Did Jesus Misinterpret "the Word Of God?"

[Neon Genesis]

 

I was just pondering the possiblity that Jesus (and/or the writers of the NT) could have known about the earlier beliefs of what "sons of Gods" meant in Psalms. If he understood that they were immortal, this thought could be reflected (as interpreted) in the NT as eternal life. And if he saw himself as one of these sons of God, I think it can be understood that other people are also sons of God and will have eternal life also. The problem came across when Jesus was taken to be the unique Son of God because of the beliefs at the time, but he may have had some "primitive" insight into the original understanding of those scriptures you mention that show henotheism. He may have wanted to extend that title to all mankind, but others became sons of God "by adoption" instead of being a direct descendent. I think he was trying to bring the kingdom of heaven into the mortal realm and combining them. Mortals would actually be immortal.

 

This is an argument I've heard from biblical scholars before. Not about the whole passage in John, but that when Jesus refers to himself as the son of God, he's using it in the OT sense of the term, that son of God was a title used by someone who was specially chosen by God. For example, in the OT, King Saul is referred to as the son of God but that doesn't mean he was biologically convcieved by God. There were early Christians who believed Jesus was fully human with no divine attributes but he was adopted by God at the point of his baptism and this seems to be the belief of Mark's gospel. The belief that Jesus is physically God's son is a later development in the Christian mythology as Paul seemed to believe Jesus became the son of God at the point of his resurrection.

[NotBlinded]

 

I was just pondering the possiblity that Jesus (and/or the writers of the NT) could have known about the earlier beliefs of what "sons of Gods" meant in Psalms. If he understood that they were immortal, this thought could be reflected (as interpreted) in the NT as eternal life. And if he saw himself as one of these sons of God, I think it can be understood that other people are also sons of God and will have eternal life also. The problem came across when Jesus was taken to be the unique Son of God because of the beliefs at the time, but he may have had some "primitive" insight into the original understanding of those scriptures you mention that show henotheism. He may have wanted to extend that title to all mankind, but others became sons of God "by adoption" instead of being a direct descendent. I think he was trying to bring the kingdom of heaven into the mortal realm and combining them. Mortals would actually be immortal.

 

This is an argument I've heard from biblical scholars before. Not about the whole passage in John, but that when Jesus refers to himself as the son of God, he's using it in the OT sense of the term, that son of God was a title used by someone who was specially chosen by God. For example, in the OT, King Saul is referred to as the son of God but that doesn't mean he was biologically convcieved by God. There were early Christians who believed Jesus was fully human with no divine attributes but he was adopted by God at the point of his baptism and this seems to be the belief of Mark's gospel. The belief that Jesus is physically God's son is a later development in the Christian mythology as Paul seemed to believe Jesus became the son of God at the point of his resurrection.

You know, there are so many ways to look at this. I was thinking it could be just the opposite; that everyone would be immortal including him. It seems the scholars you are referring to are saying that the OT usage of "sons of God" are talking about mortal men. Tyson is going before that and showing the hints that are in the OT that these people, in early understanding, were actually immortal "sons of God". I was curious if Jesus (or the writers) may have known this, such as we do, and built the theology of immortality, or eternal life, off of that understanding.

 

What a tangled mass of stories and theologies.

[Neon Genesis]

Here's the quote from Wikipedia on Jewish views of the phrase son of God: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_God#.22Son_of_God.22_according_to_Judaism

* The Hebrew phrase Benei Elohim, often translated as "sons of God", is seen by some to describe angels or immensely powerful human beings. The notion of the word as describing non-divine beings most likely comes from the Targumic Aramaic translation, which uses the phrases "sons of nobles", "Bnei Ravrevaya" in its translation. See Genesis 6:2-4 and Book of Job 1:6.

* It is used to denote a human judge or ruler (Psalm 82:6, "children of the Most High"; in many passages "gods" and "judges" can seem to be equivalent). In a more specialized sense, "son of God" is a title applied only to the real king over Israel (II Samuel 7:14, with reference to King David and those of his descendants who carried on his dynasty; comp. Psalm 89:27-28).

* Israel as a people is called God's "son", using the singular form (comp. Exodus 4:22 and Hosea 11:1).

* Ephraim as a tribe (Jeremiah 31:8)

 

In Judaism the term "son of God" was used of the expected "Jewish mashiach" figure.[8] Psalm 2 addresses someone as both God's messiah (anointed king) and God's son.

