Until the 2nd century there were less than 100,000 Christians in total.) Hostility from both mainstream Jews and mainstream Christians would eventually lead to their disappearance as a distinct group, but we lack the evidence to describe events in detail.

Andrew Criddle

Andrew, the evidence that you cited cannot reliably be used to confirm the "many thousands" of Christians claimed in the book of Acts.

Heretics do not indicate numbers. Regarding "This seems to indicate that enough people of Jewish background were following Jesus to be a source of concern for 2nd century rabbis," I disagree. Logically, the rate of increase in numbers is often just as important as the actual increase in numbers. For instance, if on January 7, 40 A.D., there were 10 Christian Jews in Jerusalem, and if on January 17, 40 A.D., there were 50 Christian Jews in Jerusalem, that would have been a 500% increase in just 10 days, or more than enough of an increase to upset the Jewish rabbis.
At any rate, there is no external evidence that Jesus is mentioned in Daniel chapter 12.

[andrewcriddle]

Andrew, the evidence that you cited cannot reliably be used to confirm the "many thousands" of Christians claimed in the book of Acts.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Johnny

I've tried to give evidence (maybe not conclusive evidence) that there was at one time a substantial group of Jewish-Christian believers.

What evidence do you have that there weren't ?

(The eventual disappearance of such groups is not IMO good evidence that they never existed.)

Andrew Criddle

[Johnny Skeptic]

Johnny

I've tried to give evidence (maybe not conclusive evidence) that there was at one time a substantial group of Jewish-Christian believers.

What evidence do you have that there weren't?

(The eventual disappearance of such groups is not IMO good evidence that they never existed.)

Andrew Criddle

Regarding "What evidence do you have that there weren't?," I never said that there weren't. The book of Acts said that there were. All that I am asking for is reasonable proof that there were.

Regarding "The eventual disappearance of such groups is not IMO good evidence that they never existed," that is true, but it is suspicious that there is no signicant presence of Christian Jews in the 2nd century even though Trajan killed 500,000 Jews early in the 2nd century. I know that the majority of those 500,000 Jews were not Christians, but since the Romans tolerated Judaism to a great extent as long as they didn't cause trouble, why wouldn't they have tolerated Christian Jews as well?

[andrewcriddle]

Regarding "The eventual disappearance of such groups is not IMO good evidence that they never existed," that is true, but it is suspicious that there is no signicant presence of Christian Jews in the 2nd century even though Trajan killed 500,000 Jews early in the 2nd century. I know that the majority of those 500,000 Jews were not Christians, but since the Romans tolerated Judaism to a great extent as long as they didn't cause trouble, why wouldn't they have tolerated Christian Jews as well?
I'm sorry I genuinely don't understand this argument.

Why does the brutal suppression by Trajan of a violent revolt by Diaspora Jews have any bearing on how many Jewish-Christian believers there were at the time ?

Andrew Criddle

Edited to Add

If you mean that Jewish-Christians would not have faced persecution for being Christians from the pagan Roman state then you're probably right, but I've not claimed otherwise. The hostility they faced would have been from mainstream Christians and mainstream Jews not from the pagan Roman government.

[Johnny Skeptic]

If you mean that Jewish-Christians would not have faced persecution for being Christians from the pagan Roman state then you're probably right, but I've not claimed otherwise. The hostility they faced would have been from mainstream Christians and mainstream Jews, not from the pagan Roman government.

Yes, Andrew, that is what I mean. My point is that there is no logical correlation that can be made between the persecution of Christian Jews and number of Christian Jews. A small group of people can be hated and persecuted just as easily as a large group of people.

Getting back to our main topic, I stand by my previous argument that there is no indication that Jesus fulfilled Daniel 12.

[andrewcriddle]

Getting back to our main topic, I stand by my previous argument that there is no indication that Jesus fulfilled Daniel 12.
Do you mean that EVEN IF Jesus was vindicated resurrected and glorified by God this would still not fulfil Daniel 12 2-3 ?

