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

[Brainache]

Wasn't it Herod Antipas who's life bridged both John the Baptist and Jesus' careers?
Wasn't JtB in Jerusalem when he was arrested by Herod?

I'm not so sure right now about Antipas, Agrippa I, Agrippa II and whoever else was controlling which area when. It is pretty complicated, the boundaries keep shifting back and forth and the titles keep changing.


I think JTB was famous for not going to Jerusalem and staying out in "The Wilderness" to "Prepare The Way". So I'm not sure why you think he was in Jerusalem, I haven't heard that he was.

 

[JaysonR]

Pakeha,

Yes, Antipas succeeded Herod the Great after HtG's death in 4 BCE and is credited as the ruler who crosses both figures in the accounts (curious story ending of Herod's death which permits Jesus' family to move back, however, would mean this figure was at least born no later than 6 or 7 BCE - I'm not claiming the event took place, just that the Matthew text would cause the alignment of their story to beginning no later than around these dates).

 

[Brainache]

Pakeha,

Yes, Antipas succeeded Herod the Great after HtG's death in 4 BCE and is credited as the ruler who crosses both figures in the accounts (curious story ending of Herod's death which permits Jesus' family to move back, however, would mean this figure was at least born no later than 6 or 7 BCE - I'm not claiming the event took place, just that the Matthew text would cause the alignment of their story to beginning no later than around these dates).

IIRC doesn't Luke's version put the date as 4 CE for the birth of Jesus?

Of course my Favourite Historian says this is because Luke associates the birth of Jesus with the birth of Judas The Galilean's Zealot Movement.

 

[pakeha]

I'm not so sure right now about Antipas, Agrippa I, Agrippa II and whoever else was controlling which area when. It is pretty complicated, the boundaries keep shifting back and forth and the titles keep changing.


I think JTB was famous for not going to Jerusalem and staying out in "The Wilderness" to "Prepare The Way". So I'm not sure why you think he was in Jerusalem, I haven't heard that he was.

Because of this passage from Mark.
Mark 6:17-29

New International Version (NIV)

17 For Herod himself had given orders to have John arrested, and he had him bound and put in prison. He did this because of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, whom he had married. 18 For John had been saying to Herod, “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.” 19 So Herodias nursed a grudge against John and wanted to kill him. But she was not able to, 20 because Herod feared John and protected him, knowing him to be a righteous and holy man. When Herod heard John, he was greatly puzzled[a]; yet he liked to listen to him .

I had trouble thinking Herod Antipater went to the wilderness to listen to JtB.
Meh.
I'm a non-expert, though, and would be glad to be corrected.

 

[Brainache]

Because of this passage from Mark.
Mark 6:17-29

New International Version (NIV)

17 For Herod himself had given orders to have John arrested, and he had him bound and put in prison. He did this because of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, whom he had married. 18 For John had been saying to Herod, “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.” 19 So Herodias nursed a grudge against John and wanted to kill him. But she was not able to, 20 because Herod feared John and protected him, knowing him to be a righteous and holy man. When Herod heard John, he was greatly puzzled[a]; yet he liked to listen to him .

I had trouble thinking Herod Antipater went to the wilderness to listen to JtB.
Meh.
I'm a non-expert, though, and would be glad to be corrected.

I was just going by Josephus. I'm not sure how seriously to take gMark when he says that Herod liked to hear JTB speak. JTB was predicting the Downfall of Herod and Rome and their replacement by a Heavenly Kingdom (or whatever), not the kind of thing that Kings generally like to hear.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/antiquities-jews/book-18/chapter-5.html

2. Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him.

Re the bold: The people went to John. John didn't go to the city, they came out to him.

The people were "greatly moved" by his words, not Herod (except that he was moved to chop John's head off).

John was teaching crowds of people for a while about "Salvation", whereas, it looks to me like Jesus may have been responsible for a one-off disturbance in the Temple for which he was promptly arrested. He hadn't been leader for very long and may not have been as popular as John, yet.

IMO as usual, of course.

 

[pakeha]

But the bolded bit doesn't exclude JtB being in Jerusalem, does it?
Where else are you going to get great crowds?

In any case, it's all speculation, of course.
We're gearing up for the gran finale of the Christmas season- Twelfth Night.
I'm not entirely certain I'll make it over the finish line, myself. I think I've passed the point of no-return with the champagne...

 

[Brainache]

But the bolded bit doesn't exclude JtB being in Jerusalem, does it?
Where else are you going to get great crowds?

In any case, it's all speculation, of course.
We're gearing up for the gran finale of the Christmas season- Twelfth Night.
I'm not entirely certain I'll make it over the finish line, myself. I think I've passed the point of no-return with the champagne...

See what religion will do to a man?

'Tis the work of the Devil, I tell ye!

