The Alleged Sons of God

[Ben Masada]

The Alleged Sons of God

According to an ancient Roman policy, any able-bodied man from the conquered lands, who joined the Roman Army, would obtain authomatic citizenship. And if he was lucky enough to reach retirement age, he could choose where he would like to spend the rest of his life, and he would be granted a piece of land or farm as severance pay for his services to the Empire. Rome excluded.

When the Roman Legions arrived in the Middle East and conquered Sidon, a man called Pantera applied to join the Army and was accepted. Then, he was conscripted into the Roman Legion which got stationed in Syria. When he reached retirement age, he chose to return to Sidon and got his farm there to live for the rest of his life.

According to Josephus, in the year 4 BCE, there was a local revolt in Israel against Herod. It became known as the Revolt of the Pharisees. It was so strong that it was threatening to depose him. Herod appealed to Rome for help and Caesar gave orders to the Legion stationed in Syria to cross over into Israel and put down the revolt.

Thousands of Roman soldiers came over and the task was quite easy. They crucified a few thousand Jews, and decided to stay for some time to make sure the discontent were subdued. In the meantime, the Roman soldiers would rape young Jewish ladies almost daily.

As it was to expect, many children were born as a result of those rapes. Since the unfortunate mothers were not to blame for promiscuity, the religious authorities forbade to ostracize them or to consider their children as mamzerim or ba$tards. But they grew up with the epithet of "sons of God." (Lecture on the "Historical Jesus" at Stanphord University)

Since Jesus was born just about that time, I am of the opinion that's much more prudent and less embarrassing to acknowledge that he was a biological son of Joseph's than to run the risk that Jesus might have been one of those sons of God.

Now, regarding Mark 7:24, I have here with me two different Bible translations. One is the Catholic New American version of the Bible wherefrom I read that when Jesus went to Sidon, he would retire into a certain house and wanted no one to recognize him in there. The other translation is the King James version, wherefrom I read that when Jesus went to Sidon, he would enter into a certain house and would have no man know it.

Although I am not assuming anything, everyone of us has all the right in the world to speculate about such a shouting evidence and to think that there was something fishy going on for Jesus to insist on secrecy about his being in Sidon or in that certain house. At that time Joseph had been long dead. Could it be that jesus knew about his real origins and was interacting with his real father? Everything is possible, but if you ask me, I am still in favour that he was rather a biological son of
Joseph's.

What's your reaction to all the above?

Ben:

 

[Dream]

Thousands of Roman soldiers came over and the task was quite easy. They crucified a few thousand Jews, and decided to stay for some time to make sure the discontent were subdued. In the meantime, the Roman soldiers would rape young Jewish ladies almost daily.

Ben, Christianity was not necessarily started by a man named Paul, though he is a name in the canon. Jesus himself is most easily understood as a metaphor. The story of Jesus may have begun as a memorial to the Jews that lived around the time of the 2nd temple's destruction and as a result of communal grief. His body was them, and his question upon the cross "Why have you forsaken me?" was the question on every man's lips at that time. His parables were their parables. I think you understand that the temple's destruction was a very traumatic event for Jews as well as a huge cultural loss for everyone. By this reckoning Jesus death represented many Jewish deaths and perhaps the death of hope. His resurrection would have represented God's acceptance of Jews and the promise of better things to come. His story probably grew over time and the destruction of the temple taken as an impetus to open the blessings of Abraham up to everyone.

Since Jesus was born just about that time, I am of the opinion that's much more prudent and less embarrassing to acknowledge that he was a biological son of Joseph's than to run the risk that Jesus might have been one of those sons of God.

No, it is best to call him son of God in that case, since there were so many sons and so many girls who were violated. They should be remembered, and it should be remembered that they suffered for righteousness' sake. Your comments help to explain why Mary the mother of Jesus is so venerated.

 

[Dream]

I need to add to that, because its not cool to leave it hanging like just one arm by itself.

