Who is the Messiah supposed to be?

[polonius]

When Christians refer to the Messiah, they are referring to Jesus who is also thought to be a divine person.

However, the original Jewish concept, found the Old Testament, reports the Messiah to be a national leader, but not divine himself.

When did Christians begin to consider Jesus to be divine and how did the concept of a divine Holy Ghost develop?

[polonius]

BJS posts

https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=10948

The title "son of God" was applied in the Old Testament to persons having any special relationship with God. Angels, just and pious men, the descendants of Seth, were called "sons of God" (Job 1:6; 2:1; Psalm 89:7; Wisdom 2:13; etc.). In a similar manner it was given to Israelites (Deuteronomy 14:50); and of Israel, as a nation, we read: "And thou shalt say to him: Thus saith the Lord: Israel is my son, my firstborn. I have said to thee: Let my son go, that he may serve me" (Exodus 4:22 sq.).


You have quoted this passage from the Catholic Encyclopedia before, but failed to address ways that it is problematic or misleading. I would point you back to this thread to see if you can defend the claim:
viewtopic.php?p=914318#914318

RESPONSE: Lets look at the Jewish explanation of the same thing.http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic ... -of-godSON OF GOD:

By: Kaufmann Kohler, Emil G. Hirsch
Table of Contents
• The Pious as Sons of God.
Term applied to an angel or demigod, one of the mythological beings whose exploits are described in Gen. vi. 2-4, and whose ill conduct was among the causes of the Flood; to a judge or ruler (Ps. lxxxii. 6, "children of the Most High"; in many passages "gods" and "judges" seem to be equations; comp. Ex. xxi. 6 [R. V., margin] and xxii. 8, 9); and to the real or ideal king over Israel (II Sam. vii. 14, with reference to David and his dynasty; comp. Ps. lxxxix. 27, 28). "Sons of God" and "children of God" are applied also to Israel as a people (comp. Ex. iv. 22 and Hos. xi. 1) and to all members of the human race.

The Hebrew idiom conveys nothing further than a simple expression of godlikeness (see Godliness). In fact, the term "son of God" is rarely used in Jewish literature in the sense of"Messiah."

Note: Beginning the expression with a capital letter doesn't make the subject divine.

[2timothy316]

You write this as though you are quoting Abraham when of course this is simply a parable, a fiction, one of Christ's compositions. It offers nothing.

If you don't believe the Bible is the Word of God then you're making my whole point. A person that doesn't believe the Bible to be the Word of God can never know who Jesus is and thus 'it offers nothing' to them because they can't see anything of value in the Bible. Many always making excuses as to why they will not believe this or that.

Jesus said, happy are the ones that know who he is, "because flesh and blood did not reveal it...but my Father in the heavens did." This the problem for many. They are expecting flesh and blood to reveal it to them. They so no other way. Jesus on the other hands says there is only one way. That is if his Father reveals to them. Even if a Jesus was standing in front of them raised from the dead, they would still find a way not to believe it.

I'm sorry to hear the parable of Lazarus 'offers you nothing'.

It is a pity Jesus didn't actually say he was or wasn't God.

Yet, thank you again for expressing your opinion and showing the thoughts of a person who is waiting for someone else other than Jesus' Father to reveal the Christ to them. Even though I'm sure you have read John 14:28 which Jesus is recorded as saying, "for the Father is greater than I am." One of many scriptures that should reveal who Jesus is to a person but people still read it scratching their heads.

[bjs]

RESPONSE: Lets look at the Jewish explanation of the same thing.http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic ... -of-godSON OF GOD:

By: Kaufmann Kohler, Emil G. Hirsch
Table of Contents
• The Pious as Sons of God.
Term applied to an angel or demigod, one of the mythological beings whose exploits are described in Gen. vi. 2-4, and whose ill conduct was among the causes of the Flood; to a judge or ruler (Ps. lxxxii. 6, "children of the Most High"; in many passages "gods" and "judges" seem to be equations; comp. Ex. xxi. 6 [R. V., margin] and xxii. 8, 9); and to the real or ideal king over Israel (II Sam. vii. 14, with reference to David and his dynasty; comp. Ps. lxxxix. 27, 28). "Sons of God" and "children of God" are applied also to Israel as a people (comp. Ex. iv. 22 and Hos. xi. 1) and to all members of the human race.

The Hebrew idiom conveys nothing further than a simple expression of godlikeness (see Godliness). In fact, the term "son of God" is rarely used in Jewish literature in the sense of"Messiah."

