In Luke 10:27, the lawyer’s answer to Jesus quotes Deuteronomy 6:5 and uses kyrion where the Hebrew has YHWH.
John 8:58 Jesus gives one of many “I am” statements that mirror God’s revealing of his name to Moses at the burning bush in Exodus 3. The link to Exodus 3 and the meaning of YHWH is seen in the Greek verb in the present tense which is visible in English translations. “Before Abraham was, I am.” Normal language would expect an imperfect tense, “Before Abraham was, I was.” It is one of multiple ways Jesus identifies himself with YHWH by using the language of the Old Testament.
But he calls him Father like a million times & prays to him and gives him credit. And then calls Yaweh Satan?
How can you discount that?
I see the references to the scriptures as him trying to relate to the jews in a way they can understand. And , of course Jesus being a Jew and knowing the scriptures , it would be an obvious tool for him to be persuasive to them .
But other than that, the rest of his words and actions , were of course considered to be radical & heretical . Which they were back then.
But , his true message to the ages and the goy , demphasisis everything old and looks to the New
Do you dispute he came to " tear down the temple and rebuild it anew "
And that his body was the temple ?
What's that mean too you ?
Thanks for your post.
On the references to father, the same section in John 8 speaks to it.
John 8:39–42 (ESV): They answered him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing the works Abraham did, but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. You are doing the works your father did.” They said to him, “We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father—even God.” Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.
There’s a lot going on here so here’s how I parse the speaking and the claims.
The Jews claimed Abraham was their father in the sense of being their ancestor.
Jesus claimed to have heard the truth “from God” (theos)
Jesus said to the Jews, “You are doing the works your father did.” The language here isn’t specific as to who this “father” refers to, but the prior statement in context has Jesus telling them that they were not doing the works of Abraham, though they claimed him as their father.
The Jews said, “We have one Father— even God.” (theos)
Jesus said to them, “If God [theos] were your father, you would love me, for I came from God [theos] and I am here.”
The last two points there have the overlap in language. The Jews claim that they have one Father God [theos] following from their believes rooted in the shema (Deut 6:4; c.f. Isaiah 63:16; 64:8). Jesus then turns that around saying that if they were true to their claim of loving their father God, then they would love him because he came from God, the same God the Jews claimed was their father.
So the prior claim in this comment thread was that Jesus’ statement in (John 8:44) equates Yahweh with the devil (Satan). I don’t see how that is coherent with the passage because of John 8:41-42. That reading requires that both the Jews and Jesus are using the Greek word theos but are referring to two different entities. I don’t see anything in the passage making that distinction.
Do you dispute he came to " tear down the temple and rebuild it anew " And that his body was the temple ? What's that mean too you ?
The original statement from Jesus is in John 2:19
John 2:19-22 (ESV): Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” But he was speaking about the temple of his body. When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.
The other forms like, “I will destroy this temple…” come from the false witnesses at the trial before the crucifixion in Matthew 26:61; 27:20; Mark 14:58; 15:29. It’s worth noting here in John 2 that, in addition to the Jews not understanding what Jesus meant, the disciples also did not immediately understand what Jesus meant.
What does that mean to me? I take the view of John 2:21-22 that the temple Jesus was referring was his body and that, though destroyed, it would be raised up. He was speaking of the coming crucifixion and resurrection as he did other times in the gospels.
Wow ! Thank you sir. I really appreciate the time & effort you spent to write this .
I assure you I will study it and pray for eyes to see and my heart & mind to learn .
And then I will get back too you .
God bless .
What if the Old Testament as we know it today has been manipulated to misdirect modern day Christians and Jews?
That's an interesting thought, but the idea that the Old Testament has been manipulated to misdirect modern Christians and Jews is not widely supported by scholars. The Jewish rejection of Jesus as the Messiah is based on theological differences and interpretations of scripture, rather than deliberate manipulation of the text.
