A Critical View of the Preservation of the Quran (Part I)

Self Esteem and Self Development - A Biblical Perspective

Firstly before we get down and groovy. If you haven't already seen my video, check it out

How To Manage Depression/Suicide - Follow UP

As I watched what I posted last year, I realized these last few weeks I have not been coping/managing, because I simply haven't been following these steps, which I believe every Christian ought to follow, since they stem from God's greatest commandments.

I have let my mind control me, instead of taking captive every thought to the obedience of Christ. I consider myself Christian in belief now, even if not in practice. The Bible appears to touch on the subject of holy living in various places. and it certainly touches on the subject of our identity following our esteem and worth as humans, as God's creation and his children. What I cover here today then is more like a footnote of the Biblical data. First and foremost as the United States Constitution appears to imply:

God is the foundational and unconditional prerequisite to all inherent identity and worth.

I rearranged my YouTube channel this week.

Here is why:

I choose to leave my self help/development videos and depression video at the top of my channel, as I want people to raise awareness about us severely depressed people who quite often gather together online in all kinds of places including here on YT, where no one really knows who we are , or what our issues are....we really need help from our local community and society, quite often we are secluded and introverted so it's hard to find us. We are humans just like the rest of you. We are even funny, awesome, social and talented. We want romance, we want love, we want acceptance. We need encouragement, we need help. Often many of my introverted depressed brothers and sisters are not aware of such amazing resources like Eric Thomas, Owen Cook, CT Fletcher, Tony Robbins etc.

My heart goes to my fellow sufferers. Not just the ones in South America or Africa, or the streets of America and elsewhere, but to those of us everyday who find ourselves not wanting to really live, or us who are living, but not really alive. This can transform into a perpetual suffering that is truly agonizing. Yet there is a remedy.

I believe healthy living and well being are essential to the Christian life and to all human life in general, thanks to God's mercy and grace he has provided us with tools and guidance on our personal development from his word, creation and moral law and conscience, his reasoning along with aid and personal intervention on our spiritual journey to his kingdom. As Christians we are commanded to bear the fruit of Christ as imitators of Christ. If I'm incapable of acting as a minister of the spirit rather than of the flesh, how am I going to reveal Christ in me to the world?

A few verses that I ideas upon recently namely stem from Romans chapters 6-8 (which is by no means is an exhaustive Biblical list, but does seem to touch upon this issue):

For I consider that our present sufferings cannot even be compared to the glory that will be revealed to us. (Rom 8:18)...Moreover if the Spirit of the one who raised Jesus from the dead lives in you, the one who raised Christ from the dead will also make your mortal bodies alive through his Spirit who lives in you. So then, brothers and sisters, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh (for IF you live according to the flesh, you will die), but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live. (Rom 8:11-13)

And:

But now we have been released from the law, because we have died to what controlled us, so that we may serve in the new life of the Spirit and not under the old written code. (Rom 7:6)...But I see a different law in my members waging war against the law of MY MIND and MAKING ME CAPTIVE the law of sin that is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin. (Rom 7:23-25)

Paul says to believing Christians: "IF you live according to the flesh, you will die". What does Paul mean here? Is he referring to physical death? Or perhaps the original adamic spiritual death? Perhaps everlasting permanent death known as hell or the lake of fire? I thought eating, sleeping and exercising were vital to living according to the flesh, this would certainly not cause death!

In my opinion Paul does not allude to any of these meanings. In context those of us who are adopted children of God will surely never be separated or cease to have God's love, we are justified, sanctified and glorified and therefore will not immediately die in any of these senses, yet Paul is still cautioning the Romans about death, so why?

Paul also says: "with my flesh I serve the law of sin". Does that mean Paul himself died by living according to the flesh? My answer, is at times. Paul employees various meaning in his understanding of life and death. For Paul the focus is on living holy, being able and empowered to follow God's Law. It follows then anything that reduces Paul's ability to follow God's perfect Law which provides complete spiritual fulfillment is reducing his own personal spiritual satisfaction and obstructing the well-being and healthy living given by following God's instruction.

For Paul there is a struggle with the flesh and the spirit, if the flesh controls this struggle, the body is winning, your thoughts are captive to the flesh, if you live according to this sense, you are spiritually and therefore mentally dead, because you are made captive, you are a slave, you are an alternative more limited, version of yourself. To have a carnal addiction is to be chained and trapped. If you are in chains, you aren't really you. At least you are not the full version of you in it's most absolute and freest sense. Christ came to give us life abundantly through his Spirit. Death here therefore refers to a physical habitual enslavement to biological stimulus, something other than God who you attempt to stem satisfaction from before God, in the Bible this is is otherwise known as idolatry. This in turn creates a spiritual void. Place God first, and then everything else will necessarily and progressively follow. What is the solution to this? It is to follow God's greatest commandment through the power of his Holy Spirit:

"Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?" Jesus said to him, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. The second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' (Matthew 22:36-39)

Some actions that stem from these commands are:

The greatest among you will be your servant. (Matthew 23:11)

 And:

A dispute also started among them over which of them was to be regarded as the greatest. So Jesus said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those in authority over them are called 'benefactors.'Not so with you; instead the one who is greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the one who serves. For who is greater, the one who is seated at the table, or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is seated at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. (Luke 22:24-27)

To love anything other than God before God, placing it first is going to deprive you from the source of all spiritual sustenance and life, God Almighty himself. This includes putting your body first. Putting your addictions first. Serving your own physical  members and desires first. None of these things seem to provide genuine content in a context not commanded by God. That is until the perfect balance is made by giving God his rightful place as first before everyone and everything. Once God is perfectly placed in your life, as he ordered, you start to experience a heightened awareness of reality, the satisfaction of everything becomes more apparent. God has provided an intended context to enjoy sleep, food, sex and action/adrenaline. If you go to the source of all life to understand the context of your machine, the human body, the hardware and operating software can be updated, renewed and made perfect. But without this you are like a driver, without driving lessons, you eventually derive some grasp over how to use your car (body), and you learn as time goes on, but you never really harness of this machine and unlock the full potential until you read the Manuel or speak to the manufacturer or pioneer!

In Self Help this is known as complete commitment and discipline. perhaps over 1-5% will be successful making such a commitment:

 For if you live according to the flesh, you will die, but If by the Spirit you put TO DEATH THE DEEDS OF YOUR BODY you WILL LIVE - Romans 8:13

Amen and Amen! In Christ Alone. 

The Intolerance of Tolerance

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: 

"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them." 

— In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. 

"We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."

Source: -Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies

I wrote on a semi related subject here

Christ The Way - An Inspiration

There are really inspirin people in my life I wish I could be like. Some of you know and some of you don't.

One of these heroes of mine is CTW. My co-author and writer brother Jose Joesph has come over alot in his life. He over came terrible heart break, he over came alcoholic and smokin addiction. He trains so hard he is now completely ripped, a total beast and hero. He over came his intellectual and spiritual turmoil. For you this is just a sentence, for him it was journey up a thousand mount Everests. Most of you will never know what this is like, but this is what further the bonds of brotherhood between me and CTW. We see hope, when there isn't any. We see Christ, when you see death. While all others betray us, the Lord of Hosts is the eternal present, the eternal I am, who always remains the same.

