Ben Masada
Well-Known Member
= The Alleged Sons of God =
According to an ancient Roman policy, any able-bodied man from the conquered lands, who joined the Roman Army, would obtain authomatic citizenship. And if he was lucky enough to reach retirement age, he could choose where he would like to spend the rest of his life, and he would be granted a piece of land or farm as severance pay for his services to the Empire. Rome excluded.
When the Roman Legions arrived in the Middle East and conquered Sidon, a man called Pantera applied to join the Army and was accepted. Then, he was conscripted into the Roman Legion which got stationed in Syria. When he reached retirement age, he chose to return to Sidon and got his farm there to live for the rest of his life.
According to Josephus, in the year 4 BCE, there was a local revolt in Israel against Herod. It became known as the Revolt of the Pharisees. It was so strong that it was threatening to depose him. Herod appealed to Rome for help and Caesar gave orders to the Legion stationed in Syria to cross over into Israel and put down the revolt.
Thousands of Roman soldiers came over and the task was quite easy. They crucified a few thousand Jews, and decided to stay for some time to make sure the discontent were subdued. In the meantime, the Roman soldiers would rape young Jewish ladies almost daily.
As it was to expect, many children were born as a result of those rapes. Since the unfortunate mothers were not to blame for promiscuity, the religious authorities forbade to ostracize them or to consider their children as mamzerim or ba$tards. But they grew up with the epithet of "sons of God." (Lecture on the "Historical Jesus" at Stanphord University)
Since Jesus was born just about that time, I am of the opinion that's much more prudent and less embarrassing to acknowledge that he was a biological son of Joseph's than to run the risk that Jesus might have been one of those sons of God.
Now, regarding Mark 7:24, I have here with me two different Bible translations. One is the Catholic New American version of the Bible wherefrom I read that when Jesus went to Sidon, he would retire into a certain house and wanted no one to recognize him in there. The other translation is the King James version, wherefrom I read that when Jesus went to Sidon, he would enter into a certain house and would
have no man know it.
Although I am not assuming anything, everyone of us has all the right in the world to speculate about such a shouting evidence and to think that there was something fishy going on for Jesus to insist on secrecy about his being in Sidon or in that certain house. At that time Joseph had been long dead. Could it be that jesus knew about his real origins and was interacting with his real father? Everything is possible, but if you ask me, I am still in favour that he was rather a biological son of
Joseph's.
What's your reaction to all the above?
Ben:
According to an ancient Roman policy, any able-bodied man from the conquered lands, who joined the Roman Army, would obtain authomatic citizenship. And if he was lucky enough to reach retirement age, he could choose where he would like to spend the rest of his life, and he would be granted a piece of land or farm as severance pay for his services to the Empire. Rome excluded.
When the Roman Legions arrived in the Middle East and conquered Sidon, a man called Pantera applied to join the Army and was accepted. Then, he was conscripted into the Roman Legion which got stationed in Syria. When he reached retirement age, he chose to return to Sidon and got his farm there to live for the rest of his life.
According to Josephus, in the year 4 BCE, there was a local revolt in Israel against Herod. It became known as the Revolt of the Pharisees. It was so strong that it was threatening to depose him. Herod appealed to Rome for help and Caesar gave orders to the Legion stationed in Syria to cross over into Israel and put down the revolt.
Thousands of Roman soldiers came over and the task was quite easy. They crucified a few thousand Jews, and decided to stay for some time to make sure the discontent were subdued. In the meantime, the Roman soldiers would rape young Jewish ladies almost daily.
As it was to expect, many children were born as a result of those rapes. Since the unfortunate mothers were not to blame for promiscuity, the religious authorities forbade to ostracize them or to consider their children as mamzerim or ba$tards. But they grew up with the epithet of "sons of God." (Lecture on the "Historical Jesus" at Stanphord University)
Since Jesus was born just about that time, I am of the opinion that's much more prudent and less embarrassing to acknowledge that he was a biological son of Joseph's than to run the risk that Jesus might have been one of those sons of God.
Now, regarding Mark 7:24, I have here with me two different Bible translations. One is the Catholic New American version of the Bible wherefrom I read that when Jesus went to Sidon, he would retire into a certain house and wanted no one to recognize him in there. The other translation is the King James version, wherefrom I read that when Jesus went to Sidon, he would enter into a certain house and would
have no man know it.
Although I am not assuming anything, everyone of us has all the right in the world to speculate about such a shouting evidence and to think that there was something fishy going on for Jesus to insist on secrecy about his being in Sidon or in that certain house. At that time Joseph had been long dead. Could it be that jesus knew about his real origins and was interacting with his real father? Everything is possible, but if you ask me, I am still in favour that he was rather a biological son of
Joseph's.
What's your reaction to all the above?
Ben:
