PDA

View Full Version : Cyrus Christ



Goose
February 1st, 2005, 01:28 AM
Cyrus King of Persia is referred to in Isaiah 45:1 as a Christ: "Thus sayeth the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus". The Hebrew word for Christ, "anointed", is meshiakh(Messiah). The verse is better translated as "Thus sayeth the LORD to his Messiah, to Cyrus"

I'd like to hear what people think about that part of the verse. What does an "anointed" one(Meshiakh) do? What is their job? Why/how was Cyrus a Meshiakh? How many types of Meshakhim(Messiahs) do you think there are/can be? etc.

I'd particularly like to hear from Christians, but everyone feel free to reply. A short reply is preferred.

erethnereh
February 1st, 2005, 01:54 AM
Because Cyrus freed the Jews to worship in His temple, Cyrus forshadows of Jesus. Cyrus also supposedly received a dream, from the God of the hebrews, to set the Jews free. This dream is recorded outside of the Bible.

Goose
February 1st, 2005, 02:01 AM
Interesting input. Do you remember the name of the extra-biblical work?

Lighthouse
February 1st, 2005, 02:05 AM
Goose-
For Cyrus to be referred to as a messiah means that he is a type, or shadow of The Messiah.

Goose
February 1st, 2005, 02:14 AM
Maybe the Christ of the Christian Bible is a type, or shadow? Things obviously have yet to be fully filled, reigning physical King, etc.

Lighthouse
February 1st, 2005, 02:31 AM
:kookoo:

SOTK
February 1st, 2005, 02:48 AM
Originally posted by Goose

Maybe the Christ of the Christian Bible is a type, or shadow? Things obviously have yet to be fully filled, reigning physical King, etc.

"Maybe Christ is a type or shadow"? Goose, I know that you aren't necessarily a traditional Christian, but I always thought you believed Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God and our Savior. Do you not believe this?

firechyld
February 1st, 2005, 03:48 AM
Bear in mind that the word "Messiah" has been given much greater emphasis in Christianity than in Judaism. In Judaism, the term can refer to anyone with a sacred duty or mission from God, as well as the prophecied individual who will usher in the "Messianic Age".

Lighthouse
February 1st, 2005, 03:55 AM
Seriously, what OT prophecies state that The Messiah is going to reign in a physical kingdom?

firechyld
February 1st, 2005, 04:02 AM
Seriously, what OT prophecies state that The Messiah is going to reign in a physical kingdom?

The Babylonian Talmud has rather specific mentions, as do the works of Maimonides. Stop attempting to base your "knowledge" of Judaism on the texts accepted by Christianity alone.

Lighthouse
February 1st, 2005, 06:56 AM
That is the only knowledge I have. And, as you pointed out, there are no OT prophecies. So what? That doesn't mean He isn't going to reign in a physical kingdom.

Mr. 5020
February 1st, 2005, 07:53 AM
Wow, sometimes I wish :Brandon: would stop defending Christianity.

Goose
February 1st, 2005, 12:55 PM
Firechyld is exactly right. Being a Meshiakh means to be anointed for a specific office/task etc. There are many Meshiakhim(Messiahs). The King Meshiakh (the Messiah) is anointed to rule on the throne of Israel, physically. If everything is fully filled like Lighthouse said, then why the need to come back. Cyrus, fulfilled some prophecy too, and didn't complete the job. Maybe he came back in the 1st Century, etc.

As for me, I'm a Geir Toshav in Judaism(a non-Jew who deligently studies Torah).

Granite
February 1st, 2005, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by Goose

Firechyld is exactly right. Being a Meshiakh means to be anointed for a specific office/task etc. There are many Meshiakhim(Messiahs). The King Meshiakh (the Messiah) is anointed to rule on the throne of Israel, physically. If everything is fully filled like Lighthouse said, then why the need to come back. Cyrus, fulfilled some prophecy too, and didn't complete the job. Maybe he came back in the 1st Century, etc.

As for me, I'm a Geir Toshav in Judaism(a non-Jew who deligently studies Torah).

That have a word for a half-Jew who doesn't diligently study the Torah?:D

As an aside the Christian Jesus fulfilled next to none of the so-called "messianic" prophecies in the OT.

