Out of all the religions - Why Christianity?

[Della]

Not to pick nits, but I would say Islam is much more of a reaction to Christianity, than an off-shoot of it. As you pointed out, Mohammed was never a Christian, never in the Church, such that his manufactured belief system could be considered an off-shoot.

In contrast to Protestantism, for e.g., Luther wasn’t just a member of the Church–he was a priest. Hence one you could say “Protestantism is an offshoot of Christianity”.

Similarly, Christ didn’t make a religion out of whole cloth–He was a practical Jew, as were all of His Apostles. Hence one could say "Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism" (though it would be more accurate to say that Christianity is the fulfillment of [the promises of] Judaism, but at least, from a historical perspective, ‘off shoot’ could work).

But not Islam.

Contrary to what our separated brethren would like to maintain, we are not a ‘religion of the book’–or ‘people of the book’–as Protestantism and Islam claim to be.

We are a religion of a person–Christ Jesus (who, it should be well worth noting, did not leave us ‘a book’, nor suggest that we were to become a ‘people of the book’, or otherwise prophesy anything of the sort. He left us a Church; His Church). Or as the CCC puts it, “a religion of the Word of God”–reference to ‘the Logos’, which of course, is not limited to the written word of God, known as ‘scripture’, but rather to the person–the 2nd person of the Trinity, the Son of God, God incarnate–Jesus Christ, as best articulated in John 1:1:

In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.

fwiw.

True. I was thinking of Hilaire Belloc’s position that Mohammed took elements from both Judaism and Christianity he liked, and much like Joseph Smith did, simply invented his own mythos, his own code of conduct, his own theology. In that sense Islam is an off-shoot of both Judaism and Christianity, but it may be better to say he was greatly influenced by both faiths, which were quite separate by his time. :tiphat:

 

[Servant19]

Except that we have records otherwise of what Jesus taught. To put it another way, I don’t know if I would say Mohammed contradicted Moses, but he did contradict Christ

Christi pax,

Lucretius

I think you will find that Muhammad did not contradict Moses or Jesus as recorded in the Bible but yes, both Moses and Muhammad contradict some of the Church’s teachings and interpretations of what was recorded by the Gospel writers and St.Paul and St.Peter.

.

 

[Lucretius]

I think you will find that Muhammad did not contradict Moses or Jesus as recorded in the Bible but yes, both Moses and Muhammad contradict some of the Church’s teachings and interpretations of what was recorded by the Gospel writers and St.Paul and St.Peter.

I find it interesting that you include St. Paul, since he is every clear that Christ was the “form of God,” and that Islam traditionally despises St. Paul, but of course you aren’t a Muslim exactly too…

I propose three possible ways to view Scriptural quoted regarding Jesus and His Divinity:

1. Explicitly supporting it
2. Explicitly denying it
3. Can be interpreted either way.

I propose that in the Old Testement, only (3) exists, and in the New Testement, both (1) and (3), with no (2). For your position to work, the New Testement can’t be (1), and there must be at least (3), but (2) would easily destroy the orthodox position and ratify yours.

A Scripture quote that fits the first classification would be many of the I AM statements. These statements alone suffice to demonstrate the falsity of Muhammad’s teachings.

Furthermore, Christians reject the “People of the Book” classification: Christ and His Apostles didn’t just leave written traditions, but unwritten ones as well. These unwritten traditions are certainly not compatible with Islam, neither on the level of doctrine, but also on the level rituals, ideal of marriage, etc.

Finally, Islam rejects other explicit teaching and actions of Christ: the crucifixion and resurrection, as well as monogamy. Christ also teaches that he is the fulfillment of the prophets, and so it makes no sense for Muhammad to claim to be a prophet of the order, and especially the last one (which I think your agree with anyway).

Forgive me if I misunderstand your position, as the Bahai position might differ from the Islamic one

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Lucretius]

BUT, there are countless other competing claims to Devine Revelation, which claim to have their own miracles and prophecies. The Catechism doesn’t seem to refute these.

Prophecies and miracles are not the cause of faith, but are necessary for faith to be rational. The cause of faith is first and primarily the Holy Spirit. Remember, even Arianism is comparible with Jesus’s miracles.

Furthermore, even demons can manipulate the natural order. Think of miraculous activity not as proving that the teaching is true, but rather making start to wonder what spirit is sending this message. I personally believe that many of the gods of old actually exist, but that they are actually misunderstood angels or corrupting demons.

Remember, Jesus was accused of doing miracles through Baal, which would mean that Baal must actually exist as some sort of demon, right? Furthermore, this is Jesus’s response to such accusations:

But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.”

Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you."

“Or again, how can anyone enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can plunder his house."

“Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."

“Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit. You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of. A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him. But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned."
(Matthew 12:24-37)

This is basically Jesus’s reasoning as how to distinguish good teaching from false teaching.

No other religions claim to have a basis in real events?

Most religions don’t make historical claims to historical revelation (that’s the Abrahamic Religions). Hinduism, for example, is basically Indian paganism: it is a religion of men without knowledge of God’s revelation guessing at and speculating on what they can’t see. We don’t contract them as much as show them where their thoughts should end up. Basically, Christians should approach Indian philosophy how we approached Plato and Aristotle in the past. Chinese religion and Japanese Religion is similar: incomplete religions of humans in implicit waiting for fulfillment by Christ

My own doubt is more thoroughly explained in this video, if anyone’s interested: youtu.be/YJRKvt7g57o?t=6s

I can’t watch the video right now, maybe another time

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Della]

This is the big doubt I’m currently having, which has been a strain on my faith for over two years now.

The Church teaches that it’s possible to know of God’s existence through reason alone, but that revelation (Judaism, Christianity, etc.) has to come to us from God. Though we have to accept this revelation on faith, it can’t contradict reason either - so revelation comes with “proofs” such as miracles and prophecies. (All this info can be found in the Catechism, paragraphs 50 and 156)

BUT, there are countless other competing claims to Devine Revelation, which claim to have their own miracles and prophecies. The Catechism doesn’t seem to refute these.

The Catholic Encyclpedia has a set of criteria to judge the authenticity of revelation (here), but likewise, the CE doesn’t apply them against other religions (even though it implies that they’re supposed to be).

So, any help along this line would be appreciated

I believe the answer to miracles and revelations in other faiths is simply that God speaks to all human beings in ways that will help them recognize that he exists and that they have need of him. The Early Church Fathers and Church theologians looked to philosophers such as Socrates, Aristotle, and Plato for evidence of this enlightening by the Spirit. St. Paul wrote of this in Romans 1&2. That God has revealed himself in nature and in reason so the pagans have no excuse before God for their conduct. And since Christ’s redemptive act ,that poured the Spirit upon all mankind so that they may be saved through him, it’s even more apparent that God is working in the world since much of the world has turned from rank barbarism in their dealings with their own people and with other nations. God did this to draw all men to himself, in Christ, even if they don’t understand that. The CCC speaks to this in paragraphs #846-848 where it discusses the possibility of salvation for non-Christians.

No other religions claim to have a basis in real events?

I’m pretty sure I made the distinction between historically based faiths: Judaism, Christianity and Islam and those that are strictly mythologically based. Even in the latter the Spirit of God had some hand in them since all men have some knowledge of the divine, as St. Paul wrote. The Greek and Roman gods, for instance, have their basis in biblical characters passed down in “fractures” of understanding and legends. C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien both wrote about this.

Could you elaborate on that? I’m curious to know why it’s more plausible.

I’ll let Wesrock answer his statement.

My own doubt is more thoroughly explained in this video, if anyone’s interested: youtu.be/YJRKvt7g57o?t=6s

I really don’t have the time to listen to the whole thing, but I think I know where the argument is going. And such arguments are fine, but arguments alone can’t always answer our doubts because doubt isn’t a product of insufficient arguments or proofs but is a symptom of a spiritual need that arguments cannot answer.

Having said that, I do think you are missing a few pieces that would fill in the gaps for you. I believe you need to read people like Lewis, Fulton Sheen, G. K. Chesterton, etc. And I think your dilemma needs to be taken to God in prayer. There are two ways we can approach doubts. We can approach our faith with outright skepticism. That’s not a good idea because skepticism about things that the Church teaches doesn’t open the mind, it clamps it shut because everything read will appear to be an excuse rather that a reasoned argument. IOW, it poisons one’s perspective rather than opening it up. When I read other faith’s theologies I always look for what shows God in them. I find it helps me understand how God works in human hearts far better than doubting everything I read no matter what faith it is. God is universal, as is faith in him, in one form or another. God knows this perfectly well, and encourages people who seek him. I find it evidence of his great mercy and kindliness.

The better approach is from the viewpoint that you are a learner, sitting at the feet of teachers with at least 8000+ years of history (OT and NT), theology, and prayerful faith to share with you. Christ founded his Church so we could have him with us until the end of time. He’s in the Church’s teachings, which are his teachings, and he is in the Church in the Eucharist–the greatest gift he’s given to us, his own body and blood, soul and divinity to feed us and nourish us in the faith he handed down to his Apostles.

 

[Wesrock]

Could you elaborate on that? I’m curious to know why it’s more plausible.

The classical theism of the Abrahmic religions and the philosophy of the East differ in how they conceive the nature of reality. Is the elephant thundering through the forest straight towards me real, or is it only an illusion? The answer to me seems to boil down to whether or not I feel the need to jump out of the way. Are we dreams of the One being? Or are we real beings in our own right? Is it monotheism or is it pantheism (one God, of which we are all a part)? Is God One or Many? How do we participate in existence with God?

Questions like that, that boil down to natural philosophy and not so much a critique of any myth or history (not that such review should be ignored, but I’m only clarifying here what I meant in that post). I don’t intend to start a debate particularly on this subject here. But if you were wondering about my angle, that’s what I was getting at. The classical theism position, which is a tradition that runs through all three Abrahamic faiths, seems truer to me, more rational, and conforms to a realist conception of the world and the human experience.

 

[Lucretius]

The classical theism of the Abrahmic religions and the philosophy of the East differ in how they conceive the nature of reality. Is the elephant thundering through the forest straight towards me real, or is it only an illusion? The answer to me seems to boil down to whether or not I feel the need to jump out of the way. Are we dreams of the One being? Or are we real beings in our own right? Is it monotheism or is it pantheism (one God, of which we are all a part)? Is God One or Many? How do we participate in existence with God?

Questions like that, that boil down to natural philosophy and not so much a critique of any myth or history (not that such review should be ignored, but I’m only clarifying here what I meant in that post). I don’t intend to start a debate particularly on this subject here. But if you were wondering about my angle, that’s what I was getting at. The classical theism position seems truer to me, more rational, and conforms to a realist conception of the world.

I agree. We can through reason reject most of the Eastern views of the Ultimate Reality. However, many Hindus’ probably could be said to be a kind of Classical Theist.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Abu]

Izon #44
BUT, there are countless other competing claims to Devine Revelation, which claim to have their own miracles and prophecies.

No other religious founder claimed to be God and was able to prove it – not Mohammed of Islam, not in Hinduism, not in Buddhism, not in Taoism, not in Confucianism.

The historian Eusebius in his Church history, 4.3, 1.2, tells us that writing about 123 A.D., apologist Quadratus cited those in his day who had been cured or raised from the dead by Jesus of Nazareth – prime witnesses – long after the miracles, crucifixion and death of the Son of God. No other religious founder claimed to be God and proved it – not Mohammed of Islam, not in Hinduism, not in Buddhism, not in Taoism, not in Confucianism.

His miracles “were so frequent, the eyewitnesses so numerous, and the evidence so stark, that not even Christ’s enemies disputed the fact of their occurrence. Instead they ascribed them to the power of the devil, or defied Him to perform another one in His own favour.” (See Mt 12:24; 27:39-42;Jn11:47). Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Sheehan/Joseph, Saint Austin Press, 2001, p 104].

The evidence of history which attests Christ as the Son of God, sent to redeem humanity, also attests, to this day, to His reality and His truths through the facts of the miracle of the Sun at Fatima, the medically attested miracles that take place at Lourdes, and the Eucharistic miracles.

 

[Servant19]

I find it interesting that you include St. Paul, since he is every clear that Christ was the “form of God,” and that Islam traditionally despises St. Paul, but of course you aren’t a Muslim exactly too…

Hi Lucretius,

I think you will find that Islam will have a lesser problem with the words “form of God” which Paul stated as compared to “IS God” which Paul never stated about Jesus, but Christianity asserts…

I propose three possible ways to view Scriptural quoted regarding Jesus and His Divinity:

1. Explicitly supporting it

1. Explicitly denying it

1. Can be interpreted either way.

I agree.

I propose that in the Old Testement, only (3) exists, and in the New Testement, both (1) and (3), with no (2). For your position to work, the New Testement can’t be (1), and there must be at least (3), but (2) would easily destroy the orthodox position and ratify yours.

I would like to see where in the NT there is a statement “explicitly affirming” Jesus’ as being God?
There are many NT passages which “explicitly deny” Jesus as being God, however, 1 Tim 2:5 being one of them for example.

A Scripture quote that fits the first classification would be many of the I AM statements. These statements alone suffice to demonstrate the falsity of Muhammad’s teachings.

Have you possibly considered that the “I am” verses might have been stated by Jesus in the context of John 12:49
*"For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say **all *that I have spoken."

Furthermore, Christians reject the “People of the Book” classification: Christ and His Apostles didn’t just leave written traditions, but unwritten ones as well. These unwritten traditions are certainly not compatible with Islam, neither on the level of doctrine, but also on the level rituals, ideal of marriage, etc.

“People of the Book” is not a reference to people who have a Book as the foundation of their beliefs, it is a reference to “monotheistic Abrahamic religions”
(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_the_Book#Definition)

So there is no contradiction there with Islam, Judaism and Christianity

Finally, Islam rejects other explicit teaching and actions of Christ: the crucifixion and resurrection, as well as monogamy. Christ also teaches that he is the fulfillment of the prophets, and so it makes no sense for Muhammad to claim to be a prophet of the order, and especially the last one (which I think your agree with anyway).

Forgive me if I misunderstand your position, as the Bahai position might differ from the Islamic one

Christi pax,

Lucretius

I think these matter you mention are a matter of incorrect interpretation, either of the OT and NT or of the Quran.
With correct, logical, rational interpretation we can easily find tremendous commonality

.

 

[Abu]

Servant19 #50
I would like to see where in the NT there is a statement “explicitly affirming” Jesus’ as being God?

All over; two will suffice.
God, the judge of all mankind, Mt 25:31- 46: “When the Son of Man comes in all His glory, and all the angels with Him.… before Him will be gathered all the nations, and He will separate them one from another.”

Divine, equal in power to the Father, Mt 28:18: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me.” [Mt 28:18].
Lk 10:22: “All things have been delivered to Me by My Father…”

With correct, logical, rational interpretation we can easily find tremendous commonality

The lack of knowledge shown here explains much of the rhetoric about a supposed “commonality”.

surrey.ac.uk/ati/ibc/file…e&Creation.pdf
“By the time of the Jewish Moses ben Maimon, better known as Maimonides (1135-1204) the heyday of the Islamic empire had passed: its science had come to a standstill, and even its days were numbered as its western and eastern flanks were soon to be lost.

“The most, Maimonides noted, that the theologians were willing to admit about lawfulness in the universe was that it resembled human habits, such as the customary riding of the king of a city through its streets. Still, a king could readily break his habits, and so could any or all parts of the universe shift to a different “habit”. Maimonides pointedly remarked: “the thing which exists … only follows the direction of habit …On this foundation their whole fabric is constructed.”

 

[Vico]

Out of all the world religions, from Hinduism to Zoroastrianism, why do you trust that the Christian message and interpretation of God is correct?

Judaism claims he was a false Messiah, and Islam claims Christ was merely a prophet whose message was corrupted. Why follow Christ over the other so called ‘gods’ and other ways of interpretation God (such as spiritualism over religion)?

The Holy Spirit has given me faith.

 

[Wesrock]

There are many NT passages which “explicitly deny” Jesus as being God, however, 1 Tim 2:5 being one of them for example.

How does 1 Tim 2:5 deny Christian Christology?

