The Collapse of a Christian Pillar

[Angelo_Michael]

A servant shouldn’t expect to have a place of honor above that of the Son. If, in honoring the Son, that servant is honored as well; it does well. But, if the servant says to the Son, “I am greater than You, You deserve to die.”, what should the Father do to that servant? Should He not fear for His Son’s life and eliminate the threat if at all possible?

Nevertheless, God has not been this way with us, and neither has Christ. Christ willingly subjected Himself to the death that would bring us life. God did not withhold His Son from those who would kill Him. Neither do Christ or God [necessarily] withhold forgiveness from those who reject Him. But rather, those who are rejecting Christ are withholding forgiveness from themselves.

Is it fair to Moses, or any of the other prophets that were before Christ, that people should cling to their work as a justification for rejecting Christ? Is it respectful? Is it respectful to Abel for someone to consider the death of Christ a victory over Him?

Let us suppose that the Father said to a servant, “Let me put you before my Son, that you may be before Him.” Would the servant be right to accept? Would the servant not be despised by the Son? Wouldn’t the Father only do this to dissolve the relationship between the Son and the servant and/or to test the servant? For the life of the Father is caught up in His Son, and without the Son the servant would have no life. Surely, a servant should answer that the Son should be before them and that in all things wherein the Son is honored so is the Father, and vice versa. So, in putting the servant before the Son, it would not benefit the servant; for the servant has life only as long as the Son has life to give him, and the Father must supply that life to Him.

And the Father will recognize the servant that has humbled themself before the Son. Also, that servant could then be trusted with the other servants as well; and in that servant are the Father and Son glorified before those other servants.

 

[Kamalayka]

Ben Masada, Consider this:​

the Apostles were brought before some Jewish leaders in the following passage from the Book of Acts. After talking with them, this happened:

"But a Pharisee in the council named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, held in honor by all the people, stood up and ordered the men to be put outside for a while. And he said to them, *"Men of Israel, take care what you do with these men. For before these days Theudas arose, giving himself out to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him; but he was slain and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. After him Judas the Galilean arose in the days of the census and drew away some of the people after him; he also perished, and all who followed him were scattered.
*
–NOW HERE IS THE KEY PART TO CONSIDER–

So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone;for if this plan or this undertaking is of men, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!"

Now you have to ask yourself,

How could Christianity, if it isn’t from God, continue for 2,000 years? If it is a lie, as you claim, then why would God allow it to happen in His Name?​

And on a side note,* how long* has it been since God sent a Prophet to the Jewish people?

**2,500 **years now?

At least for us Christians, the longer the better, so that we are able to preach the Good News to as many as possible.

 

[Kamalayka]

What about this:

Isaiah 50:6
I offered my back to those who beat me, my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard;
I did not hide my face
from mocking and spitting.

Isaiah 52:13
See, my servant will act wisely; he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted. Just as there were many who were appalled at him - his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness- so will he sprinkle many nations, and kings will shut their mouths because of him.
For what they were not told, they will see, and what they have not heard, they will understand.

Isaiah 53
Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted.But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.
We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants?
For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken.
He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.
Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand. After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities. Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Zechariah 12:10-14
And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication.
They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.
On that day the weeping in Jerusalem will be
great, like the weeping of Hadad Rimmon in the plain of Megiddo. The land will mourn, each clan by itself, with their wives by themselves: the clan of the house of David and their wives, the clan of the house of Nathan and their wives, the clan of the house of Levi and their wives, the clan of Shimei and their wives, and all the rest of the clans and their wives.
**
Zechariah 13:6**
If someone asks him, ‘What are these wounds between your hands?’ he will answer,
‘The wounds I was given at the house of my friends.’

Psalm 22
I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint. My heart has turned to wax; it has melted away within me. My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth; you lay me in the dust of death. Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet. **I can count all my bones; people stare and gloat over me. They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing. **​

When Christ first came, it was to as a Servant. When He returns, He will be “King of kings and Lord of lords,” and as the Judge of the world.

 

[Angelo_Michael]

There was once a person who had been convicted of crime they did not commit and also they were given the death penalty for that crime. All the time they spent on “death row” they spent working on appeals and maintaining their innocence. Yet, every appeal was rejected, and that person soon began to understand that they would soon die. They made peace with the situation and did not hold a grudge against God.
Then, one day a visitor came to meet them and only had mean things to say. The visitor had heard of all the bad things the prisoner had done and – even though the crime didn’t involve them, their friends, or their family in any way – the visitor felt obliged to tell the prisoner how glad they would be when that prisoner finally got killed. Soon there was always someone taunting that prisoner and telling them how much they deserved to die. But that prisoner never blamed God for any of it, neither did they try to say so much as a word to their tormentors. As time passed the cell soon became empty and another criminal followed after, and another after that; yet, the tormentors did not visit the cell anymore.

So it is that when people kill one another that they inevitably move on – no matter how much joy they found in the act – seeing that there is nothing left more to do. But, in Christ there is justice and eternity. Also, in Christ there is no corruption so as to bring an end to the eternity. And, the same eternity that for one is a blessing, to another becomes a curse.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben, it isn’t the lack of reading that’s contributed to the gap. With all due respect, the Church teaches that Jews “got it wrong” when it comes to interpreting prophecies about the Messiah. We truly think you’re waiting for someone who’s not coming. Encouraging us to take a “Jewish” look at Scripture is not going to lead anywhere.

**SonofMonica, now let me tell you that you are totally mistaken. How? You are talking with a Jew who is not waiting for someone who is not coming. That’s for Christians. I have come with the one who was supposed to arrive.

Have you ever read Isaiah 53? It’s about the Suffering Servant, which according to consensus, is the Messiah. Mind you that Isaiah identifies that Servant with Israel by name, so that you won’t have to assume that he could have been a single individual. Read Isaiah 41:8,9; 44:1,2,21; 45:4.

As you can see, if I tell you that the Messiah is Collective Israel, I show you the evidence by providing the name. Now, for you to tell me that he was Jesus, all you have are assumptions, which are no evidences worthy the time of one’s life.

When your Church claims that we got it wrong when interpreting prophecies, ask whoever tells you so to produce evidences, because Logic dictates that between Jews and Christians as Jewish prophecies are concern, the credibility is found among the Jews.**

 

[Ben_Masada]

You want the truth?

YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

I assume you’ve seen the movie “A Few Good Men”.

Try me! That’s the only way to be sure. Perhaps you don’t even know what the Truth is. In case I am right, let me know. I might have a thing or two to share with you.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben,

You know what is an interesting (and a little discouraging) sidenote to your argument(s)?.. I have read a similar argument about the book of Jonah (also fundamental to Christ’s message) – only in a Catholic Youth Bible. It was basically saying that the account in Jonah never happened and that it was just a story to demonstrate how God cares for other people than the Hebrews. So, when I was addressing you at your other thread here, “A Challenge to Our Intelligence” wherein you refuted the resurrection claims of the N.T., I couldn’t help but consider that there is a bit of a double standard for you because you are Jewish. Although I generally disagree with you on your conclusions, I still gain something from your insight. I appreciate your comments and your honesty about your faith.

**You say that “The book of Jonah is fundamental to Christ’s message.” I rather believe that’s detrimental. Why? Because the mention of Jonah was a blunder of the gospel writer, which only complicated the account of the resurrection. It made the resurrection much more difficult to be believed. Three days and three nights can never be found to prove Jesus in the tomb.(Mat. 12:40)

As a matter of fact, the book of Jonah is an allegory. It never happened in reality. It was written indeed to demonstrate that God cares for all Mankind, and not only for the Jewish People. In a word, it happened during a vision of the Prophet.**

 

[Ben_Masada]

