cellio · August 17, 2015 00:13
diff --git a/Deleted Mi Yodeya answer for Wad Cheber b/Deleted Mi Yodeya answer for Wad Cheber
 Question:

 Would there be a halachic reason to stone Jesus for saying what JWs believe he said?

 [According to Jehovah's Witnesses][1] (a small offshoot of Christianity), Jesus' identity is as follows:

 > He was God's first creation, and he helped in the creation of all other things. He is the only one created directly by Jehovah and is therefore appropriately called God's "only-begotten" Son.

 According to the New Testament book of John, there was an incident when Jesus said something very offensive to some fellow Jews, and they decided to stone him for it. According to the [JW translation of the John 8][2], here's how it went down:

 > Jesus said to them: "Most truly I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I have been." So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid and went out of the temple.

 Most Christians believe Jesus is God, and that he was claiming to be God here. If he were making that claim, then it would be obvious [why they would wish to stone him][3]. But JWs believe differently (review the definition up top). They believe, therefore, that he was simply claiming his status as a special creation of God, or claiming that he was alive in the days of Abraham.

 If he were making that claim, would they have a halachic reason to stone him?


  [1]: http://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/good-news-from-god/who-is-jesus-christ/
  [2]: http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/john/8/
  [3]: http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9925#v=16
  
  --------------------------------
  
  Answer:
  
  The offense Jesus has committed here can only be understood by reference to the translations, which requires a little background information.

 John is widely regarded as the least reliable gospel, for a large number of reasons which I won't address here.  Suffice it to say that the concept of the trinity is based almost exclusively on John, and only in John is Jesus described as being equal to G-d, and coeternal with G-d.  John was written in Greek, specifically Koine Greek.  The author, whose identity is unknown, was definitely not Jewish, and actually appears to have been a rabid anti-Semite.  Whatever this person knew about the Hebrew Scriptures, he must have learned it from the Greek translation, called the Septuagint.

 This is where things get interesting.  The Septuagint renders the phrase "I am" from Exodus 3:14 as "εγώ ειμι".  And how does John render Jesus' claim here, "Before Abraham was, I have been"?  Well, John renders the phrase as:

 >"εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Ἰησοῦς· ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι **ἐγὼ εἰμί**."    
 -  [John 8:58](http://biblehub.com/text/john/8-58.htm) [Emphasis mine] 

 If anyone is interested, [the only Hebrew translation](http://www.sarshalom.us/resources/scripture/asv/html/john.html) I was able to find renders the verse as follows:

 >וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם יֵשׁוּעַ אָמֵן אָמֵן אֲנִי אֹמֵר לָכֶם אֲנִי הָיִיתִי עוֹד עַד לֹא־הָיָה אַבְרָהָם׃

 The relevant portion of the sentence is: "εγώ ειμι". The wording is exactly the same as the Septuagint's rendering of Exodus 3:14.   

 >καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν **ἐγώ εἰμι** ὁ ὤν καὶ εἶπεν οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς   
 - [Exodus 3:14](http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/sep/exo003.htm), *Septuagint* [Emphasis mine]

 For the sake of clarity, the relevant passage of Exodus is, in Hebrew, "[אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_that_I_Am)" (at least, that's the Hebrew version I found).  

 The reason why the crowd attempted to stone Jesus to death should now be obvious:  **Jesus was deliberately using G-d's name to describe himself.**

 In Koine Greek, there is a passive voice present in the phrase "εγώ ειμι", so the traditional translation "I am" becomes "I have been".  Most translations of John render the passage more starkly, with [slight variations](http://biblehub.com/john/8-58.htm) of: "Before Abraham was born, I AM!" (yes, they even capitalize it for emphasis).  

 I don't know anything about Halacha, but even I know that G-d wouldn't approve of someone referring to themselves by His name, or a name He used in reference to Himself.  Based on the link you provided, I would assume that the crowd was going to stone Jesus on the grounds that he violated the laws reflected in verses 15 and 16:  

 >15 And to the children of Israel, you shall speak, saying: Any man who blasphemes his God shall bear his sin.

 >16 And one who blasphemously pronounces the Name of the Lord, shall be put to death; the entire community shall stone him; convert and resident alike if he pronounces the [Divine] Name, he shall be put to death.

 ##However:  

 As I said earlier, John is considered the least reliable gospel, and the fact that this passage occurs only in John makes it almost certain that the events described in the text never actually happened.  It is widely accepted by scholars that almost nothing in John is even remotely accurate.
	Question:

	Would there be a halachic reason to stone Jesus for saying what JWs believe he said?

	[According to Jehovah's Witnesses][1] (a small offshoot of Christianity), Jesus' identity is as follows:

	> He was God's first creation, and he helped in the creation of all other things. He is the only one created directly by Jehovah and is therefore appropriately called God's "only-begotten" Son.

	According to the New Testament book of John, there was an incident when Jesus said something very offensive to some fellow Jews, and they decided to stone him for it. According to the [JW translation of the John 8][2], here's how it went down:

	> Jesus said to them: "Most truly I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I have been." So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid and went out of the temple.

	Most Christians believe Jesus is God, and that he was claiming to be God here. If he were making that claim, then it would be obvious [why they would wish to stone him][3]. But JWs believe differently (review the definition up top). They believe, therefore, that he was simply claiming his status as a special creation of God, or claiming that he was alive in the days of Abraham.

	If he were making that claim, would they have a halachic reason to stone him?


	[1]: http://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/good-news-from-god/who-is-jesus-christ/
	[2]: http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/john/8/
	[3]: http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9925#v=16

	--------------------------------

	Answer:

	The offense Jesus has committed here can only be understood by reference to the translations, which requires a little background information.

	John is widely regarded as the least reliable gospel, for a large number of reasons which I won't address here. Suffice it to say that the concept of the trinity is based almost exclusively on John, and only in John is Jesus described as being equal to G-d, and coeternal with G-d. John was written in Greek, specifically Koine Greek. The author, whose identity is unknown, was definitely not Jewish, and actually appears to have been a rabid anti-Semite. Whatever this person knew about the Hebrew Scriptures, he must have learned it from the Greek translation, called the Septuagint.

	This is where things get interesting. The Septuagint renders the phrase "I am" from Exodus 3:14 as "εγώ ειμι". And how does John render Jesus' claim here, "Before Abraham was, I have been"? Well, John renders the phrase as:

	>"εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Ἰησοῦς· ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί."
	- [John 8:58](http://biblehub.com/text/john/8-58.htm) [Emphasis mine]

	If anyone is interested, [the only Hebrew translation](http://www.sarshalom.us/resources/scripture/asv/html/john.html) I was able to find renders the verse as follows:

	>וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם יֵשׁוּעַ אָמֵן אָמֵן אֲנִי אֹמֵר לָכֶם אֲנִי הָיִיתִי עוֹד עַד לֹא־הָיָה אַבְרָהָם׃

	The relevant portion of the sentence is: "εγώ ειμι". The wording is exactly the same as the Septuagint's rendering of Exodus 3:14.

	>καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν καὶ εἶπεν οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς
	- [Exodus 3:14](http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/sep/exo003.htm), Septuagint [Emphasis mine]

	For the sake of clarity, the relevant passage of Exodus is, in Hebrew, "[אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_that_I_Am)" (at least, that's the Hebrew version I found).

	The reason why the crowd attempted to stone Jesus to death should now be obvious: Jesus was deliberately using G-d's name to describe himself.

	In Koine Greek, there is a passive voice present in the phrase "εγώ ειμι", so the traditional translation "I am" becomes "I have been". Most translations of John render the passage more starkly, with [slight variations](http://biblehub.com/john/8-58.htm) of: "Before Abraham was born, I AM!" (yes, they even capitalize it for emphasis).

	I don't know anything about Halacha, but even I know that G-d wouldn't approve of someone referring to themselves by His name, or a name He used in reference to Himself. Based on the link you provided, I would assume that the crowd was going to stone Jesus on the grounds that he violated the laws reflected in verses 15 and 16:

	>15 And to the children of Israel, you shall speak, saying: Any man who blasphemes his God shall bear his sin.

	>16 And one who blasphemously pronounces the Name of the Lord, shall be put to death; the entire community shall stone him; convert and resident alike if he pronounces the [Divine] Name, he shall be put to death.

	##However:

	As I said earlier, John is considered the least reliable gospel, and the fact that this passage occurs only in John makes it almost certain that the events described in the text never actually happened. It is widely accepted by scholars that almost nothing in John is even remotely accurate.