- You are making things up left and right, and I see no reason to reply to such bizarre and unsubstantiated ideas.

You are making things up left and right, and I see no reason to reply to such bizarre and unsubstantiated ideas. — Leontiskos

Let's go point by point:

1.From My Jewish Learning

Blasphemy means reviling God. In Hebrew it is known as birkat hashem, literally “blessing [euphemism for cursing] the Name [of God].” The one guilty of this offense is called a megaddef (blasphemer) ...

It is, however, none too clear what exactly is involved in the offense. Does it mean to insult God, or does it mean to curse God?

According to the Gospels of Matthew (26: 63-6) and Mark (14: 53-64) Jesus was tried by the Sanhedrin on a charge of blasphemy, but New Testament scholars have puzzled over both the question of the historicity of the event and the precise nature of the offense.

Then the whole assembly rose and led him off to Pilate. 2 And they began to accuse him, saying, “We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Messiah, a king.”

(Luke 23:1-2)

To subvert the nation is to deny its laws. The second part supports what I said in 4.

2. [As it turns out Jews also sometimes thought that a human could become divine. [/quote] Bart Ehrman

3.

Towards the end of the accounts of all four canonical Gospels, in the narrative of the Passion of Jesus, the title "King of the Jews" leads to charges against Jesus that result in his crucifixion.

(Jesus, King of the Jews -Wikipedia)

This also helps explain why the Roman authorities would get involved. Jesus vs Caesar.

4. See 1 above.

To break the Law is blasphemy. — Fooloso4

Fourth, related to the others, is the claim to be the Messiah. The Messiah is divine but is not God. — Fooloso4

Feel free to defend either of these two claims. The second claim is more truly <It was considered blasphemy to claim to be the messiah>.

Refusing to "go over the top" or to open fire when instructed, is an act of cowardice. — Tarskian

Not sure how it is relevant in a discussion about Christianity.

Christianity is deemed to have some responsibility for the fact that Germany lost both world wars: — Tarskian

And this at least in the case of WW2, it has been a good thing, I would say.

Anyway... 'self-defence' doesn't make oneself a 'brute', in my view. If one acts violently only when an existential threat is there, I wouldn't consider that an act of 'brutality'. 'Brutality' is when one kills, oppresses etc in other situations where other means could bring the same result. For instance, I would say that killing unarmed war prisoners is an act of brutality (it is considered a war crime after all), whereas killing during a battle isn't. I don't think that all soldiers are 'brutes' because they are willing to kill in battle. I would say that for many of them violence is only a tragic necessity.

But even any 'theological' defence of 'self-defence' in Christianity is IMO questionable, let alone a defence of being a 'brute'. Frankly, I see even self-defence as problematic if one wants to follow the Gospels, Paul etc

But again I am not sure of what your point is.

But even any 'theological' defence of 'self-defence' in Christianity is IMO questionable — boundless

It is obvious that there are situations in which fighting is simply necessary. That is indeed difficult to reconcile with the ambiguous, nebulous and misleading notion of fake pacifism typically advocated by Christians, which I consider to be in violation of the most fundamental laws of nature.

This problem does not exist in Islam. The following is a typical jurisprudential ruling in Islam on the matter:

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/21932/islamic-ruling-on-self-defence

Protecting oneself and one’s honour, mind, wealth and religion is a well-established basic principle in Islam. These are the five essentials which are well known to Muslims. A person has to defend himself; it is not permissible for him to consume that which will harm him, and it is not permissible for him to allow anyone to harm him. If a person or a vicious animal etc attacks him, he has to defend himself, or his family or his property, and if he is killed he is counted as a shaheed (martyr), and the killer will be in Hell.

This ruling is completely in line with human nature, with biology, and with the laws of nature. On the other hand, I reject the following statement:

Matthew 5:39. But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.

I will never endorse this view. In general, I have converted from Christianity to Islam for various reasons but mostly because I consider a large number of Christian teachings to be in violation of the laws of nature and to be contrary to very basic tenets of fundamental biology.

Feel free to defend either of these two claims. The second claim is more truly <It was considered blasphemy to claim to be the messiah>. — Leontiskos

I point to sources that support what you claim I made up, The fact is, I did not. If you were arguing in good faith you would admit that. I would accuse you of arguing in good faith when you made the accusation, but giving you the benefit of doubt it could have simply been ignorance.

