from Google Images
The reason Jesus was condemned to die was that he claimed to be the Son of God. To show this, I’ll quote Luke but consider also the pertinent Scriptures in Matthew 26:63-66 and Mark 14:61-64 that record the trial of Jesus:
Luke 22:66-71 KJ2000 And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their council, saying, (67) Are you the Christ? tell us. And he said unto them, If I tell you, you will not believe: (68) And if I also ask you, you will not answer me, nor let me go. (69) Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God. (70) Then said they all, Are you then the Son of God? And he said unto them, You say that I am. (71) And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth. (emphasis mine)
Some have said Jesus was not really admitting he was the literal Son of God, because Matthew and Luke have him saying that the high priest says this about him. This is a very weak argument. The phrase, “Thou hast said…” (Matthew 26:64) or “Ye say that I am…” (Luke 22:70) is a Greek idiom for an affirmative answer according to “Robertson’s Word Pictures” (i.e. I am as you say). It is translated plainly in Mark 14:62 as “I am.” In John 18:37 when Pilate asked Jesus if he were a king, Jesus replied, “Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born…” Jesus uses the idiom and then goes on showing that his answer to Pilate was in the affirmative. Therefore, the argument that Jesus was merely saying that the high priest was accusing him of saying something he (Jesus) had not said, is moot. Jesus spoke plainly, and the high priest rightly understood Jesus’ claim to Deity.
If the Jewish authorities did not believe Jesus’ claim that he was the Son of God was a claim to Deity, why did they condemn him for blasphemy? It certainly was not blasphemy for him to claim he was the Messiah. There have been many who came after Jesus, claiming to be the Messiah, and though they were wrong, they were not considered blasphemous. Some of these historical figures are held in high esteem within the Jewish community today even though they failed.
Jesus’ claim for being the Son of God could not be considered blasphemous, if he wished to say he was created by God. He would not have done that, but if he had, it would not have been considered blasphemous (Acts 17:29). Neither could it be considered a crime if Jesus claimed he was spiritually the Son of God, for every righteous Jew believed that (Matthew 5:9). Unless Jesus’ claim for being the Son of God was in the literal sense and a claim to Deity, why would the Jews be shocked? After all, they saw themselves as sons of God (John 8:41) by virtue of their being his chosen people.
Therefore, Jesus’ claim to being God’s Son was not a claim of spiritual rebirth (John 1:12-13), nor of being created (Acts 17:29), nor was he claiming to be the Son of God as one of the chosen people (John 8:41). Jesus’ claim was to be the ONLY begotten Son of God (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18), a unique relationship, not held by any man or angel. How should this be understood? It can be understood in the sense of the virgin birth, because God was indeed responsible for Mary’s pregnancy (Luke 1:35; John 1:14, 18). However the Scriptures also seem to point to another understanding. That is, Psalm 2 claims the Messiah is the Son of God and will rule all nations (Psalm 2:8; 89:27). Paul used this Psalm to show Jesus was declared to be God’s Son (the Messiah) at the resurrection (Acts 13:33; Romans 1:4), and this would be the meaning of the words “This day (or today) I have begotten you…” (Psalm 2:7). I don’t believe the Scripture can be understood to say Jesus declared himself to be “God the Son”, because he never refers to himself this way, nor do the Scriptures ever call him such when referring to his existence before becoming man, so we must remain within the boundary of Jesus’ teaching (2John 1:9; 1Corinthians 4:6).
Jesus was condemned to die, because he claimed to be the Son of God, who Scripture claims is the Messiah and God (Psalm 2:7-8; 89:27; 82:8). Matthew and Mark record the illegal trial of Jesus that occurred during the night. Luke records the only legal trial of Jesus. This one occurred during the morning of the day of his crucifixion, before the entire Sanhedrin with Joseph and Nicodemus present. What was done illegally in the evening was done before a select few, in order to find fault and to rehearse what would work before the entire body in the morning. May the Lord open our eyes that we may see the great price that was paid for our salvation.
