Who Are the Two Gods in Daniel 7:13-14?
Daniel 7:13-14 “I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.”
This is a particularly exciting passage of scripture. It records God, here described as the “Ancient of Days” on the throne, yet someone who looked like a human being was presented to Him. Yet, implied in the original language, this human being was not mortal. In fact, this Human was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, and that all peoples and nations and languages should serve him. I would ask, is this Human then a God on par and equal to the Ancient of Days?
The Israelites of Jesus’ time new the scripture well… in fact they knew this very passage referred to the Messiah, they also knew that the Messiah would reign forever, as is clearly expressed by the last phrase in the passage. They also knew the Messiah was God.
In John 12:27-34 there is an interesting conversation between Jesus and a crowd of Jewish followers. The Jews ended with some questions posed to Jesus. “We have heard from the Law that the Christ remains forever. How can you say that the Son of Man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of Man?”
Curiously, Jesus Himself declared He must be lifted up, and would die. Those Jews present knew what the scripture said of the Messiah, or son of man, in Daniel 7:13-14. It surely must have perplexed some… but let us look at another New Testament passage… this time in the book of Matthew. Jesus is on trial before the high priest.
Matthew 14:60-63 “And the high priest stood up in the midst and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?” But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” And the high priest tore his garments and said, “What further witnesses do we need?”
Here, recorded for us, is exactly what the high priest and Jews believed before the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. The son of man was indeed God, as Jesus Himself quoted and even ascribed Daniel 7:13 to Himself, calling Himself the Son of God. The reaction of the priest is self-explanatory.
And as the priest declared, I then ask you… “What further witnesses do we need?”
Print This Post
Filed under Apologetics, BibleStudies, Christology, CloserToGod, news
| Tags: devotion, God, Jesus, Jesus Christ, jews, salvation |
Comment (0)
An Argument for the Early Dating of the Gospels
Adapted from a podcast at pleaseconvinceme.com
For those who would claim that the Four Gospels are a reliable eyewitness testimony, there is substantial evidence to bolster the claim. The Four Gospels, and the New Testament, were indeed written soon after Jesus’ resurrection.
Since the first century, there have been movements to eradicate the deity of Jesus. It is an old art, based on unsupported claims and purported reason. In the early church, it was the Judaizers who would negate the finished work of Jesus, if possible, by applying the yoke of the law to all. There were even purported gospels by Gnostics extolling the various teachings of an imperfect god. It is in their vanity they refuse to align their minds with the mind of God, instead making god in the image of man.
Presently, the neo-atheists and neo-Gnostics are presenting the same worn claims, albeit to fresh ears. In humanity’s quest for something spiritual to fill a self-imposed void, they eagerly consume the delusion offered to them by the same ravenous wolves.
What is at stake?
Paul answers this question in 1 Corinthians 15:12-19. The resurrection is central to Christianity. If there is no resurrection than we hope in vain. One well used weapon in their arsenal is the reliability and veracity of the eyewitness testimony. The attack is relentless, as it has happened throughout church history. Most will tell you that the New Testament was penned in the late second century.
Is that true?
Let us examine the evidence.
Gospels dated earlier than A.D. 250
On 19 November 1931, Chester Beatty purchased a collection of papyri. The manuscripts were purportedly found in the city of Aphroditopolis. The eleven manuscripts in the collection consisted mostly of portions of the Old and New Testaments and are known as the Chester Beatty Papyri. The three New Testament manuscripts contained fragments of the Four Gospels and the book of Acts of the Apostles.
These fragments are dated by paleography to the first half of the third century. In other words, between A.D. 200 and A.D. 250. What is significant, is that the substantial amount of time for these works to be collected and transmitted would have had to occur before this time. Regardless, the gospels were written and accepted before A.D. 250.
Gospels dated earlier than A.D. 200
The Bodmer Papyri were discovered near Dishna, Egypt in 1952. They were found at Pabau, the ancient headquarters of the Pachomian order of monks. These 22 papyri contain segments of the Old Testament, New Testament and other Christian literature. Significantly, this collection contains the oldest written fragments from the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of John.
The Gospel of John manuscript is almost a complete copy and is dated at A.D. 200 Because the Gospel of John is widely accepted as the last gospel to be written, this would put the other gospels into circulation well before this date.
