How to respond to jewish criticisms

[Anna_Scott]

Dear Anna,

I just read and researched some of the arguments that are presented. I understand that Israel is referred to as a singular servant several times in the book of Isaiah, but there is one area where this argument lacks. Isaiah, consequently, refers to Israel as a feminine. Right after Isaiah chapter 53, in chapter 54, Isaiah refers to Israel as the Lord’s wife, “Sing, O barren, you who have not borne!" Further, Isaiah also compares Israel to a widow in the next few verses, “Do not fear, for you will not be ashamed; neither be disgraced, for you will not be put to shame; for you will forget the shame of your youth, and will not remember the reproach of your widowhood any more. For your Maker is your husband
Ultimately, the point I am trying to make is that Isaiah compares Israel to a woman many times. In chapter 53, Isaiah refers to a masculine suffering servant, " for He was pierced…he was oppressed, he was…etc"

I find it strange that Isaiah would refer Israel to this particular suffering servant…I am not sure, what do you think?

God bless

rafarose,

I would say now we are getting somewhere. :thankyou: Excellent point, especially considering the Church is the Bride of Christ.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

If Jesus were merely coming forward as a simple man, I would definitely understand why many would be “tripped up” (as they say), and they would have a right to go to the verses cited before. However, if Christ proves His divinity, that makes him God. . . .

Mr. Wolf,

Exceptional post. Will respond later. Must get ready for Monday Bible Study.

Anna

 

[1AugustSon7]

A recurring example is the “paradox” that some Christians have about lying to a Nazi about the hiding places of Jews.

I don’t understand this either. It isn’t a paradox, it would simply be a sin to disclose such information as you would be at least partially culpable for the killing of that person. It’s not a sin to lie to a murderer about the whereabouts of his intended victim anymore than it is a sin in legitimate warfare to deceive the enemy so as to prevent loss of life.

Consider that it would be treason - no paradox! - to disclose sensitive/confidential information to an enemy country about your nation’s war plans or strategy: you are, in fact, aiding in the killing or possibly even unjust subjugation of your own people: i.e., it’s a sin. Subjecting whole peoples to subjugation is, according to the catechism, “blasphemy”. Am I supposed to reveal my country’s war plans at a time of war if I am under duress/pressure or even being tortured because not to would be “a lie”? If that were so no Catholic country or kingdom would or could have ever existed in history.

I don’t know where this silly lying-to-a-Nazi “paradox” came from or why people think it could possibly be a sin. There is no moral dilemma for a Catholic:

“Be ye shrewd as serpents, and innocent as doves.”

In revealing the whereabouts of, e.g., a Jew who is likely to be murdered by an unjust aggressor (SS officer), you are not being shrewd and you are not innocent as a dove: you can be partially responsible for his death/murder; moreover, being shrewd “as serpents” clearly includes even the possibility of deception. To choose death rather than expose an innocent person to the possibility of murder is not only heroic but could even constitute a martyrdom, because you have forgotten yourself for the sake of Christ’s law to love God wholly and your neighbor -even a stranger- as if he were another you. That’s the epitome of Christian morality (cf., e.g., the parable of the Good Samaritan. The traditional location of the setting of this parable was such that the injured man was in a location that presented the risk of any rescuer being ambushed: to help the poor fellow included putting your own life at risk. That’s the epitome of courage for love and decency’s sake.)

 

[mercytruth]

If Jesus were merely coming forward as a simple man, I would definitely understand why many would be “tripped up” (as they say), and they would have a right to go to the verses cited before. However, if Christ proves His divinity, that makes him God. We are therefore not putting our faith in a mere man - like I am a mere man - but God the Son incarnate in the flesh. Some examples where Christ clearly attributed divinity to himself (because I know some Jews out there try to argue Christ never did):

And behold, some people brought to him a paralytic, lying on a bed. And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven.” [Matthew 9:2] - It has been contested that salvation is in God alone - if this is the case, then Christ is guilty of blasphemy here, for he has forgiven the sins of the paralytic. The scribes were well aware of this, given that in the very next verse they accuse Christ of blasphemy in their hearts. Herein we have two dilemmas: Christ is either the biggest blasphemer to ever live, taking credit and duties from God, or he is God.

Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, saying, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” They said to him, “The son of David.” He said to them, “How is it then that David, in the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet’? If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?” [Matthew 22:41-45] - Having been bothered by the Sanhedrin, scribes and lawyers during his whole time at the Temple, Christ now goes on the offensive, and asks them a question: whose son is the Christ? (that is, from where does he come from) They answer that he is the son of David (that is, a descendent of David), to which Christ quotes Psalm 110:1, in which King David calls one of his descendents “Lord” (something an elder in a family would never do). Christ then poses a question regarding this: if the Christ is just the son of David (that is, merely his descendent and nothing more), then why is he called Lord and held in such high esteem? The answer points towards Christ’s divinity - the Pharisees were probably well aware of this, given that, as it says in the next verse, they are completely unable to give a proper response.

“Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man. Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment. I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.” [John 5:25-30] - Verse 30 is perhaps one of the most misquoted verses (indeed, it was misquoted earlier in this thread), however, when you see the full context, it’s actually a strong affirmation of divinity. Christ had earlier stated: “The Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise” (v. 19). Here we see the coeternal, coexistent nature of Father and Son within the Trinity, one of the strongest in the Gospels, and indeed the New Testament. It shows the unity of God the Son with God the Father.

Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” [John 8:58] - Christ not only states that he existed before Abraham, but speaks of it in present tense…a statement that only eternal beings can make, and hence a statement only God would say. The Jews were clearly aware of this, given in the exact next verse they picked up stones to throw at him.

So when someone says “The Bible says we shouldn’t put our faith in mortal men,” they should not immediately assume this contradicts Christian theology. Christ is not a mere man, but is God the Son. He is divine, and by his name alone do we have salvation (Acts 4:12), for his name comes with the authority and power of God.

Let me try to use an analogy - and like most analogies, it probably has flaws, but I’m using it to convey an idea and not the standard. Suppose the General Manager of a TV station says, “Don’t let a production assistant boss you around.” Then one day, a production assistant calls in sick, and the studio crew is short. The GM, out of humility, fills in the role of the production assistant. Now imagine if an anchor was about to do something immensely absurd, and the GM promptly cried out, “Hold up! Don’t do that!” Would the anchor turn and say, “You’re a production assistant! I don’t have to do anything you say!” Probably not. Although the General Manager is currently in the role of a production assistant, he is still the General Manager, and still retains all the authority and privileges granted him. In like manner, that God the Son has taken flesh and dwelt among us does not contradict the notion that we can find salvation only in God and not in man.

These are quotations taken from the NT which the Jewish people to not accept as part of their Tanakh, their inspired scriptures. They are ‘Jewish responses’ that are recorded in a Christian source that is not considered to be an authorized Jewish source.

Even Justin Marytr in his Dialogue with Trypho knew enough to quote from the Tanakh when debating a Jewish scholar of sorts, as did the apostle Paul

God’s peace

micah

 

[1AugustSon7]

Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” [John 8:58] - Christ not only states that he existed before Abraham, but speaks of it in present tense…a statement that only eternal beings can make, and hence a statement only God would say. The Jews were clearly aware of this, given in the exact next verse they picked up stones to throw at him.

Great post.

The above quoted part of your post is even partially the basis for seeing Christ really present in the OT. The Lord went for as to claim that men such as Abraham had seen His day (likely the 8th day: i.e., His Resurrection or, in other words, the Risen Christ).

With the Resurrection Christ transcended not only physical space (as appearing to 500 different disciples simultaneously, walking through locked doors, etc., which things he was able by miracles to do even before His Resurrection as when He was in the midst of a crowd turned mob that tried to seize Him, and He moved through them without being touched); but He even transcended time itself and could manipulate His appearance at will, at least subjectively from the viewer’s perspective (an angel in the book of Tobit did the same thing, where the people he was dining with thought they had seen him eating and drinking but he was not), wherein His closest disciples could not recognize Him physically (this may also be one of the reasons no one dared present a physical description of our Lord in the NT). Hence king David could say, “the Lord said to my Lord…” I.e., king David might not have just heard these things spoken in a prophetic dream, e.g., but actually saw them also, even if only in a vision: i.e., David saw Christ.

