Was there really no Bible until the year AD381?

I'm writing on an urgent matter that I think needs to be addressed within Catholic apologetics, namely the widespread Catholic claim that there was no Bible until Pope Damasus gave us the canon of Scripture in AD381. At best, this is a half truth, and at worst this is an implicit heresy and undermines Christianity. While it might score points against Protestants during a Sola Scriptura discussion, it's a bad argument that does far more harm than good. 

The problem with the "no Bible until 381" claim is that those who make the claim typically have in their mind that in the early Church - sometime after the Apostles died (~AD80) and up to 300 years later (~AD380) - there was mass confusion as to what books were Scripture and what weren't, such that the Pope had to call a Council to settle the matter by sifting through a massive pile of books, some which were inspired and some which were uninspired, and the "result" was the canon of Scripture. This mindset suggests that the Bible wasn't something passed onto us by Tradition, but rather something that was basically invented. The Pope most certainly did not walk into a library and start reading random books and try to "detect" if this or that book should be in the Bible.  In fact, this false 'personally feel out if this book is inspired' method is closer to the Protestant and Mormon approach to the canon of Scripture.

A clear prophecy of the Catholic Church in the Old Testament?

I had this post as a guest post on another blog that was shut down, so I will just repost it here:

Daniel 2 contains a fascinating prophecy which speaks of God’s plan to set up a Kingdom upon earth that is not of human origin and will come to cover the whole earth. Christians as far back as the Early Church Fathers have interpreted this prophecy as referring to the Catholic Church being established by Christ, expanding all over the world, and lasting forever. After reflecting upon the prophecy, I see no other plausible interpretation. Let me explain my thoughts.

Back at the Babylonian Exile, God caused the Emperor Nebuchadnezzar to have a mysterious dream which only the Prophet Daniel could explain. In verses 2:31-45, Daniel interprets the dream in some pretty plain terms.

Nebuchadnezzar’s dream was of a large statue that was divided into Five Sections: the statue’s Head was made of Gold, the Chest was made of Silver, the Lower Torso was made of Bronze, the Legs were made of Iron, and the Feet were made of an Iron-Clay mix (2:31-33). Then he saw “a stone not cut by human hands” was hurled down from the sky and struck the statue at the Feet, reducing it to pieces, and this stone went on to become “a great mountain that filled the whole earth” (2:34-35).

That was the dream which Daniel was then given the task to explain.

Daniel begins by telling King Nebuchadnezzar that he and his Babylonian Empire are the Head made of Gold (2:37-38). Then Daniel says another Empire will arise, not as fancy as Gold (i.e. Silver), and this second Empire will take over and become the new world super power. After that, a third Empire, the Kingdom of Bronze will succeed the Kingdom of Silver. This third Empire will be succeeded by a Kingdom of Iron, followed lastly by a Kingdom of Iron-Clay, which signifies “a divided kingdom” (2:41), partly strong and partly weak (2:42). And it will be in the time of this Iron-Clay divided Empire that God will set up His Kingdom which will never be destroyed, and in fact will shatter all kingdoms that stand in its way (2:43-45).

It really isn’t difficult to make a coherent interpretation of what Daniel is talking about. We know from the text that the sections of the Body represent a succession of world Empires and that the clock starts with the Babylonian Empire. We also know from other parts of the Bible as well as undisputed world history that the Persian Empire came in and replaced Babylon, and after that Alexander the Great came in and replaced the Persian Empire with his Greek Empire. The next big Empire to immediately come along was the Roman Empire, which we all know was the big dog at the time of Christ. As the Roman Empire began to erode, it eventually broke into two Empires, an Eastern (Byzantine) and a Western (Latin), starting around the time of the Council of Nicaea in 325AD. It was about this time that Christianity began making huge growth in the public sphere such that we see Christianity as a force to be reckoned with among the pagan remnants. And as we know, Christianity ended up long outlasting the Roman Empire(s) and that Christianity grew and grew to spread all over the world.

