We are forever/for the moment 'g d's children' ~~~

DB 137/138


We
can learn
several key things
from these passages: the first,
as we saw several times before, is
that "Messiah" (MASHIACH, or CHRISTOS/Christus,
anointed/gezalfde/priester/koning) is (or seems to be) for Yesh equivalent
to the "Son of Man!" Secondly, we can learn that claiming to be this Son of Man was considered
as blasphemy by the (corrupt/collaborating/Sadducee) high priest and thus as a claim not only to messianic status
but also to divinity (whatever that might or might not mean to be
in the eyes of one group or another)
~~~

When Jesus answers
"I am," he is going even further
than merely claiming messianic status, for "I Am,"
EIGO EIMI,
is also precisely what this YHWH/Yahweh calls himself when Mosheh/Moses asks his name:
"This is what you are to say to the Israelites, 'I AM [EIGO EIMI] has sent me to you'" [EX ODUS 3:14)!
(Compare Yehoshua 'g d saves'!)! The high priest of the Jews could hardly be expected to miss this allusion!?!
Jesus thus claims to be the Son of G d, the Son of Man, and indeed 'g d himself'?! A statement such as that is not merely true or false;
it is truth or blasphemy! According tot the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 7:5, it is mentioning the name of God
that constitutes (this) blasphemy.

Both Josephus Flav. & the Community Rule of Qumran precede the Mishnah in this determination.
I (db) contend, therefore, that it is most plausible to understand Jesus'. "I Am" as being the name of G d, hence THE blasphemy.
Many scholars deny this argument, contending that "I Am" is merely (here) a declarative sentence and NOT a predication
of the name of God to himself?! The blasphemy, then, has to be understood differently, namely,
in connection with Philo's definition of blasphemy, which is, as he says,
somewhat less stringent than that of the Mishnah,
Josephus, or Qum-ran!?

In my (db's) view,
an interpretation of the text
that is closest to the other Palestinian views of the matter is preferable,
but others may, of course, be right. In support of their view is the verse in Mark 2 discussed several times before
where Jesus is accused of blasphemy for having arrogated to himself the divine prerogative to 'forgive sins'!
However, even on Philo's account,
blasphemy consists of imputing divine status to oneself or to another human, so my point
that the blasphemy consists precisely
in Yesh claiming divine
status for himself
stands
...

Even IF 'EIGO EIMI' is innocent,
Jesus' further allusion to himself as the Son of Man
& 'coming on the clouds of heaven' certainly,
according to the high priest's reaction,
constitutes blasphemy
& thus a claim
to divine
status
...
25 feb 2013 - bewerkt op 26 feb 2013 - meld ongepast verhaal
Weet je zeker dat je dit verhaal wilt rapporteren? Ja | Nee
Profielfoto van Asih
Asih, man, 80 jaar
   
Log in om een reactie te plaatsen.   vorige volgende