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. :)
He could have taught Pilate and He could have just 'changed' everyone's hearts and avoided all this. He was not there to educate the Sanhedrin. It was necessary that He die for our sins, to pay for our sins and offer Himself to death in exchange (ransom) for our freedom from death. Why would God choose such path is beyond me. But that's what the Gospels tell us.
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)
1 Kings 22:20-23 tells us that (the OT) God does purposefully deceive, and Apostle Paul echoes that in 2 Thess 2:11. But, I agree, Christ of the Gospels would never do that. How can you deceive the deceived? If He told them the truth they wouldn't have believed Him anyway.
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.
Christ didn't say "No." He answered affirmatively to the question if He was the christos (the anointed) Son of God. But those who asked Him understood those words meant the anointed (moshiach) a human warrior-king (son of God) sent by God to restore the Kingodm of Israel. The Sanhedrin never asked Him if He was God (divine).
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?
The Gospel of John is very different and not always in agreement with the other three (which are a product of borrowing and copying form each other anyway).
But we accept all the Gospels because the earlier ones see Christ in His humanity and the Gospel of John sees Him in His divinity, and both reflect the Chirst we know and believe in.
It was absolutely necessary to write John's Gospel and the timing is not accidental: Ebionites and Gnostics were becoming a prominent factor in denying Christ's full divinity which the Church came to realize ever so slowly.
But when we read the OT through the prism of the Gospels, we do not ask if this is the human or divine Jesus we are looking for; we ask "where is Christ (that we know from the Gospels) in all this?" Or "is this what Christ taught?" Where is compassion and forgiveness spoken of in the Gospels? Where does the anger and hatred and prejudice of the OT fit into the Christ of the Gospels?
Judaism was a semi-pagan religion with strong pagan roots at the time of Abraham, and it was only slowly and gradually evolving into the spiritual Gospel-like understanding we find in the Psalms and the messianic Judaism that evolved after the Babylonian and Persian dominance resulting in the emergence of such apocalyptic groups as the Essenes, etc.
One can find a lot of Christ in the Psalms but not as much in other sections of the OT, in God-sponsored genocides and deceptions, all of which reflect the degree of revelation received. The general rule is: the fuller the revelation, the closer to Christ of the Gospels it is. For example, I find Christ in Genesis but not much in Leviticus.
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 apologize for misunderstanding. The Bible does say that Christ is divine, but it does so at the very end (chronologically speaking). If the Bible until then (the end of the 1st century) did say it outright as John's Gospel does, then Ebionites and Gnostics would have had nothing to go by. They apparently reject John once it was written because by that time *end of the 1st century) such groups have already come into existence.
And, the Church never elevates itself above the Scriptures because the Scriptures are what the Church agreed was what was believed.