 

In the Jewish literature that was not finally accepted as part of the Hebrew Bible, but that many Christians do accept as Scripture (see Deuterocanonical books), there are passages in which the title "son of God" is given to the anointed person or Mashiach (see Enoch, 55:2; IV Esdras 7:28-29; 13:32, 37, 52; 14:9). The title belongs also to any one whose piety has placed him in a filial relation to God (see Wisdom 2:13, 16, 18; 5:5, where "the sons of God" are identical with "the saints"; comp. Ecclesiasticus [sirach] iv. 10).

 

It has been speculated that it was because of the frequent use of these books by the Early Christians in polemics with Jews, that the Sanhedrin at Yavneh rejected them around 80 CE.

[Tyson]

Not Blinded, I see that Neon pretty much answered already.

[Bro]

Why mortal men were condemned to "die like men" is beyond me considering the redundancy and the obvious.

 

Your thoughts?

He wasn't telling them anything other than reminding them that you think yourselves gods but you will die as all men die. It's not a contradiction, it's a reaffirmation.

 

If God is indeed talking to men of great standing, those in the priesthood, this all makes sense.

 

There's no discrepency here.

[Tyson]

Why mortal men were condemned to "die like men" is beyond me considering the redundancy and the obvious.

 

Your thoughts?

He wasn't telling them anything other than reminding them that you think yourselves gods but you will die as all men die. It's not a contradiction, it's a reaffirmation.

 

If God is indeed talking to men of great standing, those in the priesthood, this all makes sense.

 

There's no discrepency here.

 

The HISTORICAL theological context suggests that this pronouncement from Yahweh in Psalm 82 was made against other gods. The very first verse of the chapter gives the entire setting.

 

This has a roundabout connection to what we have been talking about and before I present the clincher, I need to provide a context (which I am writing from memory so bear with me).

 

In the early 1900s, archaeologists happened upon an area in western Syria that was once inhabited by a people who were contemporaries of the early Israelites when they rose to prominence in Canaan. The area was called Ugarit (today's Ras Shamra) and they spoke a language closely related to Hebrew. In the dig, they came across tablets which gave insights into the religious environment of the local peoples which was along the lines of the regional beliefs. Present was the belief that there was a supreme father god as well as a son (god) bible readers would be familiar with. His name was Baal. The surprise however, was this passage:

 

sm . bny . yw . ilt (KTU 1.1 IV 14)

 

Translated it reads:

 

“The name of the son of god, Yahweh.”

 

We can see a word in the passage that is similar to a word in Hebrew. The word there is "bny" which in Hebrew is "Ben," Beni" which means "son." We see this in names such as Benjamin which means "son of my right hand" or David Ben Gurion ("son of Gurion").

 

What this shows us is that ywh was known to the Ugaritic community and he was not the same guy the Jews declared as the only god. In ancient times he was another god in the divine council. The battle was waged in the religious circles (as read in the bible) between adherents of Baal and those of Yahweh to determine who would come out on top. We now know who did.

[Shyone]

What this shows us is that ywh was known to the Ugaritic community and he was not the same guy the Jews declared as the only god. In ancient times he was another god in the divine council. The battle was waged in the religious circles (as read in the bible) between adherents of Baal and those of Yahweh to determine who would come out on top. We now know who did.

Relationships between gods and peoples were not really cut and dried. Sometimes the conquered gods would become part of the pantheon of the chief god(s) of the conquering nation. While the conquered were expected to worship the pantheon of the conquerers, this might not always be the case as there was a special relationship between the gods of the people and the people themselves.

 

Writings about gods and battles sometimes reflected the earthly struggles as well, and if one people adopted a particular god of a pantheon, we can't really know how that god got into the pantheon or whether the people accepted the major gods of the conquerers.

 

What we have access to is the mythology. What went behind the mythology may have been complicated by real world struggles.

[Tyson]

What this shows us is that ywh was known to the Ugaritic community and he was not the same guy the Jews declared as the only god. In ancient times he was another god in the divine council. The battle was waged in the religious circles (as read in the bible) between adherents of Baal and those of Yahweh to determine who would come out on top. We now know who did.

Relationships between gods and peoples were not really cut and dried. Sometimes the conquered gods would become part of the pantheon of the chief god(s) of the conquering nation. While the conquered were expected to worship the pantheon of the conquerers, this might not always be the case as there was a special relationship between the gods of the people and the people themselves.

 

Writings about gods and battles sometimes reflected the earthly struggles as well, and if one people adopted a particular god of a pantheon, we can't really know how that god got into the pantheon or whether the people accepted the major gods of the conquerers.

