Robert said
And you find this credible?But it’s not credible that Jesus might have spoken of a son of man in ways similar to what is found in the book of Enoch?
I find both credible (taking the meaning as above).
What’s not credible is Matthew knowingly referring to Enoch as opposed to Daniel, nor unknowingly giving us some vestigial piece of the historical Jesus’ teaching on a son of man other than himself.
Omar6741 said
Of course, the visions are all meant to be taken as true visions, since what they symbolize is true.But the fact that the four beasts are not meant to be taken literally should lead us to expect that the “one like a son of a man”, who is the end of the same sequence as the four beasts and described in terms that contrast him with them, is also not meant to be taken literally.
This is especially the case when it is laid out that the beasts mean four kingdoms and that the “one like a son of man” (that is, not a beast) is specifically interpreted to mean the people of the saints of the Most High (meaning, not a goyish kingdom but God’s kingdom, composed of his people). If an ungodly kingdom is pictured as a beast, then the Godly kingdom is pictured as a human. That’s all it means in Daniel, and it’s obviously the point. It’s not talking about “the Messiah” as “the Son of Man.” But, you already know that.
brenmcg said
Who says the beasts are not meant to be taken literally?
The author of the book says so: ‘These four great beasts are four kings who shall arise out of the earth. But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever, forever and ever’ (Dan 7:17-18, ESV). Notice that the four beasts represent these kingdoms, but the last one (the one that looked like a human) is called “the saints of the Most High.” The author tells us this himself, and he goes on to say it again a few verses later and then for third time at the end of the chapter (Dan 7:22,27). How many times does he have to say it for us to understand that this is what he meant?
jaihare said
The author of the book says so: ‘These four great beasts are four kings who shall arise out of the earth. But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever, forever and ever’ (Dan 7:17-18, ESV). Notice that the four beasts represent these kingdoms, but the last one (the one that looked like a human) is called “the saints of the Most High.” The author tells us this himself, and he goes on to say it again a few verses later and then for third time at the end of the chapter (Dan 7:22,27). How many times does he have to say it for us to understand that this is what he meant?
Yes the meaning of the vision is that on earth the people of the most high will triumph over the last of the four kingdoms.
But its a vision of heaven and the question is whether he’s witnessing a power struggle in heaven which will be reflected on earth.
Daniel 4:35 “he does what he wills with the host of heaven and the inhabitants of the earth.”
Gabriel and Michael are real figures that fight against the kingdoms, and the beast will make war against the holy ones. The ancient of days sits on a throne of fire with thousands upon thousands attending to him. And the beast was put to death and its body given to the burning flame. If these are all real then the beast is real. Daniel asks one of the attendants in the vision to explain what’s happening – so it’s not an ordinary dream that needs to be interpreted, he’s witnessing things occurring in heaven.
brenmcg said
jaihare said
The author of the book says so: ‘These four great beasts are four kings who shall arise out of the earth. But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever, forever and ever’ (Dan 7:17-18, ESV). Notice that the four beasts represent these kingdoms, but the last one (the one that looked like a human) is called “the saints of the Most High.” The author tells us this himself, and he goes on to say it again a few verses later and then for third time at the end of the chapter (Dan 7:22,27). How many times does he have to say it for us to understand that this is what he meant?
Yes the meaning of the vision is that on earth the people of the most high will triumph over the last of the four kingdoms.
But its a vision of heaven and the question is whether he’s witnessing a power struggle in heaven which will be reflected on earth.
Daniel 4:35 “he does what he wills with the host of heaven and the inhabitants of the earth.”
Gabriel and Michael are real figures that fight against the kingdoms, and the beast will make war against the holy ones. The ancient of days sits on a throne of fire with thousands upon thousands attending to him. And the beast was put to death and its body given to the burning flame. If these are all real then the beast is real. Daniel asks one of the attendants in the vision to explain what’s happening – so it’s not an ordinary dream that needs to be interpreted, he’s witnessing things occurring in heaven.
That would make sense if Daniel had gone up into heaven to witness things there with his own eyes, as Enoch is said to have done. However, these are visions he saw in his dreams while lieing in his bed, as the start of Daniel 7 makes clear. In this case, one of the dream-characters also provides him with an interpretation; that does not mean this is anything other than a dream-character.
Omar6741 said
mzejum said
That is not the only false prophesy put in the Mouth of Jesus by biblical scribes! Also the 3 days and 3 nights death and resurrection is another false prophesy put on the mouth of Jesus that not came true. and by standards of Deuteronomy 18:21-22 its surely a false Prophecy.
When it comes to the return of the Son of Man in the generation to whom Jesus preached, the consensus among critical scholars seems pretty solid that this is authentic.
How? would you mind if you can explain it to me please.
mzejum said
Omar6741 said
mzejum said
That is not the only false prophesy put in the Mouth of Jesus by biblical scribes! Also the 3 days and 3 nights death and resurrection is another false prophesy put on the mouth of Jesus that not came true. and by standards of Deuteronomy 18:21-22 its surely a false Prophecy.
When it comes to the return of the Son of Man in the generation to whom Jesus preached, the consensus among critical scholars seems pretty solid that this is authentic.
How? would you mind if you can explain it to me please.
This is authentic because of the criteria of embarrassment and multiple attestation.
All this goes away if Jesus of Nazareth is a myth trope that Mark is using to sift through what just happened to Jerusalem and Judea and Galilee in 66-70 CE.
First, though, the son of man is lord of the sabbath is probably just each and every human, including Jesus. Mark, like Paul earlier, is making the point that Judeans observation of the Sabbath is not as important as peacefully living in a Greco-Roman society.
Second, the son of man will suffer and die and be raised is Jesus of Nazareth talking about himself. He also counts as a son of man.
Third, the clear reference to Daniel 7, coming on the clouds is the language of the arrival of a very powerful monarch, leader, general. That is my understanding of what “Coming on the clouds” mean when used by Hellenic authors. My guess is that the author, who lived through the chaos both in Rome and was informed of what happened in Judea, is talking about the Flavian emperor Vespasian, or Titus.
The evil generation has not completely passed away, form 30 CE to 70 CE is 40 years, the same time frame that rejected Jesus Nun’s spy account in Numbers 13. Jesus of Nazareth gives the listeners different versions of the future kingdom, a choice between life and death. The kingdom of heaven can be like a mustard seed that grows into a haven for birds, or it can come in disaster. Mark’s Jesus’s listeners obviously chose disaster.
All the predictions, made up in the imaginative head of Mark near 70 CE, came true.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)