My post began:

First, the accusation of blasphemy covers a great deal more than a claim to divinity. — Fooloso4

This is true. The term means, as quoted above, reviling God. Convicting Jesus for blasphemy is not evidence for Jesus' claim to divinity. See, for example, Acts 6:11:

Then they suborned men, who said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and God.

According to the commentary at Bible Study tools:

... that is, against the law of Moses, and so against God, who gave the law to Moses, as appears from ( Acts 6:13 ) the blasphemous words seem to be, with respect to the ceremonial law, and the abrogation of it, which Stephen might insist upon, and they charged with blasphemy; see ( Acts 6:14 )

I point to sources that support what you claim I made up. — Fooloso4

Then do it. Defend either of those two claims. :roll:

"To break the law is blasphemy." This is the sort of nonsense that most 10 year-old Christians or Jews could correct. To see someone with such ignorance speak with such confidence is remarkable.

If you were arguing in good faith you would admit that. — Fooloso4

The irony. :lol:

Then do it. Defend either of those two claims. — Leontiskos

Apparently, you are trying to walk back your claim that:

You are making things up left and right — Leontiskos

You are doing everything you can to distance yourself from that claim.

Acts, as quoted and referenced, says that Stephen spoke blasphemous words against Moses and against God. To speak blasphemous words against Moses means to speak against the Laws of Moses.

In Luke we find:

The Pharisees and the teachers of the law began thinking to themselves, “Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?”

(5:21)

Jesus response is:

But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.

(5:24)

This is fully in accord with what I said above:

the term 'divine' did not mean that someone who was called divine is a god, but rather has an important relationship to God. A son of God, for example. — Fooloso4

You seem to have missed the larger picture. The Gospel accounts are not historical accounts. They are polemical. They accuse the Jewish leaders of bearing false witness, including charges of blasphemy. And, as is evident in Acts, this meant blasphemous words against the Law. The division between the Jewish followers of Jesus and those who came to be known as Christians who did not follow the Law begins with Paul. Acts is attributed to Luke, who was Paul's companion. The accusation of blasphemy, according to this story was false. To bear false witness is not to give an accurate historical account.

Acts, as quoted and referenced, says that Stephen spoke blasphemous words against Moses and against God. To speak blasphemous words against Moses means to speak against the Laws of Moses. — Fooloso4

Here is your argument:

• Speaking against the Law is blasphemy.
• Therefore, To break the Law is blasphemy.

I can explain why this is a non sequitur if you need me to.

Breaking the Law is not blasphemy, but the one who claims to have power over the Law blasphemes if they are not above the Law (as God is above the Law):

I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of man is lord of the sabbath.” — Matthew 12:6-8

Jesus gets accused of blasphemy for doing things like placing himself above the temple, or calling himself lord of the sabbath, or teaching and reinterpreting the Law "with authority," or forgiving sins. These are all the unique prerogatives of God, and not of lesser divine beings. Jesus and his accusers both know this.

The accusation of blasphemy, according to this story was false. — Fooloso4

You are missing the subtlety of the writings entirely. The subtlety of the Gospels and the Jewish mind is characterized by a verse like John 11:51. The charge of blasphemy is both correct and incorrect. It is correct in that it is not a conspiracy theory spun up out of nowhere; it is incorrect in that God's Son has God's prerogatives. What is blasphemous for others is not blasphemous for him.

For example, Luke 5:24 does not say, as you seem to think it does, "Oh, I'm not God but I can forgive sins anyway." Instead he says, "I, in my uniqueness as the Son of man,* can forgive sins, and to prove it I will cure this paralytic." The premise that only God can forgive sins is left untouched, significantly. The center of that text is the forgiveness of sins, and the healing is meant to support Jesus' authority to forgive sins.

* Cf. Daniel 7

Matthew 5:39. But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.

I will never endorse this view. — Tarskian

I suppose the Muslim version of this claim might be "if anyone slaps on the right cheek, slap them back so hard that they don't dare ever slap you again." Now that would be more in line with human nature.

Here is your argument:

Speaking against the Law is blasphemy.
Therefore, To break the Law is blasphemy. — Leontiskos

I have given textual evidence that speaking against the Law is regarded by the accusers as blasphemy. Have you forgotten your claim that:

Probably the most basic evidence for Jesus' claim to divinity is the fact that the Jewish authorities arranged to have him executed for blasphemy. — Leontiskos

or are you just trying to bury it?

As to the second point. What I said was:

the accusation of blasphemy covers a great deal more than a claim to divinity. To break the Law is blasphemy. — Fooloso4

It is not simply a matter of breaking the Law, as it every offense however minor would be a blasphemous offense. What is at issue destroying or abolishing the Law. (Matthew 5:17)

When you say:

Jesus gets accused of blasphemy for doing things like ... reinterpreting the Law "with authority," or forgiving sins.These are all the unique prerogatives of God ... — Leontiskos

you are making my point for me.

...the Jewish mind is characterized by a verse like John 11:51. — Leontiskos

Was the author of this a Jew? A rabbi? An expert on "the Jewish mind"? A proper characterization is captured in the oft told joking expression: two Jews and three opinions.

The subtlety ... What is blasphemous for others is not blasphemous for him./quote]

This is about as subtle as getting hit in the head with a sledge hammer. That any man "has God's prerogatives" would be regarded as blasphemous by the Jewish leaders. But even if the Christians believed this, it does not mean that Jesus or his Jewish disciples believed he was not a human being.
— Leontiskos

"I, in my uniqueness as the Son of man,* can forgive sins, and to prove it I will cure this paralytic." — Leontiskos

Again, you make my point. A son of man is a human being.

In the notes to the New International Version of Daniel 7 it says:

The Aramaic phrase bar enash means human being.

Young's Literal Translation has son of man. Other sources confirm that bar enash means human being .

I have given textual evidence that speaking against the Law is regarded by the accusers as blasphemy. — Fooloso4

You said this:

To break the Law is blasphemy. — Fooloso4

I asked you to defend it and you gave a non sequitur argument. Now you are finally admitting, albeit quietly, that you were wrong:

It is not simply a matter of breaking the Law, as it every offense however minor would be a blasphemous offense. What is at issue destroying or abolishing the Law. — Fooloso4

So we agree: your earlier claim that breaking the Law is blasphemy is false.

Again, you make my point. A son of man is a human being. — Fooloso4

What is your conclusion here supposed to be? That Jesus is claiming that anyone who is human can forgive sins? Do you even believe yourself when you make these sorts of points, like Aristotle's boxer who swings without knowing what he is doing? Can you see anything at all through the foggy polemicism of your glasses?

It requires no discernment to understand that what is being spoken of is not a mere human being:

and behold, with the clouds of heaven
there came one like a son of man,
and he came to the Ancient of Days
and was presented before him.
And to him was given dominion
and glory and kingdom,
that all peoples, nations, and languages
should serve him;
his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
which shall not pass away,
and his kingdom one
that shall not be destroyed. — Daniel 7, RSV

If you like:

'One like a human being' receives the kingdom from the 'Ancient One'. Is this second figure a symbol of the nation that will exercise the dominion (the Jewish people), depicted as a human rather than an animal? Or is he a divine figure (such figures represented as in human form, Dan 8:15; 10:5)? If so, is he Michael, who 'stands' for the Jews in 12:1? — The Oxford Bible Commentary, Daniel

I suppose the Muslim version of this claim might be "if anyone slaps on the right cheek, slap them back so hard that they don't dare ever slap you again." Now that would be more in line with human nature. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes.

However, the general biological rule that governs all sovereign primate groups remains applicable.

In-group violence between individuals or subgroups is considered a breakdown in law and order, to be adjudicated by the ruler, who judges which of both sides is at fault.

Violence is legitimate only between sovereign groups ("war"). We share this biological rule with chimps, baboons, and gorillas.

An in-group cycle of violence is preferably cut short by means of victim compensation:

Quran 2:178. O ye who believe! the law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman. But if any remission is made by the brother of the slain, then grant any reasonable demand, and compensate him with handsome gratitude, this is a concession and a Mercy from your Lord. After this whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave penalty.

