- Oct 11, 2019
- 806
- 678
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
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.
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.