Messiah being divine

[SimoneQuinn]

I have a Christian friend who I am having a discussion with, about the Messiah. Of course he believes Y'eshua was the messiah and was either fully HaShem or divine/subordinate to HaShem. (It is hard for me to keep track of what each Christian believes in that dept.)
Well he stated yesterday that he heard a Jewish Rabbi tell a Christian minister that Jews believe the messiah will be G-d. I am not sure when he heard this.
I replied to him, giving him some website excerpts and told him that is not what I have come to know. I told him I wanted to also ask some individuals. I am a fledgling learner, so I do assume my opinion is not yet of much weight in the discussion with him. He was interested in hearing what I find out.

Would anyone care to give me advice on what to tell him? This is a big factor in the discussion of whether Y'eshua is G-d.

 

[roberto]

Before and during his crucifiction Yeshua prayed.
Did he pray to himself?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

My suggestion would be to ask where does HaShem claim to have any equal or even merely subordinates who are of a nature we might regard as 'gods' while keeping the commandments we were given?

In the Torah we are told of a Messiah (though it is arguable that it is not talking about one particular individual but rather the role itself, a succession of individuals throughout history perhaps who shall perform that role) but nothing to assert its divinity. It is only within the Christian new testament (and subsequent 'revelations' such as the book of Mormon) that these assertions are made - but to what extent one might accept the specific claims made in any one section depend upon the extent to which you accept that it is the product of revelation (and how consistent it remains to the original intended revelation).

There are many christos, many moshiach within the Torah, false and anointed alike.

Though many may have claimed as much, or had their followers claim as much, none save Y'eshua continue to be regarded 'divine' in such a manner, though their messages may be.

 

[roberto]

Rom 9:17[cjb] For the Tanakh says to Pharaoh, "It is for this very reason that I raised you up, so that in connection with you I might demonstrate my power, so that my name might be known throughout the world."

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Indeed, there are numerous such references within the Christian new testament, if you are however to discuss the nature of Messianic divinity however, for one whom accepts that the revelation within the Old testament is legitimate (even if incomplete) they must indeed find sufficient evidence within the Torah alone to justify the acceptance of new revelation where it contradicts or distorts the meaning of the original; such evidence may perhaps be referenced within the new testament, but within the Torah alone (the then accepted contemporary revelation) there must be sufficient evidence to suggest the divine nature of the Messiah. Especially as a result of the well established and repeated claims of HaShem's singular, unparalleled existence throughout the Torah - any assertion that directly counteracts these definitive claims (about the nature of the theological position itself) must therefore need to be sufficiently evidenced within the already accepted revelation.

 

[Zardoz]

...Well he stated yesterday that he heard a Jewish Rabbi tell a Christian minister that Jews believe the messiah will be G-d. I am not sure when he heard this...

Sorry I didn't see your thread sooner.

I can tell you without a doubt that is not the case. Maybe he said that G-d will save the Jews, but there's no way a Rabbi would say that G-d would become a man to do so.

 

[roberto]

Deu 18:15 The LORD your God will raise up to you a prophet from the midst of you, of your brothers, like me. You shall listen to him.

"...like me..."?

Moses was a mere man as Yeshua was.

 

[SimoneQuinn]

Thank you all. I was actually wondering if maybe he heard him wrong, such as you mentioned Zardoz.

 

[Freelance_Policeman]

Yeah, I'm sticking with Zardoz. If that's what a rabbi said, that rabbi needs to be removed from office.

I always thought that verse referred to Yoshua, not the Mosiac or Masiach. I think Yahshua might have been divine, but even if he was, there's no way he's God in avatar/whatever Trinitarians believe. But you don't have to be divine to do God's will.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

Someone please explain the following, in light of what has been said here:

Matt 26
[63] But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
[64] Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
[65] Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.
[66] What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.

For what was Jesus pronounced guilty of death? For claiming to be Messiah (whom the High Priest descried as the "Son of God"? Others have done so throughout the ages in Judaism, and they were not put to death for claiming this. How is it "blasphemous", to claim to be the Messiah?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I find Reza Aslan's work on this quite enlightening actually (I disagree with him on many topics, but his work on the historical Jesus and the world in which he lived was very interesting and pertinent to this line of inquiry)

If you recognise that in Jesus' time claims about being a messiah was both a religious and secular claim, that indeed religion did not stop at the metaphoric but was part of the tapestry of everyday real life - the claim to divine authority is a claim that is one that bears upon both the supernatural and the natural - this is a claim (basically the divine right of kings) to absolute authority within the real world as well as the implications for the hereafter. Such a statement even if one discounts the purely religious connotations (which would indeed have been considered blasphemous) it is also a statement that would have also been considered sedition but in those times, sedition was not really considered that far removed from blasphemy (because the current rulers have divine authority).