ETA: JTB as far as I can tell, was some kind of "Nazarite"(Nazarene, Nazorean, whatever, they all come from the same root meaning "to separate or put apart") preacher who shunned the trappings of "civilisation", much like the Cynics in Greece like Diogenes. One of their main tenets of belief was "separation of the pure from the impure", like modern Hassidim separating the "meat from the milk" except taken to even more extreme lengths.

JTB dressed in natural fibre, was vegetarian and abstained from all "impure activities" (and there were a lot of those). He stayed away from the cities, his whole mission was about seeking purity in the wilderness and shunning the corruption of the world.

 

[JaysonR]

IIRC doesn't Luke's version put the date as 4 CE for the birth of Jesus?

Of course my Favourite Historian says this is because Luke associates the birth of Jesus with the birth of Judas The Galilean's Zealot Movement.

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.

 

[pakeha]

Yet allowing great crowds to form about him and conversing with Herod Antipater?
Plus his disciples.

I'm not getting a clear picture at all.
What's your source for JtB shunning the cities?

Anyway, here's a detail about Herod Antipater's relation to Jesus
Luke 23:6-9


6 On hearing this, Pilate asked if the man was a Galilean. 7 When he learned that Jesus was under Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who was also in Jerusalem at that time.

8 When Herod saw Jesus, he was greatly pleased, because for a long time he had been wanting to see him. From what he had heard about him, he hoped to see him perform a sign of some sort. 9 He plied him with many questions, but Jesus gave him no answer.

 

[JaysonR]

But the bolded bit doesn't exclude JtB being in Jerusalem, does it?
Where else are you going to get great crowds?

In any case, it's all speculation, of course.
We're gearing up for the gran finale of the Christmas season- Twelfth Night.
I'm not entirely certain I'll make it over the finish line, myself. I think I've passed the point of no-return with the champagne...

Large crowds would very unlikely travel out to the wilderness in 1st c CE Judah or surrounding areas.
Crime on travel was regular, wild animals were a real likely threat.
Traveling from Galilee to Judah, for instance, was not a simple task and people didn't just wander out over to Jordan for a good day of preaching.

Most likely, if there were such figures akin to John, then they would travel to areas where people were gathering in general and talking (similar to how the figure of Jesus wanders to the Lake of Galilee and starts talking).

If people were at the Jordan river doing daily work of gathering water (Jordan supplied almost half of Judah's fresh water supply), and a figure was going on at length, then people would probably gather around them throughout the day at the river.

But it's not like folks would go out to John like John was a Burning Man weekend.

 

[dejudge]

Thanks all, firstly.


There isn't a tradition of son of god outside of Kings, and that was bestowed on them by some official procession.

Some guy walks in and says god just named him son, with blessed rights as the anointed son of god; that would turn a few heads since the high priest did not say god said that and he's the expert. So Sanhedrin (congress) is accounted as charging blasphemy (treason) because they had laws against claiming such rights of equal authority of god (sons gain all fathers authority) when they haven't been vetted yet, and are fairly unknown to the priesthood family lines.

Sonship was a very common tradition, but not son of god sonship; that was for the leading elite.

There was a tradition of Sons of God [heavenly beings] in Jewish culture. In fact, the story of the Flood was due to women having sexual intercource with Sons of God in Genesis.

So from the very start the Son of God was NOT a Title but refered to non-human characters who were not born of men.

Sons of God [heavenly beings] and Satan did actually exist based on Hebrew Scripture.


Genesis 6

And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose . 3 And the LORD said , My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh : yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown...

Job 1:6 KJV

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

Job 2:1 KJV

Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.

 

[JaysonR]

Yes, I should have probably clarified that point in the original presentation back when I went over the theocratic veneration of Kings within the Canaanite religious lands, but those segments which you are highlighting are the segments of the Hebrew religion which still show residue of the older Canaanite religion which had an entire pantheon, of which El was the chief Father god of.

In the old form, as sampled in the Ugarit tales, the sons of El (Birthed from El and Asherah) slept with the daughters of man and gave birth to the leaders of men; their Kings, and from this line all lines thereafter were to be bestowed as a son of god (El) when taking up the station of King.

When I stated that there was not a tradition of Sons of God outside of Kings, this was an included aspect of my meaning, as those sections are the means by which the old Canaanite based city-states most often accounted for the divine rightness of their various Kings, but by the era of these texts entry into the Hebrew text (or at least the copies in which we have received), the retractions of the Canaanite legends of the pantheon had been scattered fairly heavily.

 

[Craig B]

There was a tradition of Sons of God [heavenly beings] in Jewish culture. In fact, the story of the Flood was due to women having sexual intercource with Sons of God in Genesis.