 

[1AugustSon7]

These are quotations taken from the NT which the Jewish people to not accept as part of their Tanakh, their inspired scriptures. They are ‘Jewish responses’ that are recorded in a Christian source that is not considered to be an authorized Jewish source.

Even Justin Marytr in his Dialogue with Trypho knew enough to quote from the Tanakh when debating a Jewish scholar of sorts, as did the apostle Paul

God’s peace

micah

But Christ is present in the Tanakh. That was the point our Lord was making and that people had a difficult time understanding, even His own disciples. You can, as the Lord did and the Apostles following, argue for Christ on the basis of the Tanakh, and much of the NT reserves itself to doing just that. So it’s not erroneous to take the NT’s lead and pick up its own Tanakh-based, so to speak, arguments or logic and repeat them. Of course, especially from a Christian perspective, what the Lord did was take what was implicit in the OT and make it explicit: the NT does not have “shadows” or “whisps” of the OT in it. No. It is the OT being blasted through a megaphone, and when we easily see or perceive elements of the OT in the NT, we are really just hearing or seeing the OT because the volume, so to speak, has been turned down.

The NT is the OT being proclaimed at the volume level of a rock concert; whereas, the OT itself seemed only to whisper. The change was and is, of course, dramatic and shocking. St. John the Evangelist went so far as to claim that the creation account in Genesis was nothing other than a prophecy of Christ’s own work and life; that it had its fulfillment in Christ and to an extent only makes sense in the light of Christ. From a Christian perspective, the whole life and history of Israel as directed by God was nothing other than an imitation of Christ; a collective, trans-generational conforming to Christ. Hence, e.g., Moses came to the Israelites as a stranger, as our Lord came from Heaven and the Father; he was someone who came from a different, much loftier place and existence (royalty) and condescended to identify with and liberate his lowly, enslaved countrymen. His beginnings, too, included being spared from the murderous hand of the powers that be, etc.

 

[mercytruth]

But Christ is present in the Tanakh. That was the point our Lord was making and that people had a difficult time understanding, even His own disciples. You can, as the Lord did and the Apostles following, argue for Christ on the basis of the Tanakh, and much of the NT reserves itself to doing just that. So it’s not erroneous to take the NT’s lead and pick up its own Tanakh-based, so to speak, arguments or logic and repeat them. Of course, especially from a Christian perspective, what the Lord did was take what was implicit in the OT and make it explicit: the NT does not have “shadows” or “whisps” of the OT in it. No. It is the OT being blasted through a megaphone, and when we easily see or perceive elements of the OT in the NT, we are really just hearing or seeing the OT because the volume, so to speak, has been turned down.

The NT is the OT being proclaimed at the volume level of a rock concert; whereas, the OT itself seemed only to whisper. The change was and is, of course, dramatic and shocking. St. John the Evangelist went so far as to claim that the creation account in Genesis was nothing other than a prophecy of Christ’s own work and life; that it had its fulfillment in Christ and to an extent only makes sense in the light of Christ. From a Christian perspective, the whole life and history of Israel as directed by God was nothing other than an imitation of Christ; a collective, trans-generational conforming to Christ. Hence, e.g., Moses came to the Israelites as a stranger, as our Lord came from Heaven and the Father; he was someone who came from a different, much loftier place and existence (royalty) and condescended to identify with and liberate his lowly, enslaved countrymen. His beginnings, too, included being spared from the murderous hand of the powers that be, etc.

Yes, Jesus Christ as the Messiah according to the gift of faith that we have been given is present in the Tanakh. If a Jewish person desires to explore the Tanakh in that manner, then reference the Tanakh in that manner to present one’s faith, while listening to their interpretation of a particular ‘Messianic’ scripture. Let me give you just one example of a different interpretation of Ps. 110:1 according to Jewish understanding.

**The word of the LORD said to my master **(rather than t’he LORD said to my Lord’),
wait at, or for my right hand (rather than ‘sit at my right hand’).