And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awke, some to everlasting life......And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament and those who turn many to righteousness like the stars for ever and ever.

If so do you also deny any link between Daniel 12 and Isaiah 53 ?

He shal see light of the travail of his soul and be satisfied. By his knowledge shall the righteous one my servant make many to be accounted righteous (I've mentioned earlier my belief that light the reading of the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls is original although not in the MT.)

Andrew Criddle

[Johnny Skeptic]

Getting back to our main topic, I stand by my previous argument that there is no indication that Jesus fulfilled Daniel 12.

Do you mean that EVEN IF Jesus was vindicated, resurrected and glorified by God this would still not fulfill Daniel 12 2-3?

Well of course not. If you reasonbly prove that Jesus rose from the dead, I will admit that he fulfilled Daniel chapter 12.

[andrewcriddle]

Well of course not. If you reasonbly prove that Jesus rose from the dead, I will admit that he fulfilled Daniel chapter 12.
So you agree that if the early disciples honestly and wholeheartedly believed that Jesus had risen from the dead, then they would naturally come to believe that this was a fulfillment of Daniel chapter 12 ?

Andrew Criddle

[Johnny Skeptic]

Well of course not. If you reasonbly prove that Jesus rose from the dead, I will admit that he fulfilled Daniel chapter 12.

So you agree that if the early disciples honestly and wholeheartedly believed that Jesus had risen from the dead, then they would naturally come to believe that this was a fulfillment of Daniel chapter 12?

When I asked you to start a thread on a fulfilled prophecy, I didn't mean to start a thread on what people believed. Still, how do we know what the disciples believed? What external records are there regarding the post-Resurrection claims and activities of the disciples?

[andrewcriddle]

When I asked you to start a thread on a fulfilled prophecy, I didn't mean to start a thread on what people believed. Still, how do we know what the disciples believed? What external records are there regarding the post-Resurrection claims and activities of the disciples?
The resurrection is certainly central to Paul and he claims that in this he is following early tradition. (See 1 Corinthians 15)

Some scholars have argued that there were early versions of Crhistianity in which the resurrection was unimportant but I'm doubtful. The arguments tend to involve hypothetical reconstructions of the views of the supposed 'Q community'.

Andrew Criddle

[Johnny Skeptic]

When I asked you to start a thread on a fulfilled prophecy, I didn't mean to start a thread on what people believed. Still, how do we know what the disciples believed? What external records are there regarding the post-Resurrection claims and activities of the disciples?

The resurrection is certainly central to Paul and he claims that in this he is following early tradition. (See 1 Corinthians 15)

Some scholars have argued that there were early versions of Crhistianity in which the resurrection was unimportant but I'm doubtful. The arguments tend to involve hypothetical reconstructions of the views of the supposed 'Q community.'

You didn't answer my question. I asked you "What external records are there regarding the post-Resurrection claims and activities of the disciples?"

[andrewcriddle]

You didn't answer my question. I asked you "What external records are there regarding the post-Resurrection claims and activities of the disciples?"
There are really no external records in that sense about the apostles. (ie evidence genuinely independent of Christian tradition.)

However Paul's letters are first hand evidence about him and his beliefs, probably in some ways more reliable than evidence by an outsider.

(I'll be away this weekend so I won't be able to reply again till Monday.)

Andrew Criddle

[Johnny Skeptic]

There are really no external records in that sense about the apostles. (ie evidence genuinely independent of Christian tradition.)

However Paul's letters are first hand evidence about him and his beliefs, probably in some ways more reliable than evidence by an outsider.

The followers of other religions could use the same argument against you.

Paul did not provide any first hand evidence, or even any provable second hand or third hand evidence. A vision is most certainly not evidence. Paul had never heard Jesus speak, so there was no way that he could have recognized his voice. Paul's lack of any significant details at all about the life of Jesus is suspicious.