So from the very start the Son of God was NOT a Title but refered to non-human characters who were not born of men.

Therefore it couldn't have been a title? I've shown that God called David and Solomon by this designation. They were therefore nephilim according to you? What nonsense is this? It is exactly the same argument you use elsewhere: the gospels have incidents in which Jesus displays superhuman powers; therefore the gospels never say Jesus was a human being. This new version of the argument is equally silly. The physical parentage of David and Solomon is noted in the Scriptures and is depicted as purely human and natural. They are not nephilim, yet God calls them his sons. Therefore it was a title, even though there is another usage in earlier texts referring to physical descent from God; the more primitive earlier ideas about God before the development of monotheism among the Israelites.

 

[dejudge]

In the book of Genesis and Job there are mythological characters called Sons of God so whether you have forgotten to mention them or not we know that Sons of God was NOT a Title.

From the writings of Philo and Josephus there is no known Jew or no known tradition where Jews were given the Title of the Son of God. It is known that there was a title called the CHRIST [the Anointed] given to Kings and High Priest.

In fact, in Philo, it is claimed that the world is a YOUNGER of Son of God.

Philo's ON THE UNCHANGABLENESS OF GOD

But God is the creator of time also; for he is the father of its father, and the father of time is the world, which made its own mother the creation of time, so that time stands towards God in the relation of a grandson; for this world is a younger son of God, inasmuch as it is perceptible by the outward sense; for the only son he speaks of as older than the world, is idea, 11 and this is not perceptible by the intellect; but having thought the other worthy of the rights of primogeniture, he has decided that it shall remain with him .......

The Son of God was NOT an honorific title based on Philo the Jew but was the Logos.

It is hardly likely that Jews would called themselves the Logos, the Creator.

 

[JaysonR]

Dejudge, did you ignore the rest of my post as to how that became a title, and did you read the opening post at all?

 

[pakeha]

Large crowds would very unlikely travel out to the wilderness in 1st c CE Judah or surrounding areas.
Crime on travel was regular, wild animals were a real likely threat.
Traveling from Galilee to Judah, for instance, was not a simple task and people didn't just wander out over to Jordan for a good day of preaching.

Most likely, if there were such figures akin to John, then they would travel to areas where people were gathering in general and talking (similar to how the figure of Jesus wanders to the Lake of Galilee and starts talking).

If people were at the Jordan river doing daily work of gathering water (Jordan supplied almost half of Judah's fresh water supply), and a figure was going on at length, then people would probably gather around them throughout the day at the river.

But it's not like folks would go out to John like John was a Burning Man weekend.

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

...In the old form, as sampled in the Ugarit tales, the sons of El (Birthed from El and Asherah) slept with the daughters of man and gave birth to the leaders of men; their Kings, and from this line all lines thereafter were to be bestowed as a son of god (El) when taking up the station of King.

When I stated that there was not a tradition of Sons of God outside of Kings, this was an included aspect of my meaning, as those sections are the means by which the old Canaanite based city-states most often accounted for the divine rightness of their various Kings, but by the era of these texts entry into the Hebrew text (or at least the copies in which we have received), the retractions of the Canaanite legends of the pantheon had been scattered fairly heavily.

Thanks for your thoughts on the title.
This lineage of the Son of God title parallels my own idea that the Jesus story is best compared to tales of semi-divine heroes, rather than dying and rising divinities.

...The physical parentage of David and Solomon is noted in the Scriptures and is depicted as purely human and natural. They are not nephilim, yet God calls them his sons. Therefore it was a title, even though there is another usage in earlier texts referring to physical descent from God; the more primitive earlier ideas about God before the development of monotheism among the Israelites.

Yes, it seems clear the Son of God title derives from Urgarit's past. To be sure, there's nothing new under the sun.

 

[dejudge]

Dejudge, did you ignore the rest of my post as to how that became a title, and did you read the opening post at all?

You are ignoring the evidence of the vast amount of mythology in Jewish, Greek and Roman mythology.

I cannot find any evidence at all that the son of God was an honorific title in any Jewish writings.

How in the world could I be ignoring your post when I am exposing your errors?

You failed to acknowledge that there was a tradition in Jewish culture that it was believed that God had Multiple Sons in heaven.

But, now Philo again will expose your errors.

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.

 

[JaysonR]

Did you read the opening post, Dejudge?

 

[dejudge]

Did you read the opening post, Dejudge?

I addressing your post in this thread.

Did you not claim the Son of God was an honorific title?

It is NOT based on Jewish writings.

Son of God refers to non-human entities in Jewish Myth.

 

[Brainache]

I addressing your post in this thread.

Did you not claim the Son of God was an honorific title?

It is NOT based on Jewish writings.

Son of God refers to non-human entities in Jewish Myth.

So that would be a no, then.