Unsealing the Prophetic Book of Daniel

[Picaro]

There is nothing apparent about it being written in two parts, save for mindless drivel from heretic modernists, apparently like yourself.

At best you refer to the stories of Suzanna and Bel and the Dragon.

The prophecy states that Daniel would stand in his place to the end, and so it shall be.

Looks like you're the odd man out now.

Interesting thread. Daniel is an 'odd man out' book in the OT. I personally don't consider it part of the OT 'canon', since it was apparently written in two parts, and is also the only book in the OT to devote its main part to apocalyptic literature, a very late development in Hebrew scholarship, coinciding with the Pharisees and 'Hellenization' under a foreign ruler, with the later chapters added in the 2nd century B.C., but obviously some of the priests liked it, mostly it seems for political reasons of the times.

Yes, you established yourself as yet another crank quite thoroughly, but thanks for the inane comedy and extra special proof.

 

[irosie91]

Interesting thread. Daniel is an 'odd man out' book in the OT. I personally don't consider it part of the OT 'canon', since it was apparently written in two parts, and is also the only book in the OT to devote its main part to apocalyptic literature, a very late development in Hebrew scholarship, coinciding with the Pharisees and 'Hellenization' under a foreign ruler, with the later chapters added in the 2nd century B.C., but obviously some of the priests liked it, mostly it seems for political reasons of the times.

the priests? why do you cite 'the priests'? Just to demonstrate you lack of erudition? btw amos, jeremiah and Isaiah all precede
Daniel (I think---don't quote me....)

Pic answered with an idiot giggle

All of your posts are idiot giggles. So what?

I am intrigued by your statement regarding the opinion of the
PRIESTS in reference to the Book of Daniel. You seem to imagine
that the "priests" amongst jews are something like the roman catholic
college of Cardinals. Your catechism whore misled you again

 

[Picaro]

Interesting thread. Daniel is an 'odd man out' book in the OT. I personally don't consider it part of the OT 'canon', since it was apparently written in two parts, and is also the only book in the OT to devote its main part to apocalyptic literature, a very late development in Hebrew scholarship, coinciding with the Pharisees and 'Hellenization' under a foreign ruler, with the later chapters added in the 2nd century B.C., but obviously some of the priests liked it, mostly it seems for political reasons of the times.

the priests? why do you cite 'the priests'? Just to demonstrate you lack of erudition? btw amos, jeremiah and Isaiah all precede
Daniel (I think---don't quote me....)

Pic answered with an idiot giggle

All of your posts are idiot giggles. So what?

I am intrigued by your statement regarding the opinion of the
PRIESTS in reference to the Book of Daniel. You seem to imagine
that the "priests" amongst jews are something like the roman catholic
college of Cardinals. Your catechism whore misled you again

Rosie wants to claim Jews didn't have priests. lol and of course inject some inane gibberish about Da Evul Catlicks' no matter what the topic is.

as for the Peanut Gallery, re Daniel, it is one of only two books written substantially in Aramaic, up to chapter 7, and a clear division from the rest of the book. From 7 on, the Apocalypses section, the stories are obviously about the Maccabean period and Antiochus IV.

Chapter 8 is an allegory for the transition from Persian to Greek rule, and mostly concerned with Antiochus IV's 'helenization'; 'the little horn' is code for Antiochus throughout the book.

Chapter 9 is a revision of Jeremiah's predictions re Babylonian captivity, Jeremiah 25:11-12 and 29:10.

The apocalypse of chapters 10 through 12 are the military campaigns between the Ptolemies and Seleucids for the control of Palestine, in detail. And, the prophecies didn't come to pass as 'Daniel' claimed they would. It was written much later than 400 B.C., when the main bulk of prophetic literature, aka the 'Writings', was considered 'closed'.

 

[Picaro]

Oh yeah, forgot to add Ezra is the other book with a lot of Aramaic writing in it.

Biblical Aramaic - Wikipedia

 

[irosie91]

Oh yeah, forgot to add Ezra is the other book with a lot of Aramaic writing in it.

