Do Jews acknowledge that Jesus did call Himself by the same divine name revealed to Moses?

[inJESUS]

We’re back to the problem with the OP and my reply to it.

We might as well be in a High School lit class talking about what Shakespeare may or may not have been saying in one of the sonnets. Of some literary interest but, beyond that, nothing.

i hear you…i understand what you are saying…and i’ll put it in different words " you don’t care about what the NT says" because its a Harry Potter to you…all this is fine, but my point is :

we have rabbis saying Jesus is not the Messiah, and we have rabbis (or disciples) saying He is.

What you have are Jews who interpret scriptures…they could be correct but they could be wrong…what we have are Jews who not only interpret the same scriptures differently, but who saw Jesus crucified and resurrected to prove who He is…

so actually we have interpretations of who the Messiah will be v/s the deeds of the one saying He is the Messiah as witnessed by Jews themselves…

of course you can consider that the crucifixion and resurrection never happened and maybe Jesus never existed…we, on the other hand, we do believe He is the One, not only because He fulfills so many prophecies that is not the result of coincidence, but because there are people (Jews) who witnessed what He said and did and died for what they heard and saw, and passed on the teachings to other eyewitnesses and other disciples in different churches in different places, the base of our tradition.

You can dismiss all this as harry Potter as well, but this is simply history…

 

[inJESUS]

You mash everything together as usual. God could say “I save all things” and if some guy saved a cat from a tree, by your reasoning you’d say “SEE THAT GUY IS GOD SINCE GOD SAID HE SAVES ALL THINGS!” We’ve done that all before.

wrong analogy because we are speaking of people knowledgeable of the OT …and we are speaking of inspired people. How can you combine knowledge and inspiration and then claim it’s mere coincidence? it’s like an inspired companion of muhammad writing : the prophet said : i am the rahman the raheem…

either the companion is a liar or never heard the Quran before, or surely is not inspired for blasphemy is not the result of inspiration or Muhammad is simply claiming to be God.

Now either the authors of the NT were inspired and knowledgeable of what they were saying and the OT, and hence were drawing a clear parallelism that does not drop dead unless on already dead ears, or they were non inspired and miraculously echoed the same OT theme and words in a blaspheming way…

it is on you to prove these were simply coincidence by “inspired” authors.
.

 

[Kaninchen]

You can dismiss all this as harry Potter as well, but this is simply history…

Not just simply history - rather complex history.

 

[FaithofAbraham]

wrong analogy because we are speaking of people knowledgeable of the OT …and we are speaking of inspired people. How can you combine knowledge and inspiration and then claim it’s mere coincidence? it’s like an inspired companion of muhammad writing : the prophet said : i am the rahman the raheem…

either the companion is a liar or never heard the Quran before, or surely is not inspired for blasphemy is not the result of inspiration or Muhammad is simply claiming to be God.

Now either the authors of the NT were inspired and knowledgeable of what they were saying and the OT, and hence were drawing a clear parallelism that does not drop dead unless on already dead ears, or they were non inspired and miraculously echoed the same OT theme and words in a blaspheming way…

it is on you to prove these were simply coincidence by “inspired” authors.
.

We’ve done this hocus pocus illusion all before.

**Isaiah 43:10-12

“You are My witnesses,” declares the Lord, "And My servant whom I have chosen, In order that you may know and believe Me, And understand that I am

John 13:1-19

"From now on I am telling you before it comes to pass, so that when it does occur, you may believe that I am.**

I am what? See you cut it off again and put it out of context, just like I said last time.

John 13:19 Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he.

I AM HE. Who is he?

John 13:18 I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me.

HE is the guy whose friend Judas lifts up his heel against him.

Psalms 41:9 Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me.

HE has nothing to do with being God or what is said in Isaiah.

That’s why I tire of doing this with you, I told you all this before and you turn around and plop it down again on me.

 

[inJESUS]

We’ve done this hocus pocus illusion all before.