Note that within the translation you have used, Christ has been capitalised, are you aware that there are many christs (note the lower case 'c') in the old testament? Indeed it references a score of people as it is a title used to denote a role not a person. In the OT there are many christs and many messiahs (and those that have falsely asserted as much). The use of Christ as opposed to christ is an attempt by christians to assert jesus as being special, yet other than their own claims (largely encapsulated in the NT) there is nothing to back up this assertion - particularly in the OT, where there are quite a few statements which contradict it.

I have given a brief look into the word Christ in your translation, similar is available for Son of God (though it is more complex and I am no linguist so would not do it justice) and some other phrases. Phrasing and translations have over time adjusted to match the perceived meaning and that includes the theological beliefs of those involved - it is simply not accurate.

However assuming the translation were accurate, nothing within the New Testament has the capacity to retrospectively assert that a messiah prophesied in the OT needed to be divine in nature (as opposed to merely divinely anointed).

The NT could assert that jesus has a divine nature and that he is the fulfilment of some prophesy (it cannot change the prophesy - that includes to assert that prophesy requires a divine messiah). All content within the NT would then need be subject to the OT with regards to what was already accepted as legitimate divine revelation; one needs to be able to explain purely within the OT why the NT claims could be considered not merely valid but (granted the assumption of new revelation) why contradictory OT claims could then be discounted (once again, only referencing the OT) - now most of the authority for NT content obviously stems from the claim of Jesus' divine nature. One would therefore need to be able to account (using only the OT) for the very significant discrepancy between the OT's repeated explicit claims of god's singular nature and lack of peers with the NT's assertion of Jesus's divine nature.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

...I have given a brief look into the word Christ in your translation, similar is available for Son of God (though it is more complex and I am no linguist so would not do it justice) and some other phrases. Phrasing and translations have over time adjusted to match the perceived meaning and that includes the theological beliefs of those involved - it is simply not accurate.

However assuming the translation were accurate, nothing within the New Testament has the capacity to retrospectively assert that a messiah prophesied in the OT needed to be divine in nature (as opposed to merely divinely anointed).

Informed, there is nothing here that asserts that Jesus was divine. It merely states that the HIGH PRIEST seemed to think that Messiah should be divine. Otherwise, how is it that he called Jesus' claim to be Messiah "blasphemous"?

The NT could assert that jesus has a divine nature and that he is the fulfilment of some prophesy (it cannot change the prophesy - that includes to assert that prophesy requires a divine messiah)...

The NT doesn't assert this. I have heard Christians say things along those lines, but have never seen it in scripture.

What I want to know, is why the High Priest thought Jesus was guilty of blaspehmy.

For what it's worth, the Pe****ta Aramaic version reads:

Matthew 26:63-66 - ܝܶܫܽܘܥ ܕ݁ܶܝܢ ܫܰܬ݁ܺܝܩ ܗ݈ܘܳܐ ܘܰܥܢܳܐ ܪܰܒ݁ ܟ݁ܳܗܢܶܐ ܘܶܐܡܰܪ ܠܶܗ ܡܰܘܡܶܐ ܐ݈ܢܳܐ ܠܳܟ݂ ܒ݁ܰܐܠܳܗܳܐ ܚܰܝܳܐ ܕ݁ܬ݂ܺܐܡܰܪ ܠܰܢ ܐܶܢ ܐܰܢ݈ܬ݁ ܗ݈ܽܘ ܡܫܺܝܚܳܐ ܒ݁ܪܶܗ ܕ݁ܰܐܠܳܗܳܐ ܀[64] ܐܳܡܰܪ ܠܶܗ ܝܶܫܽܘܥ ܐܰܢ݈ܬ݁ ܐܶܡܰܪܬ݁ ܐܳܡܰܪܢܳܐ ܠܟ݂ܽܘܢ ܕ݁ܶܝܢ ܕ݁ܡܶܢ ܗܳܫܳܐ ܬ݁ܶܚܙܽܘܢܳܝܗ݈ܝ ܠܰܒ݂ܪܶܗ ܕ݁ܐ݈ܢܳܫܳܐ ܕ݁ܝܳܬ݂ܶܒ݂ ܡܶܢ ܝܰܡܺܝܢܳܐ ܕ݁ܚܰܝܠܳܐ ܘܳܐܬ݂ܶܐ ܥܰܠ ܥܢܳܢܰܝ ܫܡܰܝܳܐ ܀[65] ܗܳܝܕ݁ܶܝܢ ܪܰܒ݁ ܟ݁ܳܗܢܶܐ ܨܰܪܺܝ ܡܳܐܢܰܘܗ݈ܝ ܘܶܐܡܰܪ ܗܳܐ ܓ݁ܰܕ݁ܶܦ݂ ܡܳܢܳܐ ܡܶܟ݁ܺܝܠ ܡܶܬ݂ܒ݁ܥܶܝܢ ܠܰܢ ܣܳܗܕ݁ܶܐ ܗܳܐ ܗܳܫܳܐ ܫܡܰܥܬ݁ܽܘܢ ܓ݁ܽܘܕ݁ܳܦ݂ܶܗ ܀[66] ܡܳܢܳܐ ܨܳܒ݂ܶܝܢ ܐܢ݈ܬ݁ܽܘܢ ܥܢܰܘ ܘܳܐܡܪܺܝܢ ܚܰܝܳܒ݂ ܗ݈ܽܘ ܡܰܘܬ݁ܳܐ ܀

