Who is Jesus? Is he God? (page 29)

UnDisfellowshipped

Luke 22:67-71 (ESV):

"If you are the Christ, tell us." But he said to them, "If I tell you, you will not believe,and if I ask you, you will not answer.But from now on the Son of Man shall be seated at the right hand of the power of God." So they all said, "Are you the Son of God, then?" And he said to them, "You say that I am." Then they said, "What further testimony do we need? We have heard it ourselves from his own lips."

In Luke 22:67-71, The Jews asked Jesus "Are You the Christ?" Jesus told them yes. They did not accuse Him of blasphemy for claiming to The Messiah!!!!!!

They next asked Him "Are You the Son of God, then?" and when Jesus said "Yes," then they immediately accused Jesus of blasphemy and condemned Him as worthy of DEATH. Why did they do that? John 19:7 explains:

John 19:7 (ESV): The Jews answered him, "We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God"

The Jews did not condemn Jesus for claiming to be the Messiah, but they DID condemn Him for claiming to be The Son of God!

Jesus used "Son of Man" as a title while on earth. It meant that Jesus was truly a Man, that He was fully Human. It was used the same way that the phrase "sons of the prophets" was used in the Old Testament. "Sons of the prophets" meant "of the order of the prophets."

So also, when Jesus used the title "The Son of God" it had the same meaning. He meant that He was "of the order of God," that He was fully Divine, and truly God. That is why the Pharisees reacted the way they did in John Chapter 5:

John 5:16-18 (ESV):

And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath. But Jesus answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I am working." This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father,making himself equal with God.

Jesus claimed that He was the UNIQUE Son of God, and that He had equal rights and authority with The Father to work on the Sabbath.

UnDisfellowshipped

Here's another interesting thought for everyone to consider:

What if Jesus was speaking in Hebrew or in Aramaic in John 8:58, and then John translated it into Greek? Hmmm.....

Mondo1

UD,

The issue is claiming a position or authority that is granted only by God for yourself when God did not grant it. With Jesus, God did grant it, but the Jews didn't accept it. Remember, they thought he was from Satan! I would suggest you pickup a copy of Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism - The Charge against Jesus in Mark 14:53-56 by Darrell L. Bock. It makes a VERY extensive review what was considered blasphemy, and upon reviewing the material, the principles well fit the events of John 8:58-59. Further, they also cover Jesus' claim for himself to be God's son.

Mondo

Mondo1

So what if he did translate it? It wouldn't change the point being conveyed by the Greek.

Btw, they did condemn Jesus to death for claiming to be "the son of man." So that rather shoots your son of man vs. son of God argument in the foot.

For the matter of making himself equal with God in John 5, I refer to you Westcott's commentary, which explains that Jesus was “placing His action on the same level with the action of God.” His claim to sonship was understood as appointed position (cf. Psa. 82:6) and so legally he was making himself equally to God, but not ontologically.

Mondo

UnDisfellowshipped

Mondo1 said:

UD,
The issue is claiming a position or authority that is granted only by God for yourself when God did not grant it. With Jesus, God did grant it, but the Jews didn't accept it. Remember, they thought he was from Satan! I would suggest you pickup a copy of Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism - The Charge against Jesus in Mark 14:53-56 by Darrell L. Bock. It makes a VERY extensive review what was considered blasphemy, and upon reviewing the material, the principles well fit the events of John 8:58-59. Further, they also cover Jesus' claim for himself to be God's son.
Mondo

I will definitely check out that book as soon as possible. But, you did not reply to my questions about the fact that EARLIER in John Chapter 8, Jesus had already made 3 (or more) claims to having authority and a position granted only by God and the Jews did not think God had granted it to Him. The claims were: 1:) Jesus' ability to forgive sins. 2:) Jesus' ability to give eternal life. 3:) Jesus' claim that you can only be saved through Him. Why would the Jews overlook those obvious claims of authority and position, and wait until He said "I AM" to stone Him?

UnDisfellowshipped

Mondo1 said:

Btw, they did condemn Jesus to death for claiming to be "the son of man." So that rather shoots your son of man vs. son of God argument in the foot.

Not according to the Gospel of Luke -- read it very carefully and see for yourself. In the verses below, first the Jews ask Him if He is the Messiah, to which He confesses by saying that He is The Son of Man (Son of Man also had the added meaning of representing the coming "Messiah" from the Book of Daniel). The Jews then decide to ask Jesus if He claims to be The Son of God, to which Jesus also confesses -- THEN they condemn Him for blasphemy.

Luke 22:67:

"If you are the Christ, tell us." But he said to them, "If I tell you, you will not believe,

Luke 22:68:

and if I ask you, you will not answer.

Luke 22:69:

But from now on the Son of Man shall be seated at the right hand of the power of God."

Luke 22:70:

So they all said, "Are you the Son of God, then?" And he said to them, "You say that I am."

Mondo1

If you look carefully, they thought he was insane. They thought he had a demon controlling him. Notice though they he doesn't forgive sins here. He only says that if you don't believe in him you will die. He doesn't say he gives life, he simply says that those that believe in him will have it. He does claim that they must be saved through him. That is correct.

Essentially we are looking at what was a breaking point, the final straw. A similar thing took place when Stephen was stoned.

Mondo

Mondo1

Well Luke isn't the only Gospel now is it? Read Mark 14.

UnDisfellowshipped

While we're talking about "I AM", what about John 13:19?

John 13:19:

From now on I tell you before it happens, so that when it happens, you may believe that I AM.

If you claim that Jesus was simply referring back to something He said earlier in the Chapter, then what was He referring back to? To the fact that He was "Lord and Teacher"? The Apostles ALREADY believed that Jesus was their Lord and Teacher, so that would make no sense.

Also, compare John 13:19 to Isaiah 41:4, 22:

Isaiah 41:4, 22 (from the "Complete Apostles Bible" Translation of the Septuagint)

Who has performed and done these things? He has called it who called it from the generations of old; I God, the first and to all futurity, I AM. [...] Let them draw near, and declare to you what things shall come to pass; or tell us what things were of old, and we will apply our understanding, and we shall know what are the last and the future things;

UnDisfellowshipped

Mondo1 said:

Well Luke isn't the only Gospel now is it? Read Mark 14.

Are you pitting the Gospels against each other? Should we not rather try to harmonize the Gospels? If one Gospel includes an EXTRA detail that the others leave out, should we just assume that the Gospels that LEAVE OUT the details are correct, and the one the adds the extra detail is wrong? Is that a sound way to interpret the Bible? Also, I am very curious about something. Hypothetically, Let's say that a person was convinced that you are correct, and they were convinced that Jesus was just an exalted creature and not God, but that He should also be worshiped because God commands it. Where would a person find a church or religion that teaches these doctrines (other than the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Unitarian Universalists). Also, if a person wanted to find a Bible that said Jesus was "a god" in John 1:1, how many are available?

Who is Jesus? Is he God?

Share this