Biblical Aramaic - Wikipedia

Pic imagines he DISCOVERED something------Daniel wrote in Aramaic!!!!
For those out there-----both Daniel and Ezra were IN BABYLON (Iraq) long
before the dregs from Arabia got there (Iraq)
I write in English. Pic ----(alas) writes too

 

[irosie91]

[QUOTE="irosie91, post:


Rosie wants to claim Jews didn't have priests. lol and of course inject some inane gibberish about Da Evul Catlicks' no matter what the topic is.

as for the Peanut Gallery, re Daniel, it is one of only two books written substantially in Aramaic, up to chapter 7, and a clear division from the rest of the book. From 7 on, the Apocalypses section, the stories are obviously about the Maccabean period and Antiochus IV.

Chapter 8 is an allegory for the transition from Persian to Greek rule, and mostly concerned with Antiochus IV's 'helenization'; 'the little horn' is code for Antiochus throughout the book.

Chapter 9 is a revision of Jeremiah's predictions re Babylonian captivity, Jeremiah 25:11-12 and 29:10.

The apocalypse of chapters 10 through 12 are the military campaigns between the Ptolemies and Seleucids for the control of Palestine, in detail. And, the prophecies didn't come to pass as 'Daniel' claimed they would. It was written much later than 400 B.C., when the main bulk of prophetic literature, aka the 'Writings', was considered 'closed'.

Pic suffers from the CATECHISM PHENOMENON (an illness about which I learned MANY YEARS ago from a "DIVINITY STUDENT" from Seton Hall college). He imagines that the people called "priests" in the Jewish social
structure are something like the Medieval catholic priests who controlled and
extorted the masses. In the minds of the catechism afflicted----the jewish "priests" are confused with the Pharisees, tax collectors and rich guys who "hated" Jesus-----and were the official crucifiers of the realm. Just what
was the Sanhedrin----also confuses him

 

[Picaro]

Oh yeah, forgot to add Ezra is the other book with a lot of Aramaic writing in it.

Biblical Aramaic - Wikipedia

Pic imagines he DISCOVERED something------Daniel wrote in Aramaic!!!!
For those out there-----both Daniel and Ezra were IN BABYLON (Iraq) long
before the dregs from Arabia got there (Iraq)
I write in English. Pic ----(alas) writes too

Picaro 'discovered ' history, something Rosie will never do. Who cares what you write in. The apocalyptic chapters weren't written in Babylon, they were added long after the return, and in another language to boot, as any dumbass who can look up a timeline could notice right away, unless of course they're silly trolls just spamming threads for no reason other than mental illness. And of course her silly idiot claim has nothing to do with the fact that the parts of the 7th and later chapters were added much later by different authors, another obvious fact Rosie isn't bright enough to note.

 

[Picaro]

[QUOTE="irosie91, post:


Rosie wants to claim Jews didn't have priests. lol and of course inject some inane gibberish about Da Evul Catlicks' no matter what the topic is.

as for the Peanut Gallery, re Daniel, it is one of only two books written substantially in Aramaic, up to chapter 7, and a clear division from the rest of the book. From 7 on, the Apocalypses section, the stories are obviously about the Maccabean period and Antiochus IV.

Chapter 8 is an allegory for the transition from Persian to Greek rule, and mostly concerned with Antiochus IV's 'helenization'; 'the little horn' is code for Antiochus throughout the book.

Chapter 9 is a revision of Jeremiah's predictions re Babylonian captivity, Jeremiah 25:11-12 and 29:10.

The apocalypse of chapters 10 through 12 are the military campaigns between the Ptolemies and Seleucids for the control of Palestine, in detail. And, the prophecies didn't come to pass as 'Daniel' claimed they would. It was written much later than 400 B.C., when the main bulk of prophetic literature, aka the 'Writings', was considered 'closed'.

Pic suffers from the CATECHISM PHENOMENON (an illness about which I learned MANY YEARS ago from a "DIVINITY STUDENT" from Seton Hall college). He imagines that the people called "priests" in the Jewish social
structure are something like the Medieval catholic priests who controlled and
extorted the masses. In the minds of the catechism afflicted----the jewish "priests" are confused with the Pharisees, tax collectors and rich guys who "hated" Jesus-----and were the official crucifiers of the realm. Just what
was the Sanhedrin----also confuses him

More rubbish from Rosie. Priests is a generic term, but Rosie is barely literate and doesn't know that sort of stuff. And Pharisees sect is a late development and have nothing to do with most of Jewish history until a couple or three centuries before Jesus time.