As Christians what we have for history is what was handed down to us, however as those two 7th day adventists found out history is trumped by culture. They were converted by the 'Law' of the LORD which is better termed 'Way'. That is, they saw how those Jews lived. That is also what happened to the Romans but on a massive scale. They killed 'the Jews', however in keeping with tradition and the way the survivors (just as they worked in Babylon for its benefit) worked for Roman benefit. It was the Jews who turned the other cheek at that time, however they also had to grieve and pay respect to their dead. I think they found a way to do that among themselves using various metaphors, and what I think then happened is that many Romans and hellenists who themselves regretted the destruction of the temple adopted the sayings about the man named 'Jesus', whose name is explicitly explained in Matthew. They were not deceived and wanted to honor the martyrs by adopting the sayings, and they wanted to convert. They were converted to a different way of living having seen a better way. Even before the temple was destroyed Jews had a lot of respect, but after it happened and Jews forgave the Romans and gave them even more they just loved the G-d of Israel. Unfortunately Jewish popularity gave rise to jealousies both popular and political, however many Romans dedicated themselves to remembering what the martyrs did. Thus was born the liturgy which has been kept for many centuries despite political interferences. Although the actual history is gone, it is not hard to guess. Paul? He is probably a mixture of policy, commentary and politics. This is the most accurate model I can imagine (although it is a guess) of what happened, and while it is a secret history that cannot be objectively proven it is, probably, similar to what really happened.

Up until now it would probably have not been a good idea to discuss it, but because Jews have their own country and because most have been driven out of the dangerous countries it is as good a time as any. Jealousies do arise, and that cannot always be helped. I don't want the actions and gifts of those survivors to be forgotten just to prevent jealousy. It would be like forgetting what happened in Babylon. Many lives were transformed out of the losses of the Jews of that time, and they are every bit as important as those two 7th day Adventists. Their lives and their deaths should be remembered. Of course there have been corruptions and political spin, but lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Paul is neither here nor there and may not even have existed. His own martyrdom or pains could be shadows and types of what really happened. Is this unreasonable and is it a bad time to talk about it? I don't see how it could imperil lives any more than they already are.

 

[Lunitik]

Romans 8:14 says exactly who 'Son of God' refers to.

It essentially just means those that are enlightened... but in Christian-speak.

That said, Jesus was a bastard no matter how you view it... Mary was neither married to Joseph, the Holy Spirit, nor any attacker as you speculate. This, by very definition is a bastard, it is undeniable, and yet what does it matter?

Oh right, it is spoken against in Jewish law, but then could this not be the very nature of his forgiving acts?

I see no benefit from discussing this...

Jesus is simply an enlightened man whom people have clung to through the methods of the Roman Empire at first, and later through those who came from the lines of Romes subjects through their subsequent Empires. It is the same for every religion, someone in power has used it as a way to solidify and unify their peoples. In reality, we are each capable of the heights these men discuss, they are no different from any of us. It is time we stop being slaves to our own ignorance, it is time to see it is just stupid to cling to these people. Existence itself is God, and if you are aware enough, it tells you all you need to know.

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

Do you have references for any that Ben ?

 

[Ben Masada]

Ben, Christianity was not necessarily started by a man named Paul, though he is a name in the canon.

That Christianity was raised by a man named Paul is not my saying, but Luke's, who reported in Acts 11:26 that Christians were called Christians for the first time in Antioch after a whole year that Paul spent in the Nazarene synagogue of Antioch, teathing about Jesus as Christ.

Jesus himself is most easily understood as a metaphor.

You could be right. A metaphor of Paul, who used Jesus by proxy to proclaim himself the Christian Messiah.

The story of Jesus may have begun as a memorial to the Jews that lived around the time of the 2nd temple's destruction and as a result of communal grief. His body was them, and his question upon the cross "Why have you forsaken me?" was the question on every man's lips at that time. His parables were their parables. I think you understand that the temple's destruction was a very traumatic event for Jews as well as a huge cultural loss for everyone.

Sorry Dream, but only in your dreams. The Jewish People could never be the metaphorical fulfilment of Jesus because the Christian Jesus was no different from a Greek demigod; the son of a god with an earthly woman. There is no such thing in Judaism, which was the Faith of Jesus.

By this reckoning Jesus death represented many Jewish deaths and perhaps the death of hope. His resurrection would have represented God's acceptance of Jews and the promise of better things to come. His story probably grew over time and the destruction of the temple taken as an impetus to open the blessings of Abraham up to everyone.

You are free to construct an allegory and think of anything to point to from the Christian point of view, as long as you admit that Jesus' resurrection was equaly metaphorical and not literal. But be aware that your goods, no Christian will buy.

No, it is best to call him son of God in that case, since there were so many sons and so many girls who were violated. They should be remembered, and it should be remembered that they suffered for righteousness' sake. Your comments help to explain why Mary the mother of Jesus is so venerated.

Son of God. Yes. In fact, I'll have no problem with it, if the reference is not made on an individual basis, but as part of the People Jesus belonged to. The Torah does refer to the whole of Israel as the Son of God. "Let My Son go that he may serve Me." (Exo. 4:22,23) But individually, it gives the
sense of a Greek demigod; and in Judaism there is no such thing.

Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

I need to add to that, because its not cool to leave it hanging like just one arm by itself.

As Christians what we have for history is what was handed down to us, however as those two 7th day adventists found out history is trumped by culture. They were converted by the 'Law' of the LORD which is better termed 'Way'. That is, they saw how those Jews lived. That is also what happened to the Romans but on a massive scale. They killed 'the Jews', however in keeping with tradition and the way the survivors (just as they worked in Babylon for its benefit) worked for Roman benefit. It was the Jews who turned the other cheek at that time, however they also had to grieve and pay respect to their dead. I think they found a way to do that among themselves using various metaphors, and what I think then happened is that many Romans and hellenists who themselves regretted the destruction of the temple adopted the sayings about the man named 'Jesus', whose name is explicitly explained in Matthew. They were not deceived and wanted to honor the martyrs by adopting the sayings, and they wanted to convert. They were converted to a different way of living having seen a better way. Even before the temple was destroyed Jews had a lot of respect, but after it happened and Jews forgave the Romans and gave them even more they just loved the G-d of Israel. Unfortunately Jewish popularity gave rise to jealousies both popular and political, however many Romans dedicated themselves to remembering what the martyrs did. Thus was born the liturgy which has been kept for many centuries despite political interferences. Although the actual history is gone, it is not hard to guess. Paul? He is probably a mixture of policy, commentary and politics. This is the most accurate model I can imagine (although it is a guess) of what happened, and while it is a secret history that cannot be objectively proven it is, probably, similar to what really happened.

Up until now it would probably have not been a good idea to discuss it, but because Jews have their own country and because most have been driven out of the dangerous countries it is as good a time as any. Jealousies do arise, and that cannot always be helped. I don't want the actions and gifts of those survivors to be forgotten just to prevent jealousy. It would be like forgetting what happened in Babylon. Many lives were transformed out of the losses of the Jews of that time, and they are every bit as important as those two 7th day Adventists. Their lives and their deaths should be remembered. Of course there have been corruptions and political spin, but lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Paul is neither here nor there and may not even have existed. His own martyrdom or pains could be shadows and types of what really happened. Is this unreasonable and is it a bad time to talk about it? I don't see how it could imperil lives any more than they already are.

"As Christians..." So, you are a Christian. What are you doing then? By metaphorizing Jesus and Paul into pointing to abstract concepts other than what they literally were, you are simply reducing Christianity to a huge allegory. Why would some Christians choose a martyr's death for an allegory?

You have mentioned above twice about "those two Seventh-Day Adventists." What are you talking about? I can't figure in my mind what you mean.

And about your comparison between the Jews serving Babylon for the benefit of Babylon and what they were doing to the Romans is a world of a difference. In Babylon we were in exile. In Israel we were at home. We could not serve Rome as we served Babylon. Moreover, the Jews did not forgive the Romans after the destruction of the Temple. And BTW, they never forgave the Romans, as long as they were at home and the Romans constituted an occupying force. You are missing the fierced war of 132-135 ACE; aka, the Bar Cochba war, when entire Roman legions were destroyed.
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

Romans 8:14 says exactly who 'Son of God' refers to.

It essentially just means those that are enlightened... but in Christian-speak.

That said, Jesus was a bastard no matter how you view it... Mary was neither married to Joseph, the Holy Spirit, nor any attacker as you speculate. This, by very definition is a bastard, it is undeniable, and yet what does it matter?

Oh right, it is spoken against in Jewish law, but then could this not be the very nature of his forgiving acts?

I see no benefit from discussing this...

Jesus is simply an enlightened man whom people have clung to through the methods of the Roman Empire at first, and later through those who came from the lines of Romes subjects through their subsequent Empires. It is the same for every religion, someone in power has used it as a way to solidify and unify their peoples. In reality, we are each capable of the heights these men discuss, they are no different from any of us. It is time we stop being slaves to our own ignorance, it is time to see it is just stupid to cling to these people. Existence itself is God, and if you are aware enough, it tells you all you need to know.

The name for bastard in Hebrew is mamzer. A mamzer is the son or daughter born out of wedlock. If Mary was not married to Joseph when she gave birth to Jesus, this was not a mamzer; therefore, not a bastard. If the Jewish authorities agreed upon, to name the children born as a result of raping by the Romans, as sons of God, it is because the mothers were not married. A mamzer was something too serious in Judaism. Comparable to a traggedy to the child. There was no solution to harmonize him or her with society. They could not even enter the Temple, which Jesus did.
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

Do you have references for any that Ben ?

Yes. Three references: The first is a book by a 19th Century German Scholar (a former Protestant btw) called Erick Hinnerman, if I don't make a mistake. I have read the book about 10 years ago. I think the title was "Rome in the Time of the Republic." The second reference, not about Jesus, but about the well-known cruel Roman practice among the soldiers to rape young Jewish women in the "War of the Jews" by Josephus, as he reports about the revolt of the Pharisees against Herod. And last but not least, the Talmud does mention the case not to ostracize the mothers nor the children victims of the Roman occupation.
Ben

 

[Dream]

Now, regarding Mark 7:24, I have here with me two different Bible translations. One is the Catholic New American version of the Bible wherefrom I read that when Jesus went to Sidon, he would retire into a certain house and wanted no one to recognize him in there. The other translation is the King James version, wherefrom I read that when Jesus went to Sidon, he would enter into a certain house and would have no man know it.

Getting myself back to your opening topic, because I failed to respond to it. Mark . I think that Mark goes to lengths to point out Jesus secrecy, not because of a house in Sidon. If you look at 1:34 he generally keeps himself secreted away from people, because he gets mobbed by curious people. In addition to being physically absent he also avoids telling people that he is special. Various people (or demons) may say that Jesus is special, but Jesus never says it and tells others not to tell anyone when he does anything miraculous.

That Christianity was raised by a man named Paul is not my saying, but Luke's, who reported in Acts 11:26 that Christians were called Christians for the first time in Antioch after a whole year that Paul spent in the Nazarene synagogue of Antioch, teathing about Jesus as Christ.

A good point. I am barely keeping up with you, too; though I don't follow the logic. If Paul is a liar and Luke calls him genuine then Luke's genuineness is called into question; though probably Luke did write that based on my taking your word for it. You could strongly argue upon that Paul was heavily involved in starting many things, but don't forget the Ebionites who trace their beginning back to James (brother to Jesus) , not Paul. They would say that Paul didn't have anything to do with starting Christianity and was a problem for it. Perhaps Paul didn't start Christianity after all? (Admittedly I'm still conjecturing as I learned about Ebionites through a post by bob x.)

You could be right. A metaphor of Paul, who used Jesus by proxy to proclaim himself the Christian Messiah.

Or not, though I am not insisting it was or wasn't Paul. I suppose he might've, but where did the Ebionites come from then? If you don't know its ok. It may not be a very strong question to begin with, though I do believe the Ebionites ought to be figured in.

Sorry Dream, but only in your dreams. The Jewish People could never be the metaphorical fulfilment of Jesus because the Christian Jesus was no different from a Greek demigod; the son of a god with an earthly woman. There is no such thing in Judaism, which was the Faith of Jesus.

