I just want to add that this is not the so-called "Bible code" mentioned on the History Channel.

(I personally think that the "code" is a bunch of nonsense.)

This is something different entirely.

What I mean is that they didn't believe that a man could be "equal" to God.


Why do you think the Jєωs accused Christ of blasphemy?

Because, according the the Jєωs, "He made Himself equal with God."


The Jєωs believe the Messiah to be just a man, not God as a man.

Actually, he may be somewhat accurate.

The Pharisees were seeking a person to lead them against their enemies in the temporal world.  A King like David.  That's why Christ constantly was telling them that His Kingdom was not of this world.

One of the ways He was a Sign of Contradiction was He contradicted their mistaken concept of a Messiah, and when He tried to explain to them, they would not hear.

There were other sects of Jєωs that believed in an apocalyptical Messiah, but in the Gospel we see His battles with the nationalist Pharisees.  It is interesting that the Pharisitical idea is the one that modern mainstream Judaism has today - nationalism, an earthly relationship with God, etc.

CE entry http://newadvent.org/cathen/10212c.htm

(See also APOCRYPHA). Two quite distinct and parallel lines are discernible in the later development of Messianic doctrine among the Jєωs, according as the writers clung to a national ideal, based on the literal interpretation of the earlier prophecies, or an apocalyptic ideal, based principally on Daniel. The national ideal looked to the establishment on earth of the Kingdom of God under the Son of David, the conquest and subjugation of the heathen, the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the Temple, and the gathering in of the Dispersed. The apocalyptic ideal drew a sharp distinction between aion outos and aion mellon. The future age was to be ushered in by the Divine judgment of mankind preceded by the resurrection of the dead. The Messiah, existing from the beginning of the world, should appear at the consummation, and then should be also manifested the heavenly Jerusalem which was to be the abode of the blessed.

National ideal

The national ideal is that of official Pharisaism. Thus, the тαℓмυd has no trace of the apocalyptic ideal. The scribes were mainly busied with the Law, but side by side with this was the development of the hope of the ultimate manifestation of God's Kingdom on earth. Pharisaic influence is clearly visible in vv. 573-808 of Sibyl. III, describing the national hopes of the Jєωs. A last judgment, future happiness, or reward are not mentioned. Many marvels are foretold of the Messianic wars which bring in the consummation--lighted torches falling from heaven, the darkening of the sun, the falling of meteors-but all have for end a state of earthly prosperity. The Messiah, coming from the East, dominates the whole, a triumphant national hero. Similar to this is the work called the Psalms of Solomon, written probably about 40 B.C. It is really the protest of Pharisaism against its enemies, the later Asmoneans. The Pharisees saw that the observance of the law was not of itself a sufficient bulwark against the enemies of Israel, and, as their principles would not allow them to recognize in the secularized hierarchy the promised issue of their troubles, they looked forward to the miraculous intervention of God through the agency of a Davidic Messiah. The seventeenth Psalm describes his rule: He is to conquer the heathen, to drive them from their land, to allow no injustice in their midst; His trust is not to be in armies but in God; with the word of his mouth he is to slay the wicked. Of earlier date we have the description of the final glories of the holy city in Tobias (c. xiv), where, as well as in Ecclesiasticus, there is evidence of the constant hope in the future gathering in of the Diaspora. These same nationalist ideas reappear along with a highly developed system of eschatology in the apocalyptic works written after the destruction of Jerusalem, which are referred to below.