On Fire
February 1st, 2005, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by Goose
As for me, I'm a Geir Toshav in Judaism(a non-Jew who deligently studies Torah). Like Sammy Davis Jr.?

On Fire
February 1st, 2005, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by granite1010
As an aside the Christian Jesus fulfilled next to none of the so-called "messianic" prophecies in the OT.

You may be mistaken.

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/m_prophecies.shtml

Chileice
February 1st, 2005, 01:05 PM
"messiah" and "christos" are hebrew and greek words used to mean someone annointed. However, the Jewish people were looking for a specific kind of messiah... one who would liberate them and restore the kingdom to Israel. Jesus did come to liberate them but in a spiritual, rather than political sense. And instead of restoring the kingdom to the Jews he opened it up to everyone, which is what got him in trouble.

The use of the word "messiah" with Cyrus is of no bother. Joshua the high priest and Zerrubbabel were also "messiahs". They annointed by God to carry out specific purposes.

Goose
February 1st, 2005, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by On Fire

Like Sammy Davis Jr.? I don't know. I think he was a Jew.

Granite
February 1st, 2005, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by On Fire

You may be mistaken.

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/m_prophecies.shtml

Cherrypicking verses, ripping them out of context, and creating a hodgepodge of "prophecies" relating to Jesus might comfort the flock, but that's about it.

Interestingly, Jews yesterday and today do not see messianic overtones in many of these passages. The only people who make the connection are Christians.

Not like we'd expect the actual people who wrote the books to know a thing or two...

Chileice
February 1st, 2005, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

Cherrypicking verses, ripping them out of context, and creating a hodgepodge of "prophecies" relating to Jesus might comfort the flock, but that's about it.

Interestingly, Jews yesterday and today do not see messianic overtones in many of these passages. The only people who make the connection are Christians.

Not like we'd expect the actual people who wrote the books to know a thing or two...

You also need to be careful. Jews DID see messianic overtones in many verses at the time. You have to remember their are Jewish revisionists just as there are Christian ones. And while they may not have seen messianic overtones in all of the verses thay may have seen some in other verses as well. And they were able to change their views so that they did NOT fit with Jesus.

You are right in some ways. He was not the messiah in the form they expected. They certainly had a much more ethno-centric view of waht messiah should be. Jesus came breaking down barriers rather than constructing them... a point many modern Christians ought to remember as well.

But you have to be careful in trying to break away from Christianity, that you do not do the same thing you accuse your accusers of doing, 1010. Jesus did fulfill many messianic prophesies, but not many related to an earthly kingdom. That is why Christians look forward to a second coming and why some Jews reject Jesus thinking he didn't fulfill all they expected. But he followed pretty carefully the suffering servant motif of Isaiah and of the wisdom literature. The apocalyptic stuff was not what Jesus was about. Maybe those passages really weren't messianic and were misinterpretted for years ( a thing Jesus certainly accused the religious leaders of his day of doing) or maybe they were for a different time... a second coming, or a millenial kingdom or even to be fulfilled by someone else or Jesus wasn't the awaited messiah. I guess you have to make your own choice.

Granite
February 1st, 2005, 01:36 PM
All I would say is that this is a classic case of Christians hedging their bets: Jesus wasn't a physical king when he came the first time, but he'll handle that part NEXT time around. Pretty cute trick.

Goose
February 1st, 2005, 01:38 PM
Cyrus Christ fulfilled only some prophecies. Christians believe their Christ fulfilled only some prophecies. Why is such a big deal made one over the other(or the many other anointed ones) when none of them were the Messiah that reigns forever?

On Fire
February 1st, 2005, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

Cherrypicking verses, ripping them out of context, and creating a hodgepodge of "prophecies" relating to Jesus might comfort the flock, but that's about it.

Cherrypicking?!?! You got a list of phrophcies? Also, see below.



Interestingly, Jews yesterday and today do not see messianic overtones in many of these passages. The only people who make the connection are Christians.

:duh: That's what separates the wheat from the chaff.



Not like we'd expect the actual people who wrote the books to know a thing or two...

Not sure what you mean.



