Paul Williams offers overwhelming exegesis: "The Son of Man is Israel"

Having already demonstrated the Son of Man is not Israel:

Radical Moderates provides more incredibly Jewish insight for PW. 

Renowned Jewish Biblical Commentator Rashi has this to say on vs 13:

And on vs 27:

(source)

What does PW make of the Jewish Scholar Rashi?

Just Forget em...

A fellow contribution is made courtesy of brother Denis Giron:

And again from Mr. Giron:

"Denis Giron
April 11, 2014 • 10:05 pm 

If I may chyme in, I understand how some look at verses 14 and 27 and conclude the “son of man” like figure represents the holy ones of verse 27. However, I wish to propose that the million servants of verse 10 actually represent the holy ones of verse 27. Consider the following: 

(1) Verse 10 states that, after the appearance of those believing servants, the court sat down to give judgement (דינא יתב). The exact same phrase (דינא יתב) appears in verse 26. 

(2) After the forming of the court, in verse 10, the authority of the beasts is seized (העדיו שלטנהון). Essentially the same phrase is used in verse 26 to describe the saints seizing the authority of the other beast (שלטנה יהעדון with the chief difference being the tense of the verse). 

(3) In verse 11, after the servants form their court, the last beast is destroyed (הובד). The same verbal root is employed in verse 26 that after the holy ones form their court the last beast is going to be destroyed (להובדה). 

(4) All of the above, as per verses 10 and 11, happens before the son of man like figure is introduced (e.g. the holy ones destroy the beast as per verse 26, and the beast is destroyed in the time of the ministering servants before the son of man like figure appears as per verse 11).
Ergo, I would sum up the following, thusly: 

(5) When we read verses 10/11, we see that the court/judgement is established BEFORE the Son of Man appears. We also see that the fourth beast is destroyed BEFORE the Son of Man appears. 

(6) In verse 26, the court/judgement is established by the holy ones, and the holy ones are the ones who destroy the beast. 

(7) Ergo, the holy ones are not the Son of Man like figure, as their actions precede his arrival. Their actions coincide with the actions carried out in the time of the ministering servants in verse 10. Thus the best conclusion is that the holy ones are those ministering servants (i.e. the ministering servants of the vision represent the holy ones). 

Now, I understand, this leaves open the question of verses 18 and 27 saying the holy ones will possess/receive the kingdom, forever. I would propose that there is no contradiction between the Messiah and the holy ones (i.e. saints, servants of God) possessing the eternal kingdom, thus this need not contradict the various Jewish commentators who said the “son of man” like figure is the Messiah."

So lets calculate here shall we?

The consensus of Jewish and non-Jewish Scholarship is that the earliest interpretation on record of Daniel 7:13-14 is not Israel, but the Messiah, the divine Son of Man. The Talmud agrees. Rashi agrees. PW's favorite scholar agrees. A Mathematician may at this point would be sold QED.

After hearing all this evidence and reading Mr Giron's contextual exegesis just what is PW thinking? Surely a rebuttal is in order! 

Well thank God, PW finally came to his senses...

But just when you think all is well with the world

Paul Williams offers overwhelming exegesis: