The Alleged Sons of God

[rangerzfan]

And another question....why would the Jews invent a religion that made them out to be the bad guys by rejecting its leader?

 

[Dream]

And another question....why would the Jews invent a religion that made them out to be the bad guys by rejecting its leader?

No idea, but I don't think that. Inventing religions and history was a Roman tendency. Some educated people feel very strongly that Paul invented Christianity, so that has considerable weight. Romans were crazy about religion. They just loved it and also history, so it wouldn't take anyone special to start one. The Romans would embrace whatever history was convenient (see introduction to Livy) as they thought of history as more of a teaching tool than a factual account. Rome by 0CE had already two or three histories partly borrowed from other countries! I suspect they would 'Kill' for it, to swallow up other cultures and assimilate their strengths. I'm no historian, and its a speculation but that seems to be what the glory of Rome was about.

 

[Dream]

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

I have not looked at any evidence but just was following the argument given in the opening post.

 

[bananabrain]

A mamzer is the son or daughter born out of wedlock.

no, it really isn't. "wedlock" doesn't have anything to do with it; a child is only a "mamzer" if the parents would have been disqualified from marriage by reason of incest or adultery.

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.

i don't think this is correct. the issue of jewish children of rape by non-jews has been unfortunately a fact of history from canaanites to cossacks, but the position of the halakhah is that a) a child of rape cannot be a mamzer; the prohibition of the act is a necessary part of the stigma, so if the mother did not consent, the child cannot be penalised, as well as b) the other opinion that only the child of two jewish parents can be considered a mamzer; you can see what the effect of these checks and balances would be likely to be, particularly as it would end up affecting almost every family otherwise; that the talmud mentions early attempts to address the challenge is hardly surprising.

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.

"sexual compensation" (in other words, the rape bit of "rape and pillage") was a key part of the "benefits package" (urgh) for soldiers throughout history (and, sadly, continues in some parts of the world) - even the Torah has to legislate for this situation and refuses to allow this to go ahead without safeguards and consequences, thus effectively ruling it out as policy and strongly discouraging it, but it's not about that right now. i am not sure that the romans were particularly unusual in this respect except with regard to what the jews of josephus' time (who had had it ruled out, due to the Torah prohibitions).

i believe that geza vermes, in his work on jesus as a jew, in a jewish context, points out that "son of man" has, in certain cases, a contemporary idiomatic ring something like saying "muggins here", referring to oneself in a self-deprecatory fashion; it sounds to me like "sons of G!D" might have a similar feel to it, but i'd need better authority than josephus, who was always very careful not to upset the romans, who after all paid his wages.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[radarmark]

This is an interfaith forum and this is a Christian thread. Let us remember how inclusive our community is... from the first church (Armenian) or Oriental Orthodox, to Ethiopean, to Coptic, to JW, SDA, UU, and Quakers.

Not all who call themselves Christians believe in the literal word of the NT (and some even have very different versions). Not all are Trinitarians. Not all believe the Christ to be the one and only Son of G!d.

BTW, "Sons of G!d" per Ben's initial posting is from that (his tradition), while I cannot cite the specific source (and the Talmud is many thousands of pages) I a pretty sure if one looked for it on Google Scholar, one would find it. Halakha has declared children due to rape legitimate. On the other hand (besides the NT) there is not much proof of Christianity before 140. So it is possible (and no evidence exists to the contrary, except textual analysis of the NT) that the entire NT is strictly mythological (I do not hold this extreme view or the extreme view of inerrancy).

 

[Ben Masada]

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.

Yes, Joseph was a Jew; but the Christian (NT) claim is that Joseph was not Jesus' biological father. So, Christianity is to blame for the rising of the idea that Jesus was the son of a Roman soldier.

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?

According to whom, to the Hellenist who wrote the gospel of Matthew? The one who wrote the book of Luke, does not agree with him. In fact, there is a big contradiction between them on this issue.

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?

Please, Rangerzfan, this question is not too good for your credibility. Did you want the NT to speak about other "sons of God?" Imagine what that would mean for Jesus, who is spoken as son of God only in the NT.

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

Jesus never, in his 33 years of life claimed to have been the son of God. He was a Jewish man, whose Faith was Judaism. He knew that there is no such thing as a Greek demigod in Judaism. The idea was fabricated by Paul
and disseminated by hif former disciples, the writers of the gospels.

Ben

 

[Dream]

This is an interfaith forum and this is a Christian thread. Let us remember how inclusive our community is... from the first church (Armenian) or Oriental Orthodox, to Ethiopean, to Coptic, to JW, SDA, UU, and Quakers.

True it is, although its usually not an easy place for JW, SDA and UU. They often become prolific but not talkative. They need a higher walled garden than some others.

 

[radarmark]

That was not really the point (sorry). But that a lot of those who define themselves as Christians are neither literalists, trinitarians nor incarnatists... one does not have to believe in the inerrancy of the Scripture, the literal word of the Scripture, the Trinity, Christ as G!d, nor even Jesus as S!n of G!d to consider oneself a Christian. In what sense? That Jesus was someone mortal, to be emulated, to learn from. Or that Spiritually (not literally or materially or emotionally or mentally) Chr!st Jesus is the L!gos, a template G!d gave us who lives and breathes eternally.

Sorry I was not clearer.

 

[Servetus]

... (Lecture on the "Historical Jesus" at Stanphord University) ...

What's your reaction to all the above?

My reaction is this: it sounds as though I missed an interesting -if, by definition, fanciful- lecture at Stanford on the Sefer Toledot Yeshu.

 

[Servetus]

... According to Josephus, in the year 4 BCE, there was a local revolt in Israel against Herod ...

... I [Ben Masada] 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 ...

... What's your reaction to all the above?

I’ve had another reaction. Now that you mention it, I think it equally embarrassing to consider Jesus the product of either a raping Roman soldier or (a presumably better behaved) Joseph. If I were given to speculation, I should think it rather more likely that, given that Josephus also records this about the sotah, Jesus was miraculously born in this manner, to Mary, a woman wrongly accused (but ultimately, as her pregnancy proved, exonerated) of adultery:

"But if any one suspect that his wife has been guilty of adultery, he was to bring a tenth deal of barley flour; they then cast one handful to God and gave the rest of it to the priests for food. One of the priests set the woman at the gates that are turned towards the temple, and took the veil from her head, and wrote the name of God on parchment, and enjoined her to swear that she had not at all injured her husband; and to wish that, if she had violated her chastity, her right thigh might be put out of joint; that her belly might swell; and that she might die thus: but that if her husband … had been rashly moved to this suspicion, that she might bear a male child in the tenth month. Now when these oaths were over, the priest wiped the name of God out of the parchment, and wrung the water into a vial. He also took some dust out of the temple, if any happened to be there, and put a little of it into the vial, and gave it her to drink; whereupon the woman, if she were unjustly accused, conceived with child, and brought it to perfection in her womb: but if she had broken her faith of wedlock to her husband, and had sworn falsely before God, she died in a reproachful manner; her thigh fell off from her, and her belly swelled with a dropsy."

 

[Ben Masada]

My reaction is this: it sounds as though I missed an interesting -if, by definition, fanciful- lecture at Stanford on the Sefer Toledot Yeshu.

You are right. It does sound as though you did miss something.
Bwn

 

[Ben Masada]

I’ve had another reaction. Now that you mention it, I think it equally embarrassing to consider Jesus the product of either a raping Roman soldier or (a presumably better behaved) Joseph. If I were given to speculation, I should think it rather more likely that, given that Josephus also records this about the sotah, Jesus was miraculously born in this manner, to Mary, a woman wrongly accused (but ultimately, as her pregnancy proved, exonerated) of adultery:

"But if any one suspect that his wife has been guilty of adultery, he was to bring a tenth deal of barley flour; they then cast one handful to God and gave the rest of it to the priests for food. One of the priests set the woman at the gates that are turned towards the temple, and took the veil from her head, and wrote the name of God on parchment, and enjoined her to swear that she had not at all injured her husband; and to wish that, if she had violated her chastity, her right thigh might be put out of joint; that her belly might swell; and that she might die thus: but that if her husband … had been rashly moved to this suspicion, that she might bear a male child in the tenth month. Now when these oaths were over, the priest wiped the name of God out of the parchment, and wrung the water into a vial. He also took some dust out of the temple, if any happened to be there, and put a little of it into the vial, and gave it her to drink; whereupon the woman, if she were unjustly accused, conceived with child, and brought it to perfection in her womb: but if she had broken her faith of wedlock to her husband, and had sworn falsely before God, she died in a reproachful manner; her thigh fell off from her, and her belly swelled with a dropsy."

The procedure above was to determine if a married woman had committed adultery, and not in the case of a rape. And especially during the Roman occupation of the Land of Israel, when raping of young ladies, married or not, was the order of the day, a law had been legislated that such women should not be ostracized, nor their children regarded as bastards. Then, the term "sons of God" had acquired a new meaning as a result of peer pressure by other youth in the street. Hence it applied more to the boys than to the girls, whose growing up environment was mostly indoors. However, I still defend that Jesus was a biological son of Joseph's rather than the result of a Roman rape.
Ben

 

[Servetus]

The procedure above was to determine if a married woman had committed adultery, and not in the case of a rape.

