Jesus as True God and True Man

[KMC]

It is obvious to me that if one were to be writing about a human being you thought was God, you would mention it. A lot.

There is a really good book I would suggest: The Case for Jesus by Brant Pitre. He addresses your question quite well. In fact, the synoptic Gospels are quite clear about Jesus’s claims of divinity…when read through the lens of a first century Jew (Matthew’s target audience). He claimed to be God…which was why the Jews killed him: blasphemy

https://www.amazon.com/Case-Jesus-Biblical-Historical-Evidence/dp/0770435483

 

[Pattylt]

People, claims to divinity in ancient Judaism is not the same as claims to Godhood. In Judaism back then, David was in a sense divine, angels were divine…there were multiple levels of divinity and they didn’t necessarily mean God. They definitely thought Jesus was special, blessed, given a mission from God, but not God Himself. You have to read that into the texts.

 

[Noose001]

People, claims to divinity in ancient Judaism is not the same as claims to Godhood. In Judaism back then, David was in a sense divine, angels were divine…there were multiple levels of divinity and they didn’t necessarily mean God. They definitely thought Jesus was special, blessed, given a mission from God, but not God Himself. You have to read that into the texts.

Yes and no.
Yes, divinity doesn’t necessarily mean God and even in the new testament, believers are said to partake in the divine nature.

No, Jesus is special; saying He is God incarnate is not a mistake as per the scriptures.

The confusion is about the nature of God and how He creates.

 

[Pattylt]

No, Jesus is special; saying He is God incarnate is not a mistake as per the scriptures.

But this is only said in John and the Johannine community. Not in the Synoptics. A straight reading of the Synoptics gives you a special Jesus but not a Jesus as God. When John was written, his community had a different understanding of Jesus and He is elevated to Godhood.

Paul and his school of thought has a Jesus where his humanity seems to be ignored entirely. Paul doesn’t even mention Jesus life on earth…only the risen Jesus. There were different early Christianities from the very beginning with the proto orthodox view emerging victorious by the second century. When you read the New Testament with a specific mindset that Jesus is a Trinity, you will “see” Godhood throughout as you look at the NT as a whole. But, the early Christians were lucky to have one, maybe two writings that later became parts of the NT. Different gospels and letters gave different communities different views of who Jesus was and were later assumed into the proto orthodox view. Christians today don’t read only one gospel. They combine the views of all of them into an overall view of Jesus but in ~40 CE, this view hadn’t coalesced yet.

 

[Noose001]

But this is only said in John and the Johannine community. Not in the Synoptics. A straight reading of the Synoptics gives you a special Jesus but not a Jesus as God. When John was written, his community had a different understanding of Jesus and He is elevated to Godhood.

This is obviously a false narrative that many want to hear and follow.

Malachi 3:1 prophesy- God Himself promises to come to earth
Isaiah 40:3 prophet Isaiah prophesies about John the baptist welcoming God on earth

Mark 1:1-9 Mark describes the fulfilment of these two prophesies by telling as the encounter between Jesus and John.

No doubt here.

 

[Pattylt]

Malachi 3:1 prophesy- God Himself promises to come to earth
Isaiah 40:3 prophet Isaiah prophesies about John the baptist welcoming God on earth

Mark 1:1-9 Mark describes the fulfilment of these two prophesies by telling as the encounter between Jesus and John.

No doubt here.

These are all Christian interpretations. Not the Jewish ones that the Jewish people had back then…or today. To state that it is the only interpretation would be wrong. It is one interpretation and Christians are free to do so. But you can not claim it’s the only one allowed.

 

[SeekSalvation]

Matthew 16:17 " Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father."

 

[Noose001]

These are all Christian interpretations. Not the Jewish ones that the Jewish people had back then…or today. To state that it is the only interpretation would be wrong. It is one interpretation and Christians are free to do so. But you can not claim it’s the only one allowed.

You don’t interpret a prophesy; a prophesy finds interpretation in its fulfilment years or millennia later.
In Malachi 3:1, God says He will come to earth, what possible interpretation can Jews make of it other than wait for it to be fulfilled? Same thing with Isaiah 40:3.