The Lord has plans for you bro.

CTW think massive, nothin is off the table for what the Almihty has in stall for you:



And:



And:



And FINALLY:



A few more 

A Muslim Guide: How To Debate An Infidel

Dear brothers and sisters in islam: We live in kuffar country and daily we have to face the infidels who criticize islam and our prophet, and who want to debate us. In an Islamic country if some one did that all we have to do is to announce loudly what he said and the rest is taken care of by an angry mob. The critic is lynched in no time. End of the story. However here we don't have that luxury as yet. Inshallah in forseeble future after we grow by conversions of morons and criminals in prisons, legal and illegal immigration and procreation we will,inshallah, become a majority and will not have to face this problem on daily basis. However, for the time being following is an approach all muslim brothers and sisters can use when faced with such a pest. Jazakallah Khair. Inshallah the vermin will steer clear of you in future.

1. A popular question is "why islam calls for death of Islamic critics and apostates". Insist that their info is false. Quote aya "to you your religion and to me my religion".
2. To answer "Islam spread with sword", say that it is a big lie spread by the jews and hindus and that quran clearly says " there is no compulsion in religion".
3. If some one quotes violent ayas from Koran, accuse him of quoting ayas in bits and pieces and cherry picking .
4. If he then quotes full ayas and ayas before and after, than insist that the translation is wrong.
5. If he brings ten different translations than say correct meanings can be understood only by reading Quran in Arabic.
6. If he happens to be well versed in Arabic language than insist that those ayas don't mean what they appear to mean as they have allegorical meanings.
7. If he is adamant, than say you cannot understand those ayas and it's context without reading hadith and sira.
8. If he shows up with the hadiths and siras in hand and quotes the context of the violent ayas by referring to hadiths of prophet's rapes, robberies , assassinations and genocides then insist that "all hadiths and siras are heresay and are false, and only truth is in quran.
9. If he says Quran is a man made document and wants proof of it's divinity then refer to the sciences in Quran and the book written by Dr. Bucaile confirming the sciences in our holy book. You can also quote that Mahatama Gandhi read Quran daily and also spoke highly of it.
10. If he says that Bucaile was on Saudi payroll and that nor he nor Gandhi ever changed their religions and that Bucaile was challenged and proven wrong by many experts then challenge him to ask his experts to debate islamists like Zakir Naik..
11. If the pests still hangs around then change the topic and find faults in other religions and their books.
12. If he continues on then use personal attacks and insult him by calling him a jewish a- hole , a Chinese pig or a hindu dog .
13. If that does not frustrate him, then ask him how much he is being paid by jews to throw dirt on Al Islam.
14. If he still does not stop then run for his mother and sister and use very filthy language.
15. If he is very stubborn and wants to continue, then curse him like "Burn in hell, you will repent on last day, Allah will get you in your grave" etc
16. When all of the above has failed, threaten him with bodily harm and end the debate by drum beating and announcing that you won the debate hands down because Koran is the word of allah.
17. If possible anounce about this debate in an islamist website and that you had won it handily. Such announcements do wonders for the iman of muslim website readers and for dawah operations in prisons to convince low IQ prisoners of the truth of Al Islam.

Why You Shouldn't Believe In The Ahmadiya View Known As The Swoon Theory (In 5 Minutes)

A stand off we have!

Academia vs The Apparent Death Theory of Jesus

Poem by David Bowden - "I Am"

Bart Ehrman on Paul III

QUESTION

And what do you make of Paul’s statement that he didn’t get the good news (= the resurrection and thus the triumph over death) from other humans but from the ‘risen Christ’ himself? If he persecuted the Christians because of a resurrection belief then he would have heard about it before, from other humans, no?

RESPONSE

Ah! This takes me to the issue that I was planning on posting about today anyway. Several people in their comments have pointed out that if Paul claims to have “received” the teachings about Jesus’ death and resurrection from others (1 Cor. 15:3), then it is hard to make sense of what he says in Galatians 1, that he received his “gospel” directly from Jesus himself. How could Paul have it both ways?

Here’s what I think. I think when Paul talks about receiving “his gospel” from a revelation – presumably at the point that he “saw” Jesus – he is not talking about the Christian message of Christ’s death and resurrection per se. He is talking about “his” version of the significance of Jesus’ death and resurrection – namely, that it…

To see this and other posts in full http://ehrmanblog.org/pauls-gospel-message-for-members/ and join the blog by clicking the "Register" button!

Paul invented Christianity, the Gospel and Resurrection? Ehrman Part II

I’d like to say a bit more about Paul in relationship to the beginning of Christianity. Yesterday I argued that Paul could not have invented the idea of the resurrection. I should point out that Paul himself – who was always proud of the “revelation” of the truth given to him and his part in disseminating it (see Galatians 1-2) – admits in 1 Cor. 15:3-5 that he “received” from others the view that Christ died for sins and rose from the dead, before appearing “first” to Cephas and then others. I should stress, this language of “receiving” and “passing on” has long been understood as a standard way of indicating how tradition was transmitted from one person to another. Paul did not “receive” this information from his visionary encounter with Jesus (Jesus didn’t tell him: first I appeared to Cephas then to… and then to… and then finally to you!). Paul received this core of the Gospel message from those who were Christians before him.

People today often think of Paul as the second-founder of Christianity, after Jesus. Or even as the founder of Christianity. In my view that is assigning way too much importance to Paul. I don’t know how much Paul himself came up with (based, in his view, on his encounter with Jesus). But he did *not* come up with the idea that Jesus’ death brought salvation and that he had then been raised from the dead. That part he “received” from others.

One of the reasons Paul seems so overwhelmingly important to people today is…

To see this and other posts in full http://ehrmanblog.org/pauls-importance-in-early-christianity-for-members/ and join the blog by clicking the "Register" button!

Paulianity Refuted By Sam Shamo....BART EHRMAN

QUESTION:

There is no doubt that Paul had visions of Jesus. And as we all agree the gospels (and Acts for that matter) were written AFTER Paul and certainly influenced BY Paul. In one way or another they reflect his way of thinking (to a certain degree).

Wouldn’t it be possible that the story of visions started with Paul only and was incorporated into the gospels because… well, how could it be that Jesus appeared to Paul and not to his disciples?
I find it suspicious that there are such deep discrepancies in the different accounts of Jesus post-resurrection appearances….

In other words: Couldn’t Paul be the sole starting point of this vision thing?

RESPONSE:

This question gets to the heart of a very big issue: what was Paul’s role in the development of early Christianity. Is he responsible for starting it? Was he the first to claim that Jesus had appeared after his death, as the risen Lord of life? Is Paul the real founder of Christianity? Should we call it Paulianity?

Maybe I’ll devote a post or two to that question, as it is completely fundamental to understanding the beginnings of the Christian religion. In this post I’ll deal with the question this reader has asked directly; my answer will, of course, be related to the larger issue.

So my basic view is that Paul could not have been the sole source for the idea that Jesus was raised from the dead. I have a very big reason for thinking that he was not, and a subsidiary reason for it. There are probably lots of other reasons, but these two stand out in my mind.