Gospels dated Earlier than A.D. 175
The Diatessaron, created by Tatian the Syrian, was a harmonization of the Four Gospels. This important work was the standard text for the Syrian church. Tatian died in A.D. 180, and the Diatessaron is generally accepted as written between A.D. 160 and A.D. 175. At this date, the gospels were accepted and in circulation before it was written.
Gospels dated earlier than A.D. 150
Early church fathers had a habit of quoting these Four Gospels. One such church father, Justin Martyr, ministered in Rome, where he founded a school. Amongst his pupils was Tatian the Syrian. Justin was an early defender of Christianity, he wrote eight apologies. Only three have been found to still exist… they are First Apology, Second Apology and Dialogue with Trypho. Justin quoted John 3:5 in Chapter 61 of his First Apology, further in chapter 63, he quotes Matthew 11:27 and Luke 10:16.
This presumes the Four Gospels were known and used in church teachings when the First Apology was penned somewhere between A.D. 147 and A.D. 161, based onto who it was addressed. However, the mention of “Felix” as governor of Egypt is believed to be a reference to Lucius Munatius Felix which further fixes the date to around A.D. 151.
Gospels dated earlier than A.D. 130
Eusebius of Caesaria was one of the first writers to chronicle the history of the early church. He quotes Papias, whom he called the Bishop of Hierapolis (modern Pamukkale, Turkey, ) among others. Most notably in volume 5 of Historia Ecclesiastica, he quotes Papias’ Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord. In the quotation Papias , himself, quoted the Gospel of Matthew, as well mentioning the Gospel of Mark. Papias died in A.D. 130.
The Rylands Papyri contains a fragment of the Gospel of John. It has been dated to about A.D. 125. This fragment, discovered in Egypt, puts the Gospel of John in use, there. Allowing for the copying and transmission of the text, we can presume that the youngest gospel, John’s, was in use before this time.
Gospels dated earlier than A.D. 120
Polycarp, a disciple of John, was Bishop of Smyrna and was martyred around A.D. 155. He wrote a letter to the Philippian church (ca. A.D. 110 – A.D. 135)in which he quotes or alludes to the Gospel s and other New Testament writings. The date of the letter cannot be fixed with certainty, Polycarp lived around 86 years, fixing a date of around A.D. 120 would put him at around 55 years old when he wrote it.
The significance of this letter is Polycarp’s reliance on the writings of the Four Gospels and other New Testament books. It is apparent that these were recognized as the word of God and perceived that way by both writer and reader, when the use of the letter is taken into account.
Gospels dated earlier than A.D. 110
Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, wrote several letters in A.D. 110. In his letters he quotes and/or alludes to the writings of Matthew. This would mean that the Gospel of Matthew would already be in circulation for it to be used this way.
Gospels dated earlier than A.D. 100
The ancient writing Didache: Teaching of the 12 Apostles, in chapter 8 quotes the Lord’s Prayer from the Gospel of Matthew. The Didache had been widely disseminated by about A.D. 100.
Gospels dated earlier than A.D. 95
Clement, Bishop of Rome, in a letter to the Corinthian congregation, quoted Matthew. The letter is dated during the reign of Domitian circa A.D. 95.
Gospels dated earlier than A.D. 70
Herod’s Temple was destroyed in A.D. 70 under Titus. This was predicted by Jesus in the Matthew 24:1-2 and Luke 19:44. There is no recording of the temple’s destruction in the Gospels. If the Gospels were dated later than this date, this would be a significant omission, considering Jesus’ Himself predicted its destruction!
Even the writer of the book of Hebrews would have included this fact to bolster the claims set forth in that book. In fact, the entire New Testament is silent on this fact, in stark contrast to those who would have you believe that Christianity was invented over a period of time.
Gospels dated earlier than A.D. 64
Luke authored his gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, yet there is no mention of the temple’s destruction, the siege of Jerusalem or the intense persecution of Nero. These would be significant and important milestones for the early church.
Early skeptics thought the titles, terminologies and customs used by Luke were primitive and thought false, until Luke’s terms were bolstered by archaeology.