The ‘master’ is generally considered to be David’s patriarchal father, Abraham.

God’s peace

micah

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

These are quotations taken from the NT which the Jewish people to not accept as part of their Tanakh, their inspired scriptures.

I’m well aware of that. Read my post again:

Some examples where Christ clearly attributed divinity to himself (because I know some Jews out there try to argue Christ never did)… [emphasis mine]

I included examples of verses dealing with Christ’s divinity simply to prove Christ does indeed claim divinity in the New Testament, so as to preemptively respond to the position of some Jews (taking a cue from Muslim apologetics) that Christ never claimed divinity and Christians made it up later. I’ve had Jews in the past ask me “Where does Jesus say he’s God?”, so I wanted to provide a response to that. It was simply part of my overall argument, which was responding to the notion that a verse in the Old Testament saying we have no salvation in man is contradicted by the concept of salvation in Jesus Christ.

 

[mercytruth]

I’m well aware of that. Read my post again:

I included examples of verses dealing with Christ’s divinity simply to prove Christ does indeed claim divinity in the New Testament, so as to preemptively respond to the position of some Jews (taking a cue from Muslim apologetics) that Christ never claimed divinity and Christians made it up later. I’ve had Jews in the past ask me “Where does Jesus say he’s God?”, so I wanted to provide a response to that. It was simply part of my overall argument, which was responding to the notion that a verse in the Old Testament saying we have no salvation in man is contradicted by the concept of salvation in Jesus Christ.

Point well taken, and I stand corrected. However, even in the scriptures that you cite from the NT, there is ambiguity. Such as Psalm 110:1 with the connotation and translation of the word, ‘my Lord’.

Jesus said that he received authority from God to forgive sins, which would not be the same as saying I am God with pre-eminent authority to forgive sins.

Jesus said that he is the I AM, something which the angel that went before Moses and the Israelites was said to have the name of God in him. This would be equivalent to Jesus saying, **'as the Father has life in himself, so the Father **has given the Son to have life in himself.'

The whole argument about the transcendence of God and the immanence of the Messiah, would seem to preclude the Messiah from being the transcendent God becoming the immanent Messiah. Something which can not be explained from a Trinitarian viewpoint, so there is no rational way of approaching this dilemma, except by faith.

God’s peace

micah

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Point well taken, and I stand corrected. However, even in the scriptures that you cite from the NT, there is ambiguity. Such as Psalm 110:1 with the connotation and translation of the word, ‘my Lord’.

The key is how Christ interprets it and applies it to himself. Jews might disagree with it, but the point of that section of my post was Christ attributing divinity to himself.

Jesus said that he received authority from God to forgive sins, which would not be the same as saying I am God with pre-eminent authority to forgive sins.

Actually, Christ clearly says he already had the authority:

“For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise and walk’? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” [Matthew 9:5-6; emphasis mine]

The parallel verses in Mark and Luke read almost the same way.

Jesus said that he is the I AM, something which the angel that went before Moses and the Israelites was said to have the name of God in him. This would be equivalent to Jesus saying, **‘as the Father has life in himself, so the Father **has given ****the Son to have life in himself.’

I don’t quite understand your exegesis. Let’s review the full context:

"Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.” So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple. [John 8:56-59]

Christ says that Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day, and saw it and was glad. The Jews are perplexed, given, in their minds, Christ is just a human being, and no one at that time could claim to have met Abraham, or that Abraham could have “seen his day.” They therefore ask, “What? You’re barely 50-years old, and you’ve seen Abraham?” Christ then responds:

ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί.

Christ stated "before Abraham was (πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι), I am (ἐγὼ εἰμί). The word we have here, γενέσθαι, is the Aorist Infinitive Middle form of γίνομαι, which means “to be born, to exist, etc.” The word εἰμί is Present Indicative. Again, Christ is speaking of a past event (the days before Abraham’s existence), and speaks in a present tense format, which only a divine being could. If this was harmless, then it would make no sense for the Jews, in the very next verse, to pick up stones and attempt to kill him. They did this because Christ had committed blasphemy, and had done so by attributing a trait of God to himself.