Roise's hole in her head is leaking again.

 

[irosie91]

[QUOTE="irosie91, post:


Rosie wants to claim Jews didn't have priests. lol and of course inject some inane gibberish about Da Evul Catlicks' no matter what the topic is.

as for the Peanut Gallery, re Daniel, it is one of only two books written substantially in Aramaic, up to chapter 7, and a clear division from the rest of the book. From 7 on, the Apocalypses section, the stories are obviously about the Maccabean period and Antiochus IV.

Chapter 8 is an allegory for the transition from Persian to Greek rule, and mostly concerned with Antiochus IV's 'helenization'; 'the little horn' is code for Antiochus throughout the book.

Chapter 9 is a revision of Jeremiah's predictions re Babylonian captivity, Jeremiah 25:11-12 and 29:10.

The apocalypse of chapters 10 through 12 are the military campaigns between the Ptolemies and Seleucids for the control of Palestine, in detail. And, the prophecies didn't come to pass as 'Daniel' claimed they would. It was written much later than 400 B.C., when the main bulk of prophetic literature, aka the 'Writings', was considered 'closed'.

Pic suffers from the CATECHISM PHENOMENON (an illness about which I learned MANY YEARS ago from a "DIVINITY STUDENT" from Seton Hall college). He imagines that the people called "priests" in the Jewish social
structure are something like the Medieval catholic priests who controlled and
extorted the masses. In the minds of the catechism afflicted----the jewish "priests" are confused with the Pharisees, tax collectors and rich guys who "hated" Jesus-----and were the official crucifiers of the realm. Just what
was the Sanhedrin----also confuses him

More rubbish from Rosie. Priests is a generic term, but Rosie is barely literate and doesn't know that sort of stuff. And Pharisees sect is a late development and have nothing to do with most of Jewish history until a couple or three centuries before Jesus time.

Roise's hole in her head is leaking again.

Pic remains confused. For elucidation----talk to a bright catholic child---or---for that matter, a catholic divinity student and ask a simple question---
"WHO IN ROMAN CONTROLLED JUDEA---2000 years ago "hated" Jesus
and why? " As to the "Pharisees" I would not style them a sect----but will accept that PIC thinks so. Their ideology is very old-----longer than 200 years BC ----in fact it would be logical to call EZRA AND JEREMIAH functionally "Pharisees" and even Daniel.------More importantly; JESUS WAS DEFINITELY a "PHARISEE" The person NOT a Pharisee in the
"passion play" ------is, clearly, NOT the "high priest"-----CAIPHAS.
John the Baptist was probably associated with one of the "monastic"
type groups that hung out in the remote places-----but consistent with
"PHARISEE" The ideology of Pharisees REMAINS a force----which is
why capital punishment is excluded from present day Israeli jurisprudence.
(try swallowing that one---Pic dear----IL PAPA just declared himself a
"PHARISEE------sorta...)

 

[irosie91]

for Pic----an interesting point of recorded history-----DANIEL lived in the
Palace of the Babylonian King-------but never ate meat----he subsisted on
legumes ------or so "it is written" A REAL HARD CORE PHARISEE
( "saint" paul not with standing)

 

[Edward_Palamar]

That is the basis of your error below, Picaro, your willingness to swallow every mouthful of the fetid cum lodged against Israel, including your own.

I know we haven't gotten off on the right foot here, but Antiocus Epiphanes has absolutely nothing to do with chapter eleven of the prophecy of the Book of Daniel.

I've known every king personally in that chapter, and some of them are still alive.

The apocalypse of chapters 10 through 12 . . .

 

[Picaro]

[QUOTE="irosie91, post:


Rosie wants to claim Jews didn't have priests. lol and of course inject some inane gibberish about Da Evul Catlicks' no matter what the topic is.

as for the Peanut Gallery, re Daniel, it is one of only two books written substantially in Aramaic, up to chapter 7, and a clear division from the rest of the book. From 7 on, the Apocalypses section, the stories are obviously about the Maccabean period and Antiochus IV.