What external, non-Christians records are there of the life of Paul, his persecution of Christians and the trial of Jesus?

[andrewcriddle]

The followers of other religions could use the same argument against you.
I agree that In studying the early history of almost all ancient religions one has to largely rely on statements by believers.

In general I would regard such statements as mostly in good faith ie the believer may well be wrong but is not deliberately being radically dishonest.

Without such a presumption it would be very difficult to study ancient religions at all.

Paul did not provide any first hand evidence, or even any provable second hand or third hand evidence. A vision is most certainly not evidence. Paul had never heard Jesus speak, so there was no way that he could have recognized his voice. Paul's lack of any significant details at all about the life of Jesus is suspicious.
Strictly speaking we don't know whether Paul had heard Jesus before, it is quite possible that he was for example, present in some minor capacity when Jesus was interrogated by the Jewish authorities before being condemned by Pilate. (I'm not saying this happened I'm just pointing out that there is no evidence against it.)

What external, non-Christians records are there of the life of Paul, his persecution of Christians and the trial of Jesus?
The TF in Josephus, the statement by Tacitus about the Fire of Rome, the statement about the killing of the 'wise king' by Mara bar Serapion, and the statement about the execution of Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud tractate Sanhedrin, are all arguable examples of non-Christian testimony about the trial of Jesus.

There is no non-Christian testimony about Paul of any value whatever.

Andrew Criddle

[Johnny Skeptic]

Message to Andrew Criddle: Getting back on topic, in your opening post you said "Johnny Skeptic asked me to start a thread about prophecy so here goes." Are you suggesting that Jesus was the suffering servant mentioned in Isaiah 53? If not, then you have not given me an example of a fulfilled Bible prophecy.

You started another thread on a Bible prophecy, but I have forgotten the title. What was it?

[andrewcriddle]

You started another thread on a Bible prophecy, but I have forgotten the title. What was it?
Jeremiah and return from Exile (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=133232)

Andrew Criddle

[Johnny Skeptic]

Message to Andrew Criddle: Getting back on topic, in your opening post you said "Johnny Skeptic asked me to start a thread about prophecy so here goes." Are you suggesting that Jesus was the suffering servant mentioned in Isaiah 53? If so, where is your evidence? If not, you are in a distinct minority among fundamentalist Christians.

[andrewcriddle]

Message to Andrew Criddle: Getting back on topic, in your opening post you said "Johnny Skeptic asked me to start a thread about prophecy so here goes." Are you suggesting that Jesus was the suffering servant mentioned in Isaiah 53? If so, where is your evidence? If not, you are in a distinct minority among fundamentalist Christians.
I personally believe that Jesus fulfils the prophecy of the suffering servant in Isaiah 53.

I haven't claimed that this can be proved to the satisfaction of an impartial adjudicater. I don't think it can be proved in that sense.

What I was trying to show is that the belief among early Christians that Jesus did fulfil Isaiah 53 is plausible to someone who takes the prophecy a/ seriously b/as part of the prophecies of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible.

To someone for whom arguments about the authority and coherence of Scripture are not valid; the claim that Jesus fulfilled Isaiah 53 will not be convincing.

However these basic premises would have been common ground both to the early Christians and to their early opponents.

Andrew Criddle

(I'm sorry to keep saying this but I'll be away over the weekend and won't be able to reply till Monday.)

[Johnny Skeptic]

I personally "believe" that Jesus fulfils the prophecy of the suffering servant in Isaiah 53.

I haven't claimed that this can be "proved" to the satisfaction of an impartial adjudicater. I don't think it can be "proved" in that sense.

Nor can a host of other claims. My point is, of what use is the supposed prophecy to "unbelievers," who after all are the very group of people who you are trying to influence? You state the obvious. Once a person becomes a fundamentalist Christian, as I was for over 35 years, the entire Bible is automatically taken at face value. So, the prophecy is of little value to people who are already Christians. in fact, a good percentage of Christians are not familiar with the prophecy, especially in the third world countries.