**Isaiah 43:10-12

“You are My witnesses,” declares the Lord, "And My servant whom I have chosen, In order that you may know and believe Me, And understand that I am

John 13:1-19

"From now on I am telling you before it comes to pass, so that when it does occur, you may believe that I am.**

I am what? See you cut it off again and put it out of context, just like I said last time.

i cut nothing. Isaiah talks about witnessing that God is I AM, or that He is God.

John repeats not only the same theme, but the same words, the same “cut”.

My question is simple : wasn’t John aware of the theme and wording? wasn’t he inspired? then how come with both his knowledge and inspiration he echos the same theme, words and paralellelism?

I AM HE. Who is he?

John 13:18 I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me.

HE is the guy whose friend Judas lifts up his heel against him.

Psalms 41:9 Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me.

HE has nothing to do with being God or what is said in Isaiah.

He is the Alpha and Omega, The Resurrection and Life, the Appointer of messengers ( the second paragraph you did not quote), the Giver of Wisdom, the Giver of Peace, the Judge, The Way, The Truth, The Word, The Creator, The Only Mediator, The Savior, The I AM who is with us till the end of days.

No need to be angry with me…the inspired authors wrote all this.

 

[Lapell]

Totally misread!

How do you know? Maybe it’s the Jewish authorities who decided to blot out any interpretation going along with Jesus’. You may think it’s “totally” misread, but I think you exaggerate it, my friend. Why “totally”?

 

[Lapell]

Not just simply history - rather complex history.

I don’t see the history of the whole Jewish people as simple history either. Jesus was a Jew, was he not?

 

[Lapell]

“To believers, no explanation is necessary; to non-believers, no explanation is satisfactory.” - Father Benedict J. Groeschel
So it is with anything we can come up with about Jesus being God the Son…
“No one can come to me if it has not be given him/her by the Father.” (John 6)

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

The Jews knew that Jesus was making messianic claims. And they had suspicions that He was making divine claims, but they weren’t certain of that - they thought maybe they misunderstood Him. But, when the trial in front of Caiaphas was over, they were certain that Jesus claimed both messiahship and divinity. The first claim wasn’t grounds to kill Jesus in Judaism, though that was enough for some of Jesus’ enemies who feared both a loss of their own power and influence and the threat of the Romans. The second claim was ultimately what drove the Jews to work with Pilate to kill Jesus.

The Jews knew Jesus claimed divinity, that is why they killed Him. They refused to open their hearts to Jesus’ teaching of the Trinity.

Now, why did the Jews who denied Jesus, why did they reject His claim to be the Messiah? It is because they had a distorted view of Who the Messiah would be and what He would do. Even the Apostles had to be corrected by Jesus. The Jews didn’t want a Suffering Servant Who would take upon Himself the weight of man’s iniquities. They wanted a conquering king who would put their enemies (at that time the Roman’s) to the sword and cry “Never Again!! Never again will we be oppressed and persecuted! Never again will we be made the joke of the nations! We will be the rulers of the world and possess all wealth and our king will slaughter all who rise up against us!”. That is the Messiah the Jews wanted and they were very interested in the truth.

 

[FaithofAbraham]

i cut nothing. Isaiah talks about witnessing that God is I AM, or that He is God.

John repeats not only the same theme, but the same words, the same “cut”.

My question is simple : wasn’t John aware of the theme and wording? wasn’t he inspired? then how come with both his knowledge and inspiration he echos the same theme, words and paralellelism?

They aren’t the same words or theme at all.

Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

And God is even talking about Jesus right before that, here!

Isaiah 42:4 He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law.

But you try to twist it all weird and say this is Jesus talking about himself.

And further, that this has something to do with Judas betraying Jesus, which is who Jesus was saying he was, this guy in Psalms:

Psalms 41:9 Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me.

So they aren’t the same things at all, not one little bit.

I’m irritated because apparently I wasted my time explaining all this to you some weeks ago since now you are repeating it again.