For the sake of Anna, I’ll quote back to my original post, which dealt with the topic of Jewish objections, and how this discussion here developed. Specifically I answered her question regarding those who quote verses saying we have no salvation in man, and if that contradicted Christian theology regarding Jesus.

 

[mercytruth]

The key is how Christ interprets it and applies it to himself. Jews might disagree with it, but the point of that section of my post was Christ attributing divinity to himself.

Actually, Christ clearly says he already had the authority:

“For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise and walk’? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” [Matthew 9:5-6; emphasis mine]

The parallel verses in Mark and Luke read almost the same way.

I don’t quite understand your exegesis. Let’s review the full context:

"Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.” So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple. [John 8:56-59]

Christ says that Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day, and saw it and was glad. The Jews are perplexed, given, in their minds, Christ is just a human being, and no one at that time could claim to have met Abraham, or that Abraham could have “seen his day.” They therefore ask, “What? You’re barely 50-years old, and you’ve seen Abraham?” Christ then responds:

ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί.

Christ stated "before Abraham was (πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι), I am (ἐγὼ εἰμί). The word we have here, γενέσθαι, is the Aorist Infinitive Middle form of γίνομαι, which means “to be born, to exist, etc.” The word εἰμί is Present Indicative. Again, Christ is speaking of a past event (the days before Abraham’s existence), and speaks in a present tense format, which only a divine being could. If this was harmless, then it would make no sense for the Jews, in the very next verse, to pick up stones and attempt to kill him. They did this because Christ had committed blasphemy, and had done so by attributing a trait of God to himself.

For the sake of Anna, I’ll quote back to my original post, which dealt with the topic of Jewish objections, and how this discussion here developed. Specifically I answered her question regarding those who quote verses saying we have no salvation in man, and if that contradicted Christian theology regarding Jesus.

The point is that Jesus himself said that all authority in heaven and in earth was given to him. Matthew 28:18. The authority that was given to Jesus to forgive sins was given by Jesus to his apostles.

The angel that appeared to Abraham is later called, YWYH in Gen.19:24 “And YWYH rained down fire and brimstone from YWYH out of heaven”. This is assumed to be the same angel that went before Moses and the Israelites **in whom **is the name of the LORD. (Exodus 23:20-21)

These early church fathers attest to the pre-incarnate Son of God being both angel and God. So, we have the testimony of early church fathers who equated some of the appearances of the angel of the LORD to the patriarchs as Christophanies, or Theophanies. So is the transcendent God also an angel one could ask? Just a few references:

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.v.xii.iii.vi.html?scrBook=Exod&scrCh=23&scrV=20#iv.v.xii.iii.vi-p9.1

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iv.lxxv.html?scrBook=Exod&scrCh=23&scrV=20#viii.iv.lxxv-p2.1

God’s peace

micah

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

The point is that Jesus himself said that all authority in heaven and in earth was given to him. Matthew 28:18. The authority that was given to Jesus to forgive sins was given by Jesus to his apostles.

That’s the Great Commission, which is about the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies and the arrival of the second covenant after the crucifixion and resurrection. It says nothing about his power to heal, which, if you refer back to the verses I cited, Christ already had on the earth, as he himself says.

The angel that appeared to Abraham is later called, YWYH in Gen.19:24 “And YWYH rained down fire and brimstone from YWYH out of heaven”. This is assumed to be the same angel that went before Moses and the Israelites **in whom **is the name of the LORD. (Exodus 23:20-21)

God is never identified as an “angel” - Genesis 18:2 says that Abraham saw three men, then it says two of the men (who are later identified as angels in Gen 19:1) go to Sodom, but “Abraham still stood before the LORD” (Gen 18:22). In other words, the third man - the LORD - stayed with Abraham and continued to dialogue. Also, I think you need to try harder to connect Genesis 19:24 with John 8:58, because as it stands, you’re tying in two verses that, when shown the context, have absolutely nothing to do with each other. The Jews did not try to stone Jesus because he claimed to be an angel…they tried to stone him because he claimed to be God.

 

[mercytruth]

That’s the Great Commission, which is about the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies and the arrival of the second covenant after the crucifixion and resurrection. It says nothing about his power to heal, which, if you refer back to the verses I cited, Christ already had on the earth, as he himself says.

