Jehovah Witness and Christianity?

Originally posted by vistesd
Where did I mention blasphemy? But, you are right to this extent: If Jesus was claiming the he was God, then, to a strict monotheist, as were the Sadducees, that would be considered blasphemy.

BTW, I want to caution you on some dangerously sloppy language: (1) the Jewish leaders did not kill Jesus; they turned him over to the Romans to ...[text shortened]... scholars, “Jews” in the gospels just refers to those who inhabited Judea, as opposed to Galilee.

My apologies. I do not mean to invoke antisemitic feelings by saying the "Jews" killed Chrsit. After all, his disciples were all Jewish as was Christ. You are correct that it was the Jewish leaders who wanted him dead. Even then it did not include ALL of the Jewish leaders. For example, Nicodemous was a Jewish leader who tried to defend Christ. Nevertheless, the Romans were the ones who had the authority to have him executed, not the Jewish leaders because they were an occupying force, thus they were involved by the Jewish leaders to do their dirty work for them which they were more than happy to do for them.

Originally posted by vistesd
Missed your edit—

Being trained in Torah means no such thing. Not all Jews were apocalyptically oriented (as were, say, the Essenes). The phrase “son of man” occurs 108 times in the Hebrew Scriptures, and with the possible exception of Daniel 7:13 (and there the definite article does not occur in the Hebrew), it refers to human beings. “Son of ...[text shortened]... h I make no criticism.

EDIT 2: Sorry, none of this really has to do with the thread topic...

Actually, while not a claim of divinity per se, wouldn't claiming that you (assuming Son of Man in this case was Jesus referring to himself) would be "sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven" be blasphemous?

Originally posted by vistesd
Missed your edit—

Being trained in Torah means no such thing. Not all Jews were apocalyptically oriented (as were, say, the Essenes). The phrase “son of man” occurs 108 times in the Hebrew Scriptures, and with the possible exception of Daniel 7:13 (and there the definite article does not occur in the Hebrew), it refers to human beings. “Son of ...[text shortened]... h I make no criticism.

EDIT 2: Sorry, none of this really has to do with the thread topic...

Are you disputing the notion in the gospels that the excuse used to crucify Christ was for blasphemy because he was percieved as making himself an equal with God? What other crime could he have comitted to justify such a fate?

Originally posted by whodey
My apologies. I do not mean to invoke antisemitic feelings by saying the "Jews" killed Chrsit. After all, his disciples were all Jewish as was Christ. You are correct that it was the Jewish leaders who wanted him dead. Even then it did not include ALL of the Jewish leaders. For example, Nicodemous was a Jewish leader who tried to defend Christ. Neverthe ...[text shortened]... Jewish leaders to do their dirty work for them which they were more than happy to do for them.

My apologies. I do not mean to invoke antisemitic feelings by saying the "Jews" killed Chrsit.

With you, I knew that. 🙂 That’s why I just cautioned on the language—I am not always as careful as I should be either... “Heat of the discussion” and all that...

Originally posted by whodey
Are you disputing the notion in the gospels that the excuse used to crucify Christ was for blasphemy because he was percieved as making himself an equal with God?

Remeber that the trial didn't acuse him of that,the result they didn't problem in him. But Jews refused to send him free.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Actually, while not a claim of divinity per se, wouldn't claiming that you (assuming Son of Man in this case was Jesus referring to himself) would be "sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven" be blasphemous?

Well, look at how he dances around it in John 10:34-36—

John 10:32 Jesus replied, "I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these are you going to stone me?" 33 The Jews answered, "It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you, but for blasphemy, because you, though only a human being, are making yourself God." 34 Jesus answered, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, you are gods'? 35 If those to whom the word of God came were called 'gods'-- and the scripture cannot be annulled-- 36 can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, 'I am God's Son'? 37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father."

If he meant he was “son of man” and “son of god” in exactly the same way as the statement “you are gods” (quoted from Psalm 82), and that “the son of man” would come in power and glory (whatever that means) was the same “man” for whom the Sabbath was made, and not the other way around, and the same usage for human beings as in the Tanach... Well, you’ve read enough that you can see the possibilities of “mystical” talk. The Sufi al-Hallaj said “I am the Truth,” and got killed for it too—but the Sufis do not think he was blaspheming.

With that said, I think either: (1) The strict monotheists heard him as blaspheming, or (2) they heard what they wanted to from someone who presented a threat to their authority.

Me, because of my reading in Hasidism, Sufism and other streams of the “perennial philosophy” (including Meister Eckhart in Christendom), I tend to think that Jesus was identifying with the divine ground of being he called Abba, and pressing on his listeners the same identification. Can I prove that? No. But it does put him in good and consistent company...

Originally posted by whodey
Are you disputing the notion in the gospels that the excuse used to crucify Christ was for blasphemy because he was percieved as making himself an equal with God? What other crime could he have comitted to justify such a fate?

No, not what I'm disputing. See my reply to No.1.

Originally posted by vistesd
You get all that from a “plain” reading of the text? Without any (unconscious) preconceptions? Without any “midrashic” effort?

We all bring our torah to the Torah, whether we realize it or not...

No doubt. But it's one thing to state that as an abstract principle; quite another to see how it applies to this situation.