Ok well then it is quite offensive to you by the time Paul gets through with it, but I am not presupposing that Paul invented such a metaphor. I'm looking at something more like what the Ebionites had, so it would be something without trinity or Greek influences. It is hard not to see some similarities between events in Jesus life and events which generally affected all of the Jews in Judea.

You are free to construct an allegory and think of anything to point to from the Christian point of view, as long as you admit that Jesus' resurrection was equaly metaphorical and not literal. But be aware that your goods, no Christian will buy.

I wouldn't be popular for rejecting Paul, either. Princely has his work cut out for him and is assured to have many lonely nights.

Son of God. Yes. In fact, I'll have no problem with it, if the reference is not made on an individual basis, but as part of the People Jesus belonged to. The Torah does refer to the whole of Israel as the Son of God. "Let My Son go that he may serve Me." (Exo. 4:22,23) But individually, it gives the
sense of a Greek demigod; and in Judaism there is no such thing.

Right, not individually. More of a representative super-omnibus of all of them together.

 

[Dream]

"As Christians..." So, you are a Christian. What are you doing then? By metaphorizing Jesus and Paul into pointing to abstract concepts other than what they literally were, you are simply reducing Christianity to a huge allegory. Why would some Christians choose a martyr's death for an allegory?

You pointed out to me that it was only Paul's followers that were called Christians, and I am not saying that anyone was martyred for an allegory. I conjecture that an allegory honored the memory of Jews martyred by Romans. That is not far fetched of itself. I have it from Thomas (a poster) that the stories in the gospels originally were sayings by word of mouth, and Jesus just seems so much bigger than life.

Yes, I grew up as a Charismatic. Then I was SBC for a year or so and then I went through a conversion process to a more separatist group of Christians. I was never Catholic or anything like. I think I would have had some things in common with the 7th Day Adventists but never knew much about them. Later I decided I was being too exclusive in my communion (like an SDA) and went to being a generic, though non attending Christian. More lately I am a very skeptical person, but it is not like I can easily become un-Christian or that I don't appreciate Christians and Jesus. I just don't have any forces compelling me to tow the line and am free to conjecture as I like, particularly on an anonymous site like this.

You have mentioned above twice about "those two Seventh-Day Adventists." What are you talking about? I can't figure in my mind what you mean.

Oops. I got the number wrong and was referring to the converts you mentioned in this post. They converted without you talking them into it, which is how conversion is supposed to work; which is what I suggest happened to the Romans on a massive scale after the temple fell, not due to Paul's influence but because of seeing the Jewish lifestyle firsthand. Possibly many Romans were also sorry that their government had destroyed such the famous temple in Jerusalem.

And about your comparison between the Jews serving Babylon for the benefit of Babylon and what they were doing to the Romans is a world of a difference. In Babylon we were in exile. In Israel we were at home. We could not serve Rome as we served Babylon. Moreover, the Jews did not forgive the Romans after the destruction of the Temple. And BTW, they never forgave the Romans, as long as they were at home and the Romans constituted an occupying force. You are missing the fierced war of 132-135 ACE; aka, the Bar Cochba war, when entire Roman legions were destroyed.

Ok, so there was a war. That doesn't mean Jews hated Romans. The scripture says that the L-RD is slow to anger, abounding in mercy; therefore for Jews to 'Manifest' as you call it they would have had to act similarly and only go to war when provoked. You cannot seriously be suggesting that they were mad as hatters and picked fights for no reason. Its inconsistent with what they believed (as far as I know).

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

Yes. Three references: The first is a book by a 19th Century German Scholar (a former Protestant btw) called Erick Hinnerman, if I don't make a mistake. I have read the book about 10 years ago. I think the title was "Rome in the Time of the Republic." The second reference, not about Jesus, but about the well-known cruel Roman practice among the soldiers to rape young Jewish women in the "War of the Jews" by Josephus, as he reports about the revolt of the Pharisees against Herod. And last but not least, the Talmud does mention the case not to ostracize the mothers nor the children victims of the Roman occupation.
Ben

ah ok, its just before I took these claims seriously I would like to validate the authenticity of the scholarship behind them as much as I am able.