Proportional retaliation is to be deemed a natural reaction and cannot be held against the parties in the conflict. Furthermore, no party in the conflict is expected to offer the other cheek.

The ruler must intervene, however, and the judge will attempt to solve the conflict by means of financial compensation. Such conflict-resolution process at the societal level of the sovereign group is simply a biological necessity.

Our laws must be compatible with our fundamental biological nature. Otherwise, the alternative is mayhem.

It's worth noting that the compilation dates of the Gospels
cover a wide period. One should not take "scholarly consensus" about the order and dates of their compilation as meaning "this is most likely right." Questions of dating, order, and authorship are all highly speculative.

Second, the dates and theories about authorship jump around over time despite no new evidence being introduced. It's a sad fact that novelty and provocative theses are how you sell books and get tenure in academia. Hence there are very strong incentives to embrace provocative theses because they are provocative or novel. The fact is, a book that says "honestly, we really don't know, we have to speculate with a high degree of uncertainty," doesn't sell books.

The other factor here is that this is obviously a politically charged subject. Catholics look to support their tradition. Atheists often have an incentive to poke holes in traditional interpretations regardless of the merits of their case. You have folks like Erhman who are both talented scholars but who also have deep personal issues with Christianity, a bone to pick with it, advancing highly speculative theses and presenting them as if they a fairly certain.

This sort of thing is endemic to virtually all ancient history. One problem is that, even if we can be 95% certain that x, y, z... etc. are each true premises when it comes to history, it will still be the case that a speculative theory built off of these premises has an extremely low likelihood of being free from significant material error. It's just like how if you roll a 10 sided die once, you can be pretty confident you won't roll a 9. Roll is 50 times and your confidence collapses. This is the sort of thing they teach when you do intelligence analysis and I really wish historians would get more of it, because they don't always seem to understand this.

I'll mention Ehrman here because I am familiar with his arguments. For his case to work, the dating of NT documents needs to be "just so." But, even ignoring that "scholarly consensus" (which Ehrman doesn't even appear to follow) is not a very good metric of certainty, we might consider that even if we are 90% confident of the dating of each part of the NT individually (and we are not nearly that confident), this would still make an argument for a very particular ordering very statistically unlikely to be correct. (Of course if St. Peter is the author of I Peter this point is moot anyhow, because that author thinks Christ is divine)

That all said, generally we have St. Paul's letters put forth as the earliest Christian documents. St. Paul clearly, in no ambiguous terms, thinks Christ is God. It is in Christ in which "all things hang together," (Colossians 1). James is often put forth as an earlier text (although there are counter arguments to this). James very clearly thinks Christ is God and deserving of worship. The author of I and II Peter clearly thinks Christ is God. The author of I John and the Gospel of John (very likely the same person) thinks that Christ is God, although this is less relevant because these are generally considered to be later writings (although their compilation dates overlap with Luke).

Point being, from what are likely the very earliest Christian sources Christ is seen as divine. The argument of folks like Erhman, that there is "no way" first century Jews would have ever thought their leader was God is undercut by the fact that the earliest source we have clearly shows a first century Jews who very obviously thinks Christ is God and thinks this despite close contact with the Apostles who followed Christ.

2. [As it turns out Jews also sometimes thought that a human could become divine.

This is simply playing with an equivocal usage of "divine." The way in which the authors of Colossians (widely agreed to be St. Paul) and John think of Christ's divinity is as being that through which the world is created and holds together. "Apart from him not one thing was created that has been created," and "in the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos WAS God."

And even in the other Epistles you have advice to offer direct prayers to Christ, who judges mankind. By contrast, angels always reject prayer directed towards them. The type of divinity indicated is specific. It might not rule our some sort of subordination à la Arianism however.

The blog post might do well to point out that what are widely considered to be the earliest Christian texts, St. Paul's letters, refer to Christ in creating and sustaining the universe.

Point being, from what are likely the very earliest Christian sources Christ is seen as divine. The argument of folks like Erhman, that there is "no way" first century Jews would have ever thought their leader was God is undercut by the fact that the earliest source we have clearly shows a first century Jews who very obviously thinks Christ is God and thinks this despite close contact with the Apostles who followed Christ. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The earliest Christian sources are maybe from the early 50s?