God is never identified as an “angel” - Genesis 18:2 says that Abraham saw three men, then it says two of the men (who are later identified as angels in Gen 19:1) go to Sodom, but “Abraham still stood before the LORD” (Gen 18:22). In other words, the third man - the LORD - stayed with Abraham and continued to dialogue. Also, I think you need to try harder to connect Genesis 19:24 with John 8:58, because as it stands, you’re tying in two verses that, when shown the context, have absolutely nothing to do with each other. The Jews did not try to stone Jesus because he claimed to be an angel…they tried to stone him because he claimed to be God.

Fortunately I do not have to connect the dots between one of the men or angels that appeared to Abraham with the one angel who is called YWYH and who was with Lot when he rained down fire and brimstone from the YWYH out of heaven.

Justin Martyer connects the dots in his Dialogue with Trypho in the last half of
Chapter LVI.
newadvent.org/fathers/01285.htm

Irenaeus connects the dots in his Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter VI.
newadvent.org/fathers/0103306.htm

Eusebius in his History of the Church, Book I, chapter 2.
newadvent.org/fathers/250101.htm

God’s peace be with you

micah

 

[Tomdstone]

What would be the Catholic response to these arguments.

There are other Jewish criticisms, besides the ones listed here. For example, some are claiming that Jews are smarter than others or equivalently, that gentiles are not as smart as Jews are. They point to the percentage of doctors, scientists, lawyers, academics and other professionals who are Jewish. For example, for the US national medal of science, which some have called the US brand of the Nobel prize in science, 38% of the recipients are Jewish, whereas Jews constitute about 2% of the US population.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Fortunately I do not have to connect the dots between one of the men or angels that appeared to Abraham with the one angel who is called YWYH and who was with Lot when he rained down fire and brimstone from the YWYH out of heaven.

That’s appealing to authority. The bottom line is: where in scripture is that connection seen? If these men could see it (Eusebius and Irenaeus, incidentally, don’t make that connection), then surely we too can see it, if it is demonstrated. Also, and more importantly, how is this tied in to John 8:58?

Getting back on topic…

There are other Jewish criticisms, besides the ones listed here. For example, some are claiming that Jews are smarter than others or equivalently, that gentiles are not as smart as Jews are. They point to the percentage of doctors, scientists, lawyers, academics and other professionals who are Jewish. For example, for the US national medal of science, which some have called the US brand of the Nobel prize in science, 38% of the recipients are Jewish, whereas Jews constitute about 2% of the US population.

If anyone truly makes such an argument, then I feel sorry for them. Not only is that a form of prejudice that is no different than saying whites are smarter than blacks, but it’s just a superficial argument that could be torn apart. For example, 38% of the winners of the US brand of the Nobel prize in science were Jews? What about the other 62%? 62 is bigger than 38…does that mean non-Jews are naturally smarter? Can I use that statistic to throw out and claim that Jews can’t argue against Gentiles because clearly, according to the US brand of the Nobel prize, Gentiles are naturally smarter than Jews? And besides, since when is the US brand of the Nobel prize our standard for judging how one interprets the scriptures rightly? That’s just a human invention, and begging the question.

If we are going to judge who is reading the scriptures correctly, let’s do it by the holy writ of God, not by silly arguments like this.

 

[mercytruth]

That’s appealing to authority. The bottom line is: where in scripture is that connection seen? If these men could see it (Eusebius and Irenaeus, incidentally, don’t make that connection), then surely we too can see it, if it is demonstrated. Also, and more importantly, how is this tied in to John 8:58?

Getting back on topic…

If anyone truly makes such an argument, then I feel sorry for them. Not only is that a form of prejudice that is no different than saying whites are smarter than blacks, but it’s just a superficial argument that could be torn apart. For example, 38% of the winners of the US brand of the Nobel prize in science were Jews? What about the other 62%? 62 is bigger than 38…does that mean non-Jews are naturally smarter? Can I use that statistic to throw out and claim that Jews can’t argue against Gentiles because clearly, according to the US brand of the Nobel prize, Gentiles are naturally smarter than Jews? And besides, since when is the US brand of the Nobel prize our standard for judging how one interprets the scriptures rightly? That’s just a human invention, and begging the question.