As to the big reason. Paul…

To see this and other posts in full http://ehrmanblog.org/did-paul-invent-the-resurrection-for-members/ and join the blog by clicking the "Register" button!

Is Nabeel Qureshi a former Muslim?

Recently ITAZ Ahmad made an utterly bizarre effort to undermine the credibility and authenticity of Nabeel Qureshi by asserting Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed to be God Almighty. 

In this sense how could Nabeel be a Muslim at all since he wasn't a Unitarian who submitted to God alone?

However a simple fact-check would help one understand Mirza never himself claimed to be God.

While there is no doubt that Nabeel was never part of Orthodox Sunni or Shia Islam. A valid question still remains, was he a genuine Muslim? An adherent of Islam who is now a former Muslim?

Lets define what a Muslim is:

The first thing that one should know and clearly understand about Islam is what the word "Islam" itself means. The Arabic word ''Islam'' means the submission or surrender of one's will to the only true God, known in Arabic as "Allah". One who submits his will to God is termed in Arabic a "Muslim". (source)

And:

"Both "Muslim" and "Islam" come from the same root: "S", "L", "M" (silm) -
meaning; "to submit in peace"; "surrender in obedience"; and this immediately implies a relationship between two entities, one being superior to the other or in charge of matters." (source)

This is the exact same chain of reasoning Muslims utilize to argue Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David and Jesus were "Muslims". They are Muslims in the sense that they surrendered their will to God.

Bart Ehrman Gone Under The Islamic Camel Bus

It was only a matter of time until Muslims decided to throw Biblical Scholar Bart Ehrman under the bus.

The first one being ITAZ Ahmad, in one of his latest blog posts asserts:

"There are some in the inter-faith dialogue community who condemn Muslims for being hypocritical for accepting some views of Ehrman and not all of his views. Why should Muslims accept all of Ehrman’s views? His views aren’t part of Islamic teachings, and if he writes something that is somehow related to Islamic teachings and some Muslims want to adopt those views because of a correlation, then they are free to weigh which views are acceptable and which aren’t. Rejecting some of his views is part of the critical thinking process, it is far too infantile to generalize Ehrman’s views and dictate that Muslims must either accept them all or reject them all, that’s clearly an appeal to the fallacy of a false dichotomy. There is a third option, weigh what he says against Islamic beliefs and use them accordingly.

In conclusion, Ehrman is not the be all and end all of information on Christianity. He certainly isn’t for me, but his views, especially on the Bible’s preservation are shared by vast portions of the textual criticism community, even if Muslims had to disregard anything written by Ehrman there is still quite a significant array of literature and authors who agree with him that we can learn from. Therefore, we say to those who condemn Muslims for reading his works, it’s silly to focus on the man behind the work, the real problem lies with the information he makes accessible to the Muslim community, the Christian community and to the larger public. So, focus on dealing with the information and not the person. Far too many Evangelicals and Polemicists are zealous in their abuse of Muslims for reading his works, when most of them are unaware of what his works actually contain. What a sad state such people are in."

Predictably no documentation was provided for the assertion that Evangelicals abuse Muslims for reading Ehrman. But then ITAZ has an odd mental fixation with what he perceives as abuse. We also didn't get any documentation for the claim that Biblical Scholars accept Ehrman's philosophical conclusions about textual criticism. A distinction ought to be made. The facts he reports are widely accepted, his own personal conclusions are frequently disputed.

But we did learn some rather interesting provocative thought for all Muslims:

• Why should Muslims accept all of Ehrman’s views? His views aren’t part of Islamic teachings
• Weigh what he says against Islamic beliefs and use them accordingly.
• Ehrman is not the be all and end all of information on Christianity
• Rejecting some of his views is part of the critical thinking process

Well I'm sure many a Christian couldn't have said it better! 

Is Jesus God? Catholic vs Erhman

Erhman Debunks Injeel

If we had the Injeel? What would it actually look like? Bart Erhman obviously doesn't believe it would look like Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. But what about if we had something more closer to Jesus?

Erhman provides a fascinating answer:

"THOSE OF US WHO are deeply invested in the early Christian traditions would give a great deal to discover a Gospel written by one of the first followers of Jesus a year or so after his resurrection. Unfortunately, we almost certainly never will. Jesus’s disciples were lower-class, illiterate peasants from remote rural areas of Galilee, where very few people could read, let alone write, and let alone create full-scale compositions. We don’t know of a single author from that time and place, Jewish or Christian, who was capable of producing a Gospel even had she or he thought of doing so. The first followers of Jesus probably never thought of doing so. They, like Jesus, anticipated that the end of the age was imminent, that the Son of Man—now thought to be Jesus himself—was soon to come from heaven in judgment on the earth and to usher in God’s good kingdom. These people had no thought of recording the events of Jesus’s life for posterity because in a very real sense, there was not going to be a posterity.

But even if the original apostles had been forward-looking and concerned about the needs of posterity (or at least the longings of twenty-first-century historians), they would not have been able to write a Gospel. The only way they could pass on the story of Jesus was by word of mouth. And so they told the stories to one another, to their converts, and to their converts’ converts. This happened year after year, until some decades later, in different parts of the world, highly educated Greek-speaking Christians wrote down the traditions they had heard, thereby producing the Gospels we still have.

Even so, historians can at least dream, and even if it is an idle dream, it is worth considering what a Gospel written in the year 31 CE by one of the surviving disciples might have looked like. If the views I have presented in this chapter are anywhere near correct, this imagined Gospel would look very different from the ones we have now inherited—and its view of Jesus would not at all be the view that came to be dominant among later theologians when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman world.

This nonexistent Gospel would be filled with the teachings of Jesus as he went from village to town proclaiming that the kingdom of God was soon to arrive with the coming of the Son of Man. The day of judgment was imminent, and people needed to prepare for it. My guess is that this Gospel would not be filled with the miraculous things that Jesus had done. He would not spend his days healing the sick, calming the storm, feeding the multitudes, casting out demons, and raising the dead. Those stories were to come later, as Jesus’s followers described his early life in light of his later exaltation. Instead, this Gospel would tell in detail, probably from eyewitness reports, what happened during the last week of Jesus’s life, when he made a pilgrimage with some of his followers to Jerusalem and enraged the local authorities with his outburst in the temple and his incendiary preaching of the imminent coming of judgment—a cataclysmic destruction that would be directed not only against the Roman oppressors, but also against the ruling authorities among the Jews, the elite priests and their followers.

The great highlight of the Gospel, though, would come at the end. Jesus had been rejected by the scribes and elders of the people and handed over to Pontius Pilate, who found him guilty for insurrection against the state. To put a decisive end to his troublemaking, rabble-rousing nonsense, Pilate had ordered him crucified. 

But even though Jesus had been unceremoniously executed by the power of Rome, his story was not yet 
over. For he had appeared to his disciples, alive again. How could he still be alive? It was not because he survived crucifixion. No, God had raised him, bodily, from the dead.