The world is full of people with an axe to grind against Christianity Paul says something along the lines of "for a root of bitterness defiles many". Many people are very bitter towards Christianity for whatever reason, and lots of mud is often thrown be little of it ever stick.

Do you have a links for your sources ?

 

[Ben Masada]

I think that Mark goes to lengths to point out Jesus secrecy, not because of a house in Sidon. If you look at 1:34 he generally keeps himself secreted away from people, because he gets mobbed by curious people.

Sorry Dream, but it doesn't help much. If Jesus wanted to be alone, he could have done it in Israel and not gone abroad to Sidon for that. This thing is becoming rather more and more mysterious.

A good point. I am barely keeping up with you, too; though I don't follow the logic. If Paul is a liar and Luke calls him genuine then Luke's genuineness is called into question; though probably Luke did write that based on my taking your word for it.

Luke was a former disciple of Paul's. He could not discredit him. Now, that Paul was a liar, the NT is rich with evidences.

You could strongly argue upon that Paul was heavily involved in starting many things, but don't forget the Ebionites who trace their beginning back to James (brother to Jesus) , not Paul.

IMHO, the Ebionites and the Nazarenes were one and the same people. James was the head of the Nazarenes headquartered in Jerusalem. The Sect of the Nazarenes was organized by James and the Apostles of Jesus.

They would say that Paul didn't have anything to do with starting Christianity and was a problem for it. Perhaps Paul didn't start Christianity after all? (Admittedly I'm still conjecturing as I learned about Ebionites through a post by bob x.)

If Paul did not start Christianity, that's one more of the many contradictions of the NT. Otherwise, how would you explain Acts 11:26?

I'm looking at something more like what the Ebionites had, so it would be something without trinity or Greek influences.

It is impossible to think of Christianity without the Greek influence. Hence, the reference to the NT as the Greek scriptures.

Right, not individually. More of a representative super-omnibus of all of them together.

According to Christian pre-conceived notions.

Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

You pointed out to me that it was only Paul's followers that were called Christians, and I am not saying that anyone was martyred for an allegory.

Yes, I recall that. And I did it from Acts 11:26. It was with Paul that Christians started being called Christians for the first time. Obviously, Christianity started with Paul. Intelligent deduction, therefore.

They converted without you talking them into it, which is how conversion is supposed to work; which is what I suggest happened to the Romans on a massive scale after the temple fell, not due to Paul's influence but because of seeing the Jewish lifestyle firsthand.

Dream, the Temple was destroyed in the year 70 ACE, and the Romans, in a massive scale, were converted in the 4th Century, when Constantine officialized Christianity as the Religion of the Empire. And you are right that it was not due to Paul, but not for seeing the Jewish lifestyle. It was rather due to the Fathers of the Church.

Ok, so there was a war. That doesn't mean Jews hated Romans. The scripture says that the L-RD is slow to anger, abounding in mercy; therefore for Jews to 'Manifest' as you call it they would have had to act similarly and only go to war when provoked. You cannot seriously be suggesting that they were mad as hatters and picked fights for no reason. Its inconsistent with what they believed (as far as I know).

Jews hated Romans, Dream. That's why they raised the Bar Cochba War. And I wonder what you mean by being first provoked to go to war. The Jews had been provoked for the many years that the Romans were occupying our Land. And you say that the Jews picked fights for no reason!!! What are you talking about? If to occupy our Land, and to rape our young women was not enough reason to raise a war, I don't know what a better reason for war could be.

Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

ah ok, its just before I took these claims seriously I would like to validate the authenticity of the scholarship behind them as much as I am able.

The world is full of people with an axe to grind against Christianity Paul says something along the lines of "for a root of bitterness defiles many". Many people are very bitter towards Christianity for whatever reason, and lots of mud is often thrown be little of it ever stick.

Do you have a links for your sources ?