That is clear enough from reading it. A close reading, however, suggests to me that, by means of the ritual, a woman, under certain conditions, could miraculously –or at least inexplicably- conceive. Imagine that!

And especially during the Roman occupation of the Land of Israel, when raping of young ladies, married or not, was the order of the day, a law had been legislated that such women should not be ostracized, nor their children regarded as bastards.

Did the historian (who spoke at Stanford) mention whether “Jesus ben Panther” was ever held in very high esteem in Israel? Do you have a link to the lecture, by the way? I am interested in its details.

Then, the term "sons of God" had acquired a new meaning as a result of peer pressure by other youth in the street. Hence it applied more to the boys than to the girls, whose growing up environment was mostly indoors.

I don't mean to sound facetious, but I should think that “son of” might also have been an indication that the term referred more to males than to females as well.

However, I still defend that Jesus was a biological son of Joseph's rather than the result of a Roman rape.

I understand. And, with all due respect, I accept neither proposition.

 

[Ben Masada]

That is clear enough from reading it. A close reading, however, suggests to me that, by means of the ritual, a woman, under certain conditions, could miraculously –or at least inexplicably- conceive. Imagine that!

There is nothing that "clear enough." The method used to test if a married woman had committed adultery was to clear the doubt, in case she was trying to escape justice. In case of rape, there was no such doubt.

Did the historian (who spoke at Stanford) mention whether “Jesus ben Panther” was ever held in very high esteem in Israel? Do you have a link to the lecture, by the way? I am interested in its details.

Google "Jesus and Pantera". There is a very nice article on this. More, you could get also from the Talmud. But that is close to impossible, I guess.

I don't mean to sound facetious, but I should think that “son of” might also have been an indication that the term referred more to males than to females as well.

I understand you. They were all to be considered "children of God" but especially boys because of their freedom out in the street.

I understand. And, with all due respect, I accept neither proposition.

You mean... you rather accept the Greek myth that Jesus was a demigod; meaning the son of God with an earthly woman? Too bad because that did not happen. Jesus was Jewish and there is no such thing in Judaism.

Ben

 

[Servetus]

There is nothing that "clear enough." The method used to test if a married woman had committed adultery was to clear the doubt, in case she was trying to escape justice. In case of rape, there was no such doubt.

I do understand the basic purpose of the sotah. That is why I brought it to the discussion. I raise it as an entry, as something in the nature of a proof, that, at least according to Josephus (a source you seem to accept), under certain conditions (such as, for instance, a woman being accused by her husband of adultery) a woman in Israel could miraculously or inexplicably conceive and that she could do this, by the way, without a Greek demi-god being in the vicinity.

Google "Jesus and Pantera". There is a very nice article on this. More, you could get also from the Talmud. But that is close to impossible, I guess.

I wondered if the historian you mentioned drew from the Sefer Toledot Yeshu. I strongly suspect that he did and wanted to confirm my suspicions by checking his sources.

You mean... you rather accept the Greek myth that Jesus was a demigod; meaning the son of God with an earthly woman? Too bad because that did not happen. Jesus was Jewish and there is no such thing in Judaism.

I mean that I accept neither of your two options (Joseph or the Roman). It is as simple as that.

 

[Ben Masada]

I do understand the basic purpose of the sotah. That is why I brought it to the discussion. I raise it as an entry, as something in the nature of a proof, that, at least according to Josephus (a source you seem to accept), under certain conditions (such as, for instance, a woman being accused by her husband of adultery) a woman in Israel could miraculously or inexplicably conceive and that she could do this, by the way, without a Greek demi-god being in the vicinity.

I wondered if the historian you mentioned drew from the Sefer Toledot Yeshu. I strongly suspect that he did and wanted to confirm my suspicions by checking his sources.

I mean that I accept neither of your two options (Joseph or the Roman). It is as simple as that.

There is absolutely no chance a woman would conceive miraculously without a male semen, according to Judaism. You must conciliate yourself with the truth that such a possibility is viable only in Pagan Mythology.

About the options between Joseph or a Roman soldier, you have made nothing "as simple as that" but add a mere verbal juggling. The only option left is not viable. Not in Judaism, I mean. Unless Jesus was not Jewish.
Ben

 

[radarmark]

Servetus is speaking from faith in scripture and tradition, you from faith in reality and science. So it is for us all to look within ourselves and see which we follow. Ther is a third option... Mary could have "fooled around" or "been raped" by someone else. The odds of this alternative are very, very low IMHO.