Most Christian scholars take for granted that the Book of Daniel:​

• is pseudonymous
• is not prophetic
• is probably to be assigned, in whole or in part to the period of the oppression uncer Antiochus IV Epiphanes in the 160s BCE
• is referring to the High Priest Onias in chapter 9 verses 24-27 (the passage about the 70 weeks of years - with which compare Jeremiah’s 70 years; a strong indication that “Daniel” was not a contemporary of Jeremiah)
• is apocalyptic, at least in chapters 7-12
• is not referring to Jesus of Nazareth in that passage, or any other
• is not an account of actual events in the life of an individual named Daniel or of his three colleagues named in the book
• is not predicting Jesus of Nazareth in the so-called “son of man” passage in chapter
• contains historical inaccuracies, of which the “Darius the Mede” passage at the end of chapter 5 is only one

As is the way in the discussion of books of which the history is not well-known, there is a variety of positions in critical scholarship; some see Ezekiel 14.14 & 20 as evidence for the historical existence of a Daniel in Exilic Babylon (if for nothing else in the book); others see these verses as referring to the Ugaritic hero Danel. The value of these references is in turn dependent to some degree on whether those passages, if they refer to a Jewish Daniel (in Babylon or not), are Exilic references to an Exilic Daniel. Which leads to the question of the unity of the Book of Ezekiel.

Some of the objections made a century and more ago have long been admitted to be unjustified: the discovery of the “Cyrus Cylinder” in 1882 helps to explain why Daniel is in chapter 5 made third in the kingdom: the answer is that Belshazzar was second, his father Nabu-na’id (“Nabonidus”) being first. The difficulty that Nabu-na’id was not descended from Nebuchadnezzar but is called his son in the book is interpreted functionally: both were kings, and one succeeded the other, though with three others in between.

That there is much Babylonian colour in the book is not an issue - this is not quite the same as saying the book is reliable as a narrative of events. The madness of Nebuchadnezzar is generally associated with the prolonged absence from Babylon of Nabu-na’id.

And so on and so forth… None of these issues is a problem for the inspiration or canonicity of the book among Christians; it can be seen as very seriously affected by the critical re-evaluation of the book; but need not be. Some [kinds of ?] Christian Fundamentalist will be upset by what you say - but need not be. The Skeptics’ Annoted Bible site, Muslim apologists, & (it seems) yourself all seem to equate Christianity with Fundamentalist Christianity; which makes the objections from each about as convincing as Christian arguments for Christianity based on - well, Daniel 7.10-13 or 9.24-27. Which is a pity.

Two reasons for Christian sensitivity about the Book of Daniel are:

• the denial in the 3rd century CE by Porphyry that the book was prophetic or by the person whose name it bears: his work, which is mostly lost, brought forth a rejoinder by Jerome
• the importance of the “argument from prophecy” as one of the “evidences” for Christianity. This was an issue in controversy with the Deists in 18th-century England.

So, what you say is what a lot of people take for granted

**Very impressive post this of yours. It has made me feel accomplished to have brought this thread to light. Now, the importance of the argument from prophecy as one of the evidences for Christianity, I see it in the light of the expertise the author of Daniel had in dealing with the prophetic method. He used the prophecies of Jeremiah, especially with regards to the 70 week/years of the Babylonian exile and composed the whole book, albeit from past facts, but within the prophetic jargon. Had he written the book of Daniel before or during exile, he could have achieved a place among the other Prophets. But it did not matter how the author could handle the prophetic method, he wrote it as History, and as History it was classified.

Regarding Daniel, the theme-hero in the book, I do believe he was real, and that he was taken to Babylon with Ezekiel in the very first contingent about ten years prior to the destruction of the Temple by the Babylonians, when most the people were taken away, except for common people made out of villagers and workers of the land. **

 

[Ben_Masada]

It is hard to add to what Gottle wrote but I can add a little personal experience. As a few people know, one of my degrees is from a very large seminary (distance learning); with a very famous founder. In my OT class, at least a 1/3 of the class, based upon discussion board posts, would absolutely agree with the position that Gottle described. Remember, this is one of the more conservative seminaries in the country. I can only imagine at most of the mainline seminaries, the percentage would be well over 90%.
You might get a few takers to defend Daniel as a prophetic work…but not many.
It is certainly not a pillar. While I enjoy your posts Ben, you have overstated your point in calling Daniel a pillar. I am not sure it is even a pebble.