For apologetics purposes, we should note that the only “candidate” that fits this prophecy/interpretation is the Catholic Church. We see how the Catholic Church was around at this time and that this is the time when the Catholic Church began to grow in influence. There is no Protestant denomination that really fits as even a possible candidate. No Protestant denomination was around at the time frame of AD300-400, and Protestantism usually explains the Reformation was necessary because the Gospel started to become more and more lost over the centuries as Catholicism grew — despite the fact this Prophecy says these “dark ages” were going to be the time when the Church really begins to spread its wings!

The only ways I see a Protestant not being indicted by this Prophecy is to try and claim a different timeline or different Empires, but this is too tall of an order to fill. For example, what succession of Empires comes close to fitting the Five that were just mentioned? And the way the timeline goes, if you start the Kingdom of God too late down the centuries, e.g. starting at the time of the Reformation, then you have to both explain away the influence of Christianity during the “dark ages” of AD400-1400, as well as explain which Protestant denomination really comes close to modeling an united heavenly Kingdom that spreads all over the world. For those Protestants who say the Church went underground all this time, that certainly doesn’t fit the description that this Kingdom would be like a huge mountain that covers the earth, an image impossible for anyone to not see!

In conclusion, any attempts to get around the plain, straightforward traditional Catholic interpretation will cause more problems than it solves, leaving the Catholic Church as the most obvious candidate of this Scriptural Prophecy.

***

END NOTE: The above apologetic also works very effectively against the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who officially teach the same succession as the above, but they say the Iron-Clay Empire represents the British-American Empire, which is when the Watchtower comes on the scene. This interpretation suffers from the flaw of leaving a 1500 year gap between the last two Empires, conveniently side-stepping the disastrous implications to JW theology. To add to this, the JW interpretation has never produced a Church that fits the description of one which will cover the whole world, putting them in a similar dilemma to any given Protestant denomination.

I firmly believe this is an awesome and effective apologetics argument to use against Evangelicals.

--------------------------------------

Update 11-19-14: I have found online an article called “Interpretations of the Kingdom of God in Daneil 2:44” by Gerhard Pfandl (1996). He gives a good summary of the patristic data. The following Patristic sources he cites I was able to find online and verify the quotes:

Can Protestants drink from Christ's Cup and Carry their Cross in obedience to Jesus? I don't think so.

Today on John Piper's Desiring God Blog a guest writer named Steven Lee wrote a post titled "The Cup Consumed for Us." The post is a brief reflection on Matthew 20:20-28 where the apostles James and John are asked by Jesus "Are you able to drink the cup that I am to drink?" Lee interprets this verse in the way many Calvinists do, claiming that this cup Jesus is going to drink is "the cup of God's wrath." But is this true? And wouldn't such a claim make nonsense of Our Lord's words? That's what I'll address in this post. 

Natural Law...OR...New Covenant in Rom. 2:14-15 - What "Law" is written on the heart?

This is somewhat of a Part 2 to my previous post, "Imputed Righteousness in the New Covenant?"

For this post I want to share a fascinating find regarding a fascinating text of Scripture that is often glossed over when reading Romans 2. Embedded within the context of Paul's claim that "the doers of the law will be justified" (2:13) is a curious statement that the Gentiles "who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires" (2:14) and so reveal that "the law is written on their hearts" (2:15). This text can play a key role in Protestant-Catholic discussions because the way it uses the term "law," which is a crucial term to understand when reading Paul. It is my contention, as well as that of a growing number of Protestant scholars, that the term "law" (Greek: nomos) specifically refers to the Mosaic Law, and not to some more generic eternal law of God. Recognizing the serious negative implications of this for Sola Fide, some Protestants are fond of turning to Romans 2:14-15, thinking that this text provides an escape. In this post I will show that this text doesn't help this Protestant objection at all, and in fact opens an avenue to prove the Catholic position. 

