(Atheist Arguments from History: 1#) Jesus was a political tool

[theoneandonlypencil]

Hello everyone!

I found an interesting instagram page with a person who apparently is very much into studying extra-biblical sources of scripture and pointing out 'contradictions' or misconceptions in the bible. I enjoy picking my brain over these things and wanted to get some input from people who are more knowledgable. I won't be posting the name of the person's account, because I do not wish for them to be bothered or linked to a place they do not want to be linked to.

Here's their argument;
----------
"When we read the gospels knowing their political context-that Caesar's were deified, Jews were divided & occupied with civil unrest, the idea of a political messianic figure as the Jew's own "son of god" makes far more sense."

Caesar’s were often deified and their heir would literally become a “son of the divine” or “son of god.” The Jews did not like this. The Jews opposed to the Hellenization of their culture REALLY didn’t like it. The Christians in turn would reject this completely and make Jesus their own “son of god” as a smack in the face of the Roman idolatry. Religion and politics worked hand in hand with both groups. You could not separate them. It is no wonder then that we find 3/4 gospels being written after the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. They were statements of political indignation as much (if not far more) than they were stories of faith.
.
The more we know of the history of the Bible the more clear the answers become. The question is whether we’re willing to accept the historical truth or believe whatever it is we choose to.
Jesus was a political, messianic figure hoping, like many others in his day, to revolt against the oppression of his people. This is why he was crucified for treason as “the king of the Jews” (one of the very few things the different gospels agree on) and not for claiming to be a god bc being a “son of god” literally meant being like a king- not a literal son of God.

 

[Not David]

Hello everyone!

I found an interesting instagram page with a person who apparently is very much into studying extra-biblical sources of scripture and pointing out 'contradictions' or misconceptions in the bible. I enjoy picking my brain over these things and wanted to get some input from people who are more knowledgable. I won't be posting the name of the person's account, because I do not wish for them to be bothered or linked to a place they do not want to be linked to.

Here's their argument;
----------
"When we read the gospels knowing their political context-that Caesar's were deified, Jews were divided & occupied with civil unrest, the idea of a political messianic figure as the Jew's own "son of god" makes far more sense."

Caesar’s were often deified and their heir would literally become a “son of the divine” or “son of god.” The Jews did not like this. The Jews opposed to the Hellenization of their culture REALLY didn’t like it. The Christians in turn would reject this completely and make Jesus their own “son of god” as a smack in the face of the Roman idolatry. Religion and politics worked hand in hand with both groups. You could not separate them. It is no wonder then that we find 3/4 gospels being written after the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. They were statements of political indignation as much (if not far more) than they were stories of faith.
.
The more we know of the history of the Bible the more clear the answers become. The question is whether we’re willing to accept the historical truth or believe whatever it is we choose to.
Jesus was a political, messianic figure hoping, like many others in his day, to revolt against the oppression of his people. This is why he was crucified for treason as “the king of the Jews” (one of the very few things the different gospels agree on) and not for claiming to be a god bc being a “son of god” literally meant being like a king- not a literal son of God.

Except the part when the High Priest accuses Christ of being the Son of God he doesn't say "oh no a political dissident!" but "he has blasphemed!"

 

[Silmarien]

How odd. The scholarly consensus is that all four of the Gospels were written after the fall of Jerusalem, so I'm not sure how this person would come to the conclusion that one predated it. (I think that everything but John predates it, but potential references to the destruction of the Temple are in all of the Synoptics, so I don't know how someone would come up with the idea that one predates it and the others postdate it. I guess maybe they're taking ranges and saying that Mark might predate it, but that seems to ignore why these dates are tossed out in the first place.)

I don't really see much of an argument here, though. Just an unsubstantiated narrative of what might have happened, declared to be the "historical truth" by its author.

