Heretics

[JohnnyP]

They failed to see that the two would be in one person.

What's interesting is the concept of the Four Craftsmen Messiahs from Zechariah 1:21, often identified in the Talmud and elsewhere as, in addition to Elijah: Messiah ben Joseph who is killed, Messiah ben David who conquers, and the Melchizedek Righteous Priest.

[Jedidiah]

From all I've read, some like various Sadducees expected no Messiah, some expected a human Messiah, and some expected a divine Messiah based on materials like the Book of Enoch:

They failed to see that the two would be in one person.

[JohnnyP]

But did they expect him the "the same as God"?

From all I've read, some like various Sadducees expected no Messiah, some expected a human Messiah, and some expected a divine Messiah based on materials like the Book of Enoch:

The oldest apocalypse in which the conception of a preexistent heavenly Messiah is met with is the Messiological section of the Book of Enoch (xxxvii.-lxxi.) of the first century B.C. The Messiah is called "the Son of Man," and is described as an angelic being, his countenance resembling a man's, and as occupying a seat in heaven beside the Ancient of Days (xlvi. 1), or, as it is expressed in ch. xxxix. 7, "under the wings of the Lord of spirits." -Jewish Encyclopedia

[Paprika]

All indications are that Jews expected what I said about Zechariah 12:8, a Mega-David with the power of God to crush Romans, the Lion. Not the Lamb going to the cross as the Suffering Servant.

But did they expect him the "the same as God"?

[Jedidiah]

According to David deSilva in his Introduction to the New Testament (page 212), a suffering Messiah was "a new concept, completely at odds with the models of messiahship available to first-century Jews".

http://www.worthychristianlibrary.co...e-jews-expect/

Actually the rejection of a suffering servant messiah came after Christ. Earlier in Jewish history there were expectations of two messiahs. One was a suffering servant, the other a ruling King.

[JohnnyP]

Precisely, hence one cannot assume that what we take for granted - the divine Messiah - would have been assumed knowledge in 1st century Judaism.

Well you are shifting from the Messiah having the power of God, to being the Suffering Servant, and back to having the power of God, then making a conclusion about the Messiah having the power of God based on a cite about Messiah being the Suffering Servant. Clever.

All indications are that Jews expected what I said about Zechariah 12:8, a Mega-David with the power of God to crush Romans, the Lion. Not the Lamb going to the cross as the Suffering Servant.

[Obsidian]

John 8:24 does not state that Jesus is God, I don't think. In fact, if you are arguing that Jesus is the Father, that sounds a bit non-Trinitarian. Leading up to that point in the chapter, Jesus seemed to emphasize the need for two witnesses, and to distinguish himself from the Father/Holy Spirit.

[37818]

John 8:24 does not make your case.

Only if Christ is not God.

[Paprika]

According to David deSilva in his Introduction to the New Testament (page 212), a suffering Messiah was "a new concept, completely at odds with the models of messiahship available to first-century Jews".

Precisely, hence one cannot assume that what we take for granted - the divine Messiah - would have been assumed knowledge in 1st century Judaism.

[KingsGambit]

In hindsight it may be a given: that doesn't mean that it was so for 1st Century Jews. An example: for us Christians the idea of a 'suffering servant' Messiah is a given; did the Jews have such a concept?

According to David deSilva in his Introduction to the New Testament (page 212), a suffering Messiah was "a new concept, completely at odds with the models of messiahship available to first-century Jews".

[JohnnyP]

In hindsight it may be a given: that doesn't mean that it was so for 1st Century Jews. An example: for us Christians the idea of a 'suffering servant' Messiah is a given; did the Jews have such a concept?

Not sure about the 1st century but early on there's been a belief that the Messiah of Joseph will precede the Messiah of David and he is supposed to be killed...

Finally, there must be mentioned a Messianic figure peculiar to the rabbinical apocalyptic literature—that of Messiah ben Joseph. The earliest mention of him is in Suk. 52a, b, where three statements occur in regard to him, for the first of which R. Dosa (c. 250) is given as authority...According to these, Messiah b. Joseph will appear prior to the coming of Messiah b. David; he will gather the children of Israel around him, march to Jerusalem, and there, after overcoming the hostile powers, reestablish the Temple-worship and set up his own dominion. Thereupon Armilus, according to one group of sources, or Gog and Magog, according to the other, will appear with their hosts before Jerusalem, wage war against Messiah b. Joseph, and slay him. His corpse, according to one group, will lie unburied in the streets of Jerusalem... -JewishEncyclopedia

as one mourns over an only son: As a man mourns over his only son. And our Sages expounded this in tractate Sukkah (52a) as referring to the Messiah, son of Joseph, who was slain. -Rashi's commentary on Zechariah 12:10

[Paprika]

Since this is referenced in John 19:37 and Revelation 1:7, we can conclude that the NT doesn't have to be explicit about the idea that the Messiah is the same as God, since 1st century Jews only ever knew there would be a Messiah from ideas stated in Jewish scripture. It's kind of like a given, supported by other verses like:

In hindsight it may be a given: that doesn't mean that it was so for 1st Century Jews. An example: for us Christians the idea of a 'suffering servant' Messiah is a given; did the Jews have such a concept?

[JohnnyP]

"He"? Or "he"?

Despite the later emphasis on the ontology of God, the gospel is not primarily about Jesus' God-ontology but his Messiahship and his death and resurrection (and one might add his return for judgment).

Since the whole idea of Messiah comes from the Tanach, the foundation is already laid to see that the Messiah representing the House of David will have God's full power and authority, being the same as God:

Zechariah 12:8 In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them.

Zechariah 12:9 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.

Zechariah 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

We already know One who is fully God is talking and He is pierced, along with the Messiah who is Jesus fully man Son of David. So we see his dual nature expressed here.

Since this is referenced in John 19:37 and Revelation 1:7, we can conclude that the NT doesn't have to be explicit about the idea that the Messiah is the same as God, since 1st century Jews only ever knew there would be a Messiah from ideas stated in Jewish scripture. It's kind of like a given, supported by other verses like:

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

How could you have all of God's power in heaven and earth without being the same as God?

As for salvation, I don't try to guess. If you acknowledge that Jesus has all that power to be like God does it matter a lot? You're still respecting all that power. If you don't think he has power to forgive your sins and decide your fate then there may be a real problem.

[Paprika]

That is how I understand John 8:24, 56 (Genesis 12:7; John 1:18 Son), 58.

John 8:24 does not make your case.

As a general warning, ". . . he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or [if] ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, . . . For such [are] false apostles, deceitful workers, . . ." -- 2 Corinthians 11:4, 13.

Which begs the question that the gospel Paul preached to included Jesus as God.

Though Paul did speak of more advanced topics to existing believers, we have no such records (such as from Acts) that the euaggelion was about God's ontology; rather the good news is about something that happened.

[37818]

No doubt, but did he make it a point that it is essential to believe in him as God so that one might be saved?

That is how I understand John 8:24, 56 (Genesis 12:7; John 1:18 Son), 58.

Did Paul?

As a general warning, ". . . he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or [if] ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, . . . For such [are] false apostles, deceitful workers, . . ." -- 2 Corinthians 11:4, 13. And specifically, ". . . Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, . . ." -- Philippians 2:5, 6. Paul also taught that the resurrected and ascended Jesus was yet a man, ". . . the man Christ Jesus; . . ." -- 1 Timothy 2:5.