If we are going to judge who is reading the scriptures correctly, let’s do it by the holy writ of God, not by silly arguments like this.

Ireneaus does make the connection, quoting from the reference in my previous post:

the Scripture says, Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrha fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven. Genesis 19:24 For it here points out that the Son, who had also been talking with Abraham, had received power to judge the Sodomites for their wickedness

Eusebius does make the connection, quoting from the reference in my previous post:

.** Moses most clearly proclaims him second Lord after the Father, when he says, The Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrha brimstone and fire from the Lord. Genesis 19:24 The divine Scripture also calls him God, when he appeared again to Jacob in the form of a man, and said to Jacob, Your name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel shall be your name, because you have prevailed with God. Genesis 32:28 Wherefore also Jacob called the name of that place Vision of God, saying, For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved. Genesis 32:30…**

**You will perceive also from the same words that this was no other than he who talked with Moses. For the Scripture says in the same words and with reference to the same one, When the Lord saw that he drew near to see, the Lord called to him out of the bush and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, What is it? And he said, Draw not near hither; loose your shoe from off your feet, for the place whereon you stand is holy ground. And he said unto him, I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. **

And of course it ties in with John 8:58 because these three early church fathers acknowlege that the pre-incarnate Son of God spoke with Abraham and is called YWYH, or, I AM in Gen.19:34

God’s peace be with you

micah

 

[Anna_Scott]

There are other Jewish criticisms, besides the ones listed here. For example, some are claiming that Jews are smarter than others or equivalently, that gentiles are not as smart as Jews are. They point to the percentage of doctors, scientists, lawyers, academics and other professionals who are Jewish. For example, for the US national medal of science, which some have called the US brand of the Nobel prize in science, 38% of the recipients are Jewish, whereas Jews constitute about 2% of the US population.

Tomdstone,

Do you really want to cast this stone, considering all the terrible things Christians have said and done to the Jewish people for the last 2000 years?

Anna

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Ireneaus does make the connection, quoting from the reference in my previous post:

the Scripture says, Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrha fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven. Genesis 19:24 For it here points out that the Son, who had also been talking with Abraham, had received power to judge the Sodomites for their wickedness

No where in this quote does it say God appeared as an angel, only that the Son appeared talking to Abraham.

Eusebius does make the connection, quoting from the reference in my previous post:

Moses most clearly proclaims him second Lord after the Father, when he says, The Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrha brimstone and fire from the Lord. Genesis 19:24 The divine Scripture also calls him God, when he appeared again to Jacob in the form of a man, and said to Jacob, Your name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel shall be your name, because you have prevailed with God. Genesis 32:28 Wherefore also Jacob called the name of that place Vision of God, saying, For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved. Genesis 32:30…

I took out your bold to put in my own bold, to show a part that conflicts with your point: Eusebius clearly says that God appeared to Jacob as a man. In fact, add in another part from chapter two, the part where Eusebius speaks of Abraham’s encounter with God:

But he, by no means neglectful of the reverence due to the Father, was appointed to teach the knowledge of the Father to them all. For instance, the Lord God, it is said, appeared as a common man to Abraham while he was sitting at the oak of Mambre. And he, immediately falling down, although he saw a man with his eyes, nevertheless worshipped him as God, and sacrificed to him as Lord, and confessed that he was not ignorant of his identity when he uttered the words, “Lord, the judge of all the earth, will you not execute righteous judgment?” (Genesis 18:25) [1:2:7; emphasis mine]

Again, Eusebius does not argue that God appeared as an angel before Abraham - he clearly says God appeared as a man. This complies with my earlier exegesis of Genesis 18-19.

And once again, I must ask: what does this have to do with John 8:58?

---

Again, for those who are curious about how this got started, here’s my original post, where I answered the issue of verses in the OT that say we shouldn’t look for salvation in a man, and whether or not this contradicts salvation in Jesus.