Oh no BrianH, I don’t mean the book of Daniel itself as being the pillar, but the frame of the 70 week/years of Daniel 9:24-27 which Christians, especially Protestants use as their trump card to clean up the table, so to speak, the last word to prove that it points to Jesus as the Messiah. They can’t take that the author of Daniel was using the prophetic method, albeit writing about past facts. Therefore, History and not Prophecy. Then, consider the time. The man (or woman) wrote that book in the last Century BCE about events hundreds of years in the past.

 

[Ben_Masada]

With all due respect: so what? There are so many prophecies of Christ in scripture, that saying that perhaps one of them was misunderstood is not very damaging to the arsenal.

However, I do think the TC is mistaken. The Jews in the 4th century B.C. used the Book of Daniel to convince Alexander the Great that he was a prophecized liberator. Obviously this wouldn’t be possible if it hadn’t been composed yet.

I would like to answer this post of yours, but I need a quotation in any book of the Tanakh to substantiate the claim that the Jews used the book of Daniel to convince Alexander the Great that he was a prophecized liberator. Thank you.

 

[Ben_Masada]

There was once a person who had been convicted of crime they did not commit and also they were given the death penalty for that crime. All the time they spent on “death row” they spent working on appeals and maintaining their innocence. Yet, every appeal was rejected, and that person soon began to understand that they would soon die. They made peace with the situation and did not hold a grudge against God.
Then, one day a visitor came to meet them and only had mean things to say. The visitor had heard of all the bad things the prisoner had done and – even though the crime didn’t involve them, their friends, or their family in any way – the visitor felt obliged to tell the prisoner how glad they would be when that prisoner finally got killed. Soon there was always someone taunting that prisoner and telling them how much they deserved to die. But that prisoner never blamed God for any of it, neither did they try to say so much as a word to their tormentors. As time passed the cell soon became empty and another criminal followed after, and another after that; yet, the tormentors did not visit the cell anymore.

So it is that when people kill one another that they inevitably move on – no matter how much joy they found in the act – seeing that there is nothing left more to do. But, in Christ there is justice and eternity. Also, in Christ there is no corruption so as to bring an end to the eternity. And, the same eternity that for one is a blessing, to another becomes a curse.

Eternity belongs with God only. Anyone else who has been born, will eventually die, and there is no exception to this rule.

 

[EphelDuath]

I would like to answer this post of yours, but I need a quotation in any book of the Tanakh to substantiate the claim that the Jews used the book of Daniel to convince Alexander the Great that he was a prophecized liberator. Thank you.

I do not have one, but it is recorded in secular history.

The only historical event connecting Alexander the Great with the Jews is his visit to Jerusalem, which is recorded by Josephus in a somewhat fantastic manner… Alexander then gave the high priest his right hand, and went into the Temple and “offered sacrifice to God according to the high priest’s direction,” treating the whole priesthood magnificently. "And when the Book of Daniel was shown him [see Dan. vii. 6, viii. 5-8, 20-22, xi. 3-4], wherein Daniel declared that one of the Greeks should destroy the empire of the Persians, he supposed that he was the person intended, and rejoiced thereat. The following day Alexander asked the people what favors he should grant them; and, at the high priest’s request, he accorded them the right to livein full enjoyment of the laws of their forefathers…

Source

 

[Ben_Masada]

so sayeth the Babeler…

1 John 2:22
Who is a liar
but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ
he is antichrist

It’s a pity that you didn’t read verses 18 and 19. You would know where the antichrists are coming from: The ranks of the Church itself. Go back there and read it.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben Masada, Consider this:​

the Apostles were brought before some Jewish leaders in the following passage from the Book of Acts. After talking with them, this happened:

"But a Pharisee in the council named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, held in honor by all the people, stood up and ordered the men to be put outside for a while. And he said to them, "Men of Israel, take care what you do with these men. For before these days Theudas arose, giving himself out to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him; but he was slain and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. After him Judas the Galilean arose in the days of the census and drew away some of the people after him; he also perished, and all who followed him were scattered.

