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.
“And, the Church never elevates itself above the Scriptures because the Scriptures are what the Church agreed was what was believed.”
Indeed not, but that said, one should never forget that the canon of the NT (and as read the OT too for that matter) is a creation of The Church, and that Church believed an taught then what Orthodoxy teaches today.
He could have taught Pilate and He could have just 'changed' everyone's hearts and avoided all this.
The Gospels show us that Jesus treated the disingenuous and false believers very differently than He treated His own disciples. He answered in riddles to the former and gave wisdom to the latter. You appear to have Jesus fooling everyone. Plus, you appear to have the Father purposely fooling Peter with a falsehood. Jesus gives revelation to His chosen. His teachings are nonsense to those who are not chosen.
FK: "In fact, by your statements, Jesus purposely misled them. That doesn't sound like the Jesus of the Gospels.
...... 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.
So then Jesus DIDN'T tell them the truth??? But aside from that, if you agree that Jesus wouldn't mislead His own, then why do you assert that Jesus did just that? You have Jesus condoning what He knew to be Peter's false belief (if we accept your premise of the situation)? Jesus could have simply said: "No, Peter, I mean that I am really God". Yet, apparently according to you Jesus let this go and Peter had the totally wrong impression, VALIDATED by Jesus when He confirmed that this false teaching came directly from the Father. Do you see where I am coming from?
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 Kingdom of Israel.
So according to you Jesus DID in fact lie to them and to the disciples because He was NOT in fact the human-only warrior king? Jesus had to know that that was what He was agreeing to if you are right.
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 Christ we know and believe in.
But the portrayal of Jesus as man and Jesus as God should be in harmony. You seem to have them in conflict since you say that the Gospels contradict each other. I say they do not contradict each other.
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.
You have the books of the Bible being written under the minds of men for reasons such as expediency and in reaction to human activity within time. I have the Bible being written under the mind of God for the purpose of His revelation to His children, on His own terms, and in His own time. I don't suppose that two Christians could disagree more about the essence of the scriptures themselves as you and I do. :)
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?
Since you have John conflicting with the other Gospels I can only assume you mean that you look at the OT through the prism of the Gospels as seen through the prism of your Church. You appear to see only a mono-faceted God who was on a specific mission to accomplish a specific thing and ignore the fuller revelation that has been given to us.
The Bible does say that Christ is divine, but it does so at the very end (chronologically speaking).
OK good, as far as my understanding was going, that is progress. :)
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.
I'm not sure that can be known, since many crazy groups have the benefit of the whole Bible today and come up with all sorts of perverted beliefs. As I type this I am watching two polygamist women on Larry King Alive right now. So, to me it always goes back to the eyes and ears thing. Without God, the essential teachings in the Bible are not really going to ring true.