And why is he still not among us? Because God not only brought him back to life, he exalted him up to heaven as his own Son, to sit on a throne at God’s right hand, to rule as the messiah of Israel and the Lord of all, until he comes back as the cosmic judge of the earth, very soon.

In this Gospel Jesus would not have become the Son of God for his entire ministry, starting with his baptism, as in the Gospel of Mark and in a tradition retained in the Gospel of Luke. And he would not have been the Son of God for the whole of his life, beginning with his conception by a virgin who was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit so that her son would be God’s own offspring, as in Luke and in traditions preserved by Matthew. Nor would he be a divine being who preexisted his coming into the world, as attested by such authors as Paul and John. No, he became the Son of God when God worked his greatest miracle on him, raising him from the dead and adopting him as his Son by exalting him to his right hand and bestowing upon him his very own power, prestige, and status." [Bart D. Ehrman. HOW JESUS BECAME GOD: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee, Kindle Edition (San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins, 2014.) pp. 208-209]

Notes:

• Erhman thinks the Injeel was not even conceived of by Jesus or his disciples
• If it was conceived of there would be no way for them to write it or preserve it due to their own intellectual incapacity
• However if such a gospel did exist it would primarily focus on Jesus last week not his teachings or miracles (sorry Quran and Muslims!)
• It would come from eye witnesses reports (not Allah)
• It would report Jesus crucifixion under Pilot (bye Q 4:157)
• It would report the disciples believed Jesus rose from the dead, rather than surviving crucifixion (so long Islamic swoon theory and apparent death theory, bye Deedat and Ally)
• It would testify Jesus became the Son of God at his Resurrection (umm Allah has no divinely adopted Son)
• Because Jesus became the Son of God at his Resurrection it would show how he is highly exalted and worshiped as the divine Son of Man, a divine judge and ruler, the King-Messiah and Sovereign Lord over God's creation. (Sounds like Issa, not)

Can you be a Christian and accept Bart Erhman's Book? A Controversial Yet Possible View Point

I think Erhman offers one possible view, but there is a secondary view I believe is more convincing (also adhered to by many Scholars) which I will endeavor to go through later. But for now I ask:

How can you be a Christian and believe in a developing Christology?

Erhman explains:

THE VIEW THAT THE earliest Christians understood Jesus to have become the Son of God at his resurrection is not revolutionary among scholars of the New Testament. One of the greatest scholars of the second half of the twentieth century was Raymond Brown, a Roman Catholic priest who spent a large chunk of his career teaching students at the (Protestant) Union Theological Seminary in New York City.  

Brown wrote books that were challenging and insightful for fellow biblical scholars and books that were accessible and enlightening for the layperson. 

Among his most famous contributions was a way of sketching the development of early Christian views of Jesus. Brown agreed with the view I have mapped out here: the earliest Christians held that God had exalted Jesus to a divine status at his resurrection. (This shows, among other things, that this is not simply a “skeptical” view or a “secular” view of early Christology; it is one held by believing scholars as well.) Brown pointed out that you can trace a kind of chronological development of this view through the Gospels. This oldest Christology of all may be found in the preliterary traditions in Paul and the book of Acts, but it is not the view presented in any of the Gospels. Instead, as we will see at greater length the oldest Gospel, Mark, seems to assume that it was at his baptism that Jesus became the Son of God; the next Gospels, Matthew and Luke, indicate that Jesus became the Son of God when he was born; and the last Gospel, John, presents Jesus as the Son of God from before creation. In Brown’s view this chronological sequencing of the Gospels may well indeed be how Christians developed their views. Originally, Jesus was thought to have been exalted only at the resurrection; as Christians thought more about the matter, they came to think that he must have been the Son of God during his entire ministry, so that he became the Son of God at its outset, at baptism; as they thought even more about it, they came to think he must have been the Son of God for his entire life, and so he was born of a virgin and in that sense was the (literal) Son of God; and as they thought about it more again, they came to think that he must have been the Son of God even before he came into the world, and so they said he was a preexistent divine being. 

The problem with this chronological sequencing of the Gospels is that it does not reflect the actual chronological development of early Christian views of Jesus. That is to say, even though it is true that these are the views as they develop through the Gospels (from the earliest to the latest), some Christians were saying that Jesus was a preexistent being (a “later” view) EVEN BEFORE Paul began to write in the 50s—WELL BEFORE our earliest Gospel was written. The reality is—and Brown would not have disagreed with this—views of Jesus did not develop along a straight line in every part of early Christianity and at the same rate. Different Christians in different churches in different regions had different views of Jesus, almost from the get-go. Bart D. Ehrman. HOW JESUS BECAME GOD: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee, Kindle Edition (San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins, 2014.) pp. 201-202

As you can see, Erhman rather explicitly renounces his previous belief of a kind of chronological order of evolutionary christology. Erhman being a scholar had to concede this point, because there is no evidence for these types of assumptions, in other words there is no "snow ball evolving Christology" as Muslims like Shabir Ally have argued in the past.

One implication Erhman makes is completely correct. Christians from different regions did not have an entirely complete christology, they did not have access to the entire New Testament or all the apostles, most only seemed to possess one gospel or perhaps a few epistles. This means it is through stewardship and God's guidance that the canon, hymns, creeds and other traditions came to be collected. Wisdom and knowledge increased from the Holy Spirit and a multitude of pastoral and missionary work and contact with other churches.

The writings were eventually circulating and assimilated. The early picture and understanding of Christ became more complete and clearer with the integration of the epistles and early canons, and appointed prophets, teachers and so forth. What we then see from the beginning (as Erhman highlights) is that all of these views were taught. To argue that these views were so different as to be incompatible is an argument from silence, and ignores the clear indication that these views were integrated and not exclusive (to be expounded upon in a future post, remember: Bart Erhman often equates what he feels are incompatible or mutually exclusive theologies with others from the past which would be anachronistic). There is no contradiction between any of these views, but rather only an expansion of individual knowledge and intellectual ascent.

(Watch Out For An Upcoming Critique of Erhman's Work I Am Going To Post, Since There Is Another Similar Yet Different Scholarly Position That Seems More Convincing)

Is New Testament Against Women? ~ Bart Erhman

"We have good reasons for thinking that women were particularly well represented in early Christian communities. We know from the letters of Paul—from passages such as Romans 16—that women played crucial leadership roles in the churches: ministering as deacons, leading the services in their homes, engaging in missionary activities. Paul speaks of one woman in the Roman church as “foremost among the apostles” (Junia in Rom. 16:7). 

Women are also reputed to have figured prominently in Jesus’s ministry, throughout the Gospels. This may well have been the case, historically. But in any event, there is nothing implausible in thinking that women who found their newfound Christian communities personally liberating told stories about Jesus in light of their own situations, so that women were portrayed as playing a greater part in the life and death of Jesus than they actually did, historically. It does not take a great deal of imagination to think that female storytellers indicated that women were the first to believe in the resurrection, after finding Jesus’s tomb empty. 

