The high priest of Israel declares that Jesus has made himself guilty of blasphemy by declaring himself to be the Son of God

Mark 14 v 61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? 62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. 63 Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses? 64 Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.

Matthew 26 v 62 And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? 63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. 64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

65 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. 66 What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.

According to Islam God doesn’t have an only Son, or any sons for that matter, so why did the High Priest ask Jesus if he was something that, according to Islam, cannot exist? He was a monotheist was he not? Why didn’t Allah send Mohammed before Jesus to avoid these misunderstandings? Or why didn’t he communicate these truths through the prophets that came before Mohammed so that the Jews wouldn’t become so confused about the matter? Did he deliberately lead them astray or maybe he is leading the Muslims astray, if he actually exists.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to The high priest of Israel declares that Jesus has made himself guilty of blasphemy by declaring himself to be the Son of God

  1. θ says:

    History of Religion proves that early Christians are divided by competing theology of the self-divined heathens and the Subordinationist Judaisers (Ebionites) who survived till 1,000 AD (400 years after Islam).

    Such a 600 years of misguidance is necessary to disprove the entire Trinitarian claim. It is about historical fact of more than a half of millennium of the prolonging flaw or imperfection in Jesus’ heavenly exaltation, as well as the utterly unfulfilled achievement of the “Spirit of Truth” prophesy by the schismatic works of the Holy Spirit.
    The Trinitarians keep divided and broke up each others in each century.

    If Jesus were really conscious in heaven, he must have been very much grievous to see how his simple prayer for having a Christian’s unity doesn’t come true. Far worse, Jesus himself just didn’t have a power to seriously reappear again to intervene or perhaps he just didn’t care anymore about what’s going on the earth after he was standing up somewhere there.

    Yet after 600 years, Prophet Muhammad and Qur’an can’t force the evil hearts and wrong minds to change for a better. After he comes, the stubborn Trinitarians keep believing on “three Gods in one Jehovah”

  2. θ says:

    “Madmanna says: According to Islam God doesn’t have an only Son, or any sons for that matter, so why did the High Priest ask Jesus if he was something that, according to Islam, cannot exist? ”

    The Tanach considers both Jews and angels as Jehovah’s *figurative* children, sons, daughters and heirs, but nowhere does it call the Messiah a God’s Son. For Jewish Sanhedrin, attributing a new unbiblical term for God is a sin worthy of death.

  3. madmanna says:

    They obviously believed that the Messiah is a unique divine Son of God co-equal with God in Daniel’s vision of the Son of Man.

    Otherwise why charge him with blasphemy?

  4. θ says:

    “madmanna says: They obviously believed that the Messiah is a unique divine Son of God co-equal with God in Daniel’s vision of the Son of Man. Otherwise why charge him with blasphemy?”

    Obviously? Where is it showing an obvious thing? Nowhere does Daniel use the word Son of God, and unlike a notorious Christian nonsense Daniel just doesn’t say ‘Son of Man’ but precisely “like” Son of Man.
    Dan 7:13
    I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

    Then, from the term that is used itself, still “Son of Man” is not “Son of God”, let alone “like” Son of Man.

    Next, Jews are more consistent in reading the book of Daniel. Certainly Gabriel makes a logical interpretation: a person like Son of Man is the people of the saints. Ancient of Day is God Most High.
    The Trinitarians make a very absurd illogical interpretation that the all dominions (that is, all language) shall bid a religious service to the people of the saints (that is, a person like Son of Man).
    Dan 7:14
    And there was given him dominion. And glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.
    Dan 7:27
    And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.

  5. θ says:

    There are two “him”s in Dan 7:13, hence the Trinitarians can’t be certain decisively to point out which one is given the kingdom and which one is served with religious service in Daniel 7:14.
    Dan 7:13
    I saw in the night visions, and, behold, [one] like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

    If the Son of Man were a person who shall be served in Dan 7:14, the people of the saints shall have been served as well by all dominions in Dan 7:27.

  6. madmanna says:

    “The Tanach considers both Jews and angels as Jehovah’s *figurative* children, sons, daughters and heirs, but nowhere does it call the Messiah a God’s Son.”

    Figurative children can only have a figurative father but that we know that God is real not figurative.

    The Jews obviously believed that the Messiah had a closeness or likeness to God that warranted the term son in a unique sense.

  7. madmanna says:

    “a person like Son of Man is the people of the saints. ”

    Codswollop.