 

[public hermit]

That Caesars were deified is certainly true. But, that in the gospels Jesus is somehow a political messianic figure is a bit of a stretch. The gospels portray quite the opposite. Everybody wanted him to be a political messianic figure and he refused. They wanted to make him king and he slipped away. The only time he's portrayed as king is on the cross. That's an embarrassing detail to include if you're trying to promote him as having been a potential political savior. Political failures don't have gospels written about them. What would be the point?

 

[Sketcher]

Hello everyone!

I found an interesting instagram page with a person who apparently is very much into studying extra-biblical sources of scripture and pointing out 'contradictions' or misconceptions in the bible. I enjoy picking my brain over these things and wanted to get some input from people who are more knowledgable. I won't be posting the name of the person's account, because I do not wish for them to be bothered or linked to a place they do not want to be linked to.

Here's their argument;
----------
"When we read the gospels knowing their political context-that Caesar's were deified, Jews were divided & occupied with civil unrest, the idea of a political messianic figure as the Jew's own "son of god" makes far more sense."

Caesar’s were often deified and their heir would literally become a “son of the divine” or “son of god.” The Jews did not like this. The Jews opposed to the Hellenization of their culture REALLY didn’t like it. The Christians in turn would reject this completely and make Jesus their own “son of god” as a smack in the face of the Roman idolatry. Religion and politics worked hand in hand with both groups. You could not separate them. It is no wonder then that we find 3/4 gospels being written after the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. They were statements of political indignation as much (if not far more) than they were stories of faith.
.
The more we know of the history of the Bible the more clear the answers become. The question is whether we’re willing to accept the historical truth or believe whatever it is we choose to.
Jesus was a political, messianic figure hoping, like many others in his day, to revolt against the oppression of his people. This is why he was crucified for treason as “the king of the Jews” (one of the very few things the different gospels agree on) and not for claiming to be a god bc being a “son of god” literally meant being like a king- not a literal son of God.

Jesus was crucified on political charges that the religious teachers drummed up because they didn't like his religious teaching. If Jesus was meant to have been a political king, he wouldn't have been crucified. He would have taken political power in Judea the way the Jews aspired to during the Great Revolt and the Bar Kokhba Revolt. As it was, he didn't even try to do that, John 6 describes him essentially driving away a crowd that wanted to put a sword in his hand.

 

[Tolworth John]

is no wonder then that we find 3/4 gospels being written after the destruction of Jerusalem and the templ

Where is the evidence of the destruction of the temple in the gospels.

 

[JackRT]

Except the part when the High Priest accuses Christ of being the Son of God he doesn't say "oh no a political dissident!" but "he has blasphemed!"

Messiah means literally "anointed one" and was the common way in which the Jews referred to kings of the dynasty of David. "Anointed" refers of course to the method of investiture of the Jewish kings. It translated into the Greek as "Christos". The Jews regarded themselves as a "theocracy"... a kingdom ruled by God. The Jews also envisaged a (metaphorical) throne room in which there were three thrones. God occupied the central throne. At "the right hand of God" was the throne of the "king messiah" who was the reigning king of the house and family of David. At "the left hand of God" was the throne of the "priest messiah" who was the high priest of the house and family of Zadok. Ideally there were always two messiahs who were known collectively as the "sons of God". All these terms, "messiah", "kingdom of God", "at the right hand of God" and "son of God" were political rather than religious statements. It was a later generation of gentile Christians who re-interpreted these phrases in a very different religious sense. Both before and after the death of Jesus the early Christians, who were, after all, practicing Jews, understood these terms in their traditional sense. Jesus in claiming to be the messiah had not committed any blasphemy... there was no religious crime that the high priest could legitimately charge him with. That is why he went to the Romans to do the job. Jesus was executed as a political dissident not for blasphemy.