It is the Jews today that have a problem with the fulfillment of the prophesies that they are still eagerly waiting to be fulfilled, Christians don’t have any problem with the prophesy or its fulfillment.

 

[Kaninchen]

You don’t interpret a prophesy; a prophesy finds interpretation in its fulfilment years or millennia later.

The ‘proof text’ equivalent to biting bits off jigsaw pieces to make them fit strategy.

 

[Shakuhachi]

Matthew 16:16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

(to add to Seeksalvation)

 

[KMC]

A straight reading of the Synoptics gives you a special Jesus but not a Jesus as God.

A straight reading from a 21st century viewpoint, perhaps. If you read from the perspective of a 1st century Jew, then Jesus absolutely claimed to be God:

1. He claimed to be superior to all that was holy or good…demanding to be loved more than one’s parents (Mt 10:37). A 1st century Jew would know via the 10 Commandments that only God is to be loved more than one’s parents.
2. He claimed to be God, the Judge of all mankind (Mt 25:31-46). A 1st century Jew would know only God can read the hearts of all mankind
3. He claimed to be the Lawgiver. In the Sermon on the Mount, as an example Jesus says, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’ but I say to you…” (Mt 5:27). A 1st century Jew would know it was God who said “you shall not commit adultery”, here Jesus under His own authority adds to what has already been said. Only God can do that.
4. In Mark 4: 35-41, Jesus “stills the storm.” A 1st century Jew would realize that that in the Old Testament, only God, and not any prophet controlled “the wind and the sea” (Job 26:11-12, Psalms 104:1-7, 106:8-9,)
5. When Jesus walked on water in Mt 14:27, Jesus says “I am; do not be afraid.” He doesn’t say “Its me”, rather He says 'I am," which is the name of God.
6. The Transfiguration. Here Jesus appears with Moses and Elijah. In the OT, both Moses and Elijah were prevented from seeing God’s face, now at the Transfiguration, they can see the unveiled face of God.

Again, remember that Jesus was not put to death because He claimed to be the Messiah, rather He was put to death because He claimed to be God.

 

[ReaderT]

@FiveLinden what do you think of this list? Doesn’t that show that they viewed Him as divine?

First of all, the psalms are often poetic and repetition was typical of its genre. So, there can be your way of reading it and the Jewish way of reading it.

Thank you for the reply PattyIt - I just find the verse fascinating because - whether David is being poetical or not - he is still talking about “God’s God” which doesn’t make any sense at all. That would’ve been a huge transgression of the Shema I believe, right?

 

[Dan_Defender]

Before Jesus, no one read the Christian Jesus prophesies as such. No one.

And that is hardly surprising. The scribes and priests had a poor understanding of the whole OT before Jesus taught. The statement actually favors Christianity over Judaism.

'And as Jesus taught in the temple, he said, “How can the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David? David himself, inspired by the Holy Spirit, declared, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, till I put your enemies under your feet.’ - Mark 12:35-36

 

[Pattylt]

he is still talking about “God’s God” which doesn’t make any sense at all. That would’ve been a huge transgression of the Shema I believe, right?

If they read it that way, yes. But they didn’t. They read it as a repetition, an emphasis. Because it would have contradicted the Shema, they never read nor understood any parts of the OT as referring to a coming human God. It would have made no sense to them and would have been blasphemous! Christians read it that way.

The scribes and priests had a poor understanding of the whole OT before Jesus taught.

I hear this from Christians frequently. Besides being a bit rude, you are actually claiming that the Jews didn’t understand their own scriptures!. Do you appreciate it when others claim that Catholics don’t understand their own scriptures? The NT that the church assembled as canon?

Please, they interpreted them differently. Not wrongly. The Jews have entire writings on what the OT says and means called the Talmud. The Jews own version of oral law finally written down finally in about 200CE. Jews knew exactly what their own scriptures meant to them. Christianity views them differently and interprets them differently. Please don’t assume they were ignorant or blind.

 

[Dan_Defender]

I hear this from Christians frequently. Besides being a bit rude, you are actually claiming that the Jews didn’t understand their own scriptures! . Do you appreciate it when others claim that Catholics don’t understand their own scriptures? The NT that the church assembled as canon?