 

[Servetus]

There is absolutely no chance a woman would conceive miraculously without a male semen, according to Judaism.

Although male semen might be involved, the way I read Josephus, it sounds as though impregnation is caused more by the mysterious liquid the priest gives the woman to drink. Consider: "Now when these oaths were over, the priest wiped the name of God out of the parchment, and wrung the water into a vial. He also took some dust out of the temple, if any happened to be there, and put a little of it into the vial, and gave it her to drink; whereupon the woman, if she were unjustly accused, conceived with child ...

It might be badly translated, but I don't read the bit where the accusing husband takes the woman home to bed. Perhaps it is there, in the text, or at least implied, but I don't see it very clearly stated. Anyway, regardless, if miracles, broadly speaking, are not acceptable in Judaism, what of the parting of the Red Sea?

You must conciliate yourself with the truth that such a possibility is viable only in Pagan Mythology.

I must do no such thing. On the contrary, you must stop being so bossy:

The only option left is not viable. Not in Judaism, I mean. Unless Jesus was not Jewish.

Concerning that latter point, perish the thought. A lot might depend upon whether or not the contentions of the Sefer Toledot Yeshu are true (to wit, that Jesus is the bastard son of the Roman "Panther" and not, please note, a "son of god").

Servetus is speaking from faith in scripture and tradition ...

You are a gem and a peacemaker and thus by definition blessed. I am also having a go at some wild speculation, just to see where it leads, despite the fact that I am not usually much given to it.

 

[Ben Masada]

Servetus is speaking from faith in scripture and tradition, you from faith in reality and science. So it is for us all to look within ourselves and see which we follow. Ther is a third option... Mary could have "fooled around" or "been raped" by someone else. The odds of this alternative are very, very low IMHO.

I am not at all speaking from faith, but on the basis of the concept of probability. And the probabililty is very high that Mary was raped by a Roman soldier, because the evidences are aboundant in leading towards that end, considering that Josephus mentions about this tragic lack of morality among the Roman soldiers in the conquered lands. (Wars of the Jews) I believe rather that Mary could not have fooled around with that intent in mind. She was a woman bethrothed to her husband, which would make of her, as good as a married woman.
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

Although male semen might be involved, the way I read Josephus, it sounds as though impregnation is caused more by the mysterious liquid the priest gives the woman to drink. Consider: "Now when these oaths were over, the priest wiped the name of God out of the parchment, and wrung the water into a vial. He also took some dust out of the temple, if any happened to be there, and put a little of it into the vial, and gave it her to drink; whereupon the woman, if she were unjustly accused, conceived with child ...

The semen here is not the issue. Even if Mary had gone through the test, a woman does not get pregnant by ingesting semen. Besides, that test was made only in case of doubt; and not about paternity but if the woman was trying to hide her act of infidelity. That was not the case with Mary. Then, it was done only on the insistence of the husband, whom the Jewish authorities would advise to forgive his wife. Especially at that time when thousands of women had gone through the same tragedy.

It might be badly translated, but I don't read the bit where the accusing husband takes the woman home to bed. Perhaps it is there, in the text, or at least implied, but I don't see it very clearly stated. Anyway, regardless, if miracles, broadly speaking, are not acceptable in Judaism, what of the parting of the Red Sea?

Oh, there were many cases of husbands taking their wives back, especially with reference to rapes, considering that the wives were not to blame. Although the husbands were not obliged to.

I must do no such thing. On the contrary, you must stop being so bossy.

It is hard to stop being angry when a foreign religion takes upon itself to vandalize the Theology of another by picking up a Jew and making of him a demigod as if Greek Mythology was possible in Judaism.

Concerning that latter point, perish the thought. A lot might depend upon whether or not the contentions of the Sefer Toledot Yeshu are true (to wit, that Jesus is the bastard son of the Roman "Panther" and not, please note, a "son of god").

If you ask me, Jesus was not the bastard son of a Roman soldier, but a biological son of Joseph's. And I give to this view more that 50 percent of probability. Paul decided to make of Jesus a son of God in order to promote his policy of Replacement Theolory.

You are a gem and a peacemaker and thus by definition blessed. I am also having a go at some wild speculation, just to see where it leads, despite the fact that I am not usually much given to it.

I am not too sure about the kind of peacemaker I seem in your sight to be. The opposite could rather be true as I have been charged with inviting antisemitic feelings by charging Christianity with Replacement Theology.

Ben