Posted by Joel on March 30, 1998 at 09:31:45:
In Reply to: Ezra arrived in 397 b.c.e. 7th year of Artaxerxes. II. posted by Daniel on March 28, 1998 at 13:52:26:
: Joel,
: You act like you know what you are talking about. It is obvious you don't, because there is a significant minority opinion on the 398/397 date for Ezra that actually harmonizes the biblical data.
: At any rate, you have not proposed any views that explain the data, "After three days," (Mk. 9:31), "three nights" (Mt. 12:40), or even Daniel's Prophecy.
: Your view of Ezra also leave you without explanation of the seven sevens. Let's see 458/457 lands you in about the year 400 after seven sabbatical years. What happened then in your scheme?
: If true believers study what I have to teach, they will soon be convinced of it. It is a worthy topic. Any explanation that harmonizes all the texts and takes a literal interpretation of the scripture is worthy of consideration.
: As far as I can determine, it is you Joel who don't even want that examination to take place, as all you can do is hurl the rhetoric the your superior position at me.
: Daniel
Daniel,
It is not a matter of acting like anything. In regard to your date of 398/397 B.C.E., I have already referred you to research material that would not concur with your conclusions.
I also requested for you to present the opposing evidence if there was any point that you did not agree with. As a reminder, the date for Ezra's return to Jerusalem was 457/456 B.C.E. The evidence for the correct chronology is contained in "The Sabbath and Jubilee Cycle" by Qadesh La Yahweh Press.
Not only have I presented evidence for "after three days" but others have also. You have been shown repeatedly the shortcomings of your theory with evidence of which you somehow have invoked selective memory.
It is your interpretive approach that is haunting you. It is obvious that you have determined that Yahushua should have been resurrected on the Sabbath. You then proceeded to interpret the 70 Weeks of Daniel to a particular conclusion that somehow would not be in conflict with your theory. Then along with locating other source material including astronomical data, you have reworked the numbers to fit.
What you should have done first was to establish the correct historical and chronological facts and not just concentrate on selective source material to back up your assumed conclusions. Then after proceeding to interpret the book of Daniel, you would have immediately recognized the problems of the Sabbath resurrection and 34 C.E. theory.
The evidence would indicate the posing of a few questions: Could there possibly be another explanation of the 70 weeks of Daniel? Could it also be possible that the interpretation has not been revealed yet? Why was not Daniel given the interpretation? Is patience required, as Daniel demonstrated, to reach and understand prophecy?
Besides the other problems with your conclusions that have been brought to your attention by others, just the simple historical dates prove to be the fatal death blow for your Sabbath resurrection theory including your Sabbath and Jubilee system.
All the interpretive and wishful thinking in the world will not change the solid historical evidence which, by the way, has to be in complete agreement with any interpretations of prophecy.