Please, they interpreted them differently. Not wrongly. The Jews have entire writings on what the OT says and means called the Talmud. The Jews own version of oral law finally written down finally in about 200CE. Jews knew exactly what their own scriptures meant to them. Christianity views them differently and interprets them differently. Please don’t assume they were ignorant or blind.

Your complaint is not with me, but with Jesus. I quoted him from Mark’s gospel. Also, how come the Jews had everything so right and then came along 70 AD and the Temple was fully destroyed, never to be rebuilt? The Orthodox Jews I know accept that the destruction of the Second Temple was punishment by God. In fact, they wear black because they are still mourning the destruction of the Second Temple.

 

[Pattylt]

Also, how come the Jews had everything so right and then came along 70 AD and the Temple was fully destroyed

I’m not claiming they had everything right about their society. There were various different sects with different views on how to follow the Torah. It doesn’t mean they interpreted it wrongly.

Jesus was trying to form a new understanding of Torah, not change it. Some others did as well. He definitely want people to understand the intent of the laws, not a rigid following like the Pharisees…who were a small sect within Judaism to begin with.

As long as Rome held all the power…and they did…the Temple was bound to be destroyed at some point anyway. Temple Judaism needed reforming which came from its destruction. Jesus had little to nothing to do with the destruction of the Temple though I’m sure you will disagree. That’s ok, different views for different people. Not all Jews today seek a rebuilding of the Temple either. It’s time came and went.

 

[Dan_Defender]

As long as Rome held all the power…and they did…the Temple was bound to be destroyed at some point anyway. Temple Judaism needed reforming which came from its destruction. Jesus had little to nothing to do with the destruction of the Temple though I’m sure you will disagree. That’s ok, different views for different people. Not all Jews today seek a rebuilding of the Temple either. It’s time came and went.

But see, then you are in the difficult position to explain the history. The covenant and the Temple are connected. The OT is crystal clear on the building, destruction, and rebuilding of the First Temple. But what about the Second? it defies logic to set aside God and blame it solely on the Romans. You would have to do the same for the Babylonians and the First Temple. In that scenario, suddenly God plays no role and the Jews were always on their own! really?

 

[FiveLinden]

Mark 1:1-9 Mark describes the fulfilment of these two prophesies by telling as the encounter between Jesus and John.

For this to be any sort of proof of the writer believing Jesus was God, you would have to establish that the word ‘Lord’ meant, to the writer, ‘God’.

 

[Cathoholic]

FiveLinden . . . .

As Bart Ehrman has pointed out there was absolutely no Jewish expectation that the Messiah would be God.

This is irrelevant. I don’t care what Bart Ehrman thinks.

He is a guy who lost his faith that cannot look at these truths objectively.

The ancient Jewish “expectations” are irrelevant too.
God had to cement in the mind of the people . . . ONE God.

Attempting to give humanity too much about Trinitarian theology without the grace that emanates from Jesus the Messiah’s work on Calvary, would have resulted in more paganism.

Which is WHY the ancient Jewish “expectations” are just what I would expect.

To believe truths that are above reason in the manner that we should believe them, you need special graces.

This “Supernatural Faith” comes from Jesus the Messiah’s work on Calvary via Baptism (where we receive supernatural faith, hope, and charity.

(So I would expect this to be more developed AFTER Calvary. Which is exactly what we see.)

Following someone like Ehrman’s opinions for me anyway, I would have to he superstitious.

Ehrman’s going to have to ignore all the talk in all of the Gospels about the Resurrection, then pretend the Gospel writers did not say “anything” about Jesus’ Divine nature.

You know the Gospel writers all write about the Resurrection (that is Divinity).

Why follow an opinion like Ehrman’s?

Atheists like Ehrman deny science too.
They believe in things that there are no rational basis for.

They assert perpetual motion. This is superstitious.

They deny entropy. The same.

They obstinately refuse to affirm truths that are above reason (or self-contradict in this realm).

I would not be persuaded by some guy like Bart.

 

[FiveLinden]

You know the Gospel writers all write about the Resurrection ( that is Divinity )

So is Lazarus God? Are all the dead who rose from their graves after the resurrection God?