(January 28, 2016 at 4:59 am)Constable Dorfl Wrote: First of all "christian tradition" didn't get going to the 3rd century. So to say that Jesus wasn't a pharisee because of christian tradition is at best disingenius.
I'm completely unaware of mentioning 'Christian tradition'. Do you mean 'beliefs', because they're not the same thing at all, y'know.
Quote:On your dismissal of the 'failed revolutionary' explanation, which is one I didn't offfer in my post, many big things have grown out of initial failures. By your hypothesis Nazi Germany couldn't have happened, nor could the Irish Republic. Bith those entities grew out of failed violent revolutions (in Ireland's case at least five).
There's pretty major differences. Irish Republicanism was an ongoing historical movement that was going to survive any number of failures, and the Nazi setbacks weren't nearly serious enough to end it all. However C1 Jewish Messianic movements simply couldn't survive the death of their Messiah because of the theology involved. Your Messiah had to survive, or by definition he wasn't the Messiah. End of. That's how C1 Jewish Messianic movements worked, and we know this solidly both from theory and very good historical evidence.
That the disciples concluded Jesus to be the Messiah despite his death requires an extraordinary explanation.
Quote:And I note you don't even begin to touch my statement that the son of god was alien to judaism, probably because you don't have an answer for it.
How odd.
I thought my last paragraph was about the Son of God thing not being alien to Judaism. I mean I suspect some would read the phrase ” 'Son of God' is more about role than biology in Judaism.” as being a pretty clear sort of summary answer, but perhaps I've misunderstood what I wrote.
Let's unpack.
I think you rather misunderstand the phrase “Son of God” within Judaism.
To have humans described as Sons of God clearly isn't new within Judaism. Good people, the Israelites, Kings of Israel etc etc etc, were all described as Sons of God in the OT. So far from being alien to Judaism, it was integral.
Indeed, anyone with Messainic ideas would be seen as a special 'Son Of God'. Jesus saw himself as the one who would bring Israel's destiny to a climax, and so 'Son Of God' would necessarily apply as part of the job description. (BTW, nowhere yet is divinity integral to this designation.)
Jesus acted on a perceived vocation to to do and to be for Israel, and the world what, according to the OT, only Israel's God can do and be. God had always promised to return to Zion and bring salvation, forgiveness and bring a new covenant. Through Jesus actions, this was achieved, Hence the phrase “Son of God” applied to Jesus started to acquire an extra level of meaning through the bringing together of two utterly Jewish ideas.
So the Graeco-Roman concept of 'Son of God' (your meaning of the phrase) is very different to the Jewish one that I'm referring to.