Moreover, this claim that women found the empty tomb makes the best sense of the realities of history. Preparing bodies for burial was commonly the work of women, not men. And so why wouldn’t the stories tell of women who went to prepare the body? Moreover, if, in the stories, they are the ones who went to the tomb to anoint the body, naturally they would be the ones who found the tomb empty." Bart D. Ehrman. HOW JESUS BECAME GOD: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee, Kindle Edition (San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins, 2014.) p 144

Documentary By Keith Thompson: "Reformed Answers on the Roman Corruption of Christianity"

Keith Thompson is the man, we have waited a long long time for this film and finally he ends up with an 8 hour documentary (and an upcoming book on the same subject!). Definitely donate to Keith or support his ministry if you are financially capable, he has really put a staggering amount of effort into this.

If you're led to support the ministry, consider buying a copy of the DVD at: www.reformedapologeticsministries.com

My Thoughts

Before Seeing the Film

These are my thoughts before watching the documentary. 

Admittedly I don't know much about the Roman Catholic/Protestant controversies, I studied this more back in 2005-2009 period. 

I have only recently renewed my faith, so I believe I am just a babe in Christ in terms of my knowledge of these issues. 

I certainly don't have a clue what Martin Luther's 91 thesis are. But I am faintly familiar with the 5 solas, perhaps more sola scriptura and sola fide.

To describe my current view. Personally I don't feel comfortable with assumption of Mary/prayers to the deceased, and have never been compelled intellectually to accept papal jurisdiction and infallibility. The Eucharist from what I know has alot of ancient support, (although I'm aware not unanimous) and seems to be something worthy of serious consideration. 

On the other side: Sola Scriptura to me on the service level doesn't seem all to convincing, perhaps something like Primia Scriptura.

Other side issues like Maryam Dogmas: Mary Mother of God, Immaculate Conception, Mary's perpetual virginity, whether Jesus had brothers etc, are irrelevant for me personally, I wouldn't join/reject a Church based on these factors. 

After The Film

(Soon To Update With My Thoughts)

Happy Easter All! - Personal Update

This will be the first Easter in a long time, that I have renewed trust in God, I didn't ever think I would acquire God-belief again and it's still difficult at times, so it's amazing that I can think of God as a real person who is interactive with all our lives during this Easter season. 

I have not been to Church (other than weddings and other events) for along long time, so I am thinking about going on Resurrection Sunday, now that I believe in the Triune Lord and Resurrection of Christ, I have no idea which Church to pop into though, and I'm not at all interested in disputing Church doctrines just serving God. 

Today is a day we remember the death of Christ, I managed to see the movie "Son of God" for the first time, still haven't seen "Noah" yet. 

Many millennia ago God stepped among us and became a lowly human servant who suffered as we suffer, experienced pain like we do and faced all the same temptations we share in, despite earthly and spiritual torment, Jesus preached one of most beautiful messages to those who have an ear to hear.

God not only gave us the most morally attractive message, he put himself in our shoes, and placed his love of others above and beyond the love of himself, in taking the burden and yolk of humans upon himself. 

Jesus said:

" My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends...I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. (John 15:11-15 ) 

This event was alluded to 700 years earlier in the book of Isaiah 53.What a wonderful Lord and great Savior I will praise him with all other Christians. 

I leave you with this video, which I'm sure reflects the message in all our hearts as we give thanks to our glorious Father, and unchanging Son, who reveal themselves in love and grace. Thank you Yeshua for your sacrifice.

Infidel "Erhman" for the sake of Allah: Stop Contradicting Muslims

Professor Bart Erhman recently made a critique of a Roman Catholic who either hadn't read Erhman's book, or failed to understand it, but thankfully because of this critique Erhman elaborates on his own views.

Fact 1: Erhman does not deny the Resurrection of Jesus:

"I took great care in my book precisely not to say what he accuses me of saying. Nowhere do I say that Jesus’ resurrection was invented by his hallucinating disciples. In fact I spent considerable length arguing that the visions of Jesus would be seen by his modern-day followers as appearances of Jesus – that is, as veridical visions – and by non-believers as non-veridical hallucinations. But I pointedly did not take a stand on the issue in the book. My view is that the disciples saw visions, and each of us can decide whether they really saw Jesus or simply thought they did."

Fact 2: Erhman from his book does not conclude Jesus is therefore not God 

"I also do not take a stand on the central theological question of whether Jesus really was God or not." (I will make a future post about this)

Fact 3: You can accept every proposition of Erhman's book and still be a Trinitarian Christian:

"My view is that my book should have ZERO impact on intelligent, informed, Christian belief. (And I have evidence: I have intelligent Christian friends who are scholars of early Christianity who agree with almost all of my analysis.)"

For Erhman's assessment of a Muslim who claims Judaism finds the idea of a divine-Messiah anathema: click here.

Dancing Muslims

Obviously many Muslims found out Paul Williams is a Greek NT Scholar and just had to party:

Paul Williams Is a New Testament Scholar

Just when you thought you had heard it all:

Hamza Yusuf provides an embarrassing lecture showing why he thinks Mohammed is a prophet in the Bible

Paul Williams follows up with:

My response:

PW's response:

Elephants believe in God

While Richard Dawkins is busy converting people to Catholicism

Animals are also renouncing atheism

WHAT IF “HIGHER CRITICISM” WERE APPLIED TO THE QUR'AN? ~ Dr William Campbell

Christian Apologist Samuel Green recently presented his research showing what would happen if you applied critical source theories of the Synoptic Gospels upon the Quran. Expressing some rather interesting results for our Muslim polemicists who typically harness a complete double standard. Recently a similar issue came up elsewhere. I would like to expand on what Denis Giron and Anthony Rogers have already noted.

In continuing this train of thought I would like to add from Dr. William Campbell's book: "The Qur'an and the Bible in the light of history and science"

Section three is especially pertinent, Dr Campbell along with supplementing Samuel Green (the Synoptic Qurans), shows us what would happen if we applied the documentary hypothesis directly to the Quran:

In Arabic the name for God “Allah” parallels the Hebrew Elohim and the name “Rabb” corresponds to the Hebrew Adonai (Lord) which the Jews used later to refer to Jehovah. When we examine the Qur'an we find that the name Rabb is never used in 11 Suras: 24, 48, 49, 58, 61, 62, 77, 88, 95, 104, and 112; and the name Allah is absent in 18 Suras: 54-56, 68, 75, 78, 83, 89, 92-94, 99, 100, 105, 106, 108, 113, and 114. In addition there are 10 very short Early Meccan Suras in which, like the Book of Esther in theTorah-Old Testament, the name of God is not mentioned at all.

Below is an analysis of the use of Allah and Rabb in Suras 48 to 64. I have chosen these 17 Suras because 8 of them are in the above lists. 

When we look at this information we see that in Sura 55 the word Rabb was used 36 times - 31 of them along with the word “favors” (al-ala'). This word ala' is a rare word in the Qur'an being found only three other times - once in the Early Meccan Sura 53 and twice in the Late Meccan Sura 7. Furthermore, when we examine Sura 53:19-20, we find that it is the only Sura which mentions the three Goddesses Al-Llat, and Al-`Uzza, and Manat.

A higher critic who believes in the “documentary hypothesis” would now say,

We see here that Allah is used much less often during the Meccan period, never more than once in every 10 verses. While in the Medina period this name is used at least once a verse except for Sura 48.

