L
Lapell
Guest
Just because you don’t see how doesn’t mean that he did not do so!
- Status
L
Lapell
Guest
I am a bit new here, I don’t remember having read your objections in the threads I have participated in, and they are not many as of now! Other than the ones here, what were (and still are) they?
My understanding is not that Jesus ASKED them to leave their families, but that anyone who for his sake left their family would be rewarded. You may think it’s the same thing, but really it’s not… Are you a religious Jew or a secular one? You sound like an observant one, it seems to me, but I might be mistaken…
L
Lapell
Guest
Excuse my ignorance, but… who was David Blaine?
V
Valke2
Guest
David was a humble shepherd.
V
Valke2
Guest
He’s a magician (I think that’s his name)Excuse my ignorance, but… who was David Blaine?
M
MH84
Guest
I was thinking about that. I guess what I meant was that they would have expected someone greater than David, and they remembered that God elevated David in such a great way. And probably the Jews of Jesus’ time were imagining the glory of the Davidic kingdom, and the peace they experienced while he was king. They were probably contrasting this with how the Romans (unclean pagans) had now occupied their land.
At the end of the day, the Jews were expecting a new David to kill the Romans and drive them out. They couldnt believe this Man was preaching to them to love their enemies as themselves. Later, they probably felt reassured that God didnt seem to intervene while Jesus was being condemned and crucified. Remember what they were yelling at Him on the cross:
Luke 23:35
The people stood watching, and the rulers even sneered at him. They said, “He saved others; let him save himself if he is the Christ of God, the Chosen One.”
biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=23&verse=35&version=31&context=verse
R
Rocky
Guest
In the Book of Daniel, Chapter 3:92 – the term “Son of God” refers to a messenger of God— The angel that entered the fire and saved Shadrach, Meshack, and Abednego from harm.
It is in Chapter 7:13 that the title Son of Man is used. “As the visions during the night continued, I saw One like a son of man coming, on the clouds of heaven; When he reached the Ancient One and was presented before him, He received dominion, glory, and kingship; nations and peoples of every language serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not be taken away, his kingship shall not be destroyed.”
So Jesus using the term Son of Man for Himself, which He did throughout the synoptic gospels, would indicate to the people of His time that He is the Messianic King foretold.
In the Gospel of Matthew, which was written for Jewish converts, we find the high priest confronting Jesus in Mt 26:63-65:
"The high priest then said to him: “I order you to tell us under oath before the living God whether you are the Messiah, the Son of God’ Jesus answered: ‘It is you who say it, But I tell you this: Soon you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.’ At this the high priest tore his robes: ‘He has blasphemed!’”
And again the term “Son of Man” is used in Luke’s account of Stephen’s martyrdom in Acts. Stephen has been arrested in Chapter 7 and stands before the high priest. He gives an account of the history of God’s mercy and salvation to the Jews. In Acts 7:54-58 we read: “Those who listened to his words were stung to the heart; they ground their teeth in anger at him. Stephen meanwhile, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked to the sky above and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at God’s right hand. ‘Look!’ he exclaimed, ‘I see an opening in the sky, and the Son of Man standing at God’s right hand.’ The onlookers were shouting aloud, holding their hands over their ears as they did so. Then they rushed at him as one man, dragged him out of the city, and began to stone him…”
It seems to me that everytime Jesus called Himself “Son of Man” He was equating Himself to God, and in the account of Matthew and Acts it would seem that the high priest and other Jewish officials took the term “Son of Man” in this way also.
It is in Chapter 7:13 that the title Son of Man is used. “As the visions during the night continued, I saw One like a son of man coming, on the clouds of heaven; When he reached the Ancient One and was presented before him, He received dominion, glory, and kingship; nations and peoples of every language serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not be taken away, his kingship shall not be destroyed.”
So Jesus using the term Son of Man for Himself, which He did throughout the synoptic gospels, would indicate to the people of His time that He is the Messianic King foretold.
In the Gospel of Matthew, which was written for Jewish converts, we find the high priest confronting Jesus in Mt 26:63-65:
"The high priest then said to him: “I order you to tell us under oath before the living God whether you are the Messiah, the Son of God’ Jesus answered: ‘It is you who say it, But I tell you this: Soon you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.’ At this the high priest tore his robes: ‘He has blasphemed!’”
And again the term “Son of Man” is used in Luke’s account of Stephen’s martyrdom in Acts. Stephen has been arrested in Chapter 7 and stands before the high priest. He gives an account of the history of God’s mercy and salvation to the Jews. In Acts 7:54-58 we read: “Those who listened to his words were stung to the heart; they ground their teeth in anger at him. Stephen meanwhile, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked to the sky above and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at God’s right hand. ‘Look!’ he exclaimed, ‘I see an opening in the sky, and the Son of Man standing at God’s right hand.’ The onlookers were shouting aloud, holding their hands over their ears as they did so. Then they rushed at him as one man, dragged him out of the city, and began to stone him…”
It seems to me that everytime Jesus called Himself “Son of Man” He was equating Himself to God, and in the account of Matthew and Acts it would seem that the high priest and other Jewish officials took the term “Son of Man” in this way also.
V
Valke2
Guest
I don’t know. There seems to be a lot of evidence that “son of man” simply meant “human” to Jews at the time.
R
Rocky
Guest
Can you quote some evidence?