 

[Not David]

Messiah means literally "anointed one" and was the common way in which the Jews referred to kings of the dynasty of David. "Anointed" refers of course to the method of investiture of the Jewish kings. It translated into the Greek as "Christos". The Jews regarded themselves as a "theocracy"... a kingdom ruled by God. The Jews also envisaged a (metaphorical) throne room in which there were three thrones. God occupied the central throne. At "the right hand of God" was the throne of the "king messiah" who was the reigning king of the house and family of David. At "the left hand of God" was the throne of the "priest messiah" who was the high priest of the house and family of Zadok. Ideally there were always two messiahs who were known collectively as the "sons of God". All these terms, "messiah", "kingdom of God", "at the right hand of God" and "son of God" were political rather than religious statements. It was a later generation of gentile Christians who re-interpreted these phrases in a very different religious sense. Both before and after the death of Jesus the early Christians, who were, after all, practicing Jews, understood these terms in their traditional sense. Jesus in claiming to be the messiah had not committed any blasphemy... there was no religious crime that the high priest could legitimately charge him with. That is why he went to the Romans to do the job. Jesus was executed as a political dissident not for blasphemy.

Once again, they accused him of blasphemy at their own trial, of course we understand they took Him to the Romans because they could not enforce the death penalty through blasphemy so they accused Him of treason.

You are not refuting anything I said.

 

[redleghunter]

"When we read the gospels knowing their political context-that Caesar's were deified, Jews were divided & occupied with civil unrest, the idea of a political messianic figure as the Jew's own "son of god" makes far more sense."

Well this statement ignores the Hebrew Scriptures written hundreds and thousands of years prior to the Roman occupation.

 

[redleghunter]

The scholarly consensus is that all four of the Gospels were written after the fall of Jerusalem, so I'm not sure how this person would come to the conclusion that one predated it.

Which scholarly consensus is this exactly?

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Hello everyone!

I found an interesting instagram page with a person who apparently is very much into studying extra-biblical sources of scripture and pointing out 'contradictions' or misconceptions in the bible. I enjoy picking my brain over these things and wanted to get some input from people who are more knowledgable. I won't be posting the name of the person's account, because I do not wish for them to be bothered or linked to a place they do not want to be linked to.

Here's their argument;
----------
"When we read the gospels knowing their political context-that Caesar's were deified, Jews were divided & occupied with civil unrest, the idea of a political messianic figure as the Jew's own "son of god" makes far more sense."

Caesar’s were often deified and their heir would literally become a “son of the divine” or “son of god.” The Jews did not like this. The Jews opposed to the Hellenization of their culture REALLY didn’t like it. The Christians in turn would reject this completely and make Jesus their own “son of god” as a smack in the face of the Roman idolatry. Religion and politics worked hand in hand with both groups. You could not separate them. It is no wonder then that we find 3/4 gospels being written after the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. They were statements of political indignation as much (if not far more) than they were stories of faith.
.
The more we know of the history of the Bible the more clear the answers become. The question is whether we’re willing to accept the historical truth or believe whatever it is we choose to.
Jesus was a political, messianic figure hoping, like many others in his day, to revolt against the oppression of his people. This is why he was crucified for treason as “the king of the Jews” (one of the very few things the different gospels agree on) and not for claiming to be a god bc being a “son of god” literally meant being like a king- not a literal son of God.

lol this one is almost funny when you consider the fixation of many athiests with the Logical fallacies of Christians. How is this reason directly related to the conclusion, rather than some kind of sour grapes regarding the conclusion? This could almost be considered something like "Reasoning by virtue of Pavlonian Conditioning" (I assume he/she had a bad experience of Christianity) Jesus as a political tool actually seems more like an argument for relevance that hints at the antiquity of his alleged Origin story.....

 

[Silmarien]

Which scholarly consensus is this exactly?

New Testament biblical scholarship, predominantly moderate and liberal leaning.

I actually disagree with the consensus, but I know where it comes from, and I found it odd that someone who's really interested in the historical questions would state that only three of the four Gospels postdated the destruction of the Temple. Many biblical scholars are convinced that they all have to postdate the destruction of the Temple, due to the prophecies about said destruction. (A conservative scholar actually convinced me that they were wrong, but again, it's this oblivious usage of the scholarly consensus that grabbed my attention. I think the ranges that are usually given are the result of adding the conservative and liberal scholars together, but just taking them at face value ignores the whole underlying debate.)