It is very common for Jewish objectors to point that “Jesus has not fulfilled all the prophecies,” and to scorn the suggestion that some prophecies are for a later time and are to be fulfilled at the “second coming.” The fact is, however, that prophecies about Messiah are of two seemingly mutually-exclusive types, as though they were talking about two different Messiahs. Jewish scholarship refers to Messiah ben-David and Messiah ben-Yosef. One is the positive, victorious Messiah who ushers in a kingdom of peace, the other is a suffering servant (as in Isaiah 53). The popular tendency is to think only of ben-David and ignore ben-Yosef, but the Messianic/Christian view accounts for both in one person. Interestingly, these two prophetic strains are named for David and Joseph, both of which suffered first and emerged victorious in the end. Joseph is introduced to us with dreams of grandeur, but he was lost to Israel – actually considered dead – before his dreams came true. Eventually however, he had a “second coming” when he came back into the lives of his brothers who once rejected him. Then they bowed down to him and he became the savior of his people by providing for them in a time of famine. David also, though anointed as King in his youth as far as God was concerned, was rejected by the current King and lived as a fugitive for many years before he finally became the quintessential King of Israel. Both of these historic figures, which Jewish tradition has recognized as being prototypes of Messiah, arrive amid promises, are pushed down, and finally emerge in glory. Shouldn’t the ultimate Messiah follow the same pattern?

“if the messiah was not going to fulfill all of the messianic prophecies the first time how come nobody clearly states that?”

If I were to look down the road and try to tell you what was coming, I might say that ahead of us lay a tree, a house, a lake and a mountain. Does that imply that we would reach them all at the same time as we travel down the road? After all, I mentioned them all in the same sentence! Would I need to explain to you that there is space between these things? Prophecy can be considered a look down the road of time. Many things may be mentioned together, although the actual fulfillments may be separated by great spans of time. We may come to the “tree” very soon, but the mountain much later. The prophecies concerning Messiah are such that it would not make sense for all of them to come to pass at once. We have seen the first signs matched exactly, so it is perfectly reasonable to believe that the rest will come in their own time.

http://www.amfi.org/mailbag/Jer31_31_2.htm

Granite
February 1st, 2005, 01:40 PM
"Cherrypicking?!?!"

Uhhh...yeah. You people pick a verse here or a poetic verse there, then stamp "Messianic Prophecy" on top of it. I'm sorry, plucking a verse out of context isn't solid exegesis.

On Fire
February 1st, 2005, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

"Cherrypicking?!?!"

Uhhh...yeah. You people pick a verse here or a poetic verse there, then stamp "Messianic Prophecy" on top of it. I'm sorry, plucking a verse out of context isn't solid exegesis.

I could show you 10,000 verses and you would still have a problem with it. My bad for taking you off ignore.

Redfin
February 1st, 2005, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by Goose

Cyrus King of Persia is referred to in Isaiah 45:1 as a Christ: "Thus sayeth the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus". The Hebrew word for Christ, "anointed", is meshiakh(Messiah). The verse is better translated as "Thus sayeth the LORD to his Messiah, to Cyrus"

I'd like to hear what people think about that part of the verse. What does an "anointed" one(Meshiakh) do? What is their job? Why/how was Cyrus a Meshiakh? How many types of Meshakhim(Messiahs) do you think there are/can be? etc.

I'd particularly like to hear from Christians, but everyone feel free to reply. A short reply is preferred.

Substitute the word "appointed" for "anointed," and the intended meaning comes through pretty well.

Going beyond that is often just stretching the significance of "messiah" to accomodate all of the latter day accretions it has acquired.

The particular implications of any particular usage of the term are determined by the context.

Goose
February 1st, 2005, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by Redfin

Going beyond that is often just stretching the significance of "messiah" to accomodate all of the latter day accretions it has acquired. Good point.

Granite
February 1st, 2005, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by On Fire

I could show you 10,000 verses and you would still have a problem with it. My bad for taking you off ignore.

:yawn:

Whatever flips your switch.

drbrumley
February 1st, 2005, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by Goose

Maybe the Christ of the Christian Bible is a type, or shadow? Things obviously have yet to be fully filled, reigning physical King, etc.

Care to go into detail Goose. Jesus is a type? Jesus is God whether you are to admit it or not. Did Cyrus or the other so called Messiahs die and rise again on a third day? I'll answer that for you. No!

Bottom line is this Goose. Anybody can be called a messiah in some form or fashion, but there is only one. God himself. In the form of a man He became. Whether the Jews like it or not is not my problem. Why the Jews can't understand thier own book is not my problem either.