Chapter 8 is an allegory for the transition from Persian to Greek rule, and mostly concerned with Antiochus IV's 'helenization'; 'the little horn' is code for Antiochus throughout the book.

Chapter 9 is a revision of Jeremiah's predictions re Babylonian captivity, Jeremiah 25:11-12 and 29:10.

The apocalypse of chapters 10 through 12 are the military campaigns between the Ptolemies and Seleucids for the control of Palestine, in detail. And, the prophecies didn't come to pass as 'Daniel' claimed they would. It was written much later than 400 B.C., when the main bulk of prophetic literature, aka the 'Writings', was considered 'closed'.

Pic suffers from the CATECHISM PHENOMENON (an illness about which I learned MANY YEARS ago from a "DIVINITY STUDENT" from Seton Hall college). He imagines that the people called "priests" in the Jewish social
structure are something like the Medieval catholic priests who controlled and
extorted the masses. In the minds of the catechism afflicted----the jewish "priests" are confused with the Pharisees, tax collectors and rich guys who "hated" Jesus-----and were the official crucifiers of the realm. Just what
was the Sanhedrin----also confuses him

More rubbish from Rosie. Priests is a generic term, but Rosie is barely literate and doesn't know that sort of stuff. And Pharisees sect is a late development and have nothing to do with most of Jewish history until a couple or three centuries before Jesus time.

Roise's hole in her head is leaking again.

Pic remains confused. For elucidation----talk to a bright catholic child---or---for that matter, a catholic divinity student and ask a simple question---
"WHO IN ROMAN CONTROLLED JUDEA---2000 years ago "hated" Jesus
and why? " As to the "Pharisees" I would not style them a sect----but will accept that PIC thinks so. Their ideology is very old-----longer than 200 years BC ----in fact it would be logical to call EZRA AND JEREMIAH functionally "Pharisees" and even Daniel.------More importantly; JESUS WAS DEFINITELY a "PHARISEE" The person NOT a Pharisee in the
"passion play" ------is, clearly, NOT the "high priest"-----CAIPHAS.
John the Baptist was probably associated with one of the "monastic"
type groups that hung out in the remote places-----but consistent with
"PHARISEE" The ideology of Pharisees REMAINS a force----which is
why capital punishment is excluded from present day Israeli jurisprudence.
(try swallowing that one---Pic dear----IL PAPA just declared himself a
"PHARISEE------sorta...)

Roise can't even get her time period straight; that's because she now just hops around from strawman to strawman, having been shut down completely on the topic of Daniel. now she's back to Xian bashing, Da Evul Romans, OH NOES!!! She is even stealing from my past posts now, only she isn't able to bet it right.

The Peanut Gallery can note that the Pharisees were indeed a sect, similar to the Essenes in some ways, but distinct from them in many others, since they weren't separatist and part of the establishment. Rosie gets her 'history' from racist chasiidic lunatics, so its no news to note she's a loon also.

 

[Picaro]

That is the basis of your error below, Picaro, your willingness to swallow every mouthful of the fetid cum lodged against Israel, including your own.

I know we haven't gotten off on the right foot here, but Antiocus Epiphanes has absolutely nothing to do with chapter eleven of the prophecy of the Book of Daniel.

I've known every king personally in that chapter, and some of them are still alive.

The apocalypse of chapters 10 through 12 . . .

Gee, another crank. We never see that here in this forum .... yawn. You have some new info, you should publish it, since most legitimate scholars say otherwise, gimp; byt go ahead and suck up to the Angry ****** mob here, it seems that peer acceptance in the deviant community is important to you.

 

[irosie91]

Oh yeah, forgot to add Ezra is the other book with a lot of Aramaic writing in it.

Biblical Aramaic - Wikipedia

Pic imagines he DISCOVERED something------Daniel wrote in Aramaic!!!!
For those out there-----both Daniel and Ezra were IN BABYLON (Iraq) long
before the dregs from Arabia got there (Iraq)
I write in English. Pic ----(alas) writes too

Picaro 'discovered ' history, something Rosie will never do. Who cares what you write in. The apocalyptic chapters weren't written in Babylon, they were added long after the return, and in another language to boot, as any dumbass who can look up a timeline could notice right away, unless of course they're silly trolls just spamming threads for no reason other than mental illness. And of course her silly idiot claim has nothing to do with the fact that the parts of the 7th and later chapters were added much later by different authors, another obvious fact Rosie isn't bright enough to note.

