The Five Venerated Titles Attributed Upon Jesus & their Idiomatic Culture -for Pakeha

[JaysonR]

I already addressed that point, and have showed a rather exhaustive link that culturally exists regarding the term.

That El's children were called such was the basis for the entire tradition in Canaanite cultures, which was discussed in the opening post; I simply clarified when you asked that such segments were the Tanakh.
I should have referenced those segments in the original post, but it was a rather small oversight, as there is an entire section on that very topic within the opening post.

I strongly hope you will keep yourself regulated within this thread, as I would really not appreciate similar treatment and behavior as elsewhere repeated here.

 

[Craig B]

Up to the time of Philo, he knew of no-one who was called the Son of God as an honorific title.

Philo's ON THE UNCHANGABLENESS OF GOD

And even if there be not as yet any one who is worthy to be called a son of God, nevertheless let him labour earnestly to be adorned according to his first-born word, the eldest of his angels, as the great archangel of many names; for he is called, the authority, and the name of God, and the Word, and man according to God's image, and he who sees Israel.

So Philo didn't know of the passages naming David and Solomon as sons of God? Most improbable, and it's not what he's saying anyway. He's saying there is only anyone who is worthy to be called a son of God. For both David and Solomon are depicted in the OT as having committed many misdeeds.

 

[pakeha]

That is one of the problems with the reliability of these texts as historical documents; there are conflicting dates to the point that we cannot securely grasp which date range to accurately slide the Jesus figure as being aligned with due to conflicts between the texts.

Luke asserts the birth during a census (decreed by Agustus, which would be the Census of Quirinius), which was 6-7 CE, meanwhile Matthew claims Jesus only returned to Judah after the death of Herod (which would be Herod the Great in 4 BCE).

This topic doesn't get much discussion, however, because most historians just wright off the birth accounts in both as non-historical and leave it at that.

Thanks for the reminder that the gospels fall apart when you try to glean anything historical from them.

Even so, I'm turning over the idea the origins of the church are in the ignorant misinterpretation of an ancient title by gullible gentiles.
And Paul's ghost story, of course.

Sometimes I think Stone is right to centre on those core teachings and resolutely ignore the jive.

Still, once a history junkie, always a history junkie.
Just how did it come about a story was circulated claiming that particular Son of God was crucified, rather than decently beheaded?

 

[JaysonR]

Where would it be most likely Herod Antipater would talk with JtB?

That is hard to tell.
Wherever such figures went (Kings), they had provisional working quarters of some form available, so we cannot conclude much about geography from the meeting just by them meeting.

 

[JaysonR]

Thanks for the reminder that the gospels fall apart when you try to glean anything historical from them.

Even so, I'm turning over the idea the origins of the church are in the ignorant misinterpretation of an ancient title by gullible gentiles.
And Paul's ghost story, of course.

Sometimes I think Stone is right to centre on those core teachings and resolutely ignore the jive.

Still, once a history junkie, always a history junkie.
Just how did it come about a story was circulated claiming that particular Son of God was crucified, rather than decently beheaded?

I actually think the Pauline texts did an amazing job converting the philosophical ideas into Gentile constructs capable of sense.
In the past I have detailed this, but that thread is long buried.
If you would like, I could go into that a bit, but I would hazard too much detail as it can easily merit its own entire thread in discussion.

The part of how it got all built up to the Orthodox understanding is pretty interesting; separate, but interesting.
Let's not forget that there were a few hundred years of heated debates among many early representing bodies of different versions of Chistian that took place before we got from Paul to Nicene Creed.

 

[pakeha]

I actually think the Pauline texts did an amazing job converting the philosophical ideas into Gentile constructs capable of sense.
In the past I have detailed this, but that thread is long buried.
If you would like, I could go into that a bit, but I would hazard too much detail as it can easily merit its own entire thread in discussion. ...

I quite agree with you there about Paul.
I'll just look up the thread, for now, JaysonR.
This one?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=258245

 

[JaysonR]

Yep, that is the thread.
Off hand I don't recall which pages I covered it on.

 

[pakeha]

No worries.
Off to read.

 

[pakeha]

That is hard to tell.
Wherever such figures went (Kings), they had provisional working quarters of some form available, so we cannot conclude much about geography from the meeting just by them meeting.

Very true.
I'm prolly unduly influenced by Richard Strauss' opera Salome.