The Prophecy of Daniel: Constantine the Great and Muhammad the Prophet

Constantine the Great, also known as Constantine I, was a Roman Emperor who ruled from 306 to 337 AD. He was the first Roman emperor to convert to Christianity and played a significant role in the spread of Christianity throughout the Roman Empire. Constantine is also known for the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, which granted religious tolerance to Christians, ending the persecution they had faced. He is often credited with paving the way for Christianity to become the dominant religion in the Roman Empire.

Some believe that Daniel 7, verse 25 alludes to Constantine the Great, who presided over the council of Nicaea, while Daniel 7, verse 13, points to Muhammad’s Night Journey. How is this argument explained?

This is a very controversial argument that is not widely accepted by most biblical scholars and Christians, who believe that Daniel 7, verse 25, and Daniel 7, verse 13, refer to the Antichrist and the Messiah, respectively. However, some people who support this argument explain it in the following way:
They claim that Constantine the Great, who was the first Roman emperor to convert to Christianity and who convened the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, was the little horn of Daniel 7, verse 25, who spoke pompous words against the Most High and tried to change the times and the laws.

They argue that Constantine corrupted the original teachings of Jesus and imposed his own doctrines and creeds on the Christian church, such as the doctrine of the Trinity, the observance of Sunday instead of Saturday as the Sabbath, and the celebration of Easter instead of Passover.

They also accuse Constantine of persecuting and oppressing those who did not conform to his version of Christianity, such as the followers of Arianism, who denied the divinity of Jesus.
Arianism sparked significant debates within the Church, particularly during the early Ecumenical Councils. The First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD condemned Arianism, affirming the doctrine of the Trinity and the full divinity of Christ. The Nicene Creed established the belief that the Son is "begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father."

Islamic scholars claim that Muhammad, who was the prophet of Islam and who claimed to have a miraculous Night Journey from Mecca to Jerusalem and then to heaven in 621 AD, was the Son of Man of Daniel 7, verse 13, who came with the clouds of heaven and was given dominion, glory, and a kingdom by the Ancient of Days, that is God.

The term "night visions" directly suggests an event that takes place at night. Muhammad's Night Journey, which is said to have occurred during the night, aligns with this description. In contrast, Jesus' ascension is generally not described as happening at night in Christian texts.

They argue that Muhammad was a true prophet of God who restored the pure monotheism that was lost by Constantine and his followers. They also assert that Muhammad's kingdom is an everlasting kingdom that will never be destroyed, and that all nations and peoples of every language will serve him or submit to his law.
In summary, these are a few points made by Islamic scholars to back the notion that Daniel 7, verse 25, and 7, verse 13, refer to Constantine as the little horn who established the Trinity at the Council of Nicea, and Muhammad as the Son of Man who encountered God on his Night Journey to the seventh heaven.

Interpreting Daniel's Fifth Kingdom: A Case for Islam

Some believe that the fifth kingdom mentioned in the book of Daniel, which is the Kingdom of God, is actually referring to Islam. This interpretation is based on the fact that Islam emerged after the Byzantine Empire, also known as the Eastern Roman Empire, which is considered to be the fourth beast in Daniel 7 and the fourth kingdom in Daniel 2. How is this interpretation presented?

This interpretation suggests that the fifth kingdom mentioned in the book of Daniel, known as the Kingdom of God, is referring to Islam. The reasoning behind this interpretation lies in the historical context and sequence of events described in Daniel's prophecies.

The four beasts in the book of Daniel represent different kingdoms or empires. The lion with eagle's wings represents Babylon, the bear represents the Medo-Persian Empire, the leopard with four wings and four heads represents the Greek Empire under Alexander the Great, and the fourth beast represents the Roman Empire. These beasts symbolize the succession of powerful empires throughout history.

According to this view, the fourth beast mentioned in Daniel 7 and the fourth kingdom described in Daniel 2 represent the Byzantine Empire or Eastern Roman Empire. This empire was a significant power during Daniel's time and eventually fell to Islamic conquests.

The proponents of this interpretation argue that since Islam emerged after the Byzantine Empire or Eastern Roman Empire, it can be seen as a continuation or successor to it. They believe that Islam fulfilled some of the characteristics attributed to the fifth kingdom mentioned by Daniel.

Overall, this interpretation presents a viewpoint suggesting that Islam is seen as fulfilling certain aspects of prophecy within the book of Daniel, particularly regarding its emergence after the fall of Byzantium or Eastern Roman Empire.

Bart D. Ehrman is an American scholar of religious studies, a best-selling author, and a leading authority on the New Testament. He is known for his work on the historical Jesus, early Christian writings, and the development of the Christian canon. Ehrman is also a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

What is Bart Ehrman's perspective on the term "son of man" as utilized by Jesus in the gospel?

Bart Ehrman, a prominent New Testament scholar, has a nuanced perspective on the term "Son of Man" as used by Jesus in the Gospels. His views can be summarized as follows:

1. Different Referents:

Ehrman argues that when Jesus used the term "Son of Man," he was often referring to someone other than himself. Specifically, Ehrman believes that Jesus was speaking about a future cosmic judge who would come from heaven to judge the earth, a figure distinct from Jesus himself.

2. Apocalyptic Context:

Ehrman situates Jesus' use of "Son of Man" within an apocalyptic framework. He suggests that Jesus anticipated the imminent arrival of God's kingdom, where this "Son of Man" would play a critical role in the final judgment and the establishment of a utopian order.

3. Metaphorical and Literal Uses:

While some scholars argue that "Son of Man" could be a self-referential term used metaphorically by Jesus, Ehrman maintains that many instances in the Gospels indicate a literal expectation of a future divine figure. This figure, coming with divine authority, would execute judgment and bring about the end times.

4. Post-Resurrection Identification:

According to Ehrman, after Jesus' resurrection, his disciples began to identify him as the "Son of Man" he had prophesied about. They believed that Jesus, having ascended to heaven, would return as this divine judge.

5. Scholarly Debate:

Ehrman's view is not universally accepted. Many scholars believe that Jesus did refer to himself as the "Son of Man," interpreting it as a self-designation. However, Ehrman's interpretation is considered mainstream and is supported by his extensive work on the historical Jesus and early Christian writings.

Conclusion

Bart Ehrman's perspective on the term "Son of Man" highlights a complex interplay between Jesus' self-understanding and the apocalyptic expectations of his time. Ehrman posits that Jesus used the term to refer to a future divine judge rather than himself, a view that has sparked considerable scholarly debate. This interpretation underscores the diversity of early Christian thought and the evolving understanding of Jesus' identity among his followers.