Pic now claims that ARAMAIC was not the language of BABYLON when Daniel wrote in that language-----A REALLY CONFUSED PERSON IS OUR
PIC. Fine with me that the BOOK OF DANIEL MIGHT include ADD-ONS----there are all kinds of reasons that the book, itself-----is not considered entirely BONAFIDE -------it is flawed--------but not quite so much as is the "new testament" Somehow-----DA PHARISEE RABBIS have rejected over reliance on that book--------the catholic priests are not so PICKY
by------of all people----THE PHARISEEES

 

[irosie91]

[QUOTE="irosie91, post:


Rosie wants to claim Jews didn't have priests. lol and of course inject some inane gibberish about Da Evul Catlicks' no matter what the topic is.

as for the Peanut Gallery, re Daniel, it is one of only two books written substantially in Aramaic, up to chapter 7, and a clear division from the rest of the book. From 7 on, the Apocalypses section, the stories are obviously about the Maccabean period and Antiochus IV.

Chapter 8 is an allegory for the transition from Persian to Greek rule, and mostly concerned with Antiochus IV's 'helenization'; 'the little horn' is code for Antiochus throughout the book.

Chapter 9 is a revision of Jeremiah's predictions re Babylonian captivity, Jeremiah 25:11-12 and 29:10.

The apocalypse of chapters 10 through 12 are the military campaigns between the Ptolemies and Seleucids for the control of Palestine, in detail. And, the prophecies didn't come to pass as 'Daniel' claimed they would. It was written much later than 400 B.C., when the main bulk of prophetic literature, aka the 'Writings', was considered 'closed'.

Pic suffers from the CATECHISM PHENOMENON (an illness about which I learned MANY YEARS ago from a "DIVINITY STUDENT" from Seton Hall college). He imagines that the people called "priests" in the Jewish social
structure are something like the Medieval catholic priests who controlled and
extorted the masses. In the minds of the catechism afflicted----the jewish "priests" are confused with the Pharisees, tax collectors and rich guys who "hated" Jesus-----and were the official crucifiers of the realm. Just what
was the Sanhedrin----also confuses him

More rubbish from Rosie. Priests is a generic term, but Rosie is barely literate and doesn't know that sort of stuff. And Pharisees sect is a late development and have nothing to do with most of Jewish history until a couple or three centuries before Jesus time.

Roise's hole in her head is leaking again.

Pic remains confused. For elucidation----talk to a bright catholic child---or---for that matter, a catholic divinity student and ask a simple question---
"WHO IN ROMAN CONTROLLED JUDEA---2000 years ago "hated" Jesus
and why? " As to the "Pharisees" I would not style them a sect----but will accept that PIC thinks so. Their ideology is very old-----longer than 200 years BC ----in fact it would be logical to call EZRA AND JEREMIAH functionally "Pharisees" and even Daniel.------More importantly; JESUS WAS DEFINITELY a "PHARISEE" The person NOT a Pharisee in the
"passion play" ------is, clearly, NOT the "high priest"-----CAIPHAS.
John the Baptist was probably associated with one of the "monastic"
type groups that hung out in the remote places-----but consistent with
"PHARISEE" The ideology of Pharisees REMAINS a force----which is
why capital punishment is excluded from present day Israeli jurisprudence.
(try swallowing that one---Pic dear----IL PAPA just declared himself a
"PHARISEE------sorta...)

Roise can't even get her time period straight; that's because she now just hops around from strawman to strawman, having been shut down completely on the topic of Daniel. now she's back to Xian bashing, Da Evul Romans, OH NOES!!! She is even stealing from my past posts now, only she isn't able to bet it right.

The Peanut Gallery can note that the Pharisees were indeed a sect, similar to the Essenes in some ways, but distinct from them in many others, since they weren't separatist and part of the establishment. Rosie gets her 'history' from racist chasiidic lunatics, so its no news to note she's a loon also.