Note: Beginning the expression with a capital letter doesn't make the subject divine.

You have not addressed the fundamental problems with this reasoning.

The first is that “sons of God� as an idiom was only applied to angelic beings in the Old Testament (and the ambiguous use in Genesis 6). While the concept is applied to groups of people, the specific phrase is reserved for non-human angelic beings.

The second, and more important, is that when the concept of being God’s children was applied to humans, it was always used as a general description of a large group, most often the entire nation of Israel. When Jesus used the phrase son of God he applied it to himself personally. He was not saying that Israel as nation was the son of the Most High, but that he personally is the son of God. It was this individual use, as opposed to a corporate use, of the phrase “son of God� that caused people to say that he was claiming to be equal with God.

No more quotes that miss the central issue, please. Address the issue directly.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 15 by bjs]

OK. Thanks.

I like the way that the KJV puts it: "the Prince of life," but indeed in the margin it says, "or, author."

Another version says, "Chief Agent." (NWT) It refers us to Acts 5:31 where it says: "God exalted this one as Chief Agent and Savior to his right hand."

So it's fine to consider Jesus as the "Chief Agent" or "Author" of life, because he is the way that Jehovah provided for mankind to gain life forever. If not for Jesus' sacrifice, we would still be in our inherited sins. "For, indeed, Christ...died for ungodly men at the appointed time." (Romans 5:6) This was according to the will of the Father (Jehovah), as Jesus himself said time and again (John 5:30; John 6:38; Matthew 26:39). So Jesus, as "Author" of life, said that what he did and said was according to what the Father was telling him to do.

[onewithhim]

https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=10948

The title "son of God" was applied in the Old Testament to persons having any special relationship with God. Angels, just and pious men, the descendants of Seth, were called "sons of God" (Job 1:6; 2:1; Psalm 89:7; Wisdom 2:13; etc.). In a similar manner it was given to Israelites (Deuteronomy 14:50); and of Israel, as a nation, we read: "And thou shalt say to him: Thus saith the Lord: Israel is my son, my firstborn. I have said to thee: Let my son go, that he may serve me" (Exodus 4:22 sq.).

From Wikipedia Shema Yisrael ("Hear, [O] Israel") are the first two words of a section of the Torah, and is the title of a prayer that serves as a centerpiece of the morning and evening Jewish prayer services. The first verse encapsulates the monotheistic essence of Judaism: "Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one" (Hebrew: שְ�מַע יִשְׂרָ�ֵל ה' �ֱלֹהֵינוּ ה' �ֶחָד‬), found in Deuteronomy 6:4, sometimes alternatively translated as "The LORD is our God, the L ORD alone." Observant Jews consider the Shema to be the most important part of the prayer services in Judaism, and its twice-daily recitation as a mitzvah (religious commandment). It is traditional for Jews to say the Shema as their last words, and for parents to teach their children to say it before they go to sleep at night.

The Jewish-Christian community remained a sect in orthodox Judaism. There was no objection to them claiming Jesus was the messiah (or a son of God). This can be found in Mark c70 AD, and Matthew and Luke c80 AD.

However, when the Christians began to claim that Jesus himself was divine, The Christians were excluded from Jewish synagogues as apostates from Judaism. This is reported in John’s gospel written about 95 AD

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkat_haMinim

The Birkat ha-Minim is a Jewish curse on heretics (minim). Modern scholarship has generally evaluated that the Birkat haMinim probably did originally include Jewish Christians before Christianity became markedly a gentile religion. It is the 12th of the Eighteen Benedictions or Amidah.

What a pity that the Jews viewed Christians as believing that Jesus was God. That doctrine has done more damage than just about anything else. Thankfully a pocket of true believers continued to teach that Jesus was God's SON and that he fulfilled the Hebrew Scriptures. But alas.....the apostate church was overpowering, and the false beliefs came to be thought of as essential to Christian thought. (Acts 20:29,30)

[polonius]

bjs posted;

He was not saying that Israel as nation was the son of the Most High, but that he personally is the son of God. It was this individual use, as opposed to a corporate use, of the phrase “son of God� that caused people to say that he was claiming to be equal with God.

RESPONSE: How about this quote from Jesus himself?

"The Father is greater than I" in John 14:28

Members of the Trinity must be coequal and divine. If Jesus is not equal to God the Father, he is neither divine nor a member of the Trinity.

Is that missing your “central issue�? It seems pretty direct, don't you think?

[onewithhim]

We have Christ's view about his Son-ship throughout the Christian Greek Scriptures. He claimed to be the Son, no doubt about it. There IS certainty. The "Creed" is man-made. Why hang anything on that?