Luke is likely writing Acts very early, as there is no mention of the martyrdom of James in A.D. 61, Paul in A.D. 64 or even Peter in A.D. 65. In fact, at the end of Acts, Paul is still alive! With that fact, it would be a reasonable conclusion to date the book of Acts before A.D. 64.
Luke himself, in Acts 1:1, refers to his previous work, leading one to reason that the Gospel of Luke would have to be written, circulated and well known before this book was written. Bolstering this claim, Paul quotes both Deuteronomy and Luke’s Gospel in 1 Timothy 5:17-18.
Gospels dated earlier than A.D. 60
If Mark is the earliest gospel written, it would have to precede the Gospel of Luke. This is derived from Luke 1:1-4, where Luke tells of his purpose in writing the account. He occasionally quotes the Gospel of Mark, so it would be reasonable to conclude that the Gospel of Mark was recorded before A.D. 60. This would allow time for transmission and circulation.
Gospels dated earlier than A.D. 55
There are three letter widely attested to be written by Paul. These are the epistles to the Romans, 1 Corinthians and Galatians. These were written between A.D. 48 – A.D. 60, the Epistle to the Romans, in the opinion of most scholars was probably written in A.D. 55 – A.D. 57.
In Galatians 1:18-19 Paul tells us that three years after his conversion, he went to Jerusalem to meet Peter and James. Paul returned to Syria and in Galatians 2:1, Paul tells of returning to Jerusalem to meet the apostles 14 years later. In Galatians 2:7-9 Paul describes his meeting with the apostles. The theory that this is one of Paul’s earliest epistles, would date this before A.D. 55. This same theory purports the meeting in Galatians 2: 1-10 and Acts 11:30 is the same. This theory implicates Acts 15:20 as describing the non-existent letter to the Galatians. If so, this places Acts well before the Epistle to the Galatians, and pushes the dating of the Gospels even earlier!
It is reasonable to conclude that Paul saw the risen Christ within five years of the resurrection.
Paul opens his letter to the Romans by declaring Jesus as the resurrected Son of God in Romans 1:4! This is about 17 years after the resurrection. The message is clear in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, Jesus is accepted as God incarnate, resurrected and glorified! Paul is reciting the gospel. These men are resolute and steadfast in doctrine. Attesting to the reasonable conclusion that these books were written, accepted and circulated among still living witnesses. Living witnesses who could refute the testimony.
In 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 Paul quotes almost word-for-word Luke 22:19-20. Luke was Paul’s traveling companion, and Luke borrowed from Mark… this would place the gospel of Mark’s account very early in church history.
Jose O’Callahan, a Spanish Jesuit paleographer made headlines in 1972. He announced he had a translated piece of the Gospel of Mark on a Dead Sea Scrolls fragment. The Dead Sea Scrolls are dated to between 50 B.C. and A.D. 50. Again, this places the Gospel of Mark well within 15-17 years of the resurrection of Jesus.
There is ample evidence that points to the Gospel of Mark being recorded very early in church history. Some even think that the Gospel of Mark is an early memoir of Peter. This theory also requires an early date for the Gospel of Mark. It is a reasonable conclusion when one examines the evidence put forth.
Conclusion
Jesus is no prophet evolving into mythology as the agnostic apologizers would have you believe. Instead, He is indeed the risen Christ, Messiah… Son of God. Because Jesus is the firstfruits of the resurrection, He has taken the sting from death, as Paul proclaims in 1 Corinthians 15:54-55.
But as Paul goes on to declare that the sting of death is sin through the power of the law in 1 Corinthians 15:56. We now declare from the rooftops , 1 Corinthians 15:57 “But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Print This Post
Filed under Apologetics, Christology
| Tags: Apologetics, Christianity, God, Jesus Christ, resurrection |
Comments Off
America’s Christian Heritage
Evidence gleaned from the Constitution and its authors.
Most people will take as fact almost anything they are told, if it fits their worldview. They may even denigrate things without taking the time to study them. It is pointedly visible when someone attacks the Christian Heritage of the United States… most who do show that ignorance (the word is chosen because of what it means, simply not knowing, it does not extend to the motivation of the person) have not taken the time to critically examine the evidence. They will often cite platitudes like “the separation of church and state” or no “religious test for candidates.”
First let us re-examine these two assertions.
“The separation of church and state” as a phrase, does not appear anywhere in the U.S. Constitution, it is a taken from an exchange of letters between Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists. The Baptists concern was the First Amendment, and whether the rights granted were inalienable, that is given by God to the individual, and thus strictly between God and the individual.
In fact, Jefferson himself had raised much of the same issue, in his second inaugural address given in 1805, Jefferson reiterated his stance thus, “In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general government.” To further understand Thomas Jefferson’s stance on this issue, let us look to a letter written by him to Samuel Millar in 1808 in which Jefferson wrote “I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions . . . or exercises.
For those who have never read what inalienable right is enumerated in the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution, let us examine the entire text of amendment one.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
It is plainly evident that the rights addressed are between the individual and their creator, and the government is barred from any interference whatsoever. In addition the rights that are further enumerated, free speech, free press and free assembly are specifically related to the first enumerated right, that of freedom of religion!
In our secular society, this very issue is twisted to protect the government from any religion. But in reality, this protection was to keep religion from the corrupting influence of government and power. This is patently evident when one reads the Declaration of Independence and the writings of our founding fathers. We must understanding the mindset of those escaping a monarchy coupled to the Church of England, where the sovereign was the king. There were other prevailing circumstances at the founding, including colonies having established denominations by law.
I would also posit this so-called separation is arguably Judeo-Christian in origin. In the Exodus, God established that those who would perform the duties of the tabernacle and temple are descended from Levi (Numbers 3:21-37.) Yet the kings who would rule over Israel are descended from David (1 Samuel 16:1-23.) David descended from the tribe of Judah. Is this not a separation of those who perform holy duties from those doing secular duties in the nation of Israel?
The prohibition of a religious test for candidates I would claim, is also grounded in a decidedly Christian ethic of freedom of conscience! That is, the sovereignty of the individual and his personal choices in his relationship to God. These religious requirements were already established in variously state constitutions creating an inequity. This religious requirement was seen as a denial of individual civil and religious freedoms.
God is quite clear on conscience, in Romans 14:5-12. Paul reiterates the individual’s responsibility to God in verse 12, “So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.” Our founding fathers understood this precept quite clearly. If the individual gives account before God, government is not the mediator of the things of God. Again, this is made quite clear in 1 Timothy 2:4-6, specifically, “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”
These two issues are tied together intricately, and have undeniable foundations in Judeo-Christian thought. In the last 100 years or so, there is a concerted effort to eviscerate this individual right. It is clearly a right retained by the individual, it is not a right granted to the government, nor would it restrict religion, or its free exercise.
Having dealt with these two objections to the Christian Heritage of the United States, I would like to offer one other startling find in the Constitution!. It is true, that some may still assert there is no specific proof of a Christian heritage in the original Constitution and Bill of Rights. I would have to disagree. There is a glaring inference to the Christian convictions of those who ratified it. It is found in Article I Section 7 in the second paragraph.
“Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.”
Did you find it?
It is even set aside in parentheses for you! ” If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law,” (emphasis mine.)
There are many question this raises in any thinking person’s mind. However, it is undeniable that Sunday was set aside as a special day. If the heritage of this country is not specifically Christian, why is Sunday excepted, and not Friday, Saturday, or Wednesday?
Furthermore, there is another curious assent to none other than Jesus Christ! The document is dated, with the phrase “in the year of our Lord!” I ask, what Lord are WE honoring, other than Jesus Christ?
In conclusion, I have not made exhaustive research, but only scratched the surface. The foundations of this great nation are undeniably Christian. The heritage of our founding fathers, in their own character, words and deeds undeniably lay the foundations for this truth. 52 of the 55 of those signatories to the Declaration of Independence were deeply committed Christians, the other three believed the Bible to be Divine truth, and that the God of that Bible personally intervenes in the affairs of men.
These same men formed the first Continental Congress. Among the first actions of that congress were to create the American Bible Society and offer public funding to import 20,000 copies of the Bible! What has been taught in public schools is correct, however it is only a small portion of history, purposely presented to make a case for a secular nation.
Make no mistake… there is a war being fought for the hearts and minds (and consequently, souls) of humanity. The main weapon being used is delusion… one needs to exercise discernment to know the truth.