You know, I for one am glad God isn't locked in the Jews' little box.

Granite
February 1st, 2005, 02:44 PM
The possibility that the Jews understand their own scripture better than Christians do is, of course, never an option.:rolleyes:

drbrumley
February 1st, 2005, 02:51 PM
God the Father wrote both. Or should I say inspired both.

Granite
February 1st, 2005, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by drbrumley

God the Father wrote both. Or should I say inspired both.

Well, says you. (Actually I thought the writers were under the Holy Spirit's inspiration.)

Patronizing Jews is an old Christian habit, though.

drbrumley
February 1st, 2005, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

Well, says you. (Actually I thought the writers were under the Holy Spirit's inspiration.)

Patronizing Jews is an old Christian habit, though.

Does the Holy Spirit act on its' own?

Patrronizing he says. :doh: :nono:

Goose
February 1st, 2005, 03:06 PM
Brumley,

Can you even read the Hebrew Bible? ...let alone know it better then Jews... That's a very bold and silly notion based on assertions wouldn't someone say?

Goose
February 1st, 2005, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by drbrumley
You know, I for one am glad God isn't locked in the Jews' little box. What box would that be? The Almighty is free to do what he wants. I'm particularly interested however, in why an "anointed of the LORD" be just a view. Obviously, the Almighty viewed Cyrus as a Messiah. That settles it. So, I'm just trying to get an idea of what people think.

drbrumley
February 1st, 2005, 03:12 PM
copout excuse.

Tell us Goose, what differences are there that can't be disputed when reading the Hebrew compared to what was translated to the English language. I'm not talking about grammer points. I mean contextual statements. I need a new topic to study. Thanks.

drbrumley
February 1st, 2005, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by Goose

What box would that be? The Almighty is free to do what he wants. I'm particularly interested however, in why an "anointed of the LORD" be just a view. Obviously, the Almighty viewed Cyrus as a Messiah. That settles it. So, I'm just trying to get an idea of what people think.

The Almighty is FREE to do WHATEVER he wants, yet the Jews say God didn't and CAN't come as a man. It was blasemphy to them that Jesus violated the Sabbath. It was blasmephy that Jesus forgave sins, And only God can do that. Right? They knew who Jesus was. Everything pointed at him. You know this. Thats why your a messianic Jew. Unless you have had another change of heart. Obviously, the Almighty viewed Cyrus as a Messiah settles what? That God chooses some for bigger events than others? What's your point?

Goose
February 1st, 2005, 03:22 PM
LOL. Seriously now...You can't even read Hebrew, yet you claim to understand the TN"K(Jewish Bible/Christian "OT") better then "those Jews"? I want to point out how silly that is. I'm not going to continue in your silly patronizing and your obfuscations. I think the audience has enough brain power to make it quite clear in why it's important to read the Hebrew Bible.

I'm looking to focus on Cyrus as a Messiah and thoughful comments. Not to be badgered and patronized by a person who considers himself more knowledgable in the Hebrew Bible,when he himself can't even read it. It's nonsense. I'm looking for comments about Cyrus Christ.

drbrumley
February 1st, 2005, 03:27 PM
Oh reading Hebrew is a Badge of Honor huh? Funny those who read (past tense) it didn't follow it, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Goose
February 1st, 2005, 03:30 PM
Brumley,

Jews didn't say the Almighty is not a man. The Almighty did.

P.S. - I'm not a Messianic Jew, nor have I ever been or claimed to be.

drbrumley
February 1st, 2005, 03:32 PM
Thanks for clarification on the Messianc Jew part.

erethnereh
February 1st, 2005, 03:32 PM
Interesting input. Do you remember the name of the extra-biblical work?

Hmm, this is what one of my history professors a while back told me. Josephus, book 11 chapter 1, says Cyrus wrote of his dream, but I was really hoping to find something non-Jewish.

drbrumley
February 1st, 2005, 03:33 PM
Jews didn't say the Almighty is not a man. The Almighty did.

But God can do WHATEVER he wants however He sees fit. Right?

Goose
February 1st, 2005, 03:35 PM
Brumley,

I don't look at reading Hebrew as a badge of honor, but it is honorable and a good thing. Can you please get back to the original topic please? You have the power to start another thread concerning another topic.