Ehrman says that shortly after J's execution/resurrection discussions of his divinity occur among his followers and that there are a range of views towards J in the early church. I don't see any evidence that his followers viewed him as God during his lifetime. Amy Jill-Levinson argues that Jesus was an observant Jew. After J's death and resurrection, yes - the view that he is divine wins out in the early church and becomes Christian dogma.

Once a Jew believes Jesus is divine is he essentially becomes a Christian. So yes the earliest Christian sources view J as divine... to be a Christian source is to view J as divine.

Ehrman says that shortly after J's execution/resurrection discussions of his divinity occur among his followers and that there are a range of views towards J in the early church.

Sure, and that's possible, but what are likely the earliest documents that exist even mentioning Jesus mention him as divine.

I don't see any evidence that his followers viewed him as God during his lifetime.

Of course you don't. And you don't see any evidence to the contrary either because the Epistles and Gospels are the very first historical documents that mention Jesus. Suppositions about "what did people believe decades before we have a single scrap of evidence," are pretty much pure speculation.

I find the statements based on what "Jews of the era would have been willing to believe," to be particularly off-base given we have plenty of historical evidence, from both the Bible and other sources, to show that the Jews of antiquity very often engaged with surrounding religions, became followers of them (up to and including abandoning Judaism completely) or incorporated other faiths into Judaism. This is a recurring theme in the Hebrew scriptures and the Jewish works only included in the Septuagint. It's an obvious focal point of the religious class compiling the sources.

If we didn't have Philo and co. we'd probably hear similar things about how no Jew (or "no true Jew") would embrace Platonism or blend it with Judaism. Indeed, Protestant scholars tried to make exactly this sort of argument as they struggled to dislodge Greek thought from their form of Christianity (which is quite difficult given its influence is all over the NT and clearly in some OT books, such as the Wisdom of Solomon).

I asked you to defend it and you gave a non sequitur argument. Now you are finally admitting, albeit quietly, that you were wrong: — Leontiskos

You have a noxious habit when you are unable to understand the scope of an is of accusing me of a a non sequitur argument. The Law includes Torah, Mishnah, and Talmud. To break the Law is not limited to infractions. The accusation of blasphemy is not limited a claim of divinity as you eventually go on to admit:

Jesus gets accused of blasphemy for doing things like ... teaching and reinterpreting the Law "with authority," — Leontiskos

To say that Gentiles need not follow the written Law, is a grievous example of breaking the Law.

Probably the most basic evidence for Jesus' claim to divinity is the fact that the Jewish authorities arranged to have him executed for blasphemy. — Leontiskos

Evidence?

The historicity of the gospel narratives has been questioned by scholars, who suggest that the evangelists' accounts reflect the later antagonism that arose between the Church and the Synagogue.

(Wikipedia, Sanhedrin trial of Jesus)

I pointed to the problem of historical veracity in an earlier post.

So we agree: your earlier claim that breaking the Law is blasphemy is false. — Leontiskos

Absolutely not!

People who steal, that is a desecration of God's name.

(On the Other Hand: Ten Minutes of Torah - What Is Blasphemy, Anyway?)

Now there might be so disagreement between rabbis, but interpretation and disputes over interpretation are part of the Law. So, both the violation of at least some of the Laws as well as rejection of the Law fall under the accusation of blasphemy.

What is your conclusion here supposed to be? That Jesus is claiming that anyone who is human can forgive sins? Do you even believe yourself when you make these sorts of points? — Leontiskos

You ask what my conclusion is then put words in my mouth, as if this is my conclusion. Another example of arguing in bad faith. If you had waited form my answer I would have told you that it not just anyone. Once again, Jesus, according to the Gospels is not just any man.

The appropriation of Daniel works against you.As pointed out above: The Aramaic phrase bar enash means human being. The is no decisive evidence in Daniel that Jesus is this man . Whoever the man is, he was given authority, glory and sovereign power by the Ancient of Days. So again, not just any man, but a man none the less.

This is simply playing with an equivocal usage of "divine." — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think you have it backwards. It is not playing with an equivocal usage. The term itself is equivocal.

Jacob wrestled with a divine being. (Genesis 32:24-30) The being is called a man, but:

Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, “It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.

(30)

This being is often regarded as an angel. Man, God , Angel? Divine or of the divine? Is what is of the divine in some sense also divine?

One thing that should be noted is that unlike in Christianity Judaism is not bound by official doctrines.

With regard to the nature of Jesus, a distinction is made during the conflict addressed at the Council of Nicaea between apotheosis and divine ousia.

I think it quite easy for pagan followers of Jesus to regard Jesus as a god. After all, Caesar and humans are called both divine and gods.

I take your point that some Jews either modified or rejected the Jewish teaching but, according to Mark 12:29 he recited the Shema:

Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God, the Lord is one.

and called it:

The first of our commandments.

Paul, however, who preached to the gentiles said:

yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

(1 Corinthians 8:6)

Two points here: He distinguishes between God from whom all things came, and Christ through whom all things came. Jesus is not God. He is not the creator. The one Lord is not the one God.

Point being, from what are likely the very earliest Christian sources Christ is seen as divine. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Right, but Fooloso will argue against all of these sources and Tim Wood has literally claimed that the Christians of the Council of Nicea did not even affirm that God exists. I don't see that any amount of evidence is going to overcome this level of post hoc rationalization.

To break the Law is not limited to infractions. — Fooloso4

Absolutely not! — Fooloso4

I doesn't need to be. When you claim that breaking the Law is blasphemy, that means that all breakings of the Law are blasphemy. If one can break the Law without blaspheming then your claim that breaking the Law is blasphemy is false. The fact that you still can't admit this basic logic just shows what a hot mess you are. Speaking with such an unserious person is an utter waste of my time, and this is also on par with the intellectually dishonest way you discuss other topics. You are now on my ignore list.

When you claim that breaking the Law is blasphemy, that means that all breakings of the Law are blasphemy. — Leontiskos

Complete nonsense! It seems more than a bit desperate. There are a great many laws in Judaism. Only a few of them are punishable by death. This like arguing that since breaking some laws in US jurisprudence are punishable by death that means that all breaking of the law is punishable by death.

You are now on my ignore list. — Leontiskos

Thank you!

If we didn't have Philo and co. we'd probably hear similar things about how no Jew (or "no true Jew") would embrace Platonism or blend it with Judaism. Indeed, Protestant scholars tried to make exactly this sort of argument as they struggled to dislodge Greek thought from their form of Christianity (which is quite difficult given its influence is all over the NT and clearly in some OT books, such as the Wisdom of Solomon). — Count Timothy von Icarus

Indeed. Hellenism was influential on Jewish thought in antiquity and several canonical books (especially those written in the second temple period) do contain Hellenistic themes and influences. The rabbis did disqualify some works from canon on the basis that they were essentially "too Greek", but it would impossible to purge all Greek influence from Jewish texts.

I may have missed something, but when I read the Jesus of the Gospels I mostly see him arguing Jewish Scripture, interpretation of the law (halaka), using Jewish methods of argumentation, Jewish parables, referencing Jewish liturgy etc. I don't see him trying to Hellenize the Jews. I don't see him discussing Plato with the Pharisees. Philo studied it as he was an Alexandrian and he was from the upper classes which had the time and resources to pursue these activities.

The view that Yahweh can be man is shared by no Jewish sect ever but I grant you that it is possible that his followers believed it. Elijah and Elisha also performed miracles including raising the dead. Then again, the rabbis (possibly?) accuse him of leading his followers to idolatry so who knows. Why would Peter deny him 3x if he believed Jesus to be God?

Ok, thanks for the clarification.

Amy Jill-Levinson — BitconnectCarlos

I take it you mean Amy-Jill Levine. Her scholarship is solid. I read "The Historical Jesus in Context" and some interviews somewhere. Being raised in a Jewish household she was unencumbered by belief in Christian dogma. She did not have to struggle with the belief that Jesus is God.

Once a Jew believes Jesus is divine is he essentially becomes a Christian. — BitconnectCarlos

The term 'divine' is problematic. For example:

Psalm 82:1

God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment.

Whatever these divine beings or gods are, they are distinct from God, the creator of the universe. Distinct from "God the Father".

Talk of gods is a holdover from polytheism. The commandment that you shall have no other god before me is not a claim of monotheism but of henotheism - this god and no others is to be your God. Monotheism is a later development, one that can be found in Isaiah but not earlier. By the time of Jesus there is only one God.

The question then is whether the term 'divine' as it is used by Paul when preaching to the Gentiles and by the Greek speaking authors of the Gospels are claiming that Jesus is God or a god or rather of God. In the case of Paul it might mean that he has renounced his Judaism or, as seems far more likely, since the end is near and he wants to save as many souls as possible, he is no longer concerned with such theological distinctions. In the case of the gentile authors, however, it seems likely that the distinctions between men and gods was not so clear cut.

when I read the Jesus of the Gospels I mostly see him arguing Jewish Scripture, interpretation of the law (halaka), using Jewish methods of argumentation, Jewish parables, referencing Jewish liturgy etc. — BitconnectCarlos

I agree. I think this is why the disciples were against Paul preaching to the Gentiles. His use of the distinction between the Law as written and as it is in one's heart was his own blasphemous invention.

I take it you mean Amy-Jill Levine. Her scholarship is solid. I read "The Historical Jesus in Context" and some interviews somewhere. Being raised in a Jewish household she was unencumbered by belief in Christian dogma. She did not have to struggle with the belief that Jesus is God. — Fooloso4

Yes, thank you. :lol:

Currently reading "the misunderstood Jew."

In the case of the gentile authors, however, it seems likely that the distinctions between men and gods was not so clear cut. — Fooloso4

Yes, and this is a great post by the way. Agree that Psalm 82 is a polytheistic holdover reflecting a very old tradition that pre-dates monotheism. But yes, when we speak of conceptions of divinity we should distinguish between how e.g. Jews use it and Greeks use it. According to the ancient Greeks, some mortals can gain divine status after death. In Judaism the messiah is not God. The messiah is no more "God" than you or I although he's certainly a very special person.

In Judaism the messiah is not God. — BitconnectCarlos

That's right, and therefore claiming to be the messiah is not blasphemy.

In Judaism the messiah is not God.
— BitconnectCarlos

That's right, and therefore claiming to be the messiah is not blasphemy. — Leontiskos

and yet:

Probably the most basic evidence for Jesus' claim to divinity is the fact that the Jewish authorities arranged to have him executed for blasphemy. — Leontiskos

Leontiskos is pretending to ignore me, so maybe someone else can sort this out. The claim to divinity might mean that to be divine is not to be God, but when he says:

The Nicene Creed affirms exactly what Lionino says, namely that Jesus is the Son of God, consubstantial with the Father. — Leontiskos

and:

If you are saying that Christians never affirmed that Jesus is God, they only believed it, I would say that this is both anachronistic and incorrect. — Leontiskos

one might then think that not all Christains believe that God and Jesus are consubstantial, but nope:

When I talk about what a religious group believes, such as Catholicism or Mormonism, I am talking about what the bona fide representatives and scholars of that group believe (i.e. the leaders and their aids). — Leontiskos

Asked twice be two different members, first:

Why don't you tell me what you think they said constitutes the essence of Christianity? — flannel jesus

He answers by saying what it is not. We might all agree that Christianity is a meatball but this tells us nothing about what it is.

And then:

All right, tell us what a Christian is. — tim wood

he says:

Christians believe in God. They do not worship a "God the Father" who has a human past. — Leontiskos

This is a bit better, but it goes too far in the opposite direction. According to this Jews are Christians.

Where are we? The messiah is not God. But if the messiah is not God then either Jesus is not the Messiah or Jesus is not God. If Jesus is not the Messiah then Jesus is not the anointed one. Jesus would not be Christ.

Can anyone make sense of this contradictory mess?

- That was a devious splicing of many different contexts and conversations, which still didn't get you very far. At this point you've lowered yourself to the level of a dishonest troll. Those who thought you were otherwise should take note.

So much for ignoring me. That did not last long. But perhaps someone else can sort out what you are either unwilling or unable to do. Perhaps someone else can sort out the different contexts so that your various claims either hold together or at least do not contradict each other.

So much for ignoring me. — Fooloso4

I'm sure the referee will award you a point for eliciting a reply to your trolling.