VISIT WEBSITE >>>>> http://gg.gg/y83ws?1623585 <<<<<<
And remember, Bar Kohba was not accused of blasphemy. He never claimed to have the authority to forgive sins or claim to be the Son of Man as referring to Daniel 7.
What is interesting is that in relation to the Daniel 7 text is that there is an established tenet in Talmudic times is that there is a splitting of the Messiah in two: Messiah ben Yossef who is also referred to as Mashiach ben Ephrayim, the descendant of Ephrayim will serve as a precursor to Messiah ben David. His role is political in nature since he will wage war against the forces that oppose Israel.
In other words, Messiah ben Yossef is supposed to prepare Israel for its final redemption. The prophecy of Zech. Shortly after these tribulations upon Israel, Messiah ben David will come and avenge the death of Messiah ben Yossef, resurrect him, and inaugurate the Messianic era of everlasting peace.
What is also interesting is that R. Saadiah Gaon elaborated on the role of Messiah ben Yossef by starting that this sequence of events is contingent. In other words, Messiah ben Yossef will not have to appear before Messiah be David if the spiritual condition of Israel is up to par. Sanhedrin 98a. See Darrell L. William Lane Craig. Reasonable Faith: Third Edition. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, , Finally, claiming to be the messiah just isn't blasphemous.
So, either Mark's narrative is theologically incoherent and why not: he's not exactly adept at the finities of Jewish law in other places , or Jesus said something in Hebrew since he was speaking before the HP that DID constitute blasphemy: YHVH perhaps?
What might constitute evidence for this? So that's always struck me as the best way of making Mark's narrative coherent. Of course Jesus is claiming to be divine, or Caiaphas would not have reacted by tearing his clothes, an act forbidden by the high priest in Lev If Caiaphas thought that Jesus was merely quoting scripture, he would not have acted so harshly.
Brant, many thanks for this. I am glad you brought up Mark For both here and Mark 14 I do indeed believe Jesus is disclosing his divine identity.
They had an earthly, materialistic theology. They believed God had divinely appointed the high priest, who had also assumed the kingly or Messianic role over God's people, separate from the Roman vassal King. That seems to be why Sadducees issued civil decisions with the language "according to the high priest of the Most High. This phrase, similar to the title in Mark , opens up another interpretive possibility for the high priest's charge of "blasphemy" in Mark The high priest may be appalled that Jesus is claiming to play the role of the high priest--God's ruler on earth.
Might it be "blasphemy" to the high priest not to claim to be God but to claim to be him? The high priest certainly doesn't seem to be playing by the book in this court case elsewhere so why would we take a strict reading of claiming to be divine?
I'm lecturing on this text in a few hours. I'm with you in seeing a divine claim here. Only here and in Mk 2 do you have Jesus using 'son of man' and the charge of blasphemy. It forms something of an inclusio in Mk's account. Note m. Sanhedrin 7. And they may not mend. It does seem that the text in Mark But note that the parallel passage in another gospel, makes something subtly but significantly different of this.
That is? In Mat. When asked if he is the Messiah, rather than affirming that, Jesus is first silent. And then he merely says to the priest "You have said so". In Mark, that subtle nuance was, for a moment, missed. In Mark, we suggest, the priest who wrote Mark willfully misses or chooses to ignore, that nuance in Jesus's language. But to us, it is clear that it the priest who jumps to the conclusion that he himself emotionally desires.
Read more closely though, we see that it was not Jesus himself, the text itself, that jumped to the conclusion that Jesus was making a divine claim.
It was not Jesus, but the priests. Who, out of their emotional desires, imposed just that one, biased reading on Jesus. While the ignored the ambiguity of Jesus himself; and his own language. To this day, many priests, religious leaders want to preach the image of a strong, unequivocally divine Christ. Either for 1 their own peace of mind. Or 2 for the sake of their congregations. However, to come to that reading of Jesus, they must studiously ignore the many other layers of texts, beyond Mark And they must shut out, on technical grounds, the clarification or correction made on that single passage.
