Not only does He imply it all over the place, He says it specifically in several Gospels:
Mark 14:60-62 : 60 Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?" 61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" 62 "I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
Matt 26:62-64 : 62 Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?" 63 But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." 64 "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
Luke 22:66-71 : 66 At daybreak the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and teachers of the law, met together, and Jesus was led before them. 67 "If you are the Christ," they said, "tell us." Jesus answered, "If I tell you, you will not believe me, 68 and if I asked you, you would not answer. 69 But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God." 70 They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?" He replied, "You are right in saying I am." 71 Then they said, "Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips."
Yes, same story, but three times, all Gospel. If you say that Christ never claimed to be God, then why do you say He was crucified? He was crucified BECAUSE He claimed to be God.
FK: "It obviously must be interpreted otherwise, such as from His human nature."
He had no problems knowing other things prophetically in His human nature. The Bible says, He had two natures and two wills, not two minds.
Then what is your conclusion? Are the Gospels lying when they say that Jesus prayed to the Father, etc.?
If you think about it, Jesus as man would also be praying to Himself, being God. You do admit that He knew He is God, or do you think Jesus the Man was unaware of that?
Same as above, and His prayers were to the Father, a different Person of the Trinity. His prayers were real communion with the Father, just as they had in the Trinity from before creation.
To the best of my knowledge, there is not a single instance in the entire New Testament where the Apostles actually pray to Jesus! Even +John, who explicitly, unlike the rest, calls Him God, doesn't pray to the Resurrected Christ.
So for you in SOME cases, Biblical silence de facto means that a thing DID happen, such as all the Mariology stuff, but in other cases, Biblical silence means de facto that a thing DID NOT happen, such as prayer to Christ. I suppose I just find it more difficult to draw rock solid conclusions from what ISN'T there. :)
At least I read simple sentences literally. I read the story of Jonah living in the belly of a fish for three days allegorically. With Protestants, it seems just the reverse.
If your test is that a simple sentence should be read literally, then what do you make of these?:
Matt 16:16 : Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Matt 13:55 : Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?
John 10:30 : I and the Father are one ."
These are all simple sentences and you do not take any of them literally (per your arguments to me).
FK: "Most Christians, IMO, see Christ as God throughout the scriptures."
And that makes it "right" by fiat? We need proof, not just mutual agreement. Patting ourselves on the back does not constitute proof, FK.
I see. Well, then I'll agree with you that we should throw out the Consensus Patrum. :) What proof do they offer? What, the writings of dead men from the second century are true, but the writings of dead men from the first century are forgeries? Come on. :) In addition, the requirement for the laity to assent would also be moot. The laity offer no proof.
FK: Not only does He imply it all over the place, He says it specifically in several Gospels: Mark 14:60-62..."Yes I am"...Matt 26:62-64.. "Yes, it is as you say"...Luke 22:66-71 "You are right in saying I am."
NB: John doesn't even mention it (and for a good reason). I will return to this later on.
FK, He never said He was God, as you claim. Let's repeat the question in context. He was asked "Are you the anointed one (moshiah), the son of God?" Why is it important to rephrase the question? Because no one ever called Him or referred to Him as "Christ." Christ is a Greek word and means the same thing as the Hebrew moshiah, namely the anointed one. It's a title, not a proper name.
The term "son[s] of God" is also a title and does not mean someone divine. Luke uses it (3:38) for Adam, angels and those who are born again (20:36), as well as for Jesus. It is also a title used in the same manner as the word elect or chosen in the Old Testament. Thus, the OT refers to the Jews in general as sons of God, and the NT uses it for Christians (those who are tested/chastised) by God as in Heb 12:5-8.
The Jews did not take lightly anyone claiming to be the messiah, the anointed one, whose sole purpose was to restore the kingdom of Israel (acting on God's behalf). This restored Israel, under God, is called the Kingdom of God on earth (as mentioned in the OT), and will represent the Olam Ha-Ba or the "World to Come" (the new world order). The Sanhedrin took such claims very seriously, and making false claims to that effect was disrespectful towards God and, as such, blasphemous by definition. And Lev 24:16 says "anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death."
So, what does moshiah or messiah mean in the context in which the Sanhedrin asked Jesus of he was the anointed son of God?
The word "moshiach" does not mean "savior." The notion of an innocent, divine or semi-divine being who will sacrifice himself to save us from the consequences of our own sins is a purely Christian concept that has no basis in Jewish thought. [Judaism 101, Moshiah]
When they asked Him if was the anointed son of God, they meant the Jewish missiah. They did not ask Him is He was the second Person of the Holy Trinity, or if He was divine. The idea that what the Man they were looking at was God Incarnate never crossed their minds (as it didn't cross anyone's minds, including those of the Apostles at that time) because it is alien to Judaism.
And what will the Jewish messiah do?
The moshiach will bring about the political and spiritual redemption of the Jewish people by bringing us back to Israel and restoring Jerusalem (Isaiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah 23:8; 30:3; Hosea 3:4-5). He will establish a government in Israel that will be the center of all world government, both for Jews and gentiles (Isaiah 2:2-4; 11:10; 42:1). He will rebuild the Temple and re-establish its worship (Jeremiah 33:18). He will restore the religious court system of Israel and establish Jewish law as the law of the land (Jeremiah 33:15). [Ibid]
So, claiming to be someone like that was a big deal, because it is in the Bible, and making false claims without being able to substantiate them was as good as blasphemy.
If you say that Christ never claimed to be God, then why do you say He was crucified? He was crucified BECAUSE He claimed to be God.
No, He did not. He never said He is God because He was never asked "Are you God?" He was crucified because He was found guilty of blasphemy (that is gross disrespect, an insult) towards God for claiming He was the moshiah and not proving satisfactory evidence to that effect.
Now, back to my note at the very beginning. Why doesn't John say anything about the "trial" by the Sanhedrin? Well, it could be simply because he wasn't there to testify (frankly, I don't know where do Mark, Matthew or Luke get their information from, since they weren't there either; and neither were Peter or Paul, the two Apostles feeding the information to Mark and Luke respectively).
The other reason may be because, to John, Jesus was a lot more than the Jewish moshiach. He knew that Jesus said enough things that could get Him convicted of blasphemy and the sentence was a foregone conclusion as much as His "trial" was. Concentrating on, and stressing Christ's divinity was a lot more important to John.
Prayers are worship, FK. I was not aware that God worships Himself.
Kosta: To the best of my knowledge, there is not a single instance in the entire New Testament where the Apostles actually pray to Jesus!...
FK: So for you in SOME cases, Biblical silence de facto means that a thing DID happen, such as all the Mariology stuff, but in other cases, Biblical silence means de facto that a thing DID NOT happen, such as prayer to Christ
The only thing the Orthodox Church teaches as dogma about the Blessed Ever-Virgin is that she is the Theotokos, the Birthgiver of God. That is the essential part of the Christology of the Church.
But, it is not just the silence of the Bible regarding Apostles not praying to the Risen Christ; it is the fact that they pray to God throughout the whole New Testament but never to Jesus! It is in the fact that Paul says that God raised Jesus and not that Jesus raised Himself, or, on another occasion, that the head of Christ is God. Such statements explain in more than silence why the Apostles never prayed to Christ.
If your test is that a simple sentence should be read literally, then what do you make of these?:
Matt 16:16 : Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Peter answered: "You are the anointed one (moshiach), the human beloved of God, who is here to restore the Kingdom of Israel."
This is based on the meaning of key words "christos" and "son of God" as it was understood by everyone in the 1st century Israel. Just as the word "gay" was understood to mean something completely different 50 years ago. It's not a matter of "allegory," but of fact. In fact, the modern Christian interpretation of Peter's reply is out of context with the Judaic meaning from which peter was answering, as much as it is in context with the Christian mindset.
Matt 13:55 : Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?
In context of the Middle Eastern culture, it reads "Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his cousins/brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?"
To this day, in Mediterranean cultures the first cousins are called "brothers" or "sisters." This terminology was a way for the society to prevent close intermarriages. The Apostolic Church always taught, as far as I know, that the Blessed Ever-Virgin Mary remained a virgin after Jesus was born, just as she remained a virgin when she conceived. Therefore, we (Orthodox/Catholics) read the word 'brothers" as cousins.
Again, it is a straight interpretation based on proper linguistic, cultural context and unchanged theological teaching.
If someone who knows nothing about American culture stumbles upon a word "cool" it would be highly possible that he or she would not interpret it correctly without proper contextual and cultural knowledge of the American culture.
That's why just "cold" reading of the Bible does not lead to proper understanding and that's why Christ established His Church to safeguard the interpretation held by the Apostles.
John 10:30 : I and the Father are one ."
John emphasized Jesus' divinity. The Synoptic Gospels emphasize His humanity. Given that John wrote last, at the end of the first century—again in context of the contemporary events of his time, and mindsets, the break with Judaism (c 90 AD), false messiahs, etc.—and the fact that the other Gospels do not stress Christ's divinity, John establishes a simple statement of who Jesus is.
These are all simple sentences and you do not take any of them literally
I take them literally in context when, where and by whom they were written.
Kosta: And that makes it "right" by fiat? We need proof, not just mutual agreement. Patting ourselves on the back does not constitute proof, FK.
FK: I see. Well, then I'll agree with you that we should throw out the Consensus Patrum.
Consensus patrum refers to what is needed for the Church to teach as catholic faith. It's an internal ecclesiastical mechanism, a set standard and a system of checks-and-balances. It is not peddled outside the Church as universal truth to the non-believers.
That being said, the example showing Christ in the OT are relatively scarce given the volume of books involved and definitely not a black-and-white, consensus-forming, clearly and unambiguously agreed-upon truth.
The Muslims, for instance, find Mohammad in Isaiah! Does that mean it is true? If you are a Muslim, it is!
What proof do they offer?
For what? Their faith? By definition, people with faith need no proof and can't understand why the rest of the world doesn't believe as they do!
What, the writings of dead men from the second century are true, but the writings of dead men from the first century are forgeries?
The writings of the 2nd century dead men do not claim Christ all over OT. When Jesus says that Moses wrote about Him, He is talking in terms of the Jewish messiah, moshiach.
The Jews will tell you that the idea of the anointed done coming to establish the Kingdom of God on earth is not something invented by the prophets. They say that
"Belief in the eventual coming of the moshiach is a basic and fundamental part of traditional Judaism." [Judaism 101, "Moshiach"]
And the knowledge of the meshiach is to be found even in the Torah!
[T]raditional Judaism maintains that the messianic idea has always been a part of Judaism. The moshiach is not mentioned explicitly in the Torah, because the Torah was written in terms that all people could understand, and the abstract concept of a distant, spiritual, future reward was beyond the comprehension of some people.
However, the Torah contains several references to "the End of Days" (acharit ha-yamim), which is the time of the moshiach; thus, the concept of moshiach was known in the most ancient times. [Ibid.]
So, based on this, we can very easily see why Jesus would say that even "Moses wrote about me." It's just that it wasn't necessarily about the Christian Christ so to say.
In addition, the requirement for the laity to assent would also be moot. The laity offer no proof.
No proof is required. That's what "faith" means. It can be true or it can be a self-delusion. No one would ever know.