Things Paul & Luke 
Woodrow Nichols
March 22, 2021 at 02:42
In Mathhew 26:63-64, Mark 14:61-62, and Luke 23:67-70, the authors link the current ideas of the Messiah, or Christ, the Son of the Blessed or God, with the Son of Man saying from Daniel, who is either the reincarnation of Enoch or a Heavenly Being, that is, they state a dichotomy between God and his Son, a Heavenly Being, that is, that they are not the same. You still are in the Platonic Delusion of the Trinity.
Woodrow Nichols
antinomianuniversalism.com
Eddie
March 22, 2021 at 07:13
Greetings Woodrow, and welcome.
Once more, you are shooting from the hip. You assume what I believe and respond accordingly. Actually, I don’t believe in the Trinity doctrine. It was made up at the command of Constantine and in order to respond to the doctrine of Arius, a fourth century theologian, who taught Jesus was a created being, but, whether heavenly or not, he was not God. Both doctrines are equally false.
Concerning the Scriptures noted above, since you don’t elaborate on what the, then, current ideas of the Messiah were, I cannot respond to your statement as I would have liked. Nevertheless, I don’t see a difference in Jesus’ words in any of the Synoptic texts you mention, which might lead any honest student of the word of God to believe your claim that there is. As for the Son of Man in Daniel, that vision is one that concerns the preincarnate Christ, who received a Kingdom from the hand of God. But, once more, you misread the text, taking the preincarnate state of Christ for reincarnation, which is a Hindu doctrine, which wasn’t and still isn’t believed by either Jews or Christians.
Woodrow Nichols
March 22, 2021 at 11:21
Please forgive me for accusing you of being a trinitarian. I believe the Son of Man saying from Daniel occurred when Jesus ascended after the resurrection, alluded to in the appearances to Mary Magdalene before and to the disciples on Resurrection Sunday and in the scene at the end of Matthew (and likely in the original Mark) where Jesus refers to his glorification in Heaven. You are mistaken when you say no Christians believe in reincarnation, but many do and find scriptural proof in such teachings of Jesus that John the Baptist had the spirit of Elijah and was the Elijah to come from Malachi 4:5-6.
Woodrow Nichols
Eddie
March 22, 2021 at 15:49
Greetings Woodrow,
Concerning your claim that I am a Trinitarian, no problem. I took no offense, but I did want to get the facts straight.
Concerning Daniel and the Son of Man, you are correct. Jesus’ ascension and being covered by a cloud in Acts 1 implies he was taken to the Father to receive his Kingdom. This is what we are meant to take away from that scene.
Concerning my being mistaken about the reincarnation, no, I’m not. However, I never said Christians don’t believe in reincarnation. What I said was the doctrine of reincarnation comes from the Hindu religion, from from the Bible–Old or New Covenants. The doctrine, just as the Trinitarian doctrine is false. It doesn’t mean that legitimate Christians don’t believe in false doctrines. They often do. And, by the way, there is no **proof** in Scripture that would support either of those doctrines.
Concerning John the Baptist having the Spirit of Elijah, so did Elisha (2Kings 2:15), but how could that be a reference to reincarnation, since Elisha was Elijah’s student?
Woodrow Nichols
March 22, 2021 at 16:00
The Greeks taught the transmigration of souls called metempsychosis (which you could learn by reading Plato). Jesus taught that John the Baptist was Elijah who was to come from Malachi Hezekiah is called Wonderful in Isaiah 9, as is also the Angel who announced the birth of Samuel to his parents. One can draw the connection that Hezekiah was the reincarnation of the Angel named Wonderful, which is otherwise a very odd title for a Davidic King. There is no evidence the Greeks got the idea from India. The Spirit of Elijah can be seen as his own spirit or the Holy Spirit, since he was only human. Malachi taught that Elijah wouid return and Jesus taught he came again in John the Baptist. This leaves it open to alternate interpretations and none of them should be dogmatic but left open to the believer to see it any way he or she wishes. Again, a very stimulating conversation, Eddie.
Woodrow Nichols
Eddie
March 22, 2021 at 21:44
You know, Woodrow, you have a lot of gall trying to criticize me for assumed Platonic ideas. Look at what you’ve done here! There isn’t an ounce of truth in what you claim in your comment. Nothing you say is proved. You don’t even **try** to offer any evidence for your claims. You just regurgitate it all, as though you were a fountain of truth. If this is all you have, why trouble yourself coming here to discuss it? It has nothing to do with the Bible, and the Bible is all I wish to discuss with anyone.
Woodrow Nichols
March 23, 2021 at 01:15
The Letter of James teaches a Platonic view of God — i.e. that he can have nothing to do with evil, and contrary to what Jesus taught, that he tempts no one — and this influences most of Christian dogma, especially the branch known as theodicy. I will admit that your version of Christianity is a strange one to me, but the truth is that Jesus taught that John the Baptist was the Elijah to come from Malachi – deny that if you dare. The great neoplatonist theologian, Origen speculated a Well of Souls and reincarnation, so many Christians have held my beliefs and speculations throughout history. My views are supported by what I assume you would call the problem verses, why does that disturb you so much?
Woodrow Nichols
Eddie
March 23, 2021 at 10:36
Greetings Woodrow,
The problem is that you don’t investigate the Greek words. Do you read James from the KJV? I love the KJV, but I don’t automatically accept how it’s translated. For example, you point out that James claimed God **tempts** no one. This is true, but your claim that he does tells me that you don’t go much beyond reading the text. You don’t seem to investigate the Greek (or Hebrew) words from which we receive the English translation. If you did, you would realize that the Greek can be used in a ‘good’ sense or an ‘evil’ sense. God cannot be enticed to do evil, how could he, since he created all there is. How could God **lust** after what he created? It doesn’t make sense. He can be tried in the sense to prove his goodness and righteousness, but he cannot be bribed with something that he **must** have. He can create whatever he desires, so how could he be enticed or bribed by men? This is the sense James used the word ‘tempt’ in James 1:13. God created us to be his ‘images’ (Genesis 1:27). If God cannot be bribed, why would he bribe you or me, whom he desires to act like himself? Nevertheless, he will try you and me to exercise our character in order that we gain experience in being ‘good’ and so act in a righteous manner. In other words, he’ll try us to build our character, but never to bribe us to sin.
Why should I deny what the Scripture clearly says? The problem is not what Jesus said, but how you interpret what Jesus said. Where is the word reincarnation? You read that word into the text. How do I know? Do you read reincarnation into 2Kings 2:9 or 2:15? No, of course, not. You’d be acting like an idiot if you did, because the text clearly means the **power** that Elijah had would be given to Elisha, his friend and student. It is in this sense that John the Baptist had the “spirit” or “power” of Elijah. The age of the prophets began in the power expressed by Elijah and it ended likewise, though the person was not Elijah, just like Elisha wasn’t Elijah.
Then why don’t you believe in the Trinity? It was also preached by the early Christian fathers. You can take this to the bank, Woodrow. I do not, and I will not take anyone’s word for the truth unless I see it in the Bible. The Bible **alone** is my guide for living. Not what Origen claimed, not what Plato claimed, not what you claim. The Bible alone is the word of God. If it isn’t there, it isn’t my guide for truth.
Woodrow Nichols
March 23, 2021 at 11:50
Well, we disagree. I see no difference between tempting and trying, for from our point of view it’s the same.
Woodrow
Eddie
March 24, 2021 at 07:12
Then you and Nicodemus would understand one another perfectly. He thought being born again meant to go back into his mother’s womb (John 3:3-4). ‘Born’ (G1080) same word as Jesus was born (Matthew 2:1). According to you there simply is only one way to interpret the same Greek word. It is interesting, though, that Nicodemus thought going back into his mother’s womb was a more logical form of rebirth than your idea of reincarnation. If ‘reincarnation’ was a belief as prevalent among first century AD Jews as you claim, one should expect Nicodemus to take that approach to Jesus’ words rather than going back into his mother’s womb, which, though absurd, was more logical than reincarnation, at least for Nicodemus.
Woodrow Nichols
March 24, 2021 at 10:08
The idea that God does not tempt man directly, but through Satan, somehow excuses God from being the tempter is absurd theodicy, for God created Satan a liar, ergo evil, from the beginning. When you realize that God tempts as part of trying a person supports the idea that the Garden of Eden was a Temptation Trap that because of human nature, which God created in his own Image, was bound to fail is part of the idea that a perfectly Good cosmos has both Good and Evil, perfect goodness coming as the result of the tug of war between the forces.
Nicodemus is used as a foil in John’s Socratic dialogues to emphasize the spiritual idea of rebirth, which without the Holy Spirit Nicodemus was unable to grasp. After all, he does not appear in the Synoptic Gospels. You really need to read Plato to understand what John is up to.
Woodrow Nichols
Eddie
March 25, 2021 at 09:30
I never mentioned **Satan** a figure which I have found no evidence for in the Bible.
Concerning Nicodemus, you claimed that ‘reincarnation’ was a prevalent understanding in the first century AD, even among Jews. Yet, Nicodemus considers it more logical that Jesus was speaking about an absurdity—one returning to one’s mother’s womb. Where is the idea of ‘reincarnation’ here? If many Jews had this understanding, don’t you think that would have been the very **first** thing that came to mind for Nicodemus? If not, why not?
Woodrow Nichols
March 25, 2021 at 12:12
I don’t preach reincarnation as THE TRUTH. I consider it the most reasonable. I can’t believe your hostility towards the concept, You need to chill, brother. As for Nicodemus, like I said John uses him for a foil for the concept of rebirth. So he may be a fictional person. Even then most Jews would have thought his concept of rebirth to be absurd.
As for Satan, who was Jesus tempted by in the wilderness? You claim to be so biblical yet some of your ideas which you teach as THE TRUTH, are just as absurd in mainstream Christianity.
Woodrow Nichols
Eddie
March 26, 2021 at 05:50
I don’t remember ever saying you did. You merely believe, without showing any evidence for your presumption, that it was a common belief of Jews in the 1st century AD. You even have Jesus preaching it, saying that John was literally Elijah.
What you nonchalantly regurgitate as true, I must nonchalantly read over, as though it means nothing? Reincarnation denies the need of Jesus’ sacrifice. How can I merely shrug such a thing off as though it were unimportant?
And, without any evidence you claim he is an imaginary figure. You claim he is a “foil” – therefore he is a foil!!! With the flick of the pen you solve all your literary problems. You don’t have to do any investigating. That would take time and mental effort. You just make imaginary statements nullifying identities, inserting presuppositional doctrines, offer declarations of truth and declarations of lies, and all is done without a shred of evidence.
Concerning ‘satan,’ both the Greek word and the Hebrew word mean ‘enemy’ or ‘adversary.’ The word devil means slanderer. Jesus’ enemies tempted him in the wilderness and slandered him throughout his public ministry. Mark tells us he was with wild beasts in the wilderness. The Pharisees are called vipers and serpents, and they were his enemies. They tempted him and they also slandered him.
If you or anyone else could show how satan came into existence, or show why a ‘godlike’ evil spiritual entity is needed in the text, I’d be happy to consider it. Nevertheless, I see no reason for him, nor has anyone ever be able to prove to me that he exists.
Woodrow Nichols
March 26, 2021 at 14:37
Hey, Eddie, let’s get one thing straight. When I say he “MAY” have been, this is not ;preaching it as the Truth. Everything I say beyond that Jesus died for our sins is my opinion. Since I’ve been studying the Bible for 50 years I hope my opinion has some weight. Are you familiar with the psychological concept of projection, because you are a classic case.
Woodrow Nichols