  8. Anonymous says:

    As fulfillment of Dan 11:14, the High priest just accuses Jesus of uttering blasphemy (vulgar speaking), altering the Scripture, confusing “like” Son of Man to the begotten Son of God. However, Daniel just gives an obscure penalty of putting a disgraceful punishment on the insulter, not plainly a death.
    Maimonides explained a reason by using Daniel 11:14 why Jesus was summoned by the court:
    Hilkhot Melakhim 11
    4 Jesus of Nazareth who aspired to be the Mashiach and was executed by the court was also alluded to in Daniel’s prophecies, as ibid. Dan 11:14 states: ‘The vulgar among your people shall exalt themselves in an attempt to fulfill the vision, but they shall stumble.’
    Can there be a greater stumbling block than Christianity? All the prophets spoke of Mashiach as the redeemer of Israel and their savior who would gather their dispersed and strengthen their observance of the mitzvot. In contrast, Christianity caused the Jews to be slain by the sword, their remnants to be scattered and humbled, the Torah to be altered, and the majority of the world to err and serve a god other than the Lord.

    Nevertheless, the Gospel of John and Luke showed an irony that actually the High Priest never personally decided to put Jesus into the death.
    Jn 18:31
    The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death:
    Lk 22:71
    And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth.

    On the contrary, it is the crowds who unanimously voted to sentence Jesus into death, whereas the High Priest himself seemingly took the abstain. Under standard of law in the Jewish court, it is the High Priest who makes up the opinion of the followers or crowds, not otherwise to succumb to the emotional pressure of the mob.
    Mk 14:64
    Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.
    Mt 26:66
    What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.

  9. Anonymous says:

    “madmanna says: The Jews obviously believed that the Messiah had a closeness or likeness to God that warranted the term son in a unique sense.”

    On the contrary, certain Rabbis presume that Moshiach Ben Joseph shall be slain rather than everlasting person. Other Rabbis speculate that Moshiach is a leper whose visage is so marred instead of wonderful. Other Rabbis make a possibility that Moshiach shall have wife, some concubines of kings’ daughters, and descendants just like all normal Jews.

  10. madmanna says:

    “Nevertheless, the Gospel of John and Luke showed an irony that actually the High Priest never personally decided to put Jesus into the death.”

    No irony here.

    ” 9 But Pilate answered them, saying, Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews? 10 For he knew that the chief priests had delivered him for envy. 11 But the chief priests moved the people, that he should rather release Barabbas unto them.”

  11. Anonymous says:

    “madmanna says: No irony here.” 9 But Pilate answered them, saying, Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews? 10 For he knew that the chief priests had delivered him for envy. 11 But the chief priests moved the people, that he should rather release Barabbas unto them.” ”

    Still nothing at all about putting Jesus to death. After all, the specific question Pilate asks of Jews is about “Will ye that I release”, that is just his imprisonment.

    Hence, moving the Jews to demand the immediate release of Barabbas from Pilate’s prison doesn’t mean deciding to put Jesus into death.

  12. madmanna says:

    The punishment for blasphemy is death. God through Moses fixed that. The high priests had no authority to change that.

  13. Anonymous says:

    “madmanna says: The punishment for blasphemy is death. God through Moses fixed that. The high priests had no authority to change that.”

    Nowhere does the word “Son of God” come from Jesus’ mouth during the trial in court.
    Irony of ironies, it is the High Priest himself who happens to ask by using the verbatim blasphemous terms “Son of God”, that’s why three Gospels differ in telling the exact answer of Jesus, whereas the latest Gospel (John’s Gospel) just omits question and answer on “Son of God” in the trial.

    In Mark’s Gospel, Jesus just uses affirmative response thru a permitted term “Son of Man” for himself.
    In Matthew’s, Jesus turns the words on to the questioner’s mouth by rather making it ambiguously or inconclusively a Priest’s own statement: “Thou hast said”, and further immediately he uses a comparable statement for himself “nevertheless, I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man”.
    In Luke’s, Jesus gives an inconclusive ambiguous response by rather making it the very Priest’s own words: “Ye say that I am”.

    Mt 26:64
    Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
    Lk 22:70
    Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.

  14. θ says:

    The reaction of the Jews of Damascus when hearing the title “Son of God” for Jesus is utterly different than that of Jews in Jerusalem. Hence, the book of Acts is either a fiction or myth.
    Acts 9
    20 And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.21 But all that heard him were amazed, and said; Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests?22 But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ.

    Also, the cold expression of Gamaliel when hearing the name of Jesus, he seemed to never hear of that person, nor any news of his fame, nor his claim as the Son of God, nor his miracles, his walking on the water, his power over demons, even not a news of his crucifixion. So, there’s something wrong with the Gospels.
    Acts 5
    34 Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space;40 And to him they agreed: and when they had called the apostles, and beaten [them], they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s