In addition, the word ala' and the three idol goddesses are found only in these Meccan Suras. Therefore there must have been an early Meccan writer called “R” because he used “Rabb” as the name for God, but who was still interested in idols. Later there was a second writer called “A” who used “Allah” and wrote when pure monotheism had developed. It is true, of course, that in Sura 53, Manat, Al-Llat and Al-`Uzza are mentioned with disapproval, so these disapproving words must have been added at a later date by “Q” which stands for editing done by the “Qurra”.[23] 

Next we find that there are four accounts in the Qur'an telling how the honored guests came to inform Abraham that he would have a son in his old age. The Early Meccan Sura 51:24-30 mentions how Abraham's wife didn't believe and said “a barren old woman”. This was obviously done by “R”. The Late Meccan Sura 15:51-56 tells how Abraham didn't believe the news and said, “Do you give me glad tidings that old age has seized me?” Since this is Late Meccan the “A” writer was starting to have an influence. 

In the Late Meccan Sura 11:69-74 the two stories have been worked together by one of the “Q” editors and the fact is added that Abraham's wife laughed. 

Finally there is the early Mid-Meccan account in Sura 37:99-103 which is really concerned with Abraham's sacrifice of his son. Since sacrifices are mentioned this represents another document which we will call the “D” document for (al-dabiha) sacrifice.

As the reader can see we easily made up a new four document theory for the origin of the Qur'an. We could call it the R,A,Q,D theory. Though this R,A,Q,D theory is completely fictitious it demonstrates the type of arbitrary reasoning used by the authors of the “documentary hypothesis”, and shows what would have happened if they had applied the same type of analysis to the Qur'an.

For more see section 3 here

Bart Erhman on "The Angel of the Lord"

Divine Beings Who Temporarily Become Human

ANGELS IN ANCIENT JUDAISM were widely understood to be superhuman messengers of God who mediated his will on earth. It is striking that various angels sometimes appeared on earth in human guise. More than that, in some ancient Jewish texts there is a figure known as “the Angel of the Lord,” who is regarded as the “chief” angel. How exalted is this figure? In some passages he is identified as God himself. And yet sometimes he appears as a human. This is the Jewish counterpart to the pagan view that the gods could assume human guise to visit the earth.

The Angel of the Lord as God and Human

An example early in scripture can be found in Genesis 16. The situation is this. God has promised Abraham that he will have many descendants, that he will, in fact, be the father of the nation of Israel. But he is childless. His wife Sarah hands her servant Hagar over to him so he can conceive a child with her. Abraham willingly complies, but then Sarah becomes jealous of Hagar and mistreats her. Hagar runs away.

“The Angel of the Lord” then finds Hagar in the wilderness and speaks to her (Gen. 16:7). He tells her to return to her mistress and lets her know that she, Hagar, will have a son who will be the ancestor of a (different) great people. But then, after referring to this heavenly visitant as the Angel of the Lord, the text indicates that it was, in fact, “the LORD” who had spoken with her (16:13). Moreover, Hagar realizes that she has been addressing God himself and expresses her astonishment that she had “seen God and remained alive after seeing him” (16:13). Here there is both ambiguity and confusion: either the Lord appears as an angel in the form of a human, or the Angel of the Lord is the Lord himself, God in human guise.

A similar ambiguity occurs two chapters later, this time with Abraham. We are told in Genesis 18:1 that “the LORD appeared to Abraham by the oaks of Mamre.” But when the episode is narrated, we learn that “three men” come to him (18:2). Abraham plays the good host and entertains them, preparing for them a very nice meal, which they all three eat. When they talk to him afterward, one of these three “men” is identified explicitly as “the LORD” (18:13). At the end of the story we are informed that the other two were “angels” (19:1). So here we have a case where two angels and the Lord God himself have assumed human form—so much so that they appear to Abraham to be three men, and they all eat the food he has prepared.

The most famous instance of such ambiguity is found in the story of Moses and the burning bush (Exod. 3:1–22). By way of background: Moses, the son of Hebrews, had been raised in Egypt by the daughter of Pharaoh, but he has to escape for murdering an Egyptian and is wanted by the Pharaoh himself. He goes to Midian where he marries and becomes a shepherd for his father-in-law’s flocks. One day, while tending to his sheeply duties, Moses sees an astonishing sight. We are told that he arrives at Mount Horeb (this is Mount Sinai, where later, after the exodus, he is given the law) and there, “the angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire out of a bush” (Exod. 3:2). Moses is amazed because the bush is aflame but is not being consumed by the fire. And despite the fact that it is the Angel of the Lord who is said to have appeared to him, it is “the Lord” who sees that Moses has come to the bush, and it is “God” who then calls to him out of the bush. In fact, the Angel of the Lord tells Moses, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” (Exod. 3:6). As the story continues, the Lord God continues to speak to Moses and Moses to God. But in what sense was it the Angel of the Lord that appeared to him? As a helpful note in the HarperCollins Study Bible puts it: “Although it was an angel that appeared in v. 2, there is no substantive difference between the deity and his agents.”3 Or as New Testament scholar Charles Gieschen has expressed it, this “Angel of the Lord” is “either indistinguishable from God as his visible manifestation” or he is a distinct figure, separate from God, who is bestowed with God’s own authority.4

Bart D. Ehrman. HOW JESUS BECAME GOD: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee, Kindle Edition (San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins, 2014.) pp. 52-53

Daniel 7 - Further examination by Denis Giron

Denis Giron
April 15, 2014 • 3:19 pm

Thank you, Mr. Williams, for your reply. What follows are some minor points from me.

MR. WILLIAMS WROTE:
{{you have me at a great disadvantage in that I know no Aramaic (the language of Daniel 7).}}

On a side note regarding this point, if you have studied some Arabic, I would recommend Franz Rosenthal’s “Grammar of Biblical Aramaic”. With some Arabic under your belt, once you get past the different script, I think you’ll largely find Biblical Aramaic to come off as something like “Arabic light,” in that it is very similarly structured, yet with fewer phonemes and fewer verb forms.

MR. WILLIAMS WROTE:
{{Your penultimate sentence struck me as significant.}}

Indeed, it is significant, as it alludes to one the chief reasons why people connect the holy ones with the son-of-man-like figure: the vision has an eternal kingdom being possessed by the son-of-man-like figure, while the later explanation has the kingdom being given eternally to the holy ones. The intention of my previous response was to establish that, while I understand that view, there are two counter points, which I will attempt to explain more fully, here:

(1) The “holy ones” seem to correspond to the servants mentioned in verse 10, who appear /before/ the son-of-man-like figure.

(2) In various Jewish and Christian views of the Messianic age, believers will be ruling/judging, with the Messiah as their head/king – in other words, both the Messiah and a cohort of believers underneath him will rule – ergo, saying the servants/saints will be given kingdom need not contradict the Messiah possessing the kingdom, and thus need not be at odds with the view of many Jewish exegetes that the Daniel 7:13 is referring to the Messiah.