The claim is therefore ambiguous. You choose which meaning you want. What we read is man made. Some believe it is God-inspired of course, just as some believe the Koran is the actual word of God. The Creed is an interpretation of Scripture just as your beliefs are an interpretation. There is no point in quoting original words to back your interpretation because then an argument follows as to the true meaning. For exampe a Catholic would say: "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it," is adequate confirmation that Peter was the first representative of Christ and future representatives woud have Christ's guarantee that they would not be overcome by Satan. You may disagree.

Christ did indeed clarify who he was (and is), and it's unfair to him to say that he didn't. It's also unfair to say that he claimed to be God, which trinitarians cannot prove except by unbelievably distorting the Scriptures.

Unfortunately "son of God" is ambiguous. He did not say: I am God but he did not clarify. I agree with you but that is a mere interpretation. Trinitarians make a strong point. Jesus could have made himself clearer but perhaps he didn't anticipate the notion of Trinity, which is a pity.

Yes, I disagree with the point of view that Jesus was referring to Peter as the Rock, and that the RCC is the church that he was referring to. Checking out other scriptures, one can see that it is Jesus himself that is "the Rock," and it is his true church (the one on the narrow road to life which contains "FEW") that he is with, down to this day. Why should people accept the RCC's teaching without familiarizing themselves with other passages?

Referring to Jesus:

Romans 9:33
I Corinthians 10:4

I looked up those verses in the Douay-Rheims (Catholic) Bible. Isn't it obvious that people could learn more about what the Bible means by just doing a little studying/research?


Second point of discussion---Jesus saying that he was not God. Jesus DID make himself abundantly clear that he was not God. To say that he remained silent on that is, again I say, unfair. People who say that are not considering the CONTEXT of the verses they quote, and do not present any surrounding verses. Let me elaborate on my next post.

[onewithhim]

To follow up on post #27:

For example, in John chapter 10 Jesus is accused of making himself "God." If we are to examine what he said afterwards, it will be clear that he objected.

"If [the Scripture] calls them gods to whom the word of God came, ...can you say that the one whom the Father has consecrated and sent into the world blasphemes because I said, 'I am the SON of God'?" (John 10:33-36, NAB)

He was no namby-pamby. He would have been forceful and yet dignified. He wanted to reason with them. He was saying that he was not God but God's Son, and why would they say that he blasphemed, because he did NOT claim to be God. To think that he claimed to be God just because he said he was God's Son was not correct thinking. He called attention to the fact that "gods" in the Scriptures even referred to human judges (Psalm 82:1,6). So, in effect, also, John was off the hook for saying that "the Word was a god," which is actually what he wrote. I think Jesus was very adamant about the fact that he was not claiming to be God.


Another occasion, which must be read in context:

John 5:17-19: "He answered them: 'My Father has kept working until now, and I keep working.' On this account, indeed, the Jews began seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath but he was also calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God."

[For a moment: Where in that statement to the Jews did he say he was equal to God? He didn't. The Jews took off on flights of fancy, saying that he MUST be saying he's equal to God because he claims that God is his Father. They were wrong. That was their own erroneous thinking. Just like they thought he was breaking the Sabbath, when he wasn't. It was their own burdensome rules that would prohibit someone tending to another person's ailments on the Sabbath.]

The passage goes on:

"Therefore, in answer, Jesus went on to say to them: 'Most truly I say to you, The Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing. For whatever things that One does, these things the Son also does in like manner.'" Is that not an objection to what they were saying? He said, Look, I am not making myself out to be God. I can't do anything on my own! I have to copy the Father and do what He does so that I get it right.

That's pretty clear to me. Trinitarians do not tell people what the entire passage says. They are pulling out one verse and twisting it all around. Can you see what reading the whole passage offers as to clearing up false statements?

[Tcg]

Jesus DID make himself abundantly clear that he was not God.

If jesus made it "abundantly clear that he was not God", these near endless arguments over this issue wouldn't exist. The fact is they do exist and they exist because of the fact that jesus didn't make it clear.

[onewithhim]

Jesus DID make himself abundantly clear that he was not God.

If jesus made it "abundantly clear that he was not God", these near endless arguments over this issue wouldn't exist. The fact is they do exist and they exist because of the fact that jesus didn't make it clear.

If you actually READ my posts you could see WHY the arguments exist. People who want to say that Jesus is God don't present the entire passage where they have pulled out a few words. Will you kindly read my posts?