Kosmin and Lachman wrote a book titled 'One Nation Under God.' Billy Graham praises the book, but I have no idea why. The authors cite a lot of documented research that proves that the major factors that account for religious beliefs are geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender and age. I suggest that you buy the book and read it. A loving and all-powerful God would never allow the spreading of the supposedly most important message in human history to be spread by means of foot, horse, mule, camel, boat etc., at a pace that makes a Galapagos tortoise seem like a race horse by comparison. Over the centuries, millions of people have died without ever having heard the Gospel message. Since God did not deem it necessary let those millions of people know about the Gospel message, why did he deem it necessary to let anyone know about the Gospel message. Selective favoritism regarding who gets to hear the Gospel message is not a rational concept. If God does not exist, then it is to be expected that the means of spreading the Gospel message would have been exactly the means that "have" spread the Gospel message.

What I was trying to show is that the belief among early Christians that Jesus did fulfil Isaiah 53 is plausible to someone who takes the prophecy a/ seriously b/as part of the prophecies of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible.

But how many people "did" take the prophecy seriously, and why?

To someone for whom arguments about the authority and coherence of Scripture are not valid; the claim that Jesus fulfilled Isaiah 53 will not be convincing.

Again, you state the obvious.

However, these basic premises would have been common ground both to the early Christians and to their early opponents.

What premises are those? As far as I am aware, there isn't any external evidence that Jesus fulfilled "any" of the Old Testament Scriptures that Christians believe are messianic Scriptures. For instance, Micah 5:2 says that someone would come from Bethlehem Ephratah who would become ruler in Israel. Jesus did not become ruler in Israel. No one should blame the Jews who rejected Jesus, which might very well have been over 95% of the Jews.

Regarding supposedly messianic Old Testament Scriptures, obviously God went out of his way, in typical fashion I might add, to make sure that it "would not be" obvious to impartial observers that Jesus fulfilled various Old Testament Scriptures. The same goes for the Tyre prophecy. Had God told Ezekiel about Alexander's eventual conquest of the island settlement, then we would have something to talk about. Ezekiel was a contemporary of Nebuchadnezzar, so his prediction that Nebby would attack Tyre was by no means a long shot.

What in the world does God have against showing himself more clearly? What does he have to gain by not doing so. What would humanity have to gain if he did show himself more clearly? The correct answer is, quite a lot. First of all, a lot less people would end up in hell. Second of all, there would be a lot less strife and wars among the followers of various religions. Actually, there would be very little strife since no one would have any need to argue about which God exists. In short, the more information we have, the more able we are to make better informed decisions that would definitely be of benefit to all of humanity. If God had chosen to show himself much more clearly than he has, would you object. Of course not. You would say that it is a good thing.

[spin]

It seems very probable that the core passage is the vision of the 'Son of Man' in Daniel 7 who represents (among other things) the vindication by God of the suffering and persecuted righteous remnant in Israel.
It is interesting how this one passage was fastened onto by an ignorant christian community and absorbed into the theological quagmire or mix-and-match. It is quite inappropriate for the use that was given to it. This is probably because the "apocalyptic part had been extracted from its context and so more easily ignored.

'Son of Man' is among the central titles of Jesus in the Gospels and is probably primarily based on Daniel 7.
Again interesting, because there was no messianic intent for its use in Daniel, in which it was purely descriptive for the figure mentioned: it is a simile like the various other similes in the passage. While the other figures were like certain animals, this figure was "like a son of man". This use of the notion "son of man" was the same as that found in Ezekiel, except that here it was used descriptively to describe the form of the figure. Naturally, the figure representing the Hebrews was in the form of a man, while the others were rapacious animals.