–NOW HERE IS THE KEY PART TO CONSIDER–

So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone;for if this plan or this undertaking is of men, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!"

 

[Ben_Masada]

What about this:

Isaiah 50:6 - I offered my back to those who beat me, my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard; I did not hide my face from mocking and spitting.

 

[Ben_Masada]

I do not have one, but it is recorded in secular history.

**I figured. Thank you anyway.

Obviously, when Alexander granted the High Priest’s request by promising him the full rights to enjoy the observance of God’s Laws in peace, his main Generals who would divide the Empire among themselves were there and did not honor Alexander’s word.**

 

[EphelDuath]

Obviously, when Alexander granted the High Priest’s request by promising him the full rights to enjoy the observance of God’s Laws in peace, his main Generals who would divide the Empire among themselves were there and did not honor Alexander’s word.

This is true, but I don’t see what the relevance of this statement is. I am only demonstrating that according to Jewish historians, the Book of Daniel far pre-dates the authorship you assign to it.

 

[w_stewart]

Quote:
Isaiah 50:6 - I offered my back to those who beat me, my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard; I did not hide my face from mocking and spitting.
Ben Masada:

And how did the Romans treat the other thousands of Jews that they crucified? I hope you are not trying to tell me that Jesus was the only Jew crucified by the Romans. Read Josephus. The Romans crucified several thousands of Jews, and the method was no different from a Jew to the next.

So who among the Jews crucified by the Romans was Isaiah referring to in 50:6?

A criminal?

Quote:
Isaiah 52:13 - See, my servant will act wisely; he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted.

It is a consensus that the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is the Messiah. Well, mind you that Isaiah identifies that Servant with Israel by name if you read Isaiah 41:8,9; 44:1,2,21; 45:4. So, you don’t have to assume that he was Jesus. The Prophet has made it clear.

Was Jacob slaughtered?

 

[Ben_Masada]

This is true, but I don’t see what the relevance of this statement is. I am only demonstrating that according to Jewish historians, the Book of Daniel far pre-dates the authorship you assign to it.

It just happens that I have with me the New American Bible, Saint Joseph’s Edition, translated by Catholic Scholars, members of the catholic Biblical Association of America, sponsored by the Bishops’ Committee of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, and carrying the Pope’s Imprimatur. Pope Paulus PP. VI. They wrote a preface to every book of the Bible. And on the one to the book of Daniel, they assert that the book was composed during the years of 167 to 164 BCE at the heat of Antiochus IV persecutions of the Jews. Therefore, since Alexander met the High Priest in the year 332 BCE, there is no chance that the High Priest made any reference to the book of Daniel in his conversation with Alexander.

 

[EphelDuath]

It just happens that I have with me the New American Bible, Saint Joseph’s Edition, translated by Catholic Scholars, members of the catholic Biblical Association of America, sponsored by the Bishops’ Committee of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, and carrying the Pope’s Imprimatur. Pope Paulus PP. VI. They wrote a preface to every book of the Bible. And on the one to the book of Daniel, they assert that the book was composed during the years of 167 to 164 BCE at the heat of Antiochus IV persecutions of the Jews. Therefore, since Alexander met the High Priest in the year 332 BCE, there is no chance that the High Priest made any reference to the book of Daniel in his conversation with Alexander.

It also contains in the footnotes absurdities like “Matthew misunderstood a prophecy” or “this prophecy was obviously written afterthefact,” etc. The NAB does not reflect the orthodox opinion of the Catholic Church nor contemporary Biblical scholarship.