V
Valke2
Guest
Numbers 23:19 : God is not a man… not a son of man that he should repent…
Book of Job, Chapters 16, 25 (the son of man, who is a worm!)
Job Chapter 35.
Psalm 8: What is man that you think of him; the son of man that you care for him?
Psalm 80: …on the son of man who you made strong for yourself.
Psalm 144: Don’t put your trust in princes, each a son of man in whom there is no help.
Isaiah 51: …and of the son of man who shall be made as grass…
Isaiah 56: Blessed is the man who does this and the son of man who holds it fast; who keeps the Sabbath…
I could start quoting Eziekel but I would be here all day. Suffice it to say that the term “son of man” is used 94 times to refer to the author.
Book of Job, Chapters 16, 25 (the son of man, who is a worm!)
Job Chapter 35.
Psalm 8: What is man that you think of him; the son of man that you care for him?
Psalm 80: …on the son of man who you made strong for yourself.
Psalm 144: Don’t put your trust in princes, each a son of man in whom there is no help.
Isaiah 51: …and of the son of man who shall be made as grass…
Isaiah 56: Blessed is the man who does this and the son of man who holds it fast; who keeps the Sabbath…
I could start quoting Eziekel but I would be here all day. Suffice it to say that the term “son of man” is used 94 times to refer to the author.
M
MH84
Guest
No, when Jesus used the term “Son of Man” it does not mean “God”. Have a look at this article and tell me if you see otherwise. Link: newadvent.org/cathen/14144a.htm
In Daniel, it says that the Son of Man approached the Ancient of Days. I can’t see where it says that the Son of Man is the same as the Ancient of Days.
I think that Fr. Joeseph Fitzmyer even says that in Daniel the “Son of Man” refers to the corporate saints of Israel. Take this witha grain of salt, but he also suggests that Jesus never used the title “son of man” in a non-titular way that meant nothing more than “human being”. In my opinion Fitzmyer is no conservative Catholic if you know what I mean, but he is a well known scholar.
My copy of the 1965 Jerusalem Bible says that in Daniel “Son of Man” “…signifies a man who is mysteriously more than human”.
In Acts, it says that Stephen saw Jesus standing at the right hand of God. That doesnt mean he recognised Jesus as God.
In Matthew, the interogaters asked Jesus if he was the “Messiah, the Son of God”. Maybe they thought that Messiah = Son of God. Now that wouldnt mean they thought Jesus was God. Of course, that doesnt rule out that the high priest didnt understand that the term “Son of God” applied perfectly and literally to Jesus. But just on this phrase alone (“Messiah, the Son of God”) it seems the high priest equated “Christ” with the title “Son of God”.
R
ralphinal
Guest
My question is still how a sect of a relatively localized religion based on following a man who may or may not have said that he was God has survived for 2,000 years and grown to being 1/3 of the earth’s population. How and why did Christianity grow and Judaism not? It seems funny that at 33 A.D. there were somewhere around 100 or so and now there are 2 billion.
R
Rocky
Guest
Well, Jesus is both fully human and fully divine, at least in most Christian minds. And if the term “Son of Man” only meant that He was “only” human, then it makes no sense for the high priest to have torn his robes and declared blasphemy once He used the term. And while Jesus is fully divine, He is not the Father (Ancient of Days).
V
Valke2
Guest
Judaism is not a religion that lends itself to becoming widespread. It takes a lot of study and is not the easiest religion to follow. It was never meant to be a mass religion.
R
ralphinal
Guest
I thought someone would mention the cultural aspect as well. At least in the early days, Judaism was the faith of a group of people (a nation, if you will), and may have been limited in its spread by that. I agree with your statement, but Catholicism is the same way. One does not just show up and say “Let me in.”
M
MH84
Guest
Isnt that the same as Islam?
I also think that Jews have excluded others from following their religion. Its a very closed circle. Not like Christianity which welcomes as many believers as possible.
M
MH84
Guest
Blasphemy is not only a direct sin against God.
The Catechism:
2148 Blasphemy is directly opposed to the second commandment. It consists in uttering against God - inwardly or outwardly - words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing in respect toward him in one’s speech; in misusing God’s name. St. James condemns those “who blaspheme that honorable name [of Jesus] by which you are called.” The prohibition of blasphemy extends to language against Christ’s Church, the saints, and sacred things. It is also blasphemous to make use of God’s name to cover up criminal practices, to reduce peoples to servitude, to torture persons or put them to death. The misuse of God’s name to commit a crime can provoke others to repudiate religion.
Blasphemy is contrary to the respect due God and his holy name. It is in itself a grave sin.
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2148.htm
R
ralphinal
Guest
On the surface, yes. When you look at the growth of the two faiths, you can see the difference. Islam grew through several means not entirely used by Christianity. First, there was violent conquest, even in the early days of Muhammid. Second, there was growth in Asain countries because of the indiginous religions and cultures teaching things like a caste system. Islam is extremely attractive to those stuck in a lower caste. Christianity grew at first by simple preaching, then by the testamony of martyrs, those who died for the faith showed others that this was worth dying for, but they did not try to resist. It was a novel concept. Yes, there were some violent times in the growth of the faith, but it was rare compaired to Islam.
There may be truth to this. I am not sure how much.
L
Lapell
Guest
“Son of Adam”, more precisely! In the Hebrew Bible, is the term for Son of Man also “son of Adam”?
- Status