Well once again it falls under interpretation doesn’t it? All that college glitter is paying off isn’t it mate. Since you’re fixated with the works of Daniel Boyarin as an unconditional authority and rendition of the 1 century Jew? Then you should also read and study the works of Stephen R. Miller, and Gleason Archer. Don’t make it complicated to the layman.
It is also the perception of some Jewish people in history not to have viewed Daniel as a commissioned prophet based on Ben Sira’s Testimony.
There will always be someone to think they have figured out the true nature of biblical text, but as stated you don’t need a classroom to understand the bible. You make it sound as if Boyarin is the first to place this argument before the people, he isn’t. The book of Daniel has been argued for a long time and the assertions of how many authors there were in writing the book. The two most examples are:
Robert I Bradshaw
The date of the book of Daniel is one of the most hotly contested themes in OT scholarship. Two main views prevail: a) that the book was written in the second Century BC in Judea in order to encourage the people of Israel undergoing persecution by the Seleucids under Antiochus IV Epiphanies’. Writing after the event the writer cast his work as a prediction of the future and urged his fellow Jews to remain faithful to their God. b) That it was written in the 6th Century BC in Babylon by a Jewish exile named Daniel who served in the royal court and accurately predicted events that were not fulfilled until the Second Century.
Catholic Encyclopedia
The Book of Daniel, as it now stands in the ordinary Hebrew Bibles, is generally divided into two main parts. The first includes a series of narratives which are told in the third person (chaps. i-vi), and the second, a series of visions which are described in the first person (chaps. vii-xii). The opening chapter of the first series may be considered as a preface to the whole work.
If you wish to embrace Judeo-Christian ideology that’s fine, but call it for what it is, don’t make long speeches so people think you’re smart, because it’s also possible you didn’t comprehend the message Boyarin was attempting to establish, since it has nothing to do with trinitarianism that you used as filler for your argument.
So then, they only thing you have managed to do with this, is confuse ideals by pitting who were the Israelites, Jews, and Christians and at what point they separated to draw different points of views. Now that wasn’t so hard was it?
So, the question should be what role does the Jewish State of Israel play now that Jesus included all to be part of everlasting life.
Trinitarian or Unitarian
For hundreds of years most Christians have proclaimed to the world that Jesus Christ is “God.” They have told us that God exists co-equally in three persons. They say the Father, Son and Holy Spirit all exist in “one God.” Many even say that those who don’t believe that Jesus is God are not saved.
The Bible says that “if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Rom. 10:9).
For many non-Christians, the idea of a 3-in-1 God is very confusing and unbiblical. Take, for example, Jews and Muslims. Both are monotheistic, which means they believe in “one” God. Most of them won’t even consider believing in a God that exists in “three persons,” because they reason that 1 + 1 + 1 does not equal one God.
Millions of Jews and Muslims have completely denied Jesus as their Lord, because of the teaching that he is God, and they simply cannot accept a Triune God.
So the concern is…
How many more people would accept Jesus Christ as their Lord (and be saved) if he were not presented to them as the “second member of the Trinity”?
Possibly millions? Surely this doctrine has confused and turned away a countless number of people since it was created more than 1,500 years ago. How sad to think that the idea of the Trinity has caused many to reject or even walk away from our Lord.
What honors Jesus more?
1. That he was God in human flesh – a “Godman,” who didn’t truly have free will, who couldn’t have sinned; “God the Son,” who always did the will of God the Father and always did what was right; “God the Son,” who died (How could God die?) for the sins of all mankind; “God the Son” come down from Heaven clothed in human flesh.
Or…
2. That Jesus was a flesh and blood human being who had free will, who could have sinned, but chose not to; the Son of God who laid down his life for his brothers and sisters; a man who could have disobeyed God’s plan for him, but who loved us so much that he chose to do God’s will and save us all; a man, who because of his accomplishments, was promoted to the right hand of God, made Lord over Heaven and Earth, and is now “functionally equal” with his God and Father.
For a human being with free will to never sin is the greatest accomplishment of all time. The idea that he is God greatly diminishes the magnitude of his heroism on our behalf.
Is Jesus God? Some say this argument is like “splitting hairs,” no big deal. But we say it’s one of the biggest attacks the Enemy has ever thrown at God’s people.
John 17:3
Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus
Christ, whom you have sent.
If we were the Enemy, and knowing God and Jesus Christ were the way to eternal life, we wouldn’t want people to know them. We would try to paint a different picture of God and a different picture of Jesus than what the Bible actually says. It is our belief that the primary attack of the Enemy has been an assault on the Word of God that began the moment it left the inspired hands that wrote it.
What a glorious opportunity we have right now to learn and proclaim the simple and liberating truth that “Jesus is Lord,” and that he will mentor each of us in the art of trusting our heavenly Father like he did.