I must underline that the use of "son of man" in Dan 7 is certainly not titular. It is not "the son of man", but "one like a son of man".

Of further interest is that the figure like a son of man takes its imagery from Baal who, having defeated the beasts from the sea (in his battle with the sea "Yamm"), returns to heaven on the clouds, where the ancient one, El, rewards him. The one like the son of man is going to heaven and the one seeing it is in heaven, for he sees him coming with the clouds, and he came to the ancient of days, who was of course in heaven.

The Marcan writer has this totally screwed up, making his son of man come to earth on the clouds.


spin

[andrewcriddle]

Of further interest is that the figure like a son of man takes its imagery from Baal who, having defeated the beasts from the sea (in his battle with the sea "Yamm"), returns to heaven on the clouds, where the ancient one, El, rewards him. The one like the son of man is going to heaven and the one seeing it is in heaven, for he sees him coming with the clouds, and he came to the ancient of days, who was of course in heaven.

The Marcan writer has this totally screwed up, making his son of man come to earth on the clouds.


spin
I agree that in Daniel 7:13 the 'one like a son of man' is ascending to heaven with the clouds of heaven.

However this does seem to be a prelude to his earthly vindication and rule.

Verse 14 'and to him was given dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples nations and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion which shall not pass away and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed'. Verse 22 'until the ancient of days came and judgment was given for the saints of the most high and the time came wheen the saints received the kingdom' and verse 27 may also be relevant, particularly if the 'son of man' here represents not Israel in general but the righteous persecuted minority within Israel.

Andrew Criddle

[Johnny Skeptic]

The title of this thread is 'Prophecy of the suffering and glorified Messiah,' but I haven't seen any evidence at all that Jesus was the suffering and glorified Messiah, only that the Gospel writers portrayed him as such. We don't even know what Jesus actually said about himself, only what the anonymous Gospel writers said that he said, at best no better than second hand, and possibly even third hand or fourth hand. CJD said in another thread that Jesus did not meet the majority's expectations. Who could blame them? For instance, Micah 5:2 says that someone would come from Bethlehem Ephratah who would become ruler in Israel. Jesus did not become ruler in Israel. What is the minority expect?

[spin]

I agree that in Daniel 7:13 the 'one like a son of man' is ascending to heaven with the clouds of heaven.

However this does seem to be a prelude to his earthly vindication and rule.

Verse 14 'and to him was given dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples nations and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion which shall not pass away and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed'.
El gave Baal dominion, when he returned to heaven.

Verse 22 'until the ancient of days came and judgment was given for the saints of the most high and the time came wheen the saints received the kingdom'
El is the ancient of days.

and verse 27 may also be relevant, particularly if the 'son of man' here represents not Israel in general but the righteous persecuted minority within Israel.
Israel is often a shortcut for the remnant of Israel or the faithful of Israel.

I don't see it as a prelude in Daniel for "the son of man" (a la Mark) coming to the world on the clouds.


spin

[andrewcriddle]

The title of this thread is 'Prophecy of the suffering and glorified Messiah,' but I haven't seen any evidence at all that Jesus was the suffering and glorified Messiah, only that the Gospel writers portrayed him as such. We don't even know what Jesus actually said about himself, only what the anonymous Gospel writers said that he said, at best no better than second hand, and possibly even third hand or fourth hand. CJD said in another thread that Jesus did not meet the majority's expectations. Who could blame them? For instance, Micah 5:2 says that someone would come from Bethlehem Ephratah who would become ruler in Israel. Jesus did not become ruler in Israel. What is the minority expect?
I agree that Jesus did not fulfil the mrssianic prophecies in the this-worldly political sense that the majority expected. And that this is an important reason why most of the Jews of that period did not accept that he was the Messiah at all.

However the disaster of Bar Kochba's attempt a century later, to be a political this-worldly Messiah, may indicate that the prophecies were never intended to be fulfilled in that way.

Andrew Criddle