If you can make that out, more power to you.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Once again I would assert that I very much find either the account or translation unreliable; particularly given that most Jews (for those that do believe in significant prophesied messiah) I have discussed the issue with do not suggest a divine messiah, therefore either the account is faulty, the translation is faulty or the particular priest belonged to a minority (though who knows, demographics at the time may have had a higher proportion of messianic jews who believe in a divine messiah) who believed (in direct contradiction to the OT) that a prophesied messiah was to be divine.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

Once again I would assert that I very much find either the account or translation unreliable; particularly given that most Jews (for those that do believe in significant prophesied messiah) I have discussed the issue with do not suggest a divine messiah, therefore either the account is faulty, the translation is faulty or the particular priest belonged to a minority (though who knows, demographics at the time may have had a higher proportion of messianic jews who believe in a divine messiah) who believed (in direct contradiction to the OT) that a prophesied messiah was to be divine.

Hi, Informed

Here is Eldridge's translation of the Pe****ta:

"Matthew 26:63 - But Jeshu was silent. And the chief of the priests answered and said to him, I swear thee, by Aloha the Living, that thou declare to us whether thou be the Meshicha, the Son of Aloha? 64 - Jeshu saith to him, Thou hast said: but I say to you, That hereafter ye shall see him, the Son of man, sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven. 65 - Then the chief of the priests tore his robes, and said, Behold, he hath blasphemed! what further need have we of witnesses ? Behold, now we have heard his blasphemy. 66 - What will you ? They answered saying, He deserves death."

-- Pe****ta New Testament

The original manuscript of the Pe****ta Bible is the Syriac Sinaiticus, written some time after 508 AD. I posted it, because of its similarity to Hebrew. The KJV, which I quoted in a previous post, is based on earlier manuscripts. An even earlier manuscript, the Codex Sinaiticus, has the following:

63 But Jesus remained silent. And the chief priest answered and said to him: I adjure you, by the living God, that you tell us whether you are the Christ, the Son of God?
64 Jesus said to him: You have said. Moreover, I say to you, Here after you shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of the Almighty, and coming upon the clouds of heaven.
65 Then the chief priest rent his clothes, and said: He has spoken impiously; what further need have we of witnesses? See now, you have heard his impious words:
66 What think you? They answered and said: He is a subject for death.

-- Codex Sinaiticus - See The Manuscript | Matthew |

I see no substantive difference between these manuscripts and translations, so I doubt your theory that the error lies in them.

I believe the "chief priest" at that gathering, whoever he was, reasoned this way:

1. The chief priests all rejected the notion that Jesus was [a?] Messiah, because he spoke against them in parables.

2. The priests believed not that Jesus had blasphemed against GOD directly, but that he had blasphemed against THEM by being adamant in his calling himself the Messiah.

The other alternative, of course, is that the Jews of Jesus' time actually thought that Messiah should be equal to God -- something you denied. Nevertheless, we have the following:

John 5
[18] Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

How do you explain THAT? I have no trouble in thinking that the Jews believed Moshiach is God's SON (There is ample Tanakh evidence for them to draw on). Between Matthew 26 and John 5, however, there is an insinuation that they considered being a "Son of God" as making one somehow "equal" with God.

There is a Christian parallel to this thinking, in the way Catholics elevate the status of a "saint" to an exclusive, larger-than-life office -- whereas the Bible describes all believers in Jesus as "saints".