It's important to recognize that the Old Testament was established as a sacred text long before Jesus' birth. The Hebrew Bible was already well-established and widely respected within Jewish communities by the time of Jesus. The preservation of the Hebrew Bible has been a meticulous process among Jewish scribes and scholars, with strict measures in place to ensure accurate copying and transmission of the text.
While variations exist among ancient manuscripts, the core teachings and narratives of the Old Testament remain consistent across different versions and translations. So, while it's natural to question and explore the complexities of religious texts and interpretations, the idea of a deliberate manipulation to misdirect regarding Jesus requires substantial evidence and scholarly consensus, which is currently lacking.
Super-long honest answer, and I'm not trying to sound like a know-it-all, but you're venturing into rabbit holes I often dwell in.
(TLDR: Well sure there's something going on! 2,000 years of human history.)
While it was certainly a rocky start, between the period of Jesus' death and the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, the Pharisees and the Messianic Jews worshipped together in the same Temple, read the scriptures together, prayed together, kept Torah/the Law, etc... The "jews" and the "christians" were still essentially just two denominations of the same religion; one who believed Yeshua/Jesus was the Messiah and the other did not.
At the time of the Roman siege of Jerusalem, the Pharisees rallied around a military leader and declared HIM to be the messiah (I forget and could look this dude's name up, but I don't care to).
This, of course, wasn't accepted by the Messianic Jews, who already knew who the true Messiah was, so they instead followed the words of Yeshua who had essentially prophesied that when they see armies surrounding Jerusalem, they should flee to the hills. Over time afterwards, they basically dispersed into the surrounding gentile nations and into the various Christian communities already started by Paul and other evangelists.
And thus the split between "Jew and Christian" was complete. Jerusalem was decimated by the Romans. The surviving Phariseeical Jews at the time never forgave the Messianics whom they saw as traitors and cowards, and they set out in the aftermath to build a completely NEW religious system (because their old system was all built around priests and sacrifices at the Temple, which was utterly laid to waste now).
Thus, the Pharisees turned to the Talmud, full of its Babylonian mysticism, as well as their own commentaries on the Scriptures. This is how they are, to this day, able to teach from the TALMUD and their own writings, rather than the ACTUAL BIBLE, and they are able to pick-and-choose, and add-to and take-away from scripture, etc... And so, what we today call "Rabbinical Judaism" was born.
And so, today, you can be raised Jewish, and spend your life in religious studies, and yet still never have stumbled across the Messianic prophecies that more blatantly point to Jesus such as, say, Micah 5:2 or Isiah 7:14.
This really isn't necessarily to bash just the Jews. Because as for Christendom, the Roman Catholic church eventually proceeded to conquer the entire idea of being a follower of Christ, and then it set out to hide or burn all translations of the Bible that weren't in Latin, and ensured that only their Priests were capable of reading the Bible for the next 1500 years or so. Then to top it off, they declared the Pope to be ruler in Christ's absence, and thus positioned their own Priesthood as higher authorities than the scripture... Until, of course, the Protestant Reformation happened and the Bible began to be translated into European languages around the 1600s.
As for corrupted Bible translations.... I am sad to say that, yeah, there has been a ton of manipulation, in both the Old and New Testament, over the years. I personally prefer the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament that Paul the Apostle himself used) and I keep it handy when reading the Bible, because there are all sorts of hidden jewels that are lost in translation.
And even today, new discoveries in this field are taking place. Right now, for instance, scholars are only re-discovering that much of the New Testament was actually originally written in Hebrew (a very contentious and debated subject right now, but doesn't it make sense that the Jewish disciples of Jesus would have written in Hebrew? Especially something like "the Book of Hebrews"?)
Anyways, thankfully, I've found that the vast majority of theology and over-all narrative of the Bible doesn't seem that different when comparing the different translations. Maybe if you're having an inter-denominational debate on specific Christian dogma or something, but whether I'm reading the Greek Septuagint or the King James version, they both point to Jesus as the Messiah.
Wow! Tremendous reply, I appreciate you sharing your well informed understanding.
I guess what irritated me and started me down this line of thought was when my youngest son was told by his CCD teacher that my NIV study Bible that has all the helpful notes along the edge and added history explanation could not be used in class. That version was just fine for my other two boys. 🤷♂️
Sure I get that there are some differences but to totally dismiss my study bible sounds very authoritative like the Catholic Church doesn't want kids to get an "outside" perspective.
In Luke 10:27, the lawyer’s answer to Jesus quotes Deuteronomy 6:5 and uses kyrion where the Hebrew has YHWH.
John 8:58 Jesus gives one of many “I am” statements that mirror God’s revealing of his name to Moses at the burning bush in Exodus 3. The link to Exodus 3 and the meaning of YHWH is seen in the Greek verb in the present tense which is visible in English translations. “Before Abraham was, I am.” Normal language would expect an imperfect tense, “Before Abraham was, I was.” It is one of multiple ways Jesus identifies himself with YHWH by using the language of the Old Testament.
But he calls him Father like a million times & prays to him and gives him credit. And then calls Yaweh Satan? How can you discount that?
I see the references to the scriptures as him trying to relate to the jews in a way they can understand. And , of course Jesus being a Jew and knowing the scriptures , it would be an obvious tool for him to be persuasive to them . But other than that, the rest of his words and actions , were of course considered to be radical & heretical . Which they were back then. But , his true message to the ages and the goy , demphasisis everything old and looks to the New Do you dispute he came to " tear down the temple and rebuild it anew " And that his body was the temple ? What's that mean too you ? Thanks for your post.
On the references to father, the same section in John 8 speaks to it.
There’s a lot going on here so here’s how I parse the speaking and the claims.
The last two points there have the overlap in language. The Jews claim that they have one Father God [theos] following from their believes rooted in the shema (Deut 6:4; c.f. Isaiah 63:16; 64:8). Jesus then turns that around saying that if they were true to their claim of loving their father God, then they would love him because he came from God, the same God the Jews claimed was their father.
So the prior claim in this comment thread was that Jesus’ statement in (John 8:44) equates Yahweh with the devil (Satan). I don’t see how that is coherent with the passage because of John 8:41-42. That reading requires that both the Jews and Jesus are using the Greek word theos but are referring to two different entities. I don’t see anything in the passage making that distinction.
The original statement from Jesus is in John 2:19
The other forms like, “I will destroy this temple…” come from the false witnesses at the trial before the crucifixion in Matthew 26:61; 27:20; Mark 14:58; 15:29. It’s worth noting here in John 2 that, in addition to the Jews not understanding what Jesus meant, the disciples also did not immediately understand what Jesus meant.
What does that mean to me? I take the view of John 2:21-22 that the temple Jesus was referring was his body and that, though destroyed, it would be raised up. He was speaking of the coming crucifixion and resurrection as he did other times in the gospels.
Wow ! Thank you sir. I really appreciate the time & effort you spent to write this . I assure you I will study it and pray for eyes to see and my heart & mind to learn . And then I will get back too you . God bless .
Honest question, not trying to start a firestorm:
What if the Old Testament as we know it today has been manipulated to misdirect modern day Christians and Jews?
I never understood why Jews refuse to acknowledge Jesus's world-changing existence. There must be something else going on.
That's an interesting thought, but the idea that the Old Testament has been manipulated to misdirect modern Christians and Jews is not widely supported by scholars. The Jewish rejection of Jesus as the Messiah is based on theological differences and interpretations of scripture, rather than deliberate manipulation of the text.
It's important to recognize that the Old Testament was established as a sacred text long before Jesus' birth. The Hebrew Bible was already well-established and widely respected within Jewish communities by the time of Jesus. The preservation of the Hebrew Bible has been a meticulous process among Jewish scribes and scholars, with strict measures in place to ensure accurate copying and transmission of the text.
While variations exist among ancient manuscripts, the core teachings and narratives of the Old Testament remain consistent across different versions and translations. So, while it's natural to question and explore the complexities of religious texts and interpretations, the idea of a deliberate manipulation to misdirect regarding Jesus requires substantial evidence and scholarly consensus, which is currently lacking.
Super-long honest answer, and I'm not trying to sound like a know-it-all, but you're venturing into rabbit holes I often dwell in.
(TLDR: Well sure there's something going on! 2,000 years of human history.)
While it was certainly a rocky start, between the period of Jesus' death and the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, the Pharisees and the Messianic Jews worshipped together in the same Temple, read the scriptures together, prayed together, kept Torah/the Law, etc... The "jews" and the "christians" were still essentially just two denominations of the same religion; one who believed Yeshua/Jesus was the Messiah and the other did not.
At the time of the Roman siege of Jerusalem, the Pharisees rallied around a military leader and declared HIM to be the messiah (I forget and could look this dude's name up, but I don't care to).
This, of course, wasn't accepted by the Messianic Jews, who already knew who the true Messiah was, so they instead followed the words of Yeshua who had essentially prophesied that when they see armies surrounding Jerusalem, they should flee to the hills. Over time afterwards, they basically dispersed into the surrounding gentile nations and into the various Christian communities already started by Paul and other evangelists.
And thus the split between "Jew and Christian" was complete. Jerusalem was decimated by the Romans. The surviving Phariseeical Jews at the time never forgave the Messianics whom they saw as traitors and cowards, and they set out in the aftermath to build a completely NEW religious system (because their old system was all built around priests and sacrifices at the Temple, which was utterly laid to waste now).
Thus, the Pharisees turned to the Talmud, full of its Babylonian mysticism, as well as their own commentaries on the Scriptures. This is how they are, to this day, able to teach from the TALMUD and their own writings, rather than the ACTUAL BIBLE, and they are able to pick-and-choose, and add-to and take-away from scripture, etc... And so, what we today call "Rabbinical Judaism" was born.
And so, today, you can be raised Jewish, and spend your life in religious studies, and yet still never have stumbled across the Messianic prophecies that more blatantly point to Jesus such as, say, Micah 5:2 or Isiah 7:14.
This really isn't necessarily to bash just the Jews. Because as for Christendom, the Roman Catholic church eventually proceeded to conquer the entire idea of being a follower of Christ, and then it set out to hide or burn all translations of the Bible that weren't in Latin, and ensured that only their Priests were capable of reading the Bible for the next 1500 years or so. Then to top it off, they declared the Pope to be ruler in Christ's absence, and thus positioned their own Priesthood as higher authorities than the scripture... Until, of course, the Protestant Reformation happened and the Bible began to be translated into European languages around the 1600s.
As for corrupted Bible translations.... I am sad to say that, yeah, there has been a ton of manipulation, in both the Old and New Testament, over the years. I personally prefer the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament that Paul the Apostle himself used) and I keep it handy when reading the Bible, because there are all sorts of hidden jewels that are lost in translation.
And even today, new discoveries in this field are taking place. Right now, for instance, scholars are only re-discovering that much of the New Testament was actually originally written in Hebrew (a very contentious and debated subject right now, but doesn't it make sense that the Jewish disciples of Jesus would have written in Hebrew? Especially something like "the Book of Hebrews"?)
Anyways, thankfully, I've found that the vast majority of theology and over-all narrative of the Bible doesn't seem that different when comparing the different translations. Maybe if you're having an inter-denominational debate on specific Christian dogma or something, but whether I'm reading the Greek Septuagint or the King James version, they both point to Jesus as the Messiah.
Wow! Tremendous reply, I appreciate you sharing your well informed understanding.
I guess what irritated me and started me down this line of thought was when my youngest son was told by his CCD teacher that my NIV study Bible that has all the helpful notes along the edge and added history explanation could not be used in class. That version was just fine for my other two boys. 🤷♂️
Sure I get that there are some differences but to totally dismiss my study bible sounds very authoritative like the Catholic Church doesn't want kids to get an "outside" perspective.