Yes NCOT, and here is a little clip of it. The text is a long one. You ought to read it. What I am trying to find out is why Pantera was buried in Germany and not in Sidon, where he had his farm, granted by Rome for his retirement.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

The Roman tombstones in Bingerbrück, Germany. Tiberius Iulius Abdes Pantera's is on the left



Tiberius Iulius Abdes Pantera (c. 22 BC – AD 40) was a Roman solder whose tombstone was found in Bingerbrück, Germany in 1859.
Historically, the name Pantera is not an unusual name and had been in use among Roman soldiers in the second century.[1][2]

A historical connection from this soldier to Jesus of Nazareth has been hypothesized, based on the claim of the ancient Roman philosopher Celsus that Jesus's real father was a Roman soldier named Pantera.[3] Tiberius Pantera could have been serving in the region at the time of Jesus's conception.[3] The hypothesis is considered extremely unlikely by scholars, given that there is no evidence to support it.[4][2]

 

[Dream]

Jews hated Romans, Dream. That's why they raised the Bar Cochba War. And I wonder what you mean by being first provoked to go to war. The Jews had been provoked for the many years that the Romans were occupying our Land. And you say that the Jews picked fights for no reason!!! What are you talking about? If to occupy our Land, and to rape our young women was not enough reason to raise a war, I don't know what a better reason for war could be.

I meant to imply that the fighting was due to provocations. I just did not want to accept what you were saying about hating them, but I'll accept that they did hate the Romans who were continually very cruel to them.

Alright then. I have detoured from what the thread was about.

 

[Ben Masada]

I meant to imply that the fighting was due to provocations. I just did not want to accept what you were saying about hating them, but I'll accept that they did hate the Romans who were continually very cruel to them.

Alright then. I have detoured from what the thread was about.

No harm done. Mine is just a human way to show how impossible it is to love one's enemy.
Ben

 

[rangerzfan]

The Alleged Sons of God

According to an ancient Roman policy, any able-bodied man from the conquered lands, who joined the Roman Army, would obtain authomatic citizenship. And if he was lucky enough to reach retirement age, he could choose where he would like to spend the rest of his life, and he would be granted a piece of land or farm as severance pay for his services to the Empire. Rome excluded.

When the Roman Legions arrived in the Middle East and conquered Sidon, a man called Pantera applied to join the Army and was accepted. Then, he was conscripted into the Roman Legion which got stationed in Syria. When he reached retirement age, he chose to return to Sidon and got his farm there to live for the rest of his life.

According to Josephus, in the year 4 BCE, there was a local revolt in Israel against Herod. It became known as the Revolt of the Pharisees. It was so strong that it was threatening to depose him. Herod appealed to Rome for help and Caesar gave orders to the Legion stationed in Syria to cross over into Israel and put down the revolt.

Thousands of Roman soldiers came over and the task was quite easy. They crucified a few thousand Jews, and decided to stay for some time to make sure the discontent were subdued. In the meantime, the Roman soldiers would rape young Jewish ladies almost daily.

As it was to expect, many children were born as a result of those rapes. Since the unfortunate mothers were not to blame for promiscuity, the religious authorities forbade to ostracize them or to consider their children as mamzerim or ba$tards. But they grew up with the epithet of "sons of God." (Lecture on the "Historical Jesus" at Stanphord University)

Since Jesus was born just about that time, I am of the opinion that's much more prudent and less embarrassing to acknowledge that he was a biological son of Joseph's than to run the risk that Jesus might have been one of those sons of God.

Now, regarding Mark 7:24, I have here with me two different Bible translations. One is the Catholic New American version of the Bible wherefrom I read that when Jesus went to Sidon, he would retire into a certain house and wanted no one to recognize him in there. The other translation is the King James version, wherefrom I read that when Jesus went to Sidon, he would enter into a certain house and would have no man know it.

Although I am not assuming anything, everyone of us has all the right in the world to speculate about such a shouting evidence and to think that there was something fishy going on for Jesus to insist on secrecy about his being in Sidon or in that certain house. At that time Joseph had been long dead. Could it be that jesus knew about his real origins and was interacting with his real father? Everything is possible, but if you ask me, I am still in favour that he was rather a biological son of
Joseph's.

What's your reaction to all the above?

Ben:

A couple of things......first of all, I see a contradiction. Wasn't Joseph a Jew? You speculated that Jesus might have been born from a Roman soldier who raped Mary while the soldiers were in Israel making sure everything was under control. This means that you were saying that Joseph wasn't his biological father, although you state at the end that you believe he is.