 

[redleghunter]

New Testament biblical scholarship, predominantly moderate and liberal leaning.

I actually disagree with the consensus, but I know where it comes from, and I found it odd that someone who's really interested in the historical questions would state that only three of the four Gospels postdated the destruction of the Temple. Many biblical scholars are convinced that they all have to postdate the destruction of the Temple, due to the prophecies about said destruction. (A conservative scholar actually convinced me that they were wrong, but again, it's this oblivious usage of the scholarly consensus that grabbed my attention. I think the ranges that are usually given are the result of adding the conservative and liberal scholars together, but just taking them at face value ignores the whole underlying debate.)

What is considered moderate? Leaving out top Reformed theologians?

 

[Silmarien]

What is considered moderate? Leaving out top Reformed theologians?

I would assume that most Reformed biblical scholars would be conservative.

Nothing wrong with that. I'd identify as moderate, but I like conservative scholarship a lot more than a lot of what goes on in liberal circles. Moderate doesn't necessarily mean better, just more middle of the road.

 

[redleghunter]

I would assume that most Reformed biblical scholars would be conservative.

Nothing wrong with that. I'd identify as moderate, but I like conservative scholarship a lot more than a lot of what goes on in liberal circles. Moderate doesn't necessarily mean better, just more middle of the road.

I believe the Reformed New Testament scholars along with conservative Arminian scholars follow mostly the internal evidence of the books of the NT and the witness of the early church fathers.

 

[Jok]

Many biblical scholars are convinced that they all have to postdate the destruction of the Temple, due to the prophecies about said destruction. (A conservative scholar actually convinced me that they were wrong

I agree that they are wrong, but can you please elaborate on what this conservative scholar said to you that you found to be convincing? I like to read various points of view In this forum, I find it really interesting to ask people about intellectual turning points that made a difference for them! You also seem extremely articulate in your posts which makes me even more interested in your reply
Thank you!

 

[Silmarien]

I agree that they are wrong, but can you please elaborate on what this conservative scholar said to you that you found to be convincing? I like to read various points of view In this forum, I find it really interesting to ask people about intellectual turning points that made a difference for them! You also seem extremely articulate in your posts which makes me even more interested in your reply
Thank you!

Hah, I haven't slept well in at least a week, so I don't know if I can manage to be really articulate, but:

I was curious about what Catholic biblical scholarship looked like, since I was looking for a comprehensive rundown of what the earliest Church Fathers had to say about the transmission of the New Testament, and a friend recommended Brant Pitre. What I ended up really liking about him was that he was in many ways more of an Old Testament scholar, so the sorts of insights that he had into how the New Testament uses the Old Testament were really compelling.

His argument is that the New Testament references to the fall of Jerusalem don't match up to what had actually happened. In multiple Gospels, for example, it specifies that you should hope that it doesn't happen in winter, which is odd since the siege actually happened in the summer. Pitre's theory is that the imagery used in these passages actually mirrors the depiction of the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem in the Old Testament, so they have nothing to do with what happened in 70 AD at all. Even a naturalistic reading which rejects the possibility of prophecy works at least as well, and probably better, with an earlier date.

I found it compelling. I think there's also good reason to date Acts before the death of Paul, since that's a really weird thing to just ignore in an account like that, so if 63 AD or so makes sense as a possible date for Acts, and Acts is the latest of the writings (except John), everything else is going to be significantly earlier.

Hah. It's odd to think the conservative view is better. Ex-atheist, so I have so much indoctrination when it comes to this type of stuff, but I think the consensus view here is similar to the consensus view in metaphysics (i.e., that theism is false). People just repeat it over and over again until it becomes a sort of orthodoxy, but at the end of the day, the justifications behind it are just not that good.