If you still are not convinced… I will leave you with the following. It is the text of a proposal Benjamin Franklin made to the Constitution Convention of 1787 on June 28.
“Mr. President. The small progress we have made after four or five weeks close attendance, continual reasonings with each other, and our different sentiments on almost every question — several of the last producing as many Noes as Ayes – is, methinks, a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the human understanding.
We, indeed, seem to feel our own want of political wisdom, since we have been running all about in search of it.
We have gone back to ancient history for models of government, and examined the different forms of those republics, which — having been originally formed with the seeds of their own dissolution — now no longer exist.
And we have viewed modern states all round Europe but find none of their constitutions suitable to our circumstances.
In this situation of this assembly — groping as it were, in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us — how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of Lights to illuminate our understanding.
In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for ‘Divine Protection.’
Our prayers, Sir, were heard and graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending Providence in our favor.
To that kind Providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity.
And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need its Assistance?
I have lived, Sir, a long time. The longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth – that God governs in the affairs of men!
And if a sparrow cannot fail to the ground without His notice, is it probable than an empire cannot rise without his aid?
We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that: ‘Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.’ I firmly believe this.
I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel.
We shall be divided by our little, partial, local interests. Our projects will be confounded and we ourselves shall become a reproach and a byword down to future ages.
What is worse, Mankind may hereafter, from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing government by human Wisdom and leave it to Chance, War and Conquest.
I therefore beg leave to move that: “Henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven — and its blessing on our deliberations — be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business; and that one or more of the Clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.”
Print This Post
Filed under Apologetics, News&Views, government, history, views
| Tags: Constitution, God, government, heritage, Jesus Christ, the lie |
Comments Off
Check out Apologetics.com – Some Observations on the Nation of Islam
Some Observations on the Nation of Islam
Print This Post
Filed under Apologetics, news
|
Comments Off
Excellent tool for Answering Common Errors
Here you find a list of misconceptions, misunderstandings, and outright errors that are commonly hurled at Christians.
Interesting reading, as always, from Defending. Contending.
Answering Common Errors « Defending. Contending.
Print This Post
Filed under Apologetics, reference
| Tags: Apologetics, Christianity, error |
Comments Off
Are Earth’s Oceans Made Of Extraterrestrial Material?
Really… they call this science?
Where is the observable evidence?
Who was THERE to observe it?
There are sincere people who believe this to be science and are utterly ignorant of the simple fact that this falls into the realm of philosophy. It is a faith, proven by theory only. This is the evidence they have to offer, there is no eyewitness evidence.
My heart cries out for these caught up in this lie… you are the god of you own life. Today’s modern science is based on the assumption that all things continue as they have been over millennia and are the same as they were then.
What I am not saying is that I throw out all science. We live better lives thanks to science, but there are fields of “science” which depend on philosophy to prop up their beliefs in the origin of our universe and life within it.
At a time when the habitability of extraterrestrial planets is beginning to be explored seriously, understanding what made earth the only place that harbors life is a key question.
I love that last line. There is blindness that makes some willfully intolerant to anything that may suggest a Creator. Most scientist will exclude this outcome before the evidence is in, how does that effect the end of their experiments?
The bottom line is there is a creator, and all ARE accountable to Him for their own sin. It is quite okay to teach everyone that man is descended from rocks…
But saying that God formed the universe and the Earth is considered lunacy. If they can destroy that one foundation, then the rest cannot be true.
But it is…
God created man from the dust of the ground and breathed life in him. That same man willfully disobeyed God, and that God lovingly sent His Son to become a man, live among them and die at their hands, taking their penalty of death upon Himself. This Son, who did no wrong, and the penalty of death, imposed upon all men, could not hold Him and He was raised ALIVE and now sits at God’s right hand. This same God Who bids all to come to Him in repentance to receive a new life… this is the only way!
Are Earth’s Oceans Made Of Extraterrestrial Material?
Print This Post
Filed under Apologetics, Science, news, views
|
Comments Off
Dr. William Lane Craig speaks at Saddleback Church in California on "How Did the Universe Begin?"
A simple introduction to apologetics on the origin of the universe. This is presented to a layman’s level… easily understood.
Print This Post
Filed under Apologetics
| Tags: Apologetics |
Comments Off
