aa5874

But, based on the author of gMatthew, Jesus did not want anyone to know he was the son of God. He told his disciples not tell anyone that he was the son of the living God.


Matthew 16:13-20 - It then seems that Jesus of the NT, based on gMatthew, wanted people to believe he was a son of a God by observing his actions or from revelation.

Sheshbazzar

In the Hebrew language the term "elohim" is not reserved exclusively to the heavenly Almighty.

John :10:34. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law;

אני־אמרתי אלהים אתם
ובני עליון כלכם׃

"I have said; You are elohim,
-and sons of Elyon, all of you"
Ps.82:6

35. If he called them אלהים, unto whom the word of יהוה came, and the Scripture cannot be broken;

36. Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of אלהים?


So with regards to the initial post, Yes, in verse 36 just above he makes the admission "because I said; I am The Son of Elohim?"
He was charged with making the statement, he admits to making the statement, he questions the rightness of their resistance to the Scripture.

(In my view, no matter how popular the practice, "god" capitalized or not, makes for a piss-poor translation/interpretation of the original Scriptural term.)

steve_bnk

JC was litreraly in the face of the religious elite, was he not? It is more like he was provoking a response form the Jewish powers that be.

IamJoseph

A better Q:


Did "EUROPEANS" ever state that he was God?


Get over it, hard as`it may be. Pre-Europe was steeped in divine emperors and Paganism throughout its history, and Christianity emerged on the heels of the world's only Monotheist nation saying 'NO SIR' to Rome's insane decree of Heresy. Europe thought Israel was dead after 70 CE.

Wrong on both counts. :notworthy:

IamJoseph

JC was not in the face of a religious elite - Judea was in the grip of a strangle hold of an insane, brutal nation called Rome - which issued an insane decree of Heresy. Over a million Jews sacrificed their lives and nation to uphold their beliefs - including the elitiest religious people - they fell hardest. The Gospels commited a lie-by-omission by not mentioning the real sacrifice which occured in their midst.

There was no kangaroo court for Jesus either - and none can ever prove one - guess why! The Gospels fooled all of today's otherwise sincere believers - its a 100% lie. And knock-knock! if there was a trial - Jesus would never have passed the Heresy test - same as those religious elites in your kangaroo court.

aChristian

Yes, in several different places. One example is John 8:58 where Jesus said, "before Abraham was, I AM".

Elijah

Yea, I agree it was challenging the authority not blaspheming by saying he was god that they were upset about and got him killed.

Jon-eli; just for disclosure, I am completely unknowledgeable about Jewish custom, especially in regards to law and how consistent it was from case to case or from group to group or how it evolved or changed through time and occupation, but what I was curious about was how could they have him stoned if they couldn’t turn the people against him for blasphemy? I may be letting the Monty Python bit shape my opinion too much here but could the council do the stoning themselves and would that have been acceptable to the people who thought he could have been someone special? Or is part of having someone stoned convincing the people the person needs stoning?

storytime

The conspiracy of Jesus the Christ and thus why he wanted to keep his proposed identity secret from the Pharisees and revealed to his disciples only. An intriguing story about the takeover of Jerusalem from the existing powers and start a new kingdom in Jesus name, his leadership. So, even though he died, yet would he live through those followers who would expand his teaching against the Pharisees and Sadducees. Keeping his identity as the only son of God might play on the elect priesthood in Levi as having been given the only authority in covenant, guaranteed throughout the life of Israel - iow, a forever priesthood. Is this what Jesus was conspiring to restore, in the only name given under heaven by which the Jews could be saved? Was this why the Pharisees hated Jesus, because they knew his lineage in Levites guaranteed him the throne at Jerusalem as high priest? Above every tribal name? All were sons of God but not all were the only begotten, the elect in name of Levi.

If the Pharisees were afraid of losing their authority at Jerusalem to an upstart like Jesus who was claiming himself as the elect of God and they in fear that Caesar might intervene should he get wind of it, as the story seems to indicate, would this have been enough reason to move Jesus out of the way? But this gets into politics moreso than religion doesn't it? I'm speculating of course, and like reading conspiracy theories.

No Robots

Under Roman rule, the Jewish leadership had no authority to impose a capital sentence. That is why the matter was referred to Pilate.

steve_bnk

There was a good show on Discovery Channel on the political aspects of JC. He was a reformer calling the Jews back to the old ways, for example his comment on Moses and divorce.

The choice of 12 disciples would have bee seen as representimng the 12 tribes. From what we have in the NT JC picked his words carfeuly and for maximum polkitical effect.

He also appears to be on the run most of the time in the outer areas. When he was arested at least one in his party was armed.

To me all's you have to do is look at the unrest in Palestine today to see the situaion back then. He was not telling the peole what the rekligios in power wanted to hear.