Did Jesus say he was God???

[metis]

The Sanhedrin could not enforce any penalty other than removal from the Temple and/or synagogues that may have chosen not to let him in. Therefore, he would have to be tried and convicted under Roman law, and the most likely charge would probably relate to sedition/treason (his activity at the Temple plus talking about a different "kingdom"). However, the Romans didn't need much to crucify anyone but a Roman subject on. Jay-walking probably would have been a good enough excuse.

 

[1robin]

The Sanhedrin could not enforce any penalty other than removal from the Temple and/or synagogues that may have chosen not to let him in. Therefore, he would have to be tried and convicted under Roman law, and the most likely charge would probably relate to sedition/treason (his activity at the Temple plus talking about a different "kingdom"). However, the Romans didn't need much to crucify anyone but a Roman subject on. Jay-walking probably would have been a good enough excuse.

I thought they could try almost any crime the wished but could not impose certain sentences like death. He was certainly tried by them. I thought he was only taken to pilot because Herod did not want the responsibility and because only they could impose death. I did not think the Romans convicted him of anything which is why Pilot said I find no fault in him and washed his hands. he even hoped they would choose to free him at that festival. Can you give me verses for what you claim?

 

[metis]

At the time of Jesus, since we did not have sovereignty over the area, civil crimes and any crimes involving civil penalties was handled by the Romans. Secondly, it is not at all clear that Jesus broke Jewish Law, as someone here previously mentioned. And the story of Barabbas has been pretty much attacked by both theologians and Roman historians as being unlikely.

Why would the authors maybe do this? Quite possibly to demonize those Jews who didn't follow Jesus. Pilate is portrayed as having his hands tied to the point of just giving up, but the Roman historians scoff at that idea because they well know Pilate was brutal. Also, they say the idea of releasing a Zealot like Barabbas isn't at all logical from their perspective. So, why would they do that?

Like all scriptures in all religions, we have to remember that they're subjective, and the art of storytelling was commonplace. Today we might look at accounts and maybe think "They lied!", but people then and in that culture operated under a different paradigm than the objective ones we're used to.

So, I do not know exactly what happened, and I do believe with the conflicting evidence that we do have, I'm not going to bet my house on any one idea.

 

[Shermana]

The Jews saw Jesus's Claim at
Jhn 10:33
They replied, “We’re stoning you not for any good work, but for blasphemy! You, a mere man, claim to be God.”

So clearly the Jews saw Jesus as claiming to be God even though he was a man. So clearly to say "SON OF GOD" carried implications of being God in some way.

This, like John 1:1c, should be read as "Claim/make yourself to be a god". In the indefinite. The concept of being "Son of God" has absolutely no clear indication of being "God" but as "a god". It's important to remember that "Divine beings" were in fact called "Elohim". Human souls, such as when Samuel's was summoned, may also have been referred to as Elohim. The issue at stake was them claiming Jesus to be some kind of "Divine being" incarnated, and that's pretty much what John 1:1c is implying as well by referring to him as the incarnation of the "Logos".

The Trinity Delusion: John 10:33

The traditional Trinitarian "make yourself God" has Jesus dishonestly changing the subject and meaning of the accusation in 10:34, this proper grammatically correct one has Jesus being completely consistent with their accusation.

 

[1robin]

At the time of Jesus, since we did not have sovereignty over the area, civil crimes and any crimes involving civil penalties was handled by the Romans. Secondly, it is not at all clear that Jesus broke Jewish Law, as someone here previously mentioned. And the story of Barabbas has been pretty much attacked by both theologians and Roman historians as being unlikely.

The scripture says the Sanhedrin did all the trying and the Romans did all the sentencing. If we agree on what the scriptures say at least, then what do you have that indicates they were incorrect? I have spent many years fielding and investigating every claim of scriptural inaccuracy that was thrown at the Bible. I have found that outside scribal error and a few well known additions to scripture they never stick. Your reasoning is good here in some ways but to deny scripture I would need evidence beyond a possibility. Since this was set up by God to accomplish certain goals I do not think things common to the times are all that relevant. Even dialogue was predicted and had to be set up. What Pilot said would never have occurred without influence and if there was influence then normality is not a standard.

Why would the authors maybe do this? Quite possibly to demonize those Jews who didn't follow Jesus. Pilate is portrayed as having his hands tied to the point of just giving up, but the Roman historians scoff at that idea because they well know Pilate was brutal. Also, they say the idea of releasing a Zealot like Barabbas isn't at all logical from their perspective. So, why would they do that?

A motive only becomes relevant if an action has been proven to have occurred. I wish to know how you know these ulterior motives caused inaccuracies in scripture. If they occurred I have no trouble with your motives but first things first.

Like all scriptures in all religions, we have to remember that they're subjective, and the art of storytelling was commonplace. Today we might look at accounts and maybe think "They lied!", but people then and in that culture operated under a different paradigm that the objective ones we're used to.

Do you agree that the Sanhedrin did the accusing and trying and Pilot did the curious questioning about not necessarily legal matters and the sentencing according to scripture? We can then move on to whether it is reliable or not after this.

So, I do not know exactly what happened, and I do believe with the conflicting evidence that we do have, I'm not going to bet my house on any one idea.

I do agree with the unproven nature of the claims but instead give the scriptures credibility until I have very good reasons to not do so.

 

[Shermana]

Just a quick comment on the Pharisees. Jesus was operating from the Pharisee tradition, but it appears the he has "issues" with the mainline Pharisees who were emphasizing the "oral law" and "building a fence around Torah", which is what he seemingly calls "laws made by men". He almost certainly was not anti-Pharisee in regards to the entire movement, especially since his teachings roughly parallel that of some of the "liberal Pharisees". Some of these different Pharisee schools didn't get along well at all.

There is actually some dispute on whether Jesus was actually in the mindset of a Pharisee, in the tradition of Shammai (which I agree he has a strong Shammai-leaning though some say more Hillel), or whether he was simply going from a variety of viewpoints. I see more Essene-ism (of what we know about the Essene factions) than anything, but that's hard to argue for since we don't know what exactly the Essenes believed. But you are right, he was not anti-Pharisee, he was "anti-Pharisee-factions"

 

[1robin]

This, like John 1:1c, should be read as "Claim/make yourself to be a god". In the indefinite. The concept of being "Son of God" has absolutely no clear indication of being "God" but as "a god". It's important to remember that "Divine beings" were in fact called "Elohim". Human souls, such as when Samuel's was summoned, may also have been referred to as Elohim. The issue at stake was them claiming Jesus to be some kind of "Divine being" incarnated, and that's pretty much what John 1:1c is implying as well by referring to him as the incarnation of the "Logos".

The Trinity Delusion: John 10:33

The traditional Trinitarian "make yourself God" has Jesus dishonestly changing the subject and meaning of the accusation in 10:34, this proper grammatically correct one has Jesus being completely consistent with their accusation.

Your dedication is worthy of a better cause. How do you know that not plain reading of that verse is correct? You say they accused him of being some incarnated divine being. Is that not at least a contrived God claim? Forgetting for a minute whether he was actually God it appears they accused him of claiming to be such. I do not see the difference from their perspective or ours of a claim to be as a God or to be God unless we bring in a specific God then you get claims to being a God but not that God. I admit I read this fast and will review but I did not see anything that significantly altered what I at least have said about Christ. The only issue that actually makes a big difference is his role in salvation and that is unaffected by his divine status. Why do you primarily only deal with the less meaningful of these issues?

 

[Shermana]

The NT claims fault was found with the first covenant. There was plenty of fault with the covenants subjects but the covenant its self was said to be faulty

The NT doesn't claim anything wrong with the Covenant. Are you talking about the Book of Hebrews? Jeremiah 31 says nothing wrong about the Covenant either, it simply says it will improve the Covenant with "The people of Israel and Judah" (i.e. the Hebrews, definitely not referring to non-converted gentiles) by putting the Law (The same exact Law Jeremiah was familiar with) into their hearts so that they will not have to be taught. This does not imply the former was faulty, just that the second one will be more like "Training wheels" to prevent mistakes. What that means exactly is up to dispute, but those who say it's referring to a different law or one that does away with "one iota or tittle" are totally out of bounds.

I fail to see how anyone could make a mistake that insane. They were a despicable lot with few exceptions. They are the only ones Jesus ever spoke to with vindictiveness.

I deal with claims that "The Pharisees were perfect and strict in obeying the Law, therefore the Law itself was what Jesus was opposing" quite often, and it infuriates me each time. There really are people that insane/moronic/militantly ignorant/dishonest, plenty. In fact, they may constitute the majority of apologists.

 

[1robin]

The NT doesn't claim anything wrong with the Covenant. Are you talking about the Book of Hebrews? Jeremiah 31 says nothing wrong about the Covenant either, it simply says it will improve the Covenant with "The people of Israel and Judah" (i.e. the Hebrews, definitely not referring to non-converted gentiles) by putting the Law (The same exact Law Jeremiah was familiar with) into their hearts so that they will not have to be taught. This does not imply the former was faulty, just that the second one will be more like "Training wheels" to prevent mistakes. What that means exactly is up to dispute, but those who say it's referring to a different law or one that does away with "one iota or tittle" are totally out of bounds.

That was just a type o. I usually defend the NT and just got in the habit of using NT in any preface or premise. Let me be lazy and just quote what I meant from a site.

There certainly was fault with the first covenant, but the fault was not with God or in the way He made the covenant, but with us. Hebrews 8:8 states that He found fault “with them.” The Law showed the way to righteousness (Romans 8:3-4), but righteousness could only be obtained if the Law were kept perfectly (Galatians 3:10). The fault then with the Law was that man could not keep it perfectly in order to obtain righteousness. And since the Law made no provision for the permanent forgiveness of sin (Hebrews 10:1), another covenant had to be brought, sanctified by the blood of Christ, that could provide for our salvation.
From Hebrews 8:7, what was the fault with the first covenant? How could God make a “faulty” covenant? | Brentwood Church of Christ - Brentwood, Tennessee

It is not new laws nor even a new way to be righteous but in how laws are apprehended and a final permanent solution to the problem with the first arrangement which it was only a type and shadow of.

I deal with claims that "The Pharisees were perfect and strict in obeying the Law, therefore the Law itself was what Jesus was opposing" quite often, and it infuriates me each time. There really are people that insane/moronic/militantly ignorant/dishonest, plenty. In fact, they may constitute the majority of apologists.

My entire faith is built on the fact no one has ever obeyed the law perfectly and no one ever will except Christ. I believe in grace from first to last so I hope I did not infuriate you further.

Bonus:
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

8:7-13 The superior excellence of the priesthood of Christ, above that of Aaron, is shown from that covenant of grace, of which Christ was Mediator. The law not only made all subject to it, liable to be condemned for the guilt of sin, but also was unable to remove that guilt, and clear the conscience from the sense and terror of it. Whereas, by the blood of Christ, a full remission of sins was provided, so that God would remember them no more. God once wrote his laws to his people, now he will write his laws in them; he will give them understanding to know and to believe his laws; he will give them memories to retain them; he will give them hearts to love them, courage to profess them, and power to put them in practice. This is the foundation of the covenant; and when this is laid, duty will be done wisely, sincerely, readily, easily, resolutely, constantly, and with comfort. A plentiful outpouring of the Spirit of God will make the ministration of the gospel so effectual, that there shall be a mighty increase and spreading of Christian knowledge in persons of all sorts. Oh that this promise might be fulfilled in our days, that the hand of God may be with his ministers so that great numbers may believe, and be turned to the Lord! The pardon of sin will always be found to accompany the true knowledge of God. Notice the freeness of this pardon; its fulness; its fixedness. This pardoning mercy is connected with all other spiritual mercies: unpardoned sin hinders mercy, and pulls down judgments; but the pardon of sin prevents judgment, and opens a wide door to all spiritual blessings. Let us search whether we are taught by the Holy Spirit to know Christ, so as uprightly to love, fear, trust, and obey him. All worldly vanities, outward privileges, or mere notions of religion, will soon vanish away, and leave those who trust in them miserable for ever

 

[metis]

There is actually some dispute on whether Jesus was actually in the mindset of a Pharisee, in the tradition of Shammai (which I agree he has a strong Shammai-leaning though some say more Hillel), or whether he was simply going from a variety of viewpoints. I see more Essene-ism (of what we know about the Essene factions) than anything, but that's hard to argue for since we don't know what exactly the Essenes believed. But you are right, he was not anti-Pharisee, he was "anti-Pharisee-factions"

I see him closer to Hillel than Shammai, but I do believe he went much further than Hillel ever did. Remember, Hillel taught that our actions towards others were of prime importance, but still his school did not teach that the other Laws were unimportant and could be ignored.

OTOH, Jesus seemingly takes the position that the "law of love" was so dominant that the other Laws were of lesser importance and could be ignored, which led the early church to walk away from the Law. Peter's dream about all animals being "clean" is a case in point, and the church essentially stops teaching their followers to keep kashrut.

I do not see any dominant Essene influence with Jesus, although there's some who have speculated that John the Baptist may have either been an Essene or was maybe influenced by them. Jesus' traveling around and relating to "sinners" was the polar opposite approach of the Essenes who wanted to avoid the taint of what they believed was a corrupt society. Also, we see no reference to any of the Essene scriptures that went beyond the Tanakh within the Christian scriptures.

Thanks for your input.

 

[psychoslice]

To see Jesus walking on the earth as a man and saying he was god is ridiculous, but to see Jesus as a man and declaring his inner being or Essence as God is another story, we are all One in Consciousness, you could call that Consciousness the Christ Consciousnesses, and that is what he meant, if he ever excited that is.

 

[Shermana]

I see him closer to Hillel than Shammai, but I do believe he went much further than Hillel ever did. Remember, Hillel taught that our actions towards others were of prime importance, but still his school did not teach that the other Laws were unimportant and could be ignored.

Jesus said anyone who teaches to break the "least" of the Laws will be called the least in the Kingdom. Though he did seem to indicate there were some laws greater than others, he did not imply that any were unimportant regarding their fate in the Kingdom.

OTOH, Jesus seemingly takes the position that the "law of love" was so dominant that the other Laws were of lesser importance and could be ignored,

I don't think Jesus remotely indicates any of them can be ignored. A commonly abused and misinterpreted passage is "All the Law hangs on these two". Many use that as a way of saying "All the rest are not binding" and come up with some abstract definition of love. It's the opposite. Jesus was saying that every single commandment was summarized by Love of God and neighbor. Not replaced by as the rascals try to say.

which led the early church to walk away from the Law. Peter's dream about all animals being "clean" is a case in point, and the church essentially stops teaching their followers to keep kashrut.

Peter's vision, which he explicitly explains as a purely metaphorical demonstration that gentiles are allowed into the church, is one of the most abused and mangled passages in the entire NT. It has nothing to do with the Dietary Laws, much like Mark 7:14 and others. While most Christians will run to call Acts 10 as doing away with the laws, (Which would make Peter a false prophet but who cares about that, right?) there are fortunately a handful of gentile churches that haven't been deluded into this garbage that it's okay to eat whatever you want. Funny still, most Christians have no problem chowing down on blood, even though the alleged Council of Jerusalem (a questionable event and possibly interpolated according to many scholars, especially in the late 19th and early 20th century) specifically forbade it. What it seems is that most Christians are looking for any interpretation which excuses them from any discipline or restraint on their "freedoms". But what was originally intended was most likely the strictest of "legalism", the same "legalism" most antinomians hate with great passion.

Biblical Health Principles

I do not see any dominant Essene influence with Jesus, although there's some who have speculated that John the Baptist may have either been an Essene or was maybe influenced by them.

For starters, his anti-wealth and communitarian ideals.

Jesus' traveling around and relating to "sinners" was the polar opposite approach of the Essenes who wanted to avoid the taint of what they believed was a corrupt society.

I don't think the Essenes didn't necessarily have their own missionaries and evangelists of sorts. I doubt it was just people who all came to their own decision to go live up on Mt. Carmel.

Also, we see no reference to any of the Essene scriptures that went beyond the Tanakh within the Christian scriptures.

Enoch is clearly referred to in Jude, as well as Assumption of Moses, and Testament of Solomon is referred to regarding power over demons.

 

[challupa]

I have never heard treason given as the official charge. What is your source? The Sanhedrin claimed it was blasphemy. Or you speaking of the charge or the reason behind the charge?

I have read this in several places. The Sanhedrin wanted him dead, that's true. However, there were quite a number of Messiahs with varying degrees of success and Rome crucified many of them for treason. Jesus had just turned over the money changers tables in the temple, money that the Romans would get. The following was getting larger also. When the Sanhedrin turned him over to Rome he was labelled King of the Jews. Do you think the Romans cared one hoot about blasphemy? They were pagans with lots of exposure to humans who claimed to be part human part God. It was common for the 'Gods' to have children with human women. What they were concerned about was his following. His lineage probably didn't help either. But they executed anyone they felt was a potential threat to the Empire. They liked stability and if he riled the population to riot, that couldn't be tolerated. The Jews themselves had no influence over Rome and they weren't allowed to make decisions that ended in death.

 

[look3467]

He condemned the pharisees because they were zealous for the law and the law had no heart. The law coupled with an evil heart only confirmed the severity of the law.>>>look3467

He condemned the Pharisees not only because they had no heart but because they had twisted the law and changed its interpretation according to their own traditions, and not what it originally meant. >>>Shermana

Does that not fit an evil heart as per my quote above?

What is missing in these discussions are these two things which are missing: 1. why was the law of Moses first set up and two why was Jesus the one to fulfill it?
On those two ride the differences between the law and grace.

Only Jesus, acting as God could fulfill the law, which condemned us all without hope, and free us all up from eternal extinction.

The law condemned, while God, via Jesus granted us freedom from the law unto life after death.

That takes all the effort, the merit and the glory of any man or women wanting to earn their way into the after life with God.

Jesus did not claim to be God, but was as God working in His behalf for the salvation of Gods creation.

To get a handle on that thought, one must understand the reason for our ability to choose.

Blessings, AJ

 

[Shermana]

Sigh, not the "fulfill" thing again.

This canard just doesn't die.

Completion: Fulfilling Torah and Prophets (Messianic Judaism)

 

[look3467]

The charge of blasphemy was just a convenient excuse that they came up with for executing him. Jesus was not guilty of blasphemy because he never claimed to be God, nor did he make himself equal to God as claimed. The Jews who conspired to have him kill were simply looking for a reason to execute him. Blasphemy was the false charge they came up with.>>>
captainbryce

You are absolutely right on all three, 1.Jesus was not guilty of blasphemy 2. never claimed to be God and 3. nor did he make himself equal to God.

But it had to be that way as God's design so that they would take Jesus to the cross and offer Him as God's sacrifice for mankind.

Blessings, AJ

 

[look3467]

Sigh, not the "fulfill" thing again.

This canard just doesn't die.

Completion: Fulfilling Torah and Prophets (Messianic Judaism)

If not, then there is nothing to talk about....is there?

Blessings, AJ

 

[Shermana]

If not, then there is nothing to talk about....is there?

Blessings, AJ

There's plenty to talk about, such as how Antinomians have warped and bastardized virtually everything the Gospels and Acts says about the Law. And perhaps even Paul too.

 

[look3467]

There's plenty to talk about, such as how Antinomians have warped and bastardized virtually everything the Gospels and Acts says about the Law. And perhaps even Paul too.

..."bastardized virtually everything the Gospels and Acts says about the Law"...

The new testament is in harmony with the old as far as the works of God are concerned.
Now, the works of mankind....well, that is another story.

Blessings, AJ

 

[Shermana]

The new testament is in harmony with the old as far as the works of God are concerned.
Now, the works of mankind....well, that is another story.

Blessings, AJ

It's only in harmony when you accept that the Law is valid for "All generations" for "perpetuity". Otherwise you call God a liar.

The works of mankind have been to try to sever the most important link between the Messiah and his message, which was how to live in full compliance with the intent of the Law.