 

[mercytruth]

No where in this quote does it say God appeared as an angel, only that the Son appeared talking to Abraham.

I took out your bold to put in my own bold, to show a part that conflicts with your point: Eusebius clearly says that God appeared to Jacob as a man. In fact, add in another part from chapter two, the part where Eusebius speaks of Abraham’s encounter with God:

But he, by no means neglectful of the reverence due to the Father, was appointed to teach the knowledge of the Father to them all. For instance, the Lord God, it is said, appeared as a common man to Abraham while he was sitting at the oak of Mambre. And he, immediately falling down, although he saw a man with his eyes, nevertheless worshipped him as God, and sacrificed to him as Lord, and confessed that he was not ignorant of his identity when he uttered the words, “Lord, the judge of all the earth, will you not execute righteous judgment?” (Genesis 18:25) [1:2:7; emphasis mine]

Again, Eusebius does not argue that God appeared as an angel before Abraham - he clearly says God appeared as a man. This complies with my earlier exegesis of Genesis 18-19.

And once again, I must ask: what does this have to do with John 8:58?

---

Again, for those who are curious about how this got started, here’s my original post, where I answered the issue of verses in the OT that say we shouldn’t look for salvation in a man, and whether or not this contradicts salvation in Jesus.

It has everything to do with the two verses that precede it. Abraham saw the pre-incarnate Son of God as a man, or a messenger of God as these early church fathers explain it, and this ‘man’ or messenger of God is called YWYH in Genesis 19:34 and of course we know that the sacred name means I AM Who AM.

**Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”

“You are not yet fifty years old,” the Jews said to him, “and you have seen Abraham?**

God’s peace

micah

 

[Anna_Scott]

If Jesus were merely coming forward as a simple man, I would definitely understand why many would be “tripped up” (as they say), and they would have a right to go to the verses cited before. However, if Christ proves His divinity, that makes him God. We are therefore not putting our faith in a mere man - like I am a mere man - but God the Son incarnate in the flesh. Some examples where Christ clearly attributed divinity to himself (because I know some Jews out there try to argue Christ never did): . . .

Mr. Wolf,
I understand that Jesus did claim His Divinity. Your post has answered very well any objections that He did not make such a claim.

Basically, it comes back to the fact that the best witness to Jesus as God and Messiah is Jesus Himself. As I said before, we/Christians believe that He is who He claimed to be and that all prophecies that have not yet been fulfilled will be fulfilled in the Second Advent.

As for the issue of God coming as man; I think the words of Eusebius of Caesarea are very revealing.

. . . .Eusebius clearly says that God appeared to Jacob as a man. In fact, add in another part from chapter two, the part where Eusebius speaks of Abraham’s encounter with God:But he, by no means neglectful of the reverence due to the Father, was appointed to teach the knowledge of the Father to them all. For instance, the Lord God, it is said, appeared as a common man to Abraham while he was sitting at the oak of Mambre. And he, immediately falling down, although he saw a man with his eyes, nevertheless worshipped him as God, and sacrificed to him as Lord, and confessed that he was not ignorant of his identity when he uttered the words, “Lord, the judge of all the earth, will you not execute righteous judgment?” (Genesis 18:25) [1:2:7; emphasis mine]Again, Eusebius does not argue that God appeared as an angel before Abraham - he clearly says God appeared as a man. This complies with my earlier exegesis of Genesis 18-19. . . .

I asked Chosen People about these appearances and the burning bush was answered, but not the others. I would like to have heard the Jewish understanding of the others in which God did appear as a man.

I cite the following in Post #89

**Abraham And Sarah At Mamre **Gereshit - Genesis 18:1-33

Hagar Bereshit - Genesis 16:9-13

**Jacob At Peniel ****Bereshit Genesis 32:24-43 **Did Jacob truly wrestle with God?

**Moses In The Burning Bush Shemot- Exodus 3:2-4;17

****Gideon Shoftim - Judges 6:11-24

---

Samson’s Parents Shoftim - Judges 13:2-23

In The Fiery Furnace Daniel 3:23-29
**
The Holy Scriptures - The Tanakh

jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/images/copyrightGraphic.gif

---

More comments later,

Anna