Must we keep the 10 commandments to be saved

[DansingWall]

The bible appears to say yes. Whats your thoughts

[Cathar1950]

The biggest thing to remember about Daniel is most scholars date it between 161 and 165 bce. Writing about a 'future' even after it happens isn't a prophecy.

Most? I know many Biblical scholars put it at this date. But there are also many who have the writing around the 530 bc date. Needless to say, there is too much evidence and problems with the 165 bc dating to discard the 530 bc date. And even if the majority is in favor of the 165 bc date. Plus, Daniels seventy-sevens prophesy includes Christ's death on the cross. That didn't happen before 165 bc.

There is also too much evidence and problems with the 530 BCE date. There is no metion of Christ's death or a cross. An anounted one (Onias III) gets cut off and it happens after a period of time.
Given he gets the facts wrong about the empires and Darius the Mede didn't take the kingdom, it was Cyrus the Great (the Lord's Anointed), followed by Darius the Persian.
The unknown author of Daniel was reintepreting Jeremiah. It is 49 years , 434 years and 7 years taking us to 171 and 164 BCE.

The math works to perfect from the decree to Nehemiah to 31 AD and the cross. Also, there are too many problems with the 165 bc dating to consider it reality. Sorry, your explanation falls short and is a stretch at best.

Given the dates range anywhere from 100 BCE, 6 EC, 19 CE, 28,29,30,31,32,33 and even 47 CE, it seems the math is pretty flexible given you don't know what or the starting date and Jeremiah’s. 70 years was off and the timeline gets a little fussy after a messiah get cut off, I don't see that you are that particular anyway.

The Jewish cannon as such was formed around 200 BCE and a 6th century Daniel would not have been studying the “Scriptures” as such although it is feasible he was perplexed by Jeremiah. It seems the idea of cannon was a Greek concept. Daniel got empires mixed up as well as leaders I see no reason to think he had to have got the number of years right.
Given nothing is right about after "a" messiah get cut off why should we think it works out?
There were a number of messiahs running around during the time of Herod's
Temple and after given all the things that were foretold didn't happen for them they were rejected. There is no reason to think any messiah would not be a sort of self-fulfilling prophesy anyway and no real need for any prophesy to have to come true.

[AB]

it seems the math is pretty flexible given you don't know what or the starting date

The 69 weeks of years to the "cut-off" of the Messiah begins at 445 B.C.E. the time of the decree to Nehemiah to return to rebuild the temple (as noted by Daniel). The math works perfectly. Strong support.

I find it interesting(albeit expected for a skeptic) how you totally reject very specific and plausible description of the seventy sevens in Daniel. But you gravitate with open arms to other explanations. And although there are severe problems with the notion that the book of Daniel was written much earlier than the mid-500 BCE, you embrace it with open arms. It appears any option, no matter how pale, that supports debunking biblical prophesy is the one which the skeptic will get behind. I'm skeptic of the skeptics.

[Goat]

it seems the math is pretty flexible given you don't know what or the starting date

The 69 weeks of years to the "cut-off" of the Messiah begins at 445 B.C.E. the time of the decree to Nehemiah to return to rebuild the temple (as noted by Daniel). The math works perfectly. Strong support.

I find it interesting(albeit expected for a skeptic) how you totally reject very specific and plausible description of the seventy sevens in Daniel. But you gravitate with open arms to other explanations. And although there are severe problems with the notion that the book of Daniel was written much earlier than the mid-500 BCE, you embrace it with open arms. It appears any option, no matter how pale, that supports debunking biblical prophesy is the one which the skeptic will get behind. I'm skeptic of the skeptics.

The most pausbile explaination as a skeptic is that they were talking about events in 164 to 161 bcr, in an after the fact prediction.

And no, the whole math does not work out at all for you.

You have to chop things up to make it fit and make an arbtrary start date.

[Cathar1950]

it seems the math is pretty flexible given you don't know what or the starting date

The 69 weeks of years to the "cut-off" of the Messiah begins at 445 B.C.E. the time of the decree to Nehemiah to return to rebuild the temple (as noted by Daniel). The math works perfectly. Strong support.

I find it interesting(albeit expected for a skeptic) how you totally reject very specific and plausible description of the seventy sevens in Daniel. But you gravitate with open arms to other explanations. And although there are severe problems with the notion that the book of Daniel was written much earlier than the mid-500 BCE, you embrace it with open arms. It appears any option, no matter how pale, that supports debunking biblical prophesy is the one which the skeptic will get behind. I'm skeptic of the skeptics.

I suggest you are not at all skeptical when it comes to your beliefs.
There problems with the notion that it was written earlier and good reasons to think it was written in stages. The decree was under Cyrus and was later found.
You can't say when the date of the decree with any cirtainty or the death of Jesus so it makes the math rather odd.
Judea was not in captivity for 70 years.
Mark felt the end was after the fall of Jerusalem and was soon to take place.
We the writings are off on most historical aspects you seem to think we should accept the prophesies because you think a messiah was Jesus.

[AB]

it seems the math is pretty flexible given you don't know what or the starting date

The 69 weeks of years to the "cut-off" of the Messiah begins at 445 B.C.E. the time of the decree to Nehemiah to return to rebuild the temple (as noted by Daniel). The math works perfectly. Strong support.

I find it interesting(albeit expected for a skeptic) how you totally reject very specific and plausible description of the seventy sevens in Daniel. But you gravitate with open arms to other explanations. And although there are severe problems with the notion that the book of Daniel was written much earlier than the mid-500 BCE, you embrace it with open arms. It appears any option, no matter how pale, that supports debunking biblical prophesy is the one which the skeptic will get behind. I'm skeptic of the skeptics.

I suggest you are not at all skeptical when it comes to your beliefs.
Really? I think you are funny.
There problems with the notion that it was written earlier and good reasons to think it was written in stages. The decree was under Cyrus and was later found.
You can't say when the date of the decree with any cirtainty or the death of Jesus so it makes the math rather odd.
Judea was not in captivity for 70 years.
Mark felt the end was after the fall of Jerusalem and was soon to take place.
We the writings are off on most historical aspects you seem to think we should accept the prophesies because you think a messiah was Jesus.

[scottlittlefield17]

All commands were repeated in the New testament except the Sabbath.

[mtbike61384]

Sometimes I don't see how people can make it so complicated and try to make the bible fit their beliefs. The bible explains itself. Jesus Himself stated this. What more proof do we need? The law was not done away with and especially the Sabbath. Also there is no proof that it was changed from Saturday to Sunday.

Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Mark 7:6 He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
" 'These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
7They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'8You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."
9And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!

[scottlittlefield17]

The early Christians worshiped on the first day. Paul references on the first day. Jesus rose on the first day. The New Testsment does not require Sabbath worship, just as it does not require keeping the dietary laws the Jews had.

[mtbike61384]

So you are saying that because Paul referenced to the first day that it all of a sudden voids the lay and throws out the words of Christ? You say Jesus rose on the first day. Praise the Lord for that! But once again, how does that change the day of worship? So many people are blindly following the day of worship the world set up without really studying the word of God to see the truth. Check out this site that can explain the Sabbath day in more detail than I can.

www.sabbathtruth.com

[Cathar1950]

The early Christians worshiped on the first day. Paul references on the first day. Jesus rose on the first day. The New Testsment does not require Sabbath worship, just as it does not require keeping the dietary laws the Jews had.

Pauline Christians didn't keep the Sabbath or dietary laws because they were Gentiles and Hellenize Jews or those of the Diaspora that didn't keep them.
I am betting the early Christians that were Jews such as Peter, James and John not only kept the Sabbath and other laws but also got together on Sunday and worshiped everyday.
Eventually Paul fell out of favor with the Jerusalem Church and even Peter and others withdrew from him. Acts is Pauline fictional account of Pauline Christianity after the fall of Jerusalem and the disappearance of Jewish Christianity, except maybe in Alexandria and such where there were still communities of Jewish Christians.