 

[Lucretius]

Hi Lucretius,

I think you will find that Islam will have a lesser problem with the words “form of God” which Paul stated as compared to “IS God” which Paul never stated about Jesus, but Christianity asserts…

In Greek, it is rather clear that μορφῇ means essence, nature, etc. It’s just that the English word form has lost its precision. St. Paul is basically saying that Christ is the same essence as the Father, which basically can be summed up in the word ὁμοούσιοv.

I would like to see where in the NT there is a statement “explicitly affirming” Jesus’ as being God?
There are many NT passages which “explicitly deny” Jesus as being God, however, 1 Tim 2:5 being one of them for example.

Where does that Quote deny that Christ is God? I see these statements being made:

1. that there is only one God,
2. that what is mediating between God and man is the man Christ, and
3. that Christ is a man

Unless you accept that Christ can’t have dual natures, I don’t see any denial of Christ’s Divinity. The reason the man Christ mediates between man and God is because the person Christ is also God. He is in the middle of both worlds

Have you possibly considered that the “I am” verses might have been stated by Jesus in the context of John 12:49
*“For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say **all ***that I have spoken.”

Interesting theory. So, to you, Christ is a mouthpiece of God then. Ok, possible situations that arise:

1. He doesn’t make it clear who is speaking at any time: there are times when He is clearly talking about Himself.
2. If He didn’t want the Jews to despise Him in GJohn, He could have made this clear. The fact that He didn’t makes this clear indicates that the Jews understood him correctly. A similar situation arises in the Bread of Life discourse.

I think these matter you mention are a matter of incorrect interpretation, either of the OT and NT or of the Quran.
With correct, logical, rational interpretation we can easily find tremendous commonality

Maybe. I’m not overly familiar with the Quran. And there tends to be rather much overlap (Muslims and Christians agree that without Christianity, Islam wouldn’t exist, for example)

The thing is that Christ promised to protect His Church, while Islam, and any religion deprived for it, must argue that at some point the Church failed. We have the Traditions of the Apostles in a paper trail, and we have to propose that somehow the successors of the Apostles made a MAJOR mistake, which is rather untenable, if only ignorance and mistakes are proposed as the reason.

Another reason the Divinity of Christ is so obvious in the New Testament is just how much it is ambiguously hinted at. If there was an ambiguous statement here or there, it might be possible to look otherwise, but when you have as many as you do, something important must be being said. Couple that with the interpreting ability of Holy Tradition and I don’t see how one can really debate whether the earliest Christians taught that Christ is Divine.

How do you interpret the beginning of GJohn, btw?

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Lucretius]

How does 1 Tim 2:5 deny Christian Christology?

He probably thinks that when the Apostle writes that the man Christ is the mediator between God and Man, that since Jesus isn’t explicitly identified as Divine, but only explicitly identified as man, while God is differentiated from Christ, that this indicates that Christ is not Divine, according to St. Paul. It’s similar to how the Apostles say that there is only one God, and only one Lord Jesus Christ.

The problem is that the quotation, when read in light of Christ’s dual nature, is actually teaching that the major reason only Christ can be the bridge between Heaven and Earth is because He is born of both God and Man: He is a part of both worlds.

I’m sure he will correct me if I got him.wrong somewhere

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Randy_Carson]

I would like to see where in the NT there is a statement “explicitly affirming” Jesus’ as being God?
There are many NT passages which “explicitly deny” Jesus as being God, however, 1 Tim 2:5 being one of them for example.

Just a few verses later, Paul told Timothy:

1 Timothy 3
16 Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great:

He appeared in the flesh,
was vindicated by the Spirit,
was seen by angels,
was preached among the nations,
was believed on in the world,
was taken up in glory.​

So, it’s pretty clear that Paul preaches that Jesus is God. Later, Paul also warns:

1 Timothy 4
The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.

and again

1 Timothy 6
3 If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, 4 they are conceited and understand nothing. They have an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions 5 and constant friction between people of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.

Thanks for bringing Paul’s instructions to Timothy to our attention.

 

[Servant19]

No other religious founder claimed to be God and was able to prove it – not Mohammed of Islam, not in Hinduism, not in Buddhism, not in Taoism, not in Confucianism.

.

I often wonder what proof some Christians are looking for?

Is religion a miracle of transformation of the human heart? Or is religion becoming a means by which we can say “my God is true because He did a better miracle than yours did”?

.

 

[Servant19]

All over; two will suffice.
God, the judge of all mankind, Mt 25:31- 46: “When the Son of Man comes in all His glory, and all the angels with Him.… before Him will be gathered all the nations, and He will separate them one from another.”

Divine, equal in power to the Father, Mt 28:18: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me.” [Mt 28:18].
Lk 10:22: “All things have been delivered to Me by My Father…”

Hi Abu

I don’t see how Jesus is God in any of these passages. Yes, through Him all creation came into being. Yes, to Him, authority was given, but that is the point, authority was GIVEN. God is the Authoriser, not the receiver of authority.

It was THROUGH Jesus that creation came into existence, agreed, but this is not the defining attribute of God.

The lack of knowledge shown here explains much of the rhetoric about a supposed “commonality”.

surrey.ac.uk/ati/ibc/file…e&Creation.pdf
“By the time of the Jewish Moses ben Maimon, better known as Maimonides (1135-1204) the heyday of the Islamic empire had passed: its science had come to a standstill, and even its days were numbered as its western and eastern flanks were soon to be lost.

“The most, Maimonides noted, that the theologians were willing to admit about lawfulness in the universe was that it resembled human habits, such as the customary riding of the king of a city through its streets. Still, a king could readily break his habits, and so could any or all parts of the universe shift to a different “habit”. Maimonides pointedly remarked: “the thing which exists … only follows the direction of habit …On this foundation their whole fabric is constructed.”

Could you please clarify what your point is that you are making here Abu?

Thankyou

.

 

[Abu]

Servant19 #57
I often wonder what proof some Christians are looking for? Is religion a miracle of transformation of the human heart? Or is religion becoming a means by which we can say “my God is true because He did a better miracle than yours did”?

“Christians” differ considerably in their beliefs – and other religionists even more so.

What you endlessly fail to even acknowledge, much less understand, is the reality of Jesus of Nazareth affirmed as God, explained to you in His recorded miracles attested to by prime witnesses and recognised by His enemies; historical Resurrection; recognised as God in the N.T., the miracle of the Sun at Fatima, the medically attested miracles that take place at Lourdes, and the Eucharistic miracles.

Continued in, with and through the reality of His Catholic Church.

 

[Abu]

Servant19 #58
I don’t see how Jesus is God in any of these passages. Yes, through Him all creation came into being. Yes, to Him, authority was given, but that is the point, authority was GIVEN. God is the Authoriser, not the receiver of authority.

It was THROUGH Jesus that creation came into existence, agreed, but this is not the defining attribute of God.

How strange that you don’t even know that the Jews understood fully that Jesus claimed to be God:
More proof:
**The Jews understood clearly that Jesus claimed to be God, Mt 10:30-39:
‘30 “I and My Father are one.”
‘31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him.
‘33 “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy and because You being a Man, make Yourself God.”
‘39 Therefore they sought again to stone Him, but he escaped out of their hand.’
**
Jesus claimed Divine prerogatives, Jn 8: 57-58:
‘The Jews said to Him: “You are not fifty years old and you have seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was I am.” ’
Jn 5: 22-23:
“The Father…has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honour the Son, even as they honour the Father.”

 

[Servant19]

How strange that you don’t even know that the Jews understood fully that Jesus claimed to be God:
More proof:
**The Jews understood clearly that Jesus claimed to be God, Mt 10:30-39:
‘30 “I and My Father are one.”
‘31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him.
‘33 “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy and because You being a Man, make Yourself God.”
‘39 Therefore they sought again to stone Him, but he escaped out of their hand.’
**
Jesus claimed Divine prerogatives, Jn 8: 57-58:
‘The Jews said to Him: “You are not fifty years old and you have seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was I am.” ’
Jn 5: 22-23:
“The Father…has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honour the Son, even as they honour the Father.”

I wouldn’t trust the Jews in the day of Jesus Abu. They couldn’t recognise the Messiah when He was staring them in the face

The understanding of the relationship between God and His Word made flesh was very primitive during the Mosaic Dispensation. Naturally they lacked understanding and made many conclusions.

.