Second, if Jesus had merely been born from a Roman man like several of these other children, then why did Herod consider him a threat and want Him dead?

If all of these children supposedly born during this time were referred to as "sons of God", then how come more of them did not eventually claim to be The Son of God, or have others refer to them as so?

Can one really dismiss a claim of Jesus Christ based on speculation of one verse?

 

[Dream]

A couple of things......first of all, I see a contradiction. Wasn't Joseph a Jew? You speculated that Jesus might have been born from a Roman soldier who raped Mary while the soldiers were in Israel making sure everything was under control. This means that you were saying that Joseph wasn't his biological father, although you state at the end that you believe he is.

Hi rangerzfan. Welcome if you are new, and feel free to stick around. Be sure to visit the lounge and also to put up an introduction thread there.

Second, if Jesus had merely been born from a Roman man like several of these other children, then why did Herod consider him a threat and want Him dead?

First, it is an unusual discussion. Most conversations in this particular forum assume Paul is truthful. All of the discussion you refer to begins on the axiom that Paul invented Christianity, so then the particular objection about Herod doesn't apply. If Paul invents so much of it, then the threat of Herod could just be part of the story that was corrupted by Paul. Josephus becomes the most reliable witness in that case. Not all the NT is all up in the air with this model, but a lot of it is. If something goes against halacha, it gets excluded as a corruption but even that which is included is under suspicion.

If all of these children supposedly born during this time were referred to as "sons of God", then how come more of them did not eventually claim to be The Son of God, or have others refer to them as so?

Caring for orphans is central to keeping the law, and these orphans would have been brought up knowing the law. Merely not ostracizing them would not of itself show zeal for keeping the law. The title has to do with zeal, and it seems likely what would have happened. One of these children would be accepted in their community and also marriageable. The title probably also implies some public welfare rights, and I'd speculate maybe even free stuff such as what a father would normally provide. Helping a son of God would have been a high-grade form of good works, and these kids probably got free food, animals, land, letters of recommendation and education.

Can one really dismiss a claim of Jesus Christ based on speculation of one verse?

It is an entirely different way of looking at all of the verses, so yours is a question outside of the subject.

 

[rangerzfan]

Hi rangerzfan. Welcome if you are new, and feel free to stick around. Be sure to visit the lounge and also to put up an introduction thread there.

First, it is an unusual discussion. Most conversations in this particular forum assume Paul is truthful. All of the discussion you refer to begins on the axiom that Paul invented Christianity, so then the particular objection about Herod doesn't apply. If Paul invents so much of it, then the threat of Herod could just be part of the story that was corrupted by Paul. Josephus becomes the most reliable witness in that case. Not all the NT is all up in the air with this model, but a lot of it is. If something goes against halacha, it gets excluded as a corruption but even that which is included is under suspicion.

Caring for orphans is central to keeping the law, and these orphans would have been brought up knowing the law. Merely not ostracizing them would not of itself show zeal for keeping the law. The title has to do with zeal, and it seems likely what would have happened. One of these children would be accepted in their community and also marriageable. The title probably also implies some public welfare rights, and I'd speculate maybe even free stuff such as what a father would normally provide. Helping a son of God would have been a high-grade form of good works, and these kids probably got free food, animals, land, letters of recommendation and education.
It is an entirely different way of looking at all of the verses, so yours is a question outside of the subject.

I appreciate your feedback, and thanks for the welcome! I'll be sure to update my profile when I get a chance. It is very clear that neither Paul nor the Jews of the 2nd or 3rd centuries "invented" Christianity. The Apostles, i.e. Peter and John, as well as many others were following Jesus and preaching the gospel before Paul was converted. If I invented a religion in which I knew the historical claims were false, I would not leave my job or way of life because of it, and I certainly wouldn't die for it.

What historical evidence do you have that Jesus came from this group of children born from Roman soldiers?

And do understand....I respect and value everyone's opinions, and by no means desire to make anything more than a friendly argument. I do feel, though, that to adhere to any other possibility than accepting Him as the Son of God is to deny who He claimed to be.