Goose
February 1st, 2005, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by drbrumley

Jews didn't say the Almighty is not a man. The Almighty did.

But God can do WHATEVER he wants however He sees fit. Right? It seems that way. But that doesn't mean he will do everything he can possibly do. Again, start your own thread on the subject if you're interested in posting about another topic. I'm interested in Cyrus Christ, and that's what this thread is for.

drbrumley
February 1st, 2005, 03:38 PM
I did that Goose.

Let me repost it.

Bottom line is this Goose. Anybody can be called a messiah in some form or fashion, but there is only one. God himself. In the form of a man He became. Whether the Jews like it or not is not my problem. Why the Jews can't understand thier own book is not my problem either.

drbrumley
February 1st, 2005, 03:40 PM
With that I'm done for now.

Goose
February 1st, 2005, 03:41 PM
Brumley,

Ok good. Thank you for your statements and assertions.

One Eyed Jack
February 1st, 2005, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by Goose
I'd like to hear what people think about that part of the verse. What does an "anointed" one(Meshiakh) do? What is their job?

Well, an "anointed one" is usually a prophet (who makes prophecies), a priest (who preaches), or a king (who rules). Or in Jesus' case, all three.

Chileice
February 1st, 2005, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

The possibility that the Jews understand their own scripture better than Christians do is, of course, never an option.:rolleyes:

Of course, all of the first Christians were Jews interpretting THEIR own scriptures and seeing Jesus as the fulfillment of them. It was the Jews that convinced the non-Jews of the merits of the OT in relation to the life of Christ. Without them, non-Jews would have had no interest whatsoever in ancient Jewish religious writings.

drbrumley
February 1st, 2005, 04:27 PM
Thier own scriptures?

drbrumley
February 1st, 2005, 04:36 PM
Peace Goose. Just want to let you know I statrted a thread so we can discuss this Netzarim. Thread located Here! (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=666284#post666284)

Thanks.

Chileice
February 1st, 2005, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by Goose

It seems that way. But that doesn't mean he will do everything he can possibly do. Again, start your own thread on the subject if you're interested in posting about another topic. I'm interested in Cyrus Christ, and that's what this thread is for.


I am interested in YOUR interest in Cyrus as a "meshiah". The word or its derivatives is used dozens of times. Why the special interest in Cyrus? I think this verse would be of some difficulty for Jewish scholars since Cyrus was in no was a Jew nor a worshipper of YHWH. I'm not sure what you are hoping people will comment about. He was appointed by God to do a task. It shopws God's great sovereignty that he might use the actions of one who does not even follow him to bring about good for his people. Beyond that I'm not sure why all the specific interest in Cyrus.

Goose
February 1st, 2005, 06:25 PM
Chileice,

It's just clear about Cyrus being anointed. That's why.

On Fire
February 2nd, 2005, 06:18 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

The possibility that the Jews understand their own scripture better than Christians do is, of course, never an option.:rolleyes:

It's in their genes, right?

Turbo
February 2nd, 2005, 06:28 AM
Originally posted by Goose

Maybe the Christ of the Christian Bible is a type, or shadow? Things obviously have yet to be fully filled, reigning physical King, etc. Are you saying that you believe someday someone else will come along and fulfill all of the propecies?

Goose
February 2nd, 2005, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by Turbo

Are you saying that you believe someday someone else will come along and fulfill all of the propecies? Of course. Not everything is fulfilled, obviously. And from a Christian PoV, isn't that what Revelation is about.

Turbo
February 2nd, 2005, 12:12 PM
Goose, how do you propose anyone will be able to fulfill the timeline laid out at the end of Daniel 9? That time has already come and gone.

Goose
February 2nd, 2005, 08:13 PM
Unless the interpretation of Daniel, or Daniel himself is wrong, then it's already come. I don't understand your question maybe.

Also, from my knowledge, the first anointed one of Dan 9 is Cyrus. The other is Agrippa of the 1st Century, the last king of Israel. From the top of my head, that's one plausible proposition. Past that, I haven't a need to study Dan 9 in detail.

Lighthouse
February 3rd, 2005, 02:59 AM
Originally posted by Mr. 5020

Wow, sometimes I wish :Brandon: would stop defending Christianity.
What did I say wrong?

