the right religion

[metis]

Christians view the definition in the Tanakh as having to do with God ie if a person acts somewhat godly he could be referred to as a son of God. However the Christian definition is that of the indwelling God as Jesus as defined by these verses in John: 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Yes, I'm fully aware of the general Christian teaching on this, but the discussion on a couple of previous posts further back in this thread dealt with the "son of God" reference being messianic, which it is not. However, "son of man", which shows up in both the Tanakh and the "N.T." is generally viewed that way historically.

 

[1robin]

Yes, I'm fully aware of the general Christian teaching on this, but the discussion on a couple of previous posts further back in this thread dealt with the "son of God" reference being messianic, which it is not. However, "son of man", which shows up in both the Tanakh and the "N.T." is generally viewed that way historically.

I thought son of man was Jesus's terminology for his role as man's servant and example. The son of God in all commentaries and early church writings is a unique label of special relationship to the father. It is almost never regarded as a generic term the way mortals use it about our relationship with God. Jesus was truly both a son of men and a unique son of God.

 

[1robin]

I don't see it that way. I believe one must receive Jesus as Lord and Savior and that is accomplished by faith. The fact that He is the Messiah doesn't really impact me as much since I am a Gentile.

I used the term to have relevance to both Christians and Jews. I mean Jesus and what he did, but if he was not the messiah faith in him would be of no special significance. Only the appointed messiah SAVES.

Possibly it can happen in other religions but it is my belief that God will always point a person to Jesus. So if a person says he has God indwelling and does not acknowledge Jesus I would take the person's statement with skepticism.

I agree. Apart from a terminology hierarchy contention I do not see any point of disagreement here.

 

[metis]

As far as "son of man" is concerned, check out this link, but scroll down into the Writings of the Prophets, and even then one has to be careful of the context since most of the "son of man" citations do not refer to the Messiah: Bible, Revised Standard Version

Also...:

As generally interpreted by Jews, "son of man" denotes mankind generally in contrast to deity, with special reference to their weakness and frailty (Job 25:6; Psalms 8:4; Psalms 144:3; Psalms 146:3; Isaiah 51:12, etc.). And the term "ben adam" is but a formal substitute for the personal pronoun or maybe a title given to the prophet Ezekiel, probably to remind him of his human weakness.[7]
In post-biblical Jewish literature the most common use is similar to that of the English word "human." For example in 1QapGen. XXI.13: MT שיא (Gen. 13.16), it certainly connotes a "human being."
"Among Jews the term "son of man" was not used as the specific title of the Messiah. The New Testament expression ὅ ὑιὸς τοῦ ἀνθρόπου is a translation of the Aramaic "bar nasha," and as such could have been understood only as the substitute for a personal pronoun, or as emphasizing the human qualities of those to whom it is applied. That the term does not appear in any of the epistles ascribed to Paul is significant." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_man

 

[1robin]

As far as "son of man" is concerned, check out this link, but scroll down into the Writings of the Prophets, and even then one has to be careful of the context since most of the "son of man" citations do not refer to the Messiah: Bible, Revised Standard Version

Also...:

As generally interpreted by Jews, "son of man" denotes mankind generally in contrast to deity, with special reference to their weakness and frailty (Job 25:6; Psalms 8:4; Psalms 144:3; Psalms 146:3; Isaiah 51:12, etc.). And the term "ben adam" is but a formal substitute for the personal pronoun or maybe a title given to the prophet Ezekiel, probably to remind him of his human weakness.[7]
In post-biblical Jewish literature the most common use is similar to that of the English word "human." For example in 1QapGen. XXI.13: MT שיא (Gen. 13.16), it certainly connotes a "human being."
"Among Jews the term "son of man" was not used as the specific title of the Messiah. The New Testament expression ὅ ὑιὸς τοῦ ἀνθρόπου is a translation of the Aramaic "bar nasha," and as such could have been understood only as the substitute for a personal pronoun, or as emphasizing the human qualities of those to whom it is applied. That the term does not appear in any of the epistles ascribed to Paul is significant." -- Son of man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I was not commenting on the "son of man" designation as interpreted by any group in general. I was talking about the intent behind Christ's usage of it. When he said "son of man" and "son of God" what did he mean. I believe Christ never considered himself a mere teacher or mortal. It might be difficult to prove he considered himself a God but the former rules out mundane common descriptions for he meant. BTW I never suggested son of man had any connection with the messiah in the context you gave. I said it had a connection as his role as example and servant of man plus probably his role as a human being. I do not really see any thing in your definition above that disagreed with my claims. However once you take into account that that same man also claimed to be the unique son of God and what we have is no longer an average man. In fact I know of no other Biblical character that ever used those two terms in reference to himself.

 

[metis]

However once you take into account that that same man also claimed to be the unique son of God and what we have is no longer an average man. In fact I know of no other Biblical character that ever used those two terms in reference to himself.

Actually that claim can be found in most religions, although the terminology is typically art least somewhat different. The idea of deities walking around on earth was actually very commonplace.

Anyhow, my point was to tell you what the Jewish approach has generally been based on the terminology "son of man" and "son of God", and I am indeed aware that most Christians see at least "son of god" differently than we do.

 

[1robin]

Actually that claim can be found in most religions, although the terminology is typically art least somewhat different. The idea of deities walking around on earth was actually very commonplace.

Then let's start with Christianity. Who else claimed what Christ did? I am not referring to the idea of deity on Earth. I am referring to those two statements.

Anyhow, my point was to tell you what the Jewish approach has generally been based on the terminology "son of man" and "son of God", and I am indeed aware that most Christians see at least "son of god" differently than we do.

Very well but as it is Christ who said these things under discussion why is what Jews traditionally take the terms to mean relevant. I would think only how he meant them would be.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Then let's start with Christianity. Who else claimed what Christ did? I am not referring to the idea of deity on Earth. I am referring to those two statements.

Very well but as it is Christ who said these things under discussion why is what Jews traditionally take the terms to mean relevant. I would think only how he meant them would be.

Because Christ was raised as a Jew? Though what we have is what people wrote about what they were told that Christ said.

 

[1robin]

Because Christ was raised as a Jew? Though what we have is what people wrote about what they were told that Christ said.

I do not think you could equate the beliefs of the group Christ contended more often than any other with, and his own. I believe you brought up the statement Christ had made, are you now suggesting nothing about him can be reliably known?

 

[metis]

Then let's start with Christianity. Who else claimed what Christ did? I am not referring to the idea of deity on Earth. I am referring to those two statements.

Very well but as it is Christ who said these things under discussion why is what Jews traditionally take the terms to mean relevant. I would think only how he meant them would be.

I never said they had to be relevant to you or to other Christians. Also, I couldn't care less who may or may not have used Jesus' exact words as that is really not at all important. Finally, the fact that most religions have taught that deities walked the face of the earth is what it is.

It seems to me that all you want to do is argue, and I really don't have any desire to do so.

 

[metis]

Though what we have is what people wrote about what they were told that Christ said.

I think what you wrote above is quite important. What we have with any scriptures are various people's takes on what might have been said, often passed down for years or decades. An example of this can be exemplified by looking up how many angels were at Jesus' tomb, where were he/they located, and what did he/they say? No two gospels match. I can do much the same with Torah, so I'm not trying to pick on Christian teachings.

Theologians generally refer to these differences as "variations", and they generally don't conclude that they're contradictions or that they're a match in some way. In Judaism, we do not decide which is supposedly the right translation, instead we have had a history of collecting commentaries going back roughly 2500 years, and people can read some of these and decide for themselves. Jesus himself used that commentary system and added to it.

So, your point is a good one.

 

[1robin]

I never said they had to be relevant to you or to other Christians. Also, I couldn't care less who may or may not have used Jesus' exact words as that is really not at all important. Finally, the fact that most religions have taught that deities walked the face of the earth is what it is.

It seems to me that all you want to do is argue, and I really don't have any desire to do so.

That is not the point. If we are to evaluate the meaning of what Christ claimed (and I thought you were the one the brought it up) then it is his meaning that is relevant. It is not what the Jews thought what he said meant that is important.

 

[1robin]

I think what you wrote above is quite important. What we have with any scriptures are various people's takes on what might have been said, often passed down for years or decades. An example of this can be exemplified by looking up how many angels were at Jesus' tomb, where were he/they located, and what did he/they say? No two gospels match. I can do much the same with Torah, so I'm not trying to pick on Christian teachings.

Theologians generally refer to these differences as "variations", and they generally don't conclude that they're contradictions or that they're a match in some way. In Judaism, we do not decide which is supposedly the right translation, instead we have had a history of collecting commentaries going back roughly 2500 years, and people can read some of these and decide for themselves. Jesus himself used that commentary system and added to it.

So, your point is a good one.

Actually the harmony of the Gospels concerning the angels at the tomb texts have been available for a very long time. I will even get you a link if you wish. I am not a Biblical perfectionist and there are errors but the number of Angels is not one of them.

 

[metis]

Actually the harmony of the Gospels concerning the angels at the tomb texts have been available for a very long time. I will even get you a link if you wish. I am not a Biblical perfectionist and there are errors but the number of Angels is not one of them.

I have read enough accounts of this already (btw, I used to have a book entitled "The Harmony of the Gospels" many moons ago), and the fact still remains that they vary. Any serious theological approach recognizes there are variations, and attempts to conclude things one way or another is very problematic, to say the least.

For you to say they don't contradict is simply a value judgement on your part whereas I take no position one way or another. It is virtually illogical to say there are no errors, because the implication is that you know with absolute certainty what the correct answer is-- and you can't.

From my perspective, it is what it is, and I don't have to make any judgement on it.

 

[metis]

That is not the point. If we are to evaluate the meaning of what Christ claimed (and I thought you were the one the brought it up) then it is his meaning that is relevant. It is not what the Jews thought what he said meant that is important.

Jesus was a Jew operating within a Jewish paradigm. If one strips that away, they will lose context and, therefore, understanding. Jesus was not an American sitting around reading his English-language Bible published 2000 years later, so both cultural and historical context is very important.

 

[1robin]

Jesus was a Jew operating within a Jewish paradigm. If one strips that away, they will lose context and, therefore, understanding. Jesus was not an American sitting around reading his English-language Bible published 2000 years later, so both cultural and historical context is very important.

We are saying way to much and not getting anywhere. I will check back tomorrow, my fingers hurt.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I do not think you could equate the beliefs of the group Christ contended more often than any other with, and his own. I believe you brought up the statement Christ had made, are you now suggesting nothing about him can be reliably known?

Christ contended against the Pharisees and Sadducees not Judaism.

 

[metis]

Christ contended against the Pharisees and Sadducees not Judaism.

Mostly against some of the Sadducee leaders and the mainstream Pharisee element.

The Pharisees were not a monolithic group, and there were what archaeologists call "liberal Pharisee" groups that had actually quite similar teachings that Jesus believed in, and sometimes they were called "love Pharisees" since they put so much emphasis on love of God and love of all humankind.

Jesus' attacks on the mainline Pharisee group appears to center around the "oral law" and "building the fence around the Torah", both of which he seemingly calls "laws made by men". The liberal Pharisees didn't like these either, plus they tended to have a less parochial view, thus asking for a more inclusive approach that also paralleled Jesus' approach.

Now did Jesus see himself as part of that group? I haven't a clue, but he seems to have attracted those Jews who were at least sympathetic to that approach.

Anyhow, I just thought I'd offer this as some clarification as to what archaeologists and historians have found. And, believe it or not, if one looks up "Pharisees" in Wikipedia, they actually do a commendable job covering the variation.

 

[1robin]

I have read enough accounts of this already (btw, I used to have a book entitled "The Harmony of the Gospels" many moons ago), and the fact still remains that they vary. Any serious theological approach recognizes there are variations, and attempts to conclude things one way or another is very problematic, to say the least.

There is nothing extraordinary or problematic about variance. Now if you show unresolvable conflict you may be onto something but as each gospel was written for different purposes and to different audiences I would far more surprised if they were identical and then people would say they all copied each other.

For you to say they don't contradict is simply a value judgement on your part whereas I take no position one way or another. It is virtually illogical to say there are no errors, because the implication is that you know with absolute certainty what the correct answer is-- and you can't.

I know of many problems and mistakes in the Bible (about 5%) but if a variance is resolved with no violation of integrity or the historical method I am justified in saying it does not conflict. This will never get anywhere until a specific example is examined.

From my perspective, it is what it is, and I don't have to make any judgement on it.

If you make no judgment about it then to what purpose was it mentioned? People do not usually bring up neutral things in a debate. You bring up many things but seem to shy away from resolution. I am the opposite where possible. I would need an example to resolve this one. If not that is certainly your right.

 

[1robin]

Christ contended against the Pharisees and Sadducees not Judaism.

He contended with Judaism's highest priests. He even ended the entire covenant given to them originally. I am at a loss to account for what you are claiming. Did you think I meant some type of debate in a forum or something. It was not even Judaism that was the subject. Someone mentioned using Jewish tradition and interpretation to interpret what Christ had said. I mentioned that Jesus above and beyond any other group rejected and criticized Jewish leadership in theological positions. I do not mean Jesus came to say all of Judaism was wrong just that their practicing of it and traditions and interpretations of it had gone horribly off track. Keep the purpose my statement was made for in mind as I do see how confusion is hard to avoid here. Let me try and clarify once more. Jesus refuted the opinion of even the Jews in the highest authority positions over their understandings. He did not come to debate against their faith as God had revealed it.