 

[Kaninchen]

How do you know? Maybe it’s the Jewish authorities who decided to blot out any interpretation going along with Jesus’. You may think it’s “totally” misread, but I think you exaggerate it, my friend. Why “totally”?

If you knew the differences between how Jews and Christians ‘read’ the Tanakh, then you would realize exactly what I meant.

As to the comment about the ‘Jewish authorities’ - we can both play those sorts of games but what’s the point? Does it impress either side? Quite the opposite would be my guess.

By the way, please do not use terms like ‘my friend’, it’s inappropriate anyway and particularly inappropriate to use them to a woman.

 

[Kaninchen]

Hello,

The Jews knew that Jesus was making messianic claims. And they had suspicions that He was making divine claims, . . …! We will be the rulers of the world and possess all wealth and our king will slaughter all who rise up against us!". That is the Messiah the Jews wanted and they were very interested in the truth.

I’m sure you believe all that sort of stuff and, usually, I ask people where they get their ideas from but, actually, here I can’t be bothered. Partly because I’m tired of ‘Jews eat babies’ threads and partly I’m wondering just how it is that you think it fits in with what the thread is all about.

 

[MH84]

Hello,

The Jews knew that Jesus was making messianic claims. And they had suspicions that He was making divine claims, but they weren’t certain of that - they thought maybe they misunderstood Him. But, when the trial in front of Caiaphas was over, they were certain that Jesus claimed both messiahship and divinity. The first claim wasn’t grounds to kill Jesus in Judaism, though that was enough for some of Jesus’ enemies who feared both a loss of their own power and influence and the threat of the Romans. The second claim was ultimately what drove the Jews to work with Pilate to kill Jesus.

The Jews knew Jesus claimed divinity, that is why they killed Him. They refused to open their hearts to Jesus’ teaching of the Trinity.

I have to say that I disagree with some of your words in these paragraphs.

Firstly, there is no real evidence that “when the trial in front of Caiaphas was over, they were certain that Jesus claimed both messiahship and divinity.” Show me where Caisphas ever accused Jesus of claiming to be God.

Also, Jesus didn’t seem to be teaching that God is a triune God anywhere in the Gospels. I know that Jesus said that God is one, but never did He say that God is Triune.

 

[MH84]

Well it doesn’t make sense for Jesus to say “He (God) talked from the burning bush” if Jesus was actually the one talking from it. You have Jesus referring to Father God in the third person as I AM talking from the bush, but you also want to make Jesus the I AM talking. So it doesn’t quite fit.

What about in Matthew 16:13, Jesus talks about Himself in the third person.
13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”

How do we know the type of language that was used two thousand years ago? Jesus could have easily talked about Himself in the third person without people being confused.

 

[MH84]

Melchi/KING Tzedek/RIGHTEOUS

Righteous King of Salem who is also a priest. Old one in Abraham’s time, new one with Jesus.

Jesus as Messiah is the High Priest Melchizedek now.

Hebrews 6:20 Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

Jesus never said he existed before Abraham, he was referring to the Melchizedek that was before Abraham, saying as Messiah now he is it.

But Jesus doesn’t say “I am now” (or something like that). Jesus instead seems to say that He existed before Abraham ever did.

The ESV says this: 58Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” www.biblegateway.com

Jesus clearly doesnt refer to Melchizedek here at all, nor does He seem to mention His messiahship. Only His existence.

Also, even if Jesus became the new Melchizedek, that doesnt exclude Him from claiming divinity at the same time does it.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

I have to say that I disagree with some of your words in these paragraphs.

Firstly, there is no real evidence that “when the trial in front of Caiaphas was over, they were certain that Jesus claimed both messiahship and divinity.” Show me where Caisphas ever accused Jesus of claiming to be God.

Also, Jesus didn’t seem to be teaching that God is a triune God anywhere in the Gospels. I know that Jesus said that God is one, but never did He say that God is Triune.