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Not a word from the Old Testament? One must be able to explain using only the old testament why it is that god 'the father' whom has consistently been asserted to be without peer suddenly has an equal god 'the son'.

I do not know that the account recalling his alleged encounter with the high priest actually contains Jesus actually answering the question put to him, but i would certainly agree that the supposed 'blasphemy' need not have been against god, indeed it need not even have been a theologically based allegation in the slightest.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

Not a word from the Old Testament? One must be able to explain using only the old testament why it is that god 'the father' whom has consistently been asserted to be without peer suddenly has an equal god 'the son'.

I do not know that the account recalling his alleged encounter with the high priest actually contains Jesus actually answering the question put to him, but i would certainly agree that the supposed 'blasphemy' need not have been against god, indeed it need not even have been a theologically based allegation in the slightest.

Informed,

You are telling me how I should debate with a Jew about the validity of the Trinity (which I don't even believe in). That is not the point of the DIR. I am trying, rather, to understand why, if Jews presumably do not accept Messiah as being divine (which divinity I do not accept), they could be construed, based on the NT, to have held such a belief in the time of Jesus. I don't believe you will find the answer to that in Tanakh, since the latter was written hundreds of years before Jesus' lifetime. Perhaps some pseudepigraphical work has the answer.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

But my point was just that (perhaps I explained it poorly) - there is little evidence to suggest that there was a significant demographic (other than his own supporters - PERHAPS) who considered that the messiah would be divine, nor does there appear that there would have been sufficient scriptural support based on the OT to have sustained such a perspective for most jewish people - let alone a 'chief priest', thus my expression of reservations about the account presented. Though in all fairness, there may have been some contemporary movement which envisaged a more central cosmic function for the messiah, perhaps even divinity, that is possible (but is something I have no evidence to suggest occurred). I was simply noting that the narrative of the OT would independently need to be able to support a contemporary (1st century) perspective capable of incorporating the premise of a divine messiah.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

But my point was just that (perhaps I explained it poorly) - there is little evidence to suggest that there was a significant demographic (other than his own supporters - PERHAPS) who considered that the messiah would be divine, nor does there appear that there would have been sufficient scriptural support based on the OT to have sustained such a perspective for most jewish people - let alone a 'chief priest', thus my expression of reservations about the account presented. Though in all fairness, there may have been some contemporary movement which envisaged a more central cosmic function for the messiah, perhaps even divinity, that is possible (but is something I have no evidence to suggest occurred). I was simply noting that the narrative of the OT would independently need to be able to support a contemporary (1st century) perspective capable of incorporating the premise of a divine messiah.

Hi, Informed

You are making a big assumption here -- namely, that the majority of Jews, including the priests who interrogated Jesus, based their beliefs on Tanakh alone. I seriously doubt that. If they did, then they are unique among Abrahamic believers.

I have seen so many references to the Book of Enoch on RF, that I finally did a Wikipedia lookup. One passage deals directly with the things I am interested in:

The relation between 1 Enoch and the Essenes was noted even before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.[50] While there is consensus to consider the sections of the Book of Enoch found in Qumran as texts used by the Essenes, the same is not so clear for the Enochic texts not found in Qumran (mainly the Book of Parables): it was proposed[51] to consider these parts as expression of the mainstream, but not-Qumranic, essenic movement. The main peculiar aspects of the not-Qumranic units of 1 Enoch are the following:

• a Messiah called "Son of Man", with divine attributes, generated before the creation, who will act directly in the final judgment and sit on a throne of glory (1 Enoch 46:1–4, 48:2–7, 69:26–29)[11]:562–563
• the sinners usually seen as the wealthy ones and the just as the oppressed (a theme we find also in the Psalms of Solomon).

-- Book of Enoch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have not looked up the Enochian passages, but will, for the moment, take Wiki's word for them. Peter and Jude were obviously influenced by Enoch, as was the Qumran community and perhaps the Essenes. There was also an obvious link of tradition from pre-Hellenistic times to the Abbysinians. From this, I believe it is safe to assume that the Book of Enoch was WIDELY READ devotional literature -- similar to the way Hal Lindsay's prophecies are followed by Evangelicals, or the way Kabbala is followed by many Jews.

The Qumranic community rejected as impure, the Second Temple and those who served in it (possibly because they were thus viewed by the Book of Enoch!)