Referring to the PHARISEES as a 'sect' is idiotic. Of course they were similar to the ESSENES-----they were all jews. The essenes were not "SEPARATIST" either. They did not seek to CREATE a separate religion---nor
did the PHARISEES. MORMONISM is a sect. DEMOCRAT is not a sect

 

[irosie91]

That is the basis of your error below, Picaro, your willingness to swallow every mouthful of the fetid cum lodged against Israel, including your own.

I know we haven't gotten off on the right foot here, but Antiocus Epiphanes has absolutely nothing to do with chapter eleven of the prophecy of the Book of Daniel.

I've known every king personally in that chapter, and some of them are still alive.

The apocalypse of chapters 10 through 12 . . .

Gee, another crank. We never see that here in this forum .... yawn. You have some new info, you should publish it, since most legitimate scholars say otherwise, gimp; byt go ahead and suck up to the Angry ****** mob here, it seems that peer acceptance in the deviant community is important to you.

It is clear that Pic has a thing for persons called "CHASSIDIC"----having no idea what "CHASSIDIC" is------he is eager to SUCK A CHASSID

 

[Picaro]

That is the basis of your error below, Picaro, your willingness to swallow every mouthful of the fetid cum lodged against Israel, including your own.

I know we haven't gotten off on the right foot here, but Antiocus Epiphanes has absolutely nothing to do with chapter eleven of the prophecy of the Book of Daniel.

I've known every king personally in that chapter, and some of them are still alive.

The apocalypse of chapters 10 through 12 . . .

Gee, another crank. We never see that here in this forum .... yawn. You have some new info, you should publish it, since most legitimate scholars say otherwise, gimp; byt go ahead and suck up to the Angry ****** mob here, it seems that peer acceptance in the deviant community is important to you.

It is clear that Pic has a thing for persons called "CHASSIDIC"----having no idea what "CHASSIDIC" is------he is eager to SUCK A CHASSID

Oh yeah, forgot to add Ezra is the other book with a lot of Aramaic writing in it.

Biblical Aramaic - Wikipedia

Pic imagines he DISCOVERED something------Daniel wrote in Aramaic!!!!
For those out there-----both Daniel and Ezra were IN BABYLON (Iraq) long
before the dregs from Arabia got there (Iraq)
I write in English. Pic ----(alas) writes too

Picaro 'discovered ' history, something Rosie will never do. Who cares what you write in. The apocalyptic chapters weren't written in Babylon, they were added long after the return, and in another language to boot, as any dumbass who can look up a timeline could notice right away, unless of course they're silly trolls just spamming threads for no reason other than mental illness. And of course her silly idiot claim has nothing to do with the fact that the parts of the 7th and later chapters were added much later by different authors, another obvious fact Rosie isn't bright enough to note.

Pic now claims that ARAMAIC was not the language of BABYLON when Daniel wrote in that language-----A REALLY CONFUSED PERSON IS OUR
PIC. Fine with me that the BOOK OF DANIEL MIGHT include ADD-ONS----there are all kinds of reasons that the book, itself-----is not considered entirely BONAFIDE -------it is flawed--------but not quite so much as is the "new testament" Somehow-----DA PHARISEE RABBIS have rejected over reliance on that book--------the catholic priests are not so PICKY
by------of all people----THE PHARISEEES

[QUOTE="irosie91, post:


Rosie wants to claim Jews didn't have priests. lol and of course inject some inane gibberish about Da Evul Catlicks' no matter what the topic is.

as for the Peanut Gallery, re Daniel, it is one of only two books written substantially in Aramaic, up to chapter 7, and a clear division from the rest of the book. From 7 on, the Apocalypses section, the stories are obviously about the Maccabean period and Antiochus IV.

Chapter 8 is an allegory for the transition from Persian to Greek rule, and mostly concerned with Antiochus IV's 'helenization'; 'the little horn' is code for Antiochus throughout the book.

Chapter 9 is a revision of Jeremiah's predictions re Babylonian captivity, Jeremiah 25:11-12 and 29:10.

The apocalypse of chapters 10 through 12 are the military campaigns between the Ptolemies and Seleucids for the control of Palestine, in detail. And, the prophecies didn't come to pass as 'Daniel' claimed they would. It was written much later than 400 B.C., when the main bulk of prophetic literature, aka the 'Writings', was considered 'closed'.