Read the Passion accounts. In the trial before Caiaphas, all the witnesses are contradicting themselves and each other. Caiaphas then asks Jesus - “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the living God?” and Jesus replies “I AM, and you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the power of God and coming on the clouds of Heaven”. All four vary somewhat, but that is the gist of all four.

After that they condemn Jesus for blasphemy and decide He must die. Claiming to be Messiah is not a capitol offense in Judaism, but claiming to be God - which is blasphemy - is a capitol offense. The only problem is that the one claiming to be God actually IS God - but they didn’t believe that.

Also, Jesus many places taught that He and His Father are one. In other places He speaks of the Advocate (Holy Spirit) Who proceeds from the Father just as He is begotten of the Father. Jesus didn’t say - well guys, there is this thing called the Trinity and I am part of it. No, but the truth is there for those who won’t blind themselves to it. Those who have ears ought to hear.

 

[MH84]

Read the Passion accounts. In the trial before Caiaphas, all the witnesses are contradicting themselves and each other. Caiaphas then asks Jesus - “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the living God?” and Jesus replies “I AM, and you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the power of God and coming on the clouds of Heaven”. All four vary somewhat, but that is the gist of all four.

**I don’t think that because Jesus says “I am” in this context it means that He was claiming divinity. Jesus is quoted as saying “I am” many times in the Gospels. For instance in one of His parables He said, "But he answered one of them, 'Friend, I am **not being unfair to you. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? (Matthew 20:13). Also, John 5:36:
"I have testimony weightier than that of John. For the very work that the Father has given me to finish, and which I am doing, testifies that the Father has sent me.

St. John the Baptist and the samaritan woman also say “I am” in the Gospel of John as well.

And look at the other passages you quoted. They accuse Him of claiming to be the Messiah, the Son of God. This doesnt mean they thought Jesus was God. You are making links that I don’t think are there.

After that they condemn Jesus for blasphemy and decide He must die. Claiming to be Messiah is not a capitol offense in Judaism, but claiming to be God - which is blasphemy - is a capitol offense. The only problem is that the one claiming to be God actually IS God - but they didn’t believe that.

You are making assumptions. The Catholic Church teaches that it is possible to commit blasphemy against others besides God. Like the against the Blessed Virgin and the saints. Check your Catechism.

Also, Jesus many places taught that He and His Father are one. In other places He speaks of the Advocate (Holy Spirit) Who proceeds from the Father just as He is begotten of the Father. Jesus didn’t say - well guys, there is this thing called the Trinity and I am part of it. No, but the truth is there for those who won’t blind themselves to it. Those who have ears ought to hear.

You are just trying to prove Jesus’ divinity in other ways now. You are missing the point. You are making up proves that are not there. Im not denying the Trinity, but the “proves” that you are quoting from the scriptures.

Who proceeds from the Father just as He is begotten of the Father.

 

[Lapell]

You mash everything together as usual. God could say “I save all things” and if some guy saved a cat from a tree, by your reasoning you’d say “SEE THAT GUY IS GOD SINCE GOD SAID HE SAVES ALL THINGS!” We’ve done that all before.

We don’t go by what God could have said but by what He said!

 

[Lapell]

If you knew the differences between how Jews and Christians ‘read’ the Tanakh, then you would realize exactly what I meant.

As to the comment about the ‘Jewish authorities’ - we can both play those sorts of games but what’s the point? Does it impress either side? Quite the opposite would be my guess.

By the way, please do not use terms like ‘my friend’, it’s inappropriate anyway and particularly inappropriate to use them to a woman.

Oh, sorry! I had no idea of you being a woman… Only now I notice the ending in -chen, but I wondered what was the origin, or what character would bear a name like that! (We use pseudonyms, don’t we!)

 

[Lapell]

If you knew the differences between how Jews and Christians ‘read’ the Tanakh, then you would realize exactly what I meant.

Do you happen to know how Christians read the TaNaKH? Or do you go by what others would say about how we read the TaNaKH?
Did you ever check it out with actual Christians?