By Matthew But for that matter? Suppose we end by suggesting that even if we limit our attention just to MArk alone? Then we might as well note that 1 the claim to be a Messiah is not consistent with the majority of the text. Even as 3 the text perhaps warns about it own authors. As it warns about apostles like Peter, in But especially, for that matter, specifically 4 in effect, any momentarily proud, cocksure Messianic sentiment in Jesus, is soon rescinded.
By Jesus himself on the cross. First, then, they witness to Christ's claims. It was the summing up of the impression made on the ecclesiastical authorities of Judaism by His whole attitude and demeanour. And if we look back to His life we shall see that there were instances, long before this, on which, on the same ground, the same charge was flung at Him.
For example, when He would heal the paralytic, and, before He dealt with bodily disease, attended to spiritual weakness, and said, 'Thy sins be forgiven thee,' ere He said, 'Take up thy bed and walk,' there was a group of keen-eyed hunters after heresy sitting eagerly on the watch, who snatched at the words in a moment, and said, 'Who is this that forgiveth sins?
No man forgiveth sins, but God only! This man speaketh blasphemies! He did claim a divine prerogative; and either the claim must be admitted or the charge of blasphemy urged. These outstanding instances are but, as it were, summits that rise above the general level. But the general level is that of One who takes an altogether unique position.
No one else, professing to lead men in paths of righteousness, has so constantly put the stress of His teaching, not upon morality, nor religion, nor obedience to God, but upon this, 'Believe in Me'; or ever pushed forward His own personality into the foreground, and made the whole nobleness and blessedness and security and devoutness of a life to hinge upon that one thing, its personal relation to Him.
People talk about the sweet and gentle wisdom that flowed from Christ's lips, and so on; about the lofty morality, about the beauty of pity and tenderness, and all the other commonplaces so familiar to us, and we gladly admit them all. But I venture to go a step further than all these, and to say that the outstanding differentia , the characteristic which marks off Christ's teaching as something new, peculiar, and altogether per se , is not its morality, not its philanthropy, not its meek wisdom, not its sweet reasonableness, but its tremendous assertions of the importance of Himself.
And if I am asked to state the ground upon which such an assertion may be vindicated, I would point you to such facts as these, that this Man took up a position of equality with, and of superiority to, the legislation which He and the people to whom He was speaking regarded as being divinely sent, and said, 'Ye have heard that it hath been said to them of old time' so and so; 'but I say unto you': that this Man declared that to build upon His words was to build upon a rock; that this Man declared that He -- He -- was the legitimate object of absolute trust, of utter submission and obedience; that He claimed from His followers affiance, love, reverence which cannot be distinguished from worship, and that He did not therein conceive that He was intercepting anything that belonged to the Father.
This Man professed to be able to satisfy the desires of every human heart when He said, 'If any man thirst let him come to Me and drink.
This Man declared that He who stood there, in the quiet homes of Galilee, and went about its acres with those blessed feet for our advantage, was to be Judge of the whole world. What set the Jewish rulers against Him with such virulent and murderous determination? Is there anything in the life of Jesus Christ, if it is watered down as the people, who want to knock out all the supernatural, desire to water it down -- is there anything in the life that will account for the inveterate acrimony and hostility which pursued Him to the death?
The fact remains that, whether or not Evangelists and Apostles misconceived His teaching when they gave such prominence to His personality and His lofty claims, His enemies were under the same delusion, if it were a delusion; and the reason why the whole orthodox religionism of Judaism rejoiced when He was nailed to the Cross was summed up in the taunt which they flung at Him as He hung there, 'If He be the Son of God, let Him come down, and we will believe Him.
And I beseech you ask yourselves whether we are not being put off with a maimed version of His teaching, if there is struck out of it this its central characteristic, that He, 'the sage and humble,' declared that He was 'likewise One with the Creator. Secondly, note how we have here the witness that Jesus Christ assented always to the loftiest meaning that men attached to His claims.
I have already pointed out the remarkable difference between the explanations which He condescended to give to the Roman governor as to the perfectly innocent meaning of His claim to be the King of Israel, and His silence before the Sanhedrin. That silence is only explicable because they rightly understood the meaning of the claim which they contemptuously and perversely rejected.
Jesus Christ knew that His death was the forfeit, as I have said, and yet He locked His lips and said not a word.
Comments