Lighthouse
February 3rd, 2005, 03:01 AM
Originally posted by Goose

If everything is fully filled like Lighthouse said, then why the need to come back.
When did I say that?:confused:

Goose
February 3rd, 2005, 01:29 PM
I take it as an implication when you were referring to the Messiah and that things were fulfilled spiritually, not physically.

Lighthouse
February 3rd, 2005, 05:28 PM
I never said everything was fulfilled.

Turbo
February 3rd, 2005, 06:33 PM
Originally posted by Goose

Unless the interpretation of Daniel, or Daniel himself is wrong, then it's already come.You think that maybe the book of Daniel should not be counted among the Scriptures?

I don't understand your question maybe.I asked you if you believed that someday someone else will come along and fulfill all of the [Messianic] propecies.

You answered, "Of course."

How will this coming Messiah fulfill this prophecy? For instance, how will he manage to be "cut off" 483 years* after the command to rebuild the temple, since that timeframe came and went almost 2000 years ago?


*A "week" here is seven years. ( see Genesis 29:27 for another example of a "week" meaning seven years) "seven weeks and sixty-two weeks"=7*(62+9)=483 years

drbrumley
February 3rd, 2005, 06:59 PM
*NICE*

Goose
February 3rd, 2005, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by Turbo

How will this coming Messiah fulfill this prophecy? For instance, how will he manage to be "cut off" 483 years* after the command to rebuild the temple, since that timeframe came and went almost 2000 years ago?


*A "week" here is seven years. ( see Genesis 29:27 for another example of a "week" meaning seven years) "seven weeks and sixty-two weeks"=7*(62+9)=483 years I answered that in my response. The problem is that you look at the Messiah through the lense of Christianity. Not through the context and the lense in which Daniel was written. "Messiah" being the title for someone who is appointed for a given task. In the case of Daniel 9, the Cyrus Christ calls to rebuild the Temple, then Agrippa, the last Jewish King, was cut off.

Turbo
February 3rd, 2005, 07:08 PM
So the coming Christ will not fulfill this prophecy?

Goose
February 3rd, 2005, 07:19 PM
The Daniel 9 is already fulfilled.

drbrumley
February 3rd, 2005, 08:56 PM
Originally posted by Goose

The Daniel 9 is already fulfilled.

Did King Agrippa fulfill all these? If so in what way did he do this?

To finish the transgression,
To make an end of sins,
To make reconciliation for iniquity,
To bring in everlasting righteousness,
To seal up vision and prophecy,
And to anoint the Most Holy.

All this was the job of the true Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ! And I believe he did exactly this. So can you please explain King Agrippa's role in what was to be accomplished?

Turbo
February 3rd, 2005, 08:57 PM
Originally posted by Goose

The Daniel 9 is already fulfilled. Is that a "no"?

Knight
February 3rd, 2005, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by Turbo

You think that maybe the book of Daniel should not be counted among the Scriptures?
I asked you if you believed that someday someone else will come along and fulfill all of the [Messianic] propecies.

You answered, "Of course."

How will this coming Messiah fulfill this prophecy? For instance, how will he manage to be "cut off" 483 years* after the command to rebuild the temple, since that timeframe came and went almost 2000 years ago?


*A "week" here is seven years. ( see Genesis 29:27 for another example of a "week" meaning seven years) "seven weeks and sixty-two weeks"=7*(62+9)=483 years Ouch! :eek:

Brilliant post Turbo!

Goose
February 3rd, 2005, 09:24 PM
Originally posted by drbrumley

Did King Agrippa fulfill all these? If so in what way did he do this?

To finish the transgression,
To make an end of sins,
To make reconciliation for iniquity,
To bring in everlasting righteousness,
To seal up vision and prophecy,
And to anoint the Most Holy.

All this was the job of the true Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ? And I believe he did exactly this. So can you please explain King Agrippa's role in what was to be accomplished? You misunderstand what Daniel 9 is. Daniel 9 is a countdown. Daniel 9 is a decree upon the people(not an anointed one) that they need to do those things before the end of the weeks. It's not a decree that they will do those things, but that they should. Obviously, they didn't. However, the prophecy was still fulfilled.

Lighthouse
February 6th, 2005, 04:01 PM
Goose=:kookoo: