Thank you for the exchange Rrhain.
Hope all is well with you ...
Rrhain writes:
weary writes:
Rrhain writes:
weary writes:
Rrhain writes:
dwise1 writes:
Peg writes:
... well we were talking about the old testament, but sure, Jesus did say he was the son of God.
Did he? As I recall ... his response was usually something like "Well, you say that I am."
Yes, he did. That's why he was brought to trial. He committed the ultimate blasphemy: He claimed to be god ...
quote:
Mark 14:61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
14:62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
[emphasis added]
lol - so religious pranksters begin to refer to the Father as 'I AM', and whenever somebody says the phrase, 'I am', they are blasphemous. Nice ...
Huh? That isn't what the text says. Instead, it says that Jesus was directly asked if he was the son of god and he directly replied, "I am." The physical words, "I am," in that particular order aren't blasphemy. You seem to think that "blasphemy" is tied to a particular sequence of letters of phonemes. Instead, blasphemy is a concept. There is no god but god in Judaism. For Jesus to claim that he is the son of god is to blaspheme. The specific words used to express that claim are immaterial: It is the claim that is the problem.
Your dual charges appear to remain mutually exclusive.
Since you misquoted, your claim is trivially proven false.
Perhaps there was a misunderstanding ...
Although it was not in regards to the definition of blasphemy and what the term identifies within Judaism or elsewhere. As I can now see that you have not embraced the habit of referring to the Father as I AM in an attempt to cornhole the debate, and that you are being honest enough to admit that the response on Yeshua's behalf was indeed directed to the question that was actually asked, it would appear as though you are finally at a crossroads
(rooow aaads - lol). I think you may be getting hung up by exchanging the original question posed to Yeshua with the distinctly different question 'Are you God?'; to which you conclude '
He claimed to be god'. I am not sure though, as you display some perdy fancy footloose footwork at times ...
The thing is, you have also suggested within your response, strange as it may seem, that the text of the bible indicates '
that Jesus was directly asked if he was the son of god and he directly replied, "I am."'; so, it becomes easy to consider that you are suggesting that
Yeshua is depicted as identifying himself as the Anointed One, the Son of the God of Yisrael ... fair enough, I say. Unfortunately, it appears as though you may have stumbled into a musty pit of incoherency by stating '
Jesus claimed the power for himself. That was the blasphemy and for that, he proved that he could not possibly be the Messiah for the Messiah is a human being, born of humans, completely human, no divinity whatsoever.'.
You have wisely shared that those within the religious traditions of Judea were not on the active prowl for human divination. So, one must ask, did the question repeatedly posed to Yeshua by the Pharisees reference a claim as an entity, as opposed to a claim of authority? A simple and honest rendering of the scripture, within a Hebraic context, reveals that Yeshua does not claim divine
entity, as pagans - and yourself apparently - often suggested centuries later, but HaMashiach rather admitted his divine
authority as a servant of God; a lone servant who loved God as a Father, and naturally exposed himself as a son. Granted, you can't tell that to conspiracy theorists, because they have all ready made up their minds on the matter.
Nevertheless, a forthright attempt was made within
Message 88 to help assist in an understanding of how, and what, the terms 'Sons of the Most High', 'Sons of God' and 'Sons of the Blessed' may have indicated, and expressed, within a contemporary Hebraic framework and in what way those terms may be applied to the particular episode you have chosen from the Gospel attributed to Mark. In that example, we briefly examined the dynamics contained in a similar scenario which is found within the Gospel attributed to John. Granted, the attempt was not exhaustive ...
Perhaps it should have been though, as it now appears that a seemingly odd pattern as emerged wherein you
(not quite) consistently impose and attach the accustomed definition of 'God' on to the distinctly separate Hebraic terms 'Sons of the Most High', 'Sons of God' and 'Sons of the Blessed', as can be seen in
Message 42 and
Message 95. Such a pattern could severly detour any honest attempt to understand such a text, if such a desire indeed existed. Alas, where my concerns once waned, they now begin to wither ...
You see, the thing is, you exposed your competency for all to see within
Message 132 when you explained to Peg that '
the construction of "ben elohim," literally "sons of god",' ' ... does not mean actual child.'. You continued to explain to her that the term 'Sons of God' '
It is not a reference to actual parent/child relationship but simply a description of class', which is, admittedly, a little misleading, but then you redeemed yourself by declaring something else that appears to be of great importance; you asserted that '
"Sons of god" is of the same class as "sons of the prophets."'.
I think many of us would tend to agree ...
You were even kind enough to divulge how the term 'Sons of the True God' in Genesis 6 was '
not a reference to actual children but a classification of status and place'; seems, to me, to be on the money. This, consequently, appears to indicate that you have a semi-firm grip on how, and what, the terms 'Sons of the Most High', 'Sons of God' and 'Sons of the Blessed' may indicate, and express, within Hebraic thought.
Yet, we are presented with a seemingly odd premise on your behalf (mine are consistently weird, I think, so they may not stand out as much):
1)
"Sons of god" is of the same class as "sons of the prophets" ... not a reference to actual children but a classification of status and place (
Message 132)
2)
Jesus was directly asked if he was the son of god and he directly replied, "I am." ... (
Message 95)
3)
He committed the ultimate blasphemy: He claimed to be god ... (
Message 42)
Unfortunately, as I am evidently not misquoting you, your dual charges not only continue and appear to remain mutually exclusive ...
Your disposition of honesty and logic employed appear similar.
I will ask you again Rrhain ...
Did 'Jesus claim divinity' or did Yeshua admit authority?
Which is it?
Rrhain writes:
weary writes:
Are we just posting random jew faqs now?
Oy.
Often Judaism is thought of as a religion of cold, harsh laws and then contrasted with Christianity, supposedly the religion of love and brotherhood. This appears to be an unfair characterization of both Judaism and various laws derived from Hebraic thought. Love and kindness have always been a central part of Judaism.
Pirkei Avot teaches that the world is based on three things:
1)
Torah (law/grace)
2)
Avodah (service to God)
3)
g'milut chasadim (commonly translated as 'acts of lovingkindness')
The latter tenet of this teaching is perhaps drawn from Psalm 89:3 where it is declared that 'the world is built on kindness'. Within Judaism, this passage is more commonly translated as 'forever is mercy built'.
The Talmud suggests that g'milut chasadim is greater than tzedakah (charity). The reason this is accepted is that, unlike tzedakah, many beleive g'milut chasadim can be done for both poor and rich, both the living and the dead, as well as allowing the opportunity to be performed with money or with acts (Talmud Sukkah 49b). The Mishnah describes g'milut chasadim as one of the few things that one may enjoy the fruits of in this world, with the principal remaining intact in the world to come.
Link
Rrhain writes:
weary writes:
You said HaMashiach 'claimed divinity for Himself'; is that what Yeshua meant by 'sitting at the right hand of power' ?
What? You mean the Bible contradicts itself! (*gasp!*) Oh, noes! Say it isn't so! A book cobbled together over hundreds of years by multiple authors, redacted by others, and compiled by still others isn't completely consistent in every phrase? Surely you jest!
lol - nice
joust ... although it seems as now the altar boy is preachin' to the choir.
Anybody who skims through Yeremiah and Hoshea, as well as various others within the radical prophetic tradition canonized in scripture, while remaining honest and lending credit to their message, can come to no other conclusion.
I guess I get to ask you the same question:
Do you not know about trinitarianism?
lol - I guess I get to ask you ...
What does Isis, Horus and Tammuz have to do with this?
In exactly what way does an ancient babylonian concept, rebirthed and employed as a lampshade by a bunch of poli-religious Roman wannabe-levite pranksters fifty years after the medieval
crisis of the third century, apply to a conversation depicted in the first century between a bunch of zealous Hebrews and Yeshua?
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : sp.
I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe ...
Tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
Why trust what I say when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary
™ Version 4.2