"Without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness" (More Problems with Penal Substitution)

To supplement the last post I made, a commonly abused text that I regularly see Protestants quote when attempting to prove Penal Substitution from Scripture is Hebrews 9:22, "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins." They interpret this to mean that God cannot forgive unless someone pays the ultimate price for sin, taking your guilt and dies in your place. 

On the surface level, this reading does make sense, but ripped out of context and completely misunderstanding the Levitical Sacrificial system (which I've written about elsewhere), that reading falls immediately flat. In this post I will focus simply on the context and show just how off the mark this Protestant claim is. 

The context here is some of the richest in the Bible, being a place where the old and new testaments (covenants) are compared side-by-side. As you read the following passage, keep in mind that I've replaced the terms used in the ESV with the term "testament" because thats the Greek term (diatheke) used from verse 15 to 20. For whatever reason, many translations are very inconsistent in how they translate "testament" here, mixing in terms like "Will" and "Covenant," which I see as very bad form because Paul was using the same term throughout and clearly wanted people to connect the dots.

15 Therefore [Jesus] is the mediator of a new [testament], so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first [testament]. 16 For where a [testament] is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. 17 For a [testament] takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it [Greek: testator] is alive. 18 Therefore not even the first [testament] was inaugurated without blood. 19 For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, “This is the blood of the [testament] that God commanded for you.” 21 And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship. 22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. 23 Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

The first thing to notice is that Protestants only quote the second half of 9:22 and ignore the first half, since they don't see how it fits. But what Paul is saying here is that forgiveness of sins is connected to the purifying by blood. The link between blood purifying and sins being forgiven is well established in the Bible (e.g. Heb 9:13-14; 10:29; 1 Jn 1:7; Rev 1:5). This is why Catholics say justification is based upon (or includes) sanctification, rather than something that merely accompanies justification (as Protestants teach). 

The second and more important thing to notice is that the "death" and "blood" mentioned here is not about transferring a punishment, but rather inaugurating a covenant (also called testament). Thus, the language Paul is using here is that of something along the lines of a "Last Will and Testament", distinguishing between the Old Testament and the New Testament dispensations.

This is interesting because it sheds a new light on how Christ's death is understood. The analogy given in verses 16-17 is that of a Last Will that a parent writes of how he wants the inheritance to be split up and which goes into effect upon their death, inaugurating a new dispensation of sorts. Clearly this death of a parent doesn't have anything of the nature of Penal Substitution about it, so this strongly suggests that Penal Substitution is not the model which Christ's death patterned after in ushering in the new testament. 

To build immediately on that, verses 18 and following say the old testament was inaugurated in this death/blood fashion, and yet Moses wasn't resorting to Penal Substitution when he inaugurated the old testament (Exodus 24:1-11). Thus, the death/blood of Jesus in patterning after that when instituting the new testament likely wouldn't have had the nature of Penal Substitution either. 

The way I see this, the death inaugurates a new dispensation, which makes sense in a way (e.g. the Resurrection signifies a new way of living and new hope). The sprinkled blood then serves the purpose of consecrating the members for their new life under the covenant (Heb 9:13-14). This death is 'natural' in the sense that, after Adam, suffering became a 'natural' part of life, but it carries with it a bitterness and 'sting' since we all know suffering and death is not enjoyable. In becoming man, Jesus both made Himself subject to natural suffering and natural death (mortality), and in getting circumcised put Himself under the Mosaic Testament and made Himself subject to suffering and death at the hands of the Jews. This suffering in virtue of the Incarnation addressed in a 'medicinal' way (e.g. destroying death) the global sin-death problem, while the suffering under the Mosaic Testament addressed the violated covenant problem the Jews found themselves in (Heb 9:15) that was in a sense stalling God's promise to Abraham from being fulfilled in reaching the Gentiles (Gal 3:13-14). There's probably more that could be explored here, so I definitely have some pondering to do.

Are all men "under the Law"? (Exposing another fatal flaw in Calvinism)

Calvinists teach that all mankind is under a "covenant of works," where eternal life is promised to those who keep the law of God perfectly. But this leads to a problem. If all mankind is "under the law," then why does St Paul speak as if only some are "under the law" and warn others not to put themselves "under the law"? This post will expose a very serious and fatal equivocation that is at the root of Calvinist theology.

Consider these passages from the Epistle to the Galatians:

• But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. (Gal 4:4-5)

• Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? (Gal 4:21)

• I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. (Gal 5:3)

It should be pretty obvious that the "law" here has to mean the same thing in each passage (since it's the same context). Whatever this "law" is, it is clear that not everyone is "under" it, meaning bound to observe it. If this "law" is the 'covenant of works' which all men are born into, then this contradicts the Calvinist notion that all men are under the "covenant of works," since it is clear by these texts not all men are "under the law". The only acceptable answer here is that the "law" is none other than the Mosaic Law, which not all men are under, and one only becomes obliged to obey it if one is circumcised (e.g. Jesus only became "under the law" at His circumcision).

The ramifications for realizing this are huge: Since the "law" Paul is opposing cannot be the "covenant of works," it logically follows that Paul's warning about getting circumcised and putting oneself "under the law" could not have been a matter of people thinking they could 'work their way to heaven'. So the Calvinist is in a bind: either equivocate by equating "law" and "covenant of works" and thus claim not everyone is under the "covenant of works," or else admit "law" is the Mosaic Law and thus deny keeping the Mosaic Law has any bearing on salvation (since that's the task of the "covenant of works"). 

Romans 9 Debate (Concluded)

A Reformed Protestant named Miguel has agreed to a debate on Romans chapter 9.
The Debate Thesis:

Is corporate (as opposed to individual) election the true focus of Romans 9?

I will be affirming; he will be denying.

The debate format is as follows (I will link to the Essays below each week):

Week 1: Opening Essay (Due 9/8)

Affirmative / Negative

Week 2: Rebuttal Essay (Due 9/15)

Affirmative / Negative

Week 3: 5 Cross Examination Questions (Due 9/18)

Affirmative / Negative

Week 3: Answers to Questions (Due 9/22)

Affirmative / Negative

Week 4: Closing Essay (Due 9/29)

 Affirmative / Negative

If anyone has ideas on the best way to host the Essays, please tell me. I'm using Google Docs, which is kind of annoying, but better than creating a new Blog Post each essay.

The importance of 70AD for Christianity - Was Revelation actually the first NT Epistle?

I have come to truly appreciate the relevance of the year 70AD. This date is most popularly associated with the year the Temple of Jerusalem was destroyed for the second time (and has never been rebuilt to this day). I have posted on this subject tangentially in the past on a post I made about Judaism. For anyone who takes the Bible and Christianity seriously, it cannot be seen as an insignificant event in Salvation History for the Temple to be destroyed (2 Kings 25:8-9; Jer 21:10; Jer 26:18; Mich 3:12 - and see these Church Father quotes). We often forget that God still directs the events of history, and instead tend to think God only interacted with Israel and the Church during Biblical times, after which He left man alone. That latter view is called Ecclesial Deism, and it must be rejected.

Daniel Wallace: "There is no Protestant Ecclesiology" - Can Ecclesiology be a "Non-Essential" for Christians?

A Catholic friend sent me a link to a recent blog post titled The Problem with Protestant Ecclesiology, written by Dr Daniel Wallace, a Reformed Protestant who is a professor and Greek scholar. The post is short enough that I will be able to quote "long" portions that highlight his frank admissions that all Protestants will have to come to terms with some time or another.

I am unashamedly a Protestant. I believe in sola scriptura, sola fidei, solus Christus, and the rest. I am convinced that Luther was on to something when he articulated his view of justification succinctly: simul iustus et peccator (“simultaneously justified and a sinner”).

But with the birth of Protestantism there necessarily came a rift within the western church. By ‘necessarily’ I mean that Protestants made it necessary by splitting from Rome. Jaroslav Pelikan had it right when he said that the Reformation was a tragic necessity. Protestants felt truth was to be prized over unity, but the follow-through was devastating. This same mindset began to infect all Protestant churches so that they continued to splinter off from each other. Today there are hundreds and hundreds of Protestant denominations. One doesn’t see this level of fracturing in either Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism. Not even close.

Does Romans 9 condemn Unconditional Election as heresy?

Pope St Peter warns believers that St Paul's Epistles contain things "hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort" (2 Pet. 3:15-16). Undoubtedly, the 9th chapter of Romans would have to be one such text St Peter had in mind, for it has been twisted and distorted for a long time, particularly at the time of the Reformation when the Pretend Reformers were pushing for Double Predestination (the teaching that God decides to save and damn apart from any good or evil on the part of the individual). For centuries, Protestants (especially Calvinists) continue to be unaware that they are guilty of not heeding St Peter's warning, twisting Paul's lesson on God's sovereignty to teach almost the opposite of what he intended to teach.

Those who have engaged in such discussions with Protestants are aware that their chief (and favorite) text is Romans 9:16-21, focusing particularly on the phrase "God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden." The Protestants contend that this is crystal clear proof that God saves and damns according to his pleasure, apart from considering the lifestyle of the individual. To suggest otherwise, they say, is to twist Paul's message and argue in favor of the Judaizers, who taught man could save himself by his own works. Sadly, this kind of argumentation is not only wholly false, it has scandalized many Christians and continues to deceive many Protestants.

How do we know we are living in the Last Days? (JWs)

The so called "Last Days" mentioned in Scripture are not what many people conceive them to be. Many people mistakenly (but understandably) think the Biblical term "Last Days" refers to a period some time in the future of untold suffering and hardship with the end of the world being immanent. In reality, while that concept has much truth to it, that is not the Biblical terminology for it.

So why is this distinction important? The reason why it is imperative to be aware of the distinction is because rabidly anti-Christian groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses (JW's) build grand (but false) dogmas from such confusion and twisting of Scriptures, and being aware can not only protect you and other Catholics, but even plant seeds in the JW's mind (which hopefully could take root some day). It is also important to be aware that most JW's are genuine and innocent at heart, but deeply deluded and under serious pressure to conform and never question their authority, The Watchtower. Given that, you should only approach this subject with them if you are sufficiently grounded in the truth of Catholicism and falsity of Jehovah's Witnesses (see this link for some good apologetics), and taking special care to present the Truth to them calmly and in Charity. JW's are taught to 'shut off' and 'retreat' as soon as they feel they are losing an argument or don't feel they are making progress - this means that a key strategy when dealing with them is dealing in subtlety, slowly bringing upon them the Truth.

Because of the hope of Israel, I am bound with this chain.

UPDATED: 5-6-12, see end of article.

I was re-reading the Acts of the Apostles recently, and something very profound stood out to me that didn't 'hit me' as it should have in the past: the Apostle Paul loved his Jewish brothers dearly! Not being a Jew myself, and thus not having lived the Jewish lifestyle, I can only get a glimpse of what it was like for St Paul when he stood among his brethren to share the Gospel with them.

While today it is a very unpopular thing to do - even politically incorrect, if not "anti-Semitic" by some (false) reckoning - sharing the Gospel with the Jews is no less important than it was at the time of the Apostles. And traditionally, the Catholic Church has always made it clear that all men need salvation, including Jews, and that salvation comes only through the Lord Jesus Christ. Given this, it is sad that there had been such a de-emphasis on sharing the Gospel with all mankind, as if some don't need to know about Jesus, or worse yet, some don't need Jesus at all! And when one reads the New Testament writings, especially Acts, they see how important and dear it was to share the Gospel with the Jews first and foremost.

In the epilogue of Acts (written by St Luke, Paul's companion), one of the last things Paul says to the Jews is: "Because of the hope of Israel, I am bound with this chain." (28:20) Taken in isolation, this verse doesn't mean much; but taken in context, this means the world to Paul. After his miraculous conversion, Paul sees new meaning in his life as a Jewish-Christian, and a new calling by God to be a major spokesman for the Good News of Jesus. But this would come at a price. From the day of his conversion, his life would be a roller coaster of suffering and persecution, as he briefly explains: "Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my own countrymen, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false brothers. I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked. Besides everything else, I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the churches." (2 Corinthians 11:24ff)

The first thing Paul did upon his Baptism was to go to the local synagogues - where the Jews prayed - to share the Good News he was blessed to receive himself. But often times the Jews would not have this, and whenever Paul began making converts, other (jealous) Jews would stir up riots and threaten his life. But in spite of all this, God, in His Providence, preserved Paul's life so that His chosen vessel could carry the Gospel to the ends of the (colonized) earth. When Paul said, "Because of the hope of Israel, I am bound with this chain," this was after he had been forcibly taken from Jerusalem to Rome - so after his final pleading with the Jews of the Jewish capital, he could make a few bold appeals to the Jews in the world's capital. From this point on, he remained semi-imprisoned (under house arrest) in Rome, writing many of his Epistles, until his martyrdom.

This line was so profound to me because it always seemed as if the focus on sharing the Gospel was the Gentiles, especially for Paul. But the fact is, all throughout Acts, even to the very last chapter, the Jews are given a very special and primary emphasis when it came to evangelization. Since the Jews were originally chosen by God, based on a promise He made to Abraham, to be entrusted with sharing His Law and eventually His Son to the world, it was only fitting that the Jews should be the first to hear and accept the Gospel. For people today to say the Jews don't need to hear the Gospel so that they might know their Messiah and be eternally saved is not only a slap in the face to Paul and the efforts of the other Apostles, it's a monstrous injustice. The Catholic Church has always maintained that not sharing the gospel with unbelievers (of any background) is akin to not sharing food with a starving person. In the case of the Jews, the (spiritually) starving people were Paul's own brethren.

So what does this mean for us today? And how are we to share the Gospel with the Jews when Saint Paul himself had such a difficult time doing so? Certainly, most of us cannot match the abilities of Paul, nor are we endowed with the same level of the outpouring of gifts of the Spirit as he was. But Providence teaches us that God always provides a way, and uses various means to accomplish His Plans.

I believe one of the strongest apologetics and evangelization arguments that can be made to Jews is to get them to realize that the Judaism they practice today is not the Judaism to which Saint Paul, nor Jesus, nor even Moses believed in and practiced. Why is this so? The fullest expression of worshiping God for the Jewish mind is that of Temple worship and sacrifice, which is also a central aspect of the Mosaic Law. But since 70 A.D., this ideal form of worship has been an impossibility, since the center of Jewish worship, the Temple, was utterly destroyed by the Roman Empire armies. But that's not all, around that time Jews began losing their identity through other difficulties and persecutions, quickly leading to the loss of the Levitical priesthood (and the loss of the other Tribal lineages as well). Just as without the Temple, the center of worship has been lost, so with the loss of the Levitical priesthood there can be no sacrifices according to the Torah for everyday Jewish life and living. And with these forever lost for about 2,000 years, this means that the "Judaism" of today is in its essence, not true Judaism and certainly not that of the Apostolic times. This is only further compounded by the fact there has been no new Divine Revelation or Prophets for the Jews for at least that long.

To put this problem in terms of Catholicism: it would be as if the Papacy and Apostolic Succession had been lost for 2,000 years, and no new Apostles for at least that long. Practicing Catholicism would be (functionally) impossible, since there would be no priesthood, no Sacraments, and no Church Authority. This "Catholicism" would not be the Catholicism of the Apostles.

Given this, today's Jews are faced with a very big question:  

Is God trying to tell us something in that we've not been able to worship Him as his Law demands for almost 2,000 years? 

(Not being able to worship God according to the Torah is no joke for the Jewish mind.)
I believe the answer is, "Yes!" The only alternative - which all would agree is unacceptable - is that the God of Israel was a false god all along, since that's the only thing that can explain this 2,000 year abandonment.

Since the God of Israel is the One True God, then there must be an explanation, and the only reasonable explanation is Christianity (which arose right within the time frame when the Temple was destroyed). Christianity is the only group that can honestly claim to uphold the Torah and Prophets - and this by pointing out that they are fulfilled in Jesus, the Hope of Israel.

How can a Jew today "object" to this reasoning? I don't see how they can. And this is not Christians acting mean in any way, but rather this is sharing the Truth in Love.

UPDATE 5-6-12. 

In my recent study for my 70AD post, I came across various quotes from Early Church Fathers who had made similar arguments as far back as Origen (185AD). Here is what they said:

• Origen, The Principles 4:3, says: But if the prophet's words be true, when he says, The children of Israel shall abide many days without king, without prince; and there shall be no victim, nor altar, nor priesthood; [Hosea 3:4] and if, certainly, since the overthrow of the temple, victims are neither offered, nor any altar found, nor any priesthood exists, it is most certain that, as it is written, princes have departed from Judah, and a leader from between his thighs, until the coming of Him for whom it has been reserved. It is established, then, that He has come for whom it has been reserved, and in whom is the expectation of the Gentiles. And this manifestly seems to be fulfilled in the multitude of those who have believed on God through Christ out of the different nations.

• Origen, Against Celsus 4:22, says: But, according to Celsus, the Christians, making certain additional statements to those of the Jews, assert that the Son of God has been already sent on account of the sins of the Jews; and that the Jews having chastised Jesus, and given him gall to drink, have brought upon themselves the divine wrath. And any one who likes may convict this statement of falsehood, if it be not the case that the whole Jewish nation was overthrown within one single generation after Jesus had undergone these sufferings at their hands. For forty and two years, I think, after the date of the crucifixion of Jesus, did the destruction of Jerusalem take place. Now it has never been recorded, since the Jewish nation began to exist, that they have been expelled for so long a period from their venerable temple-worship and service, and enslaved by more powerful nations; for if at any time they appeared to be abandoned because of their sins, they were notwithstanding visited (by God), and returned to their own country, and recovered their possessions, and performed unhindered the observances of their law.

•  Athanasius, On the Incarnation 40, says: For if, I say—which is just what we actually see—there is no longer king nor prophet nor Jerusalem nor sacrifice nor vision among them, but even the whole earth is filled with the knowledge of God, and Gentiles, leaving their godlessness, are now taking refuge with the God of Abraham, through the Word, even our Lord Jesus Christ, then it must be plain, even to those who are exceedingly obstinate, that the Christ has come, and that He has illumined absolutely all with His light, and given them the true and divine teaching concerning His Father. So one can fairly refute the Jews by these and by other arguments from the Divine Scriptures.

•  Tertullian, Against Marcion 3:23, says: Therefore these things either did not happen to the Jews on His account, in which case you will be refuted by the sense of the Scriptures tallying with the issue of the facts and the order of the times, or else they did happen on His account, and then the Creator could not have inflicted the vengeance except for His own Christ; nay, He must have rather had a reward for Judas, if it had been his master's enemy whom they put to death. At all events, if the Creator's Christ has not come yet, on whose account the prophecy dooms them to such sufferings, they will have to endure the sufferings when He shall have come. Then where will there be a daughter of Sion to be reduced to desolation, for there is none now to be found? Where will there be cities to be burnt with fire, for they are now in heaps? Where a nation to be dispersed, which is already in banishment?