Some scholars speak even of an "Enochic Judaism" from which the writers of Qumran scrolls were descended.[45] Margaret Barker argues, "Enoch is the writing of a very conservative group whose roots go right back to the time of the First Temple".[46] The main peculiar aspects of the Enochic Judaism are the following:

• the idea of the origin of the evil caused by the fallen angels, who came on the earth to unite with human women. These fallen angels are considered ultimately responsible for the spread of evil and impurity on the earth[44]:90;
• the absence in 1 Enoch of formal parallels to the specific laws and commandments found in the Mosaic Torah and of references to issues like Shabbat observance or the rite of circumcision. The Sinaitic covenant and Torah are not of central importance in the Book of Enoch[47]:50–51;
• the concept of "End of Days" as the time of final judgment that takes the place of promised earthly rewards[44]:92;
• the rejection of the Second Temple's sacrifices considered impure: according to Enoch 89:73, the Jews, when returned from the exile, "reared up that tower (the temple) and they began again to place a table before the tower, but all the bread on it was polluted and not pure";

-- ibid

This fact does not contradict the notion, however, that certain of the priests picked up other notions from Enoch. The chief priests were Sadducees, after all, not Pharisees like Jews today. I have not seen a detailed exposition of how they thought. Perhaps you could help me in this.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I doubt the 1st century Jewish community was dependant on Tanakh alone as well (for starters the significant oral tradition would have been extremely important) though as for the book of enoch, given the time frame attributed to it's creation (with different pieces completed at different stages between circa 300BCE-100CE), I do not think it likely to have had significant direct impact, though it could well be indicative of some subset of the region's oral tradition at the time. The rather limited uptake and relative obscurity of the texts almost certainly indicates that this was a minority, probably a very small minority - that does not mean however that the influence of such a movement would have been negligible (this can clearly be seen in parallels in other fields such as the jewish influence in the world, jews are a very small minority, yet the influence of their culture and texts has been very significant) how might the scholars of the majority looked to account for the arguments of the minority for example, this could well have a remarkable impact - as could the suffusion of the oral traditional which likely accompanied the text. But on the last question, in the whole I am simply unqualified to answer.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

...that does not mean however that the influence of such a movement would have been negligible (this can clearly be seen in parallels in other fields such as the jewish influence in the world, jews are a very small minority, yet the influence of their culture and texts has been very significant) how might the scholars of the majority looked to account for the arguments of the minority for example, this could well have a remarkable impact - as could the suffusion of the oral traditional which likely accompanied the text. But on the last question, in the whole I am simply unqualified to answer.

Informed,

You talk like a Jew, in that I seem to have pushed your "I need to ask my rabbi" button.

I don't think it's coincidence, that so many of the differences between Judaism and Christianity lie in the Book of Enoch. The notion of a divine "Son of Man" and the issue of fallen angels are two I can think of, which I have already seen debated here.

There is no doubt, that knowledge of the book was widespread. In its entirety, it has become part of the Ethiopic canon; and parts have made it, virtually word for word, into Jude and 2 Peter. It could EASILY have been part of the popular culture; and I have good reason to suspect that its disappearance from history, up until its rediscovery in the Ethiopic literature had more to do with religious execration than with lack of popularity.

There is no indication that Peter and Jude were members of a secret society (similar to the Qumran group, perhaps), having acess to esoteric texts; and unless we can find an alternative source for the "messianic divinity" quotes in Matt 26 and John 5, we can reasonably conclude that the Jewish leaders referred to in Matthew and John had access to the same source.

Wouldn't you agree with what I've written here thus far?

I suspect that there is a deeper issue here, namely, the nature of "divine inspiration". Nobody ever reported SEEING God or a divine messenger talking with one of the ancient divines; reports of others having seen or heard these things are sketchy and unverified. In fact, all we have to verify the fact that Moses even EXISTED are oral traditions and copies of the writings of his scribe [which I presume to be Joshua, by the way -- wouldn't you agree?].

The "inspiration" of scripture came almost entirely in the form of subjective dreams, visions and flat-out thinking; and the LANGUAGE of those dreams, etc., particularly the symbolic language of the imagery, came from the popular speech and culture of the day. Contrary to the fanciful notions of some, God did not teach the revelatees an esoteric, divine language: He spoke to them in terms that THEY understood. That language often came from noncanonical sources, but it often worked its way into the most sacredly regarded texts and imagery of Judaism. The chruvim of the Ark of the Covenant, for instance, were modeled after extant pagan guardian spirits, not from the Patriarchs.

I think the above is a sensitive area for religious thinkers. We have records referring to far more blatant execrations, such as the cursing of the Septuagint after hundreds of years of its acceptance as divinely inspired.

I need to stop there, or we will get completely lost following bunny trails.

Shalom shalom :balloons: