It is relevant because that's what they were asking: questions relevant to their faith.
Jesus claimed to be God (John 8:58 : "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
John was written at the end of the century. Earlier Gospels do not share John's memory or Christ's divinity.
Given the proliferation of groups denying Jesus' divinity (such as Ebionites) in the latter part of the 1st century, one can understand that there was a need for a Gospel reaffirming that Christ is God, and not just an anointed human messiah.
Now, something caused the way the Apostles changed form being scarred and doubtful to fearless advocates even unto torture and martyrdom.
When Christ was betrayed, the disciples scattered like scared little bunnies. And even after His resurrection, they still doubted and all the way until the Pentecost (Mat 28:17). After the sending of the Holy Spirit, the Church becomes transformed from followers to converts.
Now, to me this is significant. They knew something and that something made them fearless and determined, something all of Jesus' miracles couldn't accomplish. It was the Spirit, who proceeds form the Father, that accomplished this.
It produced believers willing to die for the faith, but it does not, in and of itself, prove Jesus' divinity. I am not saying that He is not divine (God forbid!), but I am saying that there was a need for the Gospel of John stressing that Jesus is God.
Even the Jews understood that only God can forgive sins
Not in heaven! Jesus said "But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" [Mark 2:10]
Please note that the expression "Son of Man" is "ben Adam" in Hebrew or "bar Adam" in Aramaic. It merely means a descendent of man and should be more correctly translated as the "Son of Adam" but then it looses its "mystical" meaning as we are all the sons of Adam.
The Bible is absolutely clear on the matter. And if you reject the Bible's teaching and only believe that Jesus is God because the fallible men of your Church command you to, then at least you have that one right
It's really sad that you have to throw mud on the Church because of what I, as a private citizen, have to say about the Bible. I have repeatedly explained that these are my views and not official Orthodox doctrine. I represent myself, my beliefs and my opinions.
I guarantee you that the Church commands no one to believe that Christ is not divine. To claim that it does is ignorant and untrue. You could spend the rest of your life trying to prove that it does and will die trying. You could not find a single example in anything the Church teaches that would support your claim.
It is relevant because that's what they were asking: questions relevant to their faith.
But if Jesus came (in part) to teach then by your statements Jesus FAILED to correct them in the proper faith and let them languish in error. In fact, by your statements, Jesus purposely misled them. That doesn't sound like the Jesus of the Gospels. I'm sure your own Church calls purposely misleading another in the faith a grave sin (or whatever the Orthodox equivalent is).
FK: "Jesus claimed to be God (John 8:58 : "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
John was written at the end of the century. Earlier Gospels do not share John's memory [of/or] Christ's divinity.
The subject was whether Jesus claimed to be God and you said "No". You also have the Gospels in conflict with each other concerning the identity of Christ. Given how important that is, how can you read the OT through the prism of a Gospel that you say denies the identity of Christ?
FK: "The Bible is absolutely clear on the matter. And if you reject the Bible's teaching and only believe that Jesus is God because the fallible men of your Church command you to, then at least you have that one right."
...... I guarantee you that the Church commands no one to believe that Christ is not divine. To claim that it does is ignorant and untrue. You could spend the rest of your life trying to prove that it does and will die trying. You could not find a single example in anything the Church teaches that would support your claim.
What are you talking about? Please re-read my statement. I make no such claim because I know better. In my statement I ACKNOWLEDE that both you and the Church accept Christ as divine. Otherwise there could be no Christianity and I have already acknowledged elsewhere that I consider you and the Church Christians.
My criticism was over rejecting the Bible's claims of the same thing. How else could one know that Christ is God? I figured your answer would be that since the Bible doesn't say it, the only way to know it would be by following the Church, thus elevating the Church over the scriptures again. I disagree with that approach. I meant no insult. :)