Re: Understanding Prophecy (was Re: Daniel)

From: MikeSatterlee@cs.com
Date: Sun Jul 07 2002 - 20:21:06 EDT

  • Next message: gordon brown: "Re: Second-hand sign? (was Re: Noahic Covenant)"

    Hello George,

    I'm trying to figure out where you are coming from on this.

    You wrote: It seems very likely that all have a common reference to the event
    of "the 145th year" (167 B.C.), though the gospel writers clearly intend a
    Roman reference as well. Whether or not the writer of Daniel intended any
    other reference is considerably less certain.

    You speak of the intent of the gospel writers. By using that phraseology are
    you implying that Jesus himself may not have applied Daniel's words to Rome's
    coming desolation of Jerusalem, and that this application and the words
    attributed to Christ by them may have been a creation of the gospel writers?
    You speak of the intention of the writer of Daniel. By using that phraseology
    are you implying that the writer of Daniel may have been someone other than
    Daniel, and that this writer and the gospel writers may have disagreed about
    how the prophecies contained in the book of Daniel were meant to be
    understood?

    Thanks,

    Mike



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 07 2002 - 22:05:20 EDT