We can find many commentaries and scholarly works which take the view that the vision intends to connect the son-of-man-like figure with the holy ones, but I personally have seen none that grapple with the similarities between the holy ones and the servants of verse 10 (and the corresponding points I noted in my previous response, which you kindly reproduced in this blog entry).

Regarding which “kingdoms” the beasts represent, I think that is open to speculation either way. As you know, not only Christian exegetes, but some Jewish exegetes also have seen the third beast as Greece (specifically Alexander of Macedon and the four who succeeded him) and the fourth beast as Rome. Whatever the case, I don’t think which way we speculate necessarily has a profound impact on how we identify the son-of-man-like figure of the vision.

MR. WILLIAMS WROTE:
{{I note in passing the absolute ontological distinction between the ‘Ancient of Days’: God Himself, and one like a human being (literally ‘son of man’) which is idiomatic for human being}}

I’m not certain about an /ontological/ distinction (i.e. I am wary of how that phrase can be used), but I do agree that there is certainly a very real distinction between the son-of-man-like figure and the Ancient of Days. In other words, the one who is “like a son of man” seems clearly to not be identical to the Ancient of Days. Perhaps my comment will take us off topic a bit, but permit me to nonetheless share that this need not be a problem for a Christian view, as Trinitarians indeed believe that the Son is not identical to the Father (and many Trinitarians would say the Son is not identical to God as a whole, as, for example, the Son is not tripersonal, i.e. He does not comprise three Persons).

Now, I understand that, in the other thread, your objection was that the text does not say this “son-of-man-like” figure is God, but I would note that we need to be careful with what we mean, as many Christians (as well as those Chassidic Jews who believe the Messiah is/will-be divine) would affirm the divinity of the Messiah, and consider Him part of the one God, without affirming that He is identical to the one God.

Now, I agree the text does not explicitly say that either, but so too it does not deny it. For what it is worth, it is interesting that Daniel 7 can be interpreted as meaning men from all nations and linguistic groups will /worship/ this figure who is /like/ a human (and thus apparently not merely a human). Regarding the verb in question (yiflchoon, from the FL7 root, Rosenthal’s aforementioned work gives “worship” as the primary meaning, and so too does Reuven AlQalay’s Milon Ivri-Angli Shalem). Now, I understand many sources note the verb can also mean “serve,” but it is interesting that, in all instances of Biblical Aramaic outside of Daniel 7 which employ the verb, it obviously pertains to serving a deity. Biblical Aramaic even has a corresponding word from the same root – falchan – which refers to a religious service (i.e. worship service). As one (admittedly Elokist) Chassidic Jew put it, even if it means to serve, it could be read as meaning that the son-of-man-like figure “will be served the way g-d is served in a service.”

But I suppose, on this point, it really depends what assumptions we bringt to the table. Some will read the passage in a Christian context, others within an orthodox Islamic context, still others within the context of different interpretations of Judaism, and still others against the backdrop of polytheistic systems among other ancient Semites (hence scholarly references to a court made up of lesser gods).

MR. WILLIAMS WROTE:
{{“holy ones of the most high” IMO is not a reference to a hybrid god-man messiah but a reference to a community of believer, an Ummah in Islamic term}}

Here I think we are pretty much in agreement. Verse 27 uses the noun `am, and while Biblical Aramaic itself has the word “umah” (which corresponds almost exactly with the Arabic phrase you alluded to), I think `am too can be thought of as corresponding to the relevant Arabic term, and, more specifically, that verse 27 is referring to a “nation”/”family”/group of specifically believers (i.e. servants of God, as per the connection with verse 10).

On a side note, I do not claim that the holy ones are a reference to the Messiah. Rather I specifically reject the view that the holy ones represent the son-of-man like figure in Daniel 7:13-14 (again, I think they correspond instead to the servants in verse 10). Interestingly, verse 27 has the same phrase which appears in verse 14: leh yiflchoon (which I would translate “Him they will worship”). I would propose that the masculine singular “leh” is referring to the last noun mentioned, in this case the Most High (in other words, I read verses 14 and 27 as meaning the son of man figure and the `Elyoneen [Most High] will be “served” in the same way).

Is "Messiah" a proper noun? Bart Erhman corrects Allah in the Holy Quran

In the Quran the 'Messiah' is a title that belongs to one special person. In fact the Quran uses the word Messiah and only applies it to Jesus, but not only as a title but even as Jesus' own personal and proper name:

The Angels said, “O Mary, God gives you good news of a Word from Him. HIS NAME IS the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, well-esteemed in this world and the next, and one of the nearest. 3:45

They have taken their rabbis and their priests as lords instead of God, as well as the Messiah son of Mary. Although they were commanded to worship none but The One God. There is no god except He. Glory be to Him; High above what they associate with Him. 9:31

However Biblical Scholar Bart Erhman explains why this is wrong:

"The single most common descriptive title that was applied to Jesus in the early years of the Christian movement was the term Christ. Sometimes I have to tell my students that Christ was not Jesus’s last name. Most people at the time Jesus lived, apart from the upper-crust Roman elite, did not have last names, so he was not Jesus Christ, born to Joseph and Mary Christ. Christ is a title and is, in fact, the Greek translation of the Hebrew word for messiah. Saying Jesus Christ means saying Jesus is the messiah."  

[Bart D. Ehrman. HOW JESUS BECAME GOD: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee, Kindle Edition (San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins, 2014.) p. 100]

Bart Erhman on the Son of Man

"Daniel is unable to make heads or tails of the vision, but luckily—as typically happens in these apocalyptic texts that are disclosing sublime heavenly truths—an angel is standing by to interpret it for him. The beasts each represent a kingdom that will come, in succession to one another, to rule the earth. At the end, after the fourth beast, a humanlike one will be given dominion over the earth. In the angel’s interpretation of the vision, we are told that this dominion will be given to the “people of the holy ones of the Most High” (Dan. 7:27). 

This may mean that just as the beasts each represented a kingdom, so too did the “one like a son of man.” The beasts were the successive kingdoms of Babylonia, Media, Persia, and Greece, which would each achieve world domination. The one like a son of man, then, would be the kingdom of Israel, which will be restored to its proper place and given authority over all the earth. Some interpreters have thought that since the beasts can also be taken to represent kings (at the head of the kingdoms), so too the one like a son of man—possibly he is an angelic being who is head of the nation of Israel.11 

However one interprets Daniel in its original second-century BCE context, what is clear is that eventually in some Jewish circles it came to be thought that this “one like a son of man” was indeed a future deliverer, a cosmic judge of the earth, who would come with divine vengeance against God’s enemies and with a heavenly reward for those who had remained faithful to him. This figure came to be known as “the Son of Man.”... 

What matters is the exalted character of the Son of Man. Many great and glorious things are said in the Similitudes about this person—who now is thought of as a divine being, rather than, say, as the nation of Israel. We are told that he was given a name “even before the creation of the sun and the moon, before the creation of the stars” (1 En. 48.2–3). We are told that all the earth will fall down and worship him. Before the creation he was concealed in the presence of God himself; but he was always God’s chosen one, and it is he who has revealed God’s wisdom to the righteous and holy, who will be “saved in his name,” since “it is his good pleasure that they have life” (48.2–7). 

At the end of time, when all the dead are resurrected, it is he, the “Elect One,” who will sit on God’s throne (51.3). From this “throne of glory” he will “judge all the works of the holy ones in heaven above, weighing in the balance their deeds” (61.8). He himself is eternal: “He shall never pass away or perish before the face of the earth.” And “all evil shall disappear before his face” (69.79). He will “remove the kings and the mighty ones from their thrones. He shall loosen the reins of the strong and crush the teeth of sinners. He shall depose the kings from their thrones and kingdoms. For they do not extol and glorify him and neither do they obey him, the source of their kingship” (46.2–6). 

At one point this cosmic judge of the earth is called the messiah... 

Now the ruler anointed by God is not a mere mortal; he is a divine being who has always existed, who sits beside God on his throne, who will judge the wicked and the righteous at the end of time. He, in other words, is elevated to God’s own status and functions as the divine being who carries out God’s judgment on the earth. This is an exalted figure indeed, as exalted as one can possibly be without actually being the Lord God Almighty himself... 

Now we have seen that the Son of Man also was worshiped. One could easily argue that anyone or anything seated beside God on a throne in the heavenly realm deserves worship. If you’re willing to bow down and prostrate yourself in the presence of an earthly king, then surely it’s appropriate to do so in the presence of the cosmic judge of the earth... 

The Son of Man figure whom we have just examined would be one such divine figure, as he shares the status and power of God."

Bart D. Ehrman. HOW JESUS BECAME GOD: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee, Kindle Edition (San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins, 2014.) pp. 60-62

Erhman also professes:

Jesus, then, was coming to rule from heaven. In his own teaching he had proclaimed that the Son of Man was to appear as the cosmic judge over the earth. But now it was obviously Jesus himself who was coming from heaven to rule. The disciples very soon—probably right away—concluded that Jesus was the coming Son of Man. So when they told stories about him later, they had him speak of himself as the Son of Man—so much so that it became one of his favorite titles for himself in the Gospels. As we have seen, the Son of Man was sometimes understood to be a divine figure. In that sense also, then, Jesus was God. It should be noted that all four of these exalted roles—Jesus as messiah, as Lord, as Son of God, as Son of Man—imply, in one sense or another, that Jesus is God. (IBID, pp. 178)

And:

When the earliest Christians talked about Jesus becoming the Son of God at his resurrection, they were saying something truly remarkable about him. He was made the heir of all that was God’s. He exchanged his status for the status possessed by the Creator and ruler of all things. He received all of God’s power and privileges. He could defy death. He could forgive sins. He could be the future judge of the earth. He could rule with divine authority. He was for all intents and purposes God. 

These various aspects of his exalted state are closely connected with the various honorific titles Christians bestowed upon Jesus in his exalted state. He was the Son of God. By no stretch of the imagination did that mean that he was “merely” the “adopted” Son of God. It entailed the most fantastic claims about Jesus that these people could imagine: as the Son of God he was the heir to all that was God’s. He was also the Son of Man, the one whom God had entrusted to be the future judge of the entire world. He was the heavenly messiah who was ruling—now—over the kingdom of his Father, the King of kings. And in that capacity as the heavenly ruler, he was the Lord, the master and sovereign over all the earth. 

We may see why someone would call this a low Christology, but it certainly is not saying anything “lowly.” This is an exaltation Christology that is affirming stunning things about the teacher from rural Galilee who was exalted to the right hand of God, who had raised him from the dead... 

It is because of this exalted status that Jesus was deemed worthy of worship. If the earliest Christians held such elevated views of Jesus as the exalted Son of God soon after his resurrection, it is probably already at this early stage that they began to show veneration to him in ways previously shown to God himself. In two important books, New Testament scholar Larry Hurtado has tried to solve the dilemma of how Jesus could be worshiped as a divine being so early in the history of the Christian religion—virtually right away—if in fact the Christians considered themselves monotheists, not ditheists (worshipers of two gods).8 Hurtado argues that both things were simultaneously true: Christians maintained there was only one God, and they worshiped Jesus as God alongside God. How was this possible? Hurtado sees Christianity as developing a binitary worship—in which Jesus was worshiped as the Lord, alongside God, without sacrificing the idea that there is only one God. In his view, Christians maintained that since God had exalted Jesus to a divine status, he had not merely permitted but even required the veneration of Jesus. Hurtado sees this as a unique development within the history of ancient religion—the worship of two divine beings within a theology that claims there is only one. In later chapters we will see how theologians eventually came to grips with this problem of how Jesus could be revered as God without sacrificing a commitment to monotheism. For now it is enough to stress that this was indeed the case: Christians insisted that they believed in only one God, and yet they revered Jesus as divine and worshiped their “Lord Jesus” along with God. (IBID, pp. 198-199)

Daniel 7: Denis Giron: More Jewish Thoughts

Thought you might find this interesting.

This text is from Pirush ayn-tet, a Yiddish commentary included in the Miqraot Gedolot volume on Daniel (note that your recent blog entry which used my image, showing multiple Jewish commentators saying the "son of man" like figure is the Messiah was from the same volume).

In this portion, the text is discussing Daniel 7:27. The second line is significant, as, when commenting on the portion of that verse which reads "malkooteh malkoot `alam" (his kingdom will be an eternal kingdom), this Yiddish commentary declares "das hershung fon Mashiach vet zain eybig hershung" (i.e. the rule of the Messiah is an eternal rule).

Now, here's the question we should ask: it's one thing to say verse 14 is referring to the Messiah, but how does one slip the Messiah into verse 27? The answer is at the very heart of what all these commentators and polemicists, who assert that the "son of man" of Daniel 7 merely represents Israel, miss about the mindset of these Jewish commentators. To get to that answer, we might also ask the question which the aforementioned commentators and polemicists wish to ask: if verse 14 (in the vision) says the "son of man" figure will possess an eternal kingdom and verses 18 and 27 (in the elucidation) state that the holy ones will inherit the kingdom eternally, isn't it obvious that this means the "son of man" (in the vision) represents the holy ones (in the elucidation)?

To reply to the latter question, first note that in Jewish thought, the Messianic age will see a time when pious Jews rule and the Messiah is above them. In other words, there will be a hierarchy of rulership or authority, with the Messiah at the top, and believers underneath him (e.g. in his court). This idea is also found in Christian thought (cf. Matthew 19:28 and Luke 22:30 which would lead some of our friends who are fans of critical scholarship to propose this is as early as the hypothetical "Q-source").

So, then, if it is possible for the Messiah and the believers underneath him to both inherit the kingdom eternally, then a statement that the servants/saints will be given the kingdom need not contradict the belief that the Messiah will possess the kingdom. This text from the Yiddish portion of Miqraot Gedolot shows the extent to wish Jewish commentators saw Daniel 7 as referring to a future in which both the Messiah and believers under him will be in authority, and this is verses like 18 or 27 never caused the various Jewish commentators to back off their claim that verse 13 is referring to the Messiah. Once this is understood, the weakness of the argument that the "son of man" is simply referring to Israel becomes apparent.