DBWI: Jesus?

During this time, I believe, "Son of God" was more of a reference to a very righteous man (think in the Stoic sense of a Sapien), and not a literal son of God as in a demi-god. I can't see the later sense having played well with Judaism's weird concept of Monotheism.

In my studying of the Iudean texts, the term son of man seemed to be a term that generally referred to the human race or to a mortal being. However, there is an old book known as the Book of Enoch (claimed to be written by some ancient holy man of sorts) where the term is used of a figure who would one day
be worshipped as a god and mete out judgment against the nations or something along those lines. Maybe this Jesus was trying to identify himself with this particular character.
 
In my studying of the Iudean texts, the term son of man seemed to be a term that generally referred to the human race or to a mortal being. However, there is an old book known as the Book of Enoch (claimed to be written by some ancient holy man of sorts) where the term is used of a figure who would one day
be worshipped as a god and mete out judgment against the nations or something along those lines. Maybe this Jesus was trying to identify himself with this particular character.

Possibly; but how well read was the Book of Enoch at the time, I wonder?
 
Possibly; but how well read was the Book of Enoch at the time, I wonder?

It seems that it was quite popular amongst the people at the time, although the religious hierarchy did not consider it to be a canonical book due to the fact it depicted that angels could rebel against Yahweh.
 
It seems that it was quite popular amongst the people at the time, although the religious hierarchy did not consider it to be a canonical book due to the fact it depicted that angels could rebel against Yahweh.

It would seem that we are both researching from the same source; Volkpedia, since I just read the same thing. :)

I did notice the book is still considered canon by certain Arabic and Ethopian Judaic communities, which is interesting.

Still, and this goes back to the whole problem of such figures; I wonder if Yeshua actually used the term "Son of Man" for himself. We don't have any documents of his words in his own hand, and the smatterings which have survived were all quoted by his enemies amongst the Pharasies and Baptists within the Judaian community. A few quotes seem legit; especially some of the more dramatic stuff (abandon your family, let the dead bury their own, and so forth), but it could be that this Son of Man thing just got added later.
 
During this time, I believe, "Son of God" was more of a reference to a very righteous man (think in the Stoic sense of a Sapien), and not a literal son of God as in a demi-god. I can't see the later sense having played well with Judaism's weird concept of Monotheism.

I think he was trying to introduce aspects of the True Faith into Judaism - things like deification. He was claiming to be a god, just like the deified Caesar and the deified Augustus.
 
During this time, I believe, "Son of God" was more of a reference to a very righteous man (think in the Stoic sense of a Sapien), and not a literal son of God as in a demi-god. I can't see the later sense having played well with Judaism's weird concept of Monotheism

I think he was trying to introduce aspects of the True Faith into Judaism - things like deification. He was claiming to be a god, just like the deified Caesar and the deified Augustus.

Isn't there some disagreement over the use of "son of God" amongst Judaic scholars? The phrase is used in the first section of the Tanakh, describing the parentage of a race of giants. I've heard of various interpretations of this phrase: that the "sons of God" were the sons of nobles, that they were righteous men, or that they were even the divine messengers of the Jewish God (which I've never been able to adequately differentiate from the messenger Gods of the true faith: if they're supernatural beings of more than mortal power, aren't they Gods too? Mercury and Iris aren't less than Gods just because they are messengers, they're just Gods of a lower rank :confused: but I digress). One or all of these interpretations may have been implied by the use of that phrase by Yeshua. He may have been claiming to be a long lost descendant of one of their Kings, or a very righteous man, or even a "angel" in human form.

Perhaps the phrase "son of God" had a more commonly understood meaning in that time and culture, but the context has simply been lost.
 
Last edited:
Isn't there some disagreement over the use of "son of God" amongst Judaic scholars? The phrase is used in the first section of the Tanakh, describing the parentage of a race of giants. I've heard of various interpretations of this phrase: that the "sons of God" were the sons of nobles, that they were righteous men, or that they were even the divine messengers of the Jewish God (which I've never been able to adequately differentiate from the messenger Gods of the true faith: if they're supernatural beings of more than mortal power, aren't they Gods too? Mercury and Iris aren't less than Gods just because they are messengers, they're just Gods of a lower rank :confused: but I digress). One or all of these interpretations may have been implied by the use of that phrase by Yeshua. He may have been claiming to be a long lost descendant of one of their Kings, or a very righteous man, or even a "angel" in human form.

Perhaps the phrase "son of God" had a more commonly understood meaning in that time and culture, but the context has simply been lost.

No, see, that is exactly what I'm saying. The term "Son of God" only meant one who was righteous and might be seen in the same way that Stoic philosophy meant "one who is enlightened" aka "sapien" and did not mean that the figure believed himself to be a literal son of God. I mean, I'm a follower of Lugh and the Dagdah, but I've done a lot of scholarly reading into Judaism, and it just make sense that a follower of that faith would NEVER claim to be a literal 'son of god'; it violates every conceit of that faith.
 
Maybe we could have Yeshua be martyred somehow by the Romans (or even the ruling class of Judea ... they were never nervous about appearing anything but loyal to Rome during this period). After all, being martyred is what gave John the Baptist such a lasting reputation, and one of the reasons that the Baptists are STILL one of the biggest sects of Judaism to this day.

If Yeshua was martyred by the Romans, would there still be schisms in Judaism?

There is a reason why the original sect of Judaism (temple Judaism) never spread beyond the Empire of Judea and Samaria. John the Baptist preached against the money changers conducting business in the Temple (this is why emphasis on charity to the poor contributed to the growth of Baptist Judaism). Let's not forget that the spread of the faith in Arabia, Parthia and Babylon was due to the efforts of that famous Arabian merchant named Mahomet. His zealous followers were responsible for burning Mecca to the ground. To this day, the kaaba is the only thing left in Mecca.

Then, of course there is another sect of Judaism which claims that Yeshua was the reincarnation of the prophet Elijah (and like Elijah, escaped the Romans by riding a chariot to heaven). You probably have heard about the Eliasts. Their sect is so blasphemous that the punishment is death by stoning in Judea and Samaria if anyone is caught in possession of the Book of Elijah.
 

Sulemain

Banned
Well, it does sound all rather far-fetched, but I'm a Byzantine polytheist who's favourite Goddess sprung from the head of her father, so, you know :) .

OOC: Assuming the Roman Empire never fell, or at least, not to same extent.
 
Top