Pic suffers from the CATECHISM PHENOMENON (an illness about which I learned MANY YEARS ago from a "DIVINITY STUDENT" from Seton Hall college). He imagines that the people called "priests" in the Jewish social
structure are something like the Medieval catholic priests who controlled and
extorted the masses. In the minds of the catechism afflicted----the jewish "priests" are confused with the Pharisees, tax collectors and rich guys who "hated" Jesus-----and were the official crucifiers of the realm. Just what
was the Sanhedrin----also confuses him

More rubbish from Rosie. Priests is a generic term, but Rosie is barely literate and doesn't know that sort of stuff. And Pharisees sect is a late development and have nothing to do with most of Jewish history until a couple or three centuries before Jesus time.

Roise's hole in her head is leaking again.

Pic remains confused. For elucidation----talk to a bright catholic child---or---for that matter, a catholic divinity student and ask a simple question---
"WHO IN ROMAN CONTROLLED JUDEA---2000 years ago "hated" Jesus
and why? " As to the "Pharisees" I would not style them a sect----but will accept that PIC thinks so. Their ideology is very old-----longer than 200 years BC ----in fact it would be logical to call EZRA AND JEREMIAH functionally "Pharisees" and even Daniel.------More importantly; JESUS WAS DEFINITELY a "PHARISEE" The person NOT a Pharisee in the
"passion play" ------is, clearly, NOT the "high priest"-----CAIPHAS.
John the Baptist was probably associated with one of the "monastic"
type groups that hung out in the remote places-----but consistent with
"PHARISEE" The ideology of Pharisees REMAINS a force----which is
why capital punishment is excluded from present day Israeli jurisprudence.
(try swallowing that one---Pic dear----IL PAPA just declared himself a
"PHARISEE------sorta...)

Roise can't even get her time period straight; that's because she now just hops around from strawman to strawman, having been shut down completely on the topic of Daniel. now she's back to Xian bashing, Da Evul Romans, OH NOES!!! She is even stealing from my past posts now, only she isn't able to bet it right.

The Peanut Gallery can note that the Pharisees were indeed a sect, similar to the Essenes in some ways, but distinct from them in many others, since they weren't separatist and part of the establishment. Rosie gets her 'history' from racist chasiidic lunatics, so its no news to note she's a loon also.

Referring to the PHARISEES as a 'sect' is idiotic. Of course they were similar to the ESSENES-----they were all jews. The essenes were not "SEPARATIST" either. They did not seek to CREATE a separate religion---nor
did the PHARISEES. MORMONISM is a sect. DEMOCRAT is not a sect

Ah, Rosie goes spastic, and still can't refute anything I said. Poor Rosie, can't even educate herself and insists on embarrassing herself. And of course certainly can't refute the late dates for the later chapters of Daniel, and in fact can't even guess when the first part is dated from, just assumes they were written at the times they took place, something scholars don't do.

 

[Picaro]

It is clear that Pic has a thing for persons called "CHASSIDIC"----having no idea what "CHASSIDIC" is------he is eager to SUCK A CHASSID

Funny coming from Rosie, who claims they 'raised' her. In trade for what? ...

 

[irosie91]

It is clear that Pic has a thing for persons called "CHASSIDIC"----having no idea what "CHASSIDIC" is------he is eager to SUCK A CHASSID

Funny coming from Rosie, who claims they 'raised' her. In trade for what? ...

NOT YOUR TRADE---PIMP!!! For the record----at no time did I state that
"CHASSIDS" raised me-----I correctly stated that I lived in a Chassidic neighborhood for a few years. Unlike Pic----I do not lie. It was an interesting
experience for me even though I did not "TAKE PART" in their customs

 

[Edward_Palamar]

just assumes they were written at the times they took place, something scholars don't do.

And there we have it, Satan's envy working through your pride (at least the pride of the heretics you espouse), rather than actually reading and studying the book yourself; you might even read the information provided regarding the unsealing.

You need to reconsider the facts rather than allow such tragedy to work in your life.

This topic isn't about the possibility of whether author and prophet Daniel existed, or whether he might have been humble enough to provide us with such valuable information during his walk with us . . . that is a "gimme", and it doesn't assume anything.