 

What we have access to is the mythology. What went behind the mythology may have been complicated by real world struggles.

 

Exactly! The whole middle part of the Old Testament is that 'worldly struggle' (religious wars) between the "gods" which was won out by the Yahwehists. The height of this struggle would be during the days of King Ahab/Queen Jezebel and the Yahwehists Elijah and Elisha.

[Shyone]

Exactly! The whole middle part of the Old Testament is that 'worldly struggle' (religious wars) between the "gods" which was won out by the Yahwehists. The height of this struggle would be during the days of King Ahab/Queen Jezebel and the Yahwehists Elijah and Elisha.

I think the people that wrote the bible were possibly impressed with the fact that the Yahwehist movement was "grassroots" rather than Kingly top-down.

 

I don't know what that has to do with truth though.

[mwc]

I think the people that wrote the bible were possibly impressed with the fact that the Yahwehist movement was "grassroots" rather than Kingly top-down.

Whoa! What? Have you been into the medicinal marijuana?

 

Now I'll have to go back and catch up on this thread to see what's led up to this...

 

mwc

[Tyson]

Exactly! The whole middle part of the Old Testament is that 'worldly struggle' (religious wars) between the "gods" which was won out by the Yahwehists. The height of this struggle would be during the days of King Ahab/Queen Jezebel and the Yahwehists Elijah and Elisha.

I think the people that wrote the bible were possibly impressed with the fact that the Yahwehist movement was "grassroots" rather than Kingly top-down.

 

I don't know what that has to do with truth though.

 

I am of the opinion (and I could be wrong) that the OT was written as an afterthought with a bit of oral history mixed with a healthy heaping of up to the time theology which had evolved over centuries. The Jews, exiled to Babylon as a defeated people, had to make sense of their plight. This was coupled with the fact that the heathens, represented in the Babylonians, mocked them (Psalm 137) and no doubt mocked their defeated god, as it was believed that defeated peoples had defeated gods.

 

The exiles came up with a new twist on things. Their god was not weak or defeated (in fact, by this time, he was the ONLY god there was as per Jewish reckoning). He simply ALLOWED them to suffer humiliation because of their sins. What a great way to now tell a story of HOW and WHY they ended up in exile even though it was believed they had the biggest, baddest god on the block. Simply tell a story about being chosen and special by a particular god to whom your people were wedded to. Tell of forefathers who kept failing to keep up their end of the contract, the constant warning and punishments they received ultimately leading up to the exile and you have 60% of the Old Testament and the subsequent foundation of later Jewish monotheism.

[mwc]

[snip]

And what of the Israelites?

 

mwc

[Tyson]

[snip]

And what of the Israelites?

 

mwc

 

I am afraid I don't know what you are quoting/asking MWC.

[Shyone]

I think the people that wrote the bible were possibly impressed with the fact that the Yahwehist movement was "grassroots" rather than Kingly top-down.

Whoa! What? Have you been into the medicinal marijuana?

 

Now I'll have to go back and catch up on this thread to see what's led up to this...

 

mwc

I may be off base here but...

 

Remember the reaction when the Israelites wanted a king? Not good.

 

How many kings "did good in the site of the lord?"

 

Moses and Samuel were leaders, not kings.

 

All of the prophets who spoke for God were poor guys that were "out of the loop."

 

Skipping to the NT may not be fair, but...

 

Jesus was a poor man, who led poor men.

 

The Saduccees and Pharisees were rich and powerful, and they had (per Jesus) corrupted religion.

 

Herod was a bad guy.

 

John the Baptist was a good guy.

 

And so on...

[mwc]

I am afraid I don't know what you are quoting/asking MWC.

At this point in time Israel and Judah were two states (Israel being the more well-off of the two). Since Judah didn't cooperate it was their people and temple that paid the price and it was from them that captives (~17,000 as I recall) were taken.

 

So what of Israel? Your hypothesis omits them (or seems to assume they were part of Judah).

 

mwc

[mwc]

Moses and Samuel were leaders, not kings.

 

All of the prophets who spoke for God were poor guys that were "out of the loop."

Samuel was a judge. Judges were appointed by kings. All those judges were pretty ruthless. That, I can imagine, is one reason to want a client king. Since this region was likely under the control of Egypt at the time it would mean Pharaoh would decide if there would be a judge or a king over a given region (I'd have to read up on exactly who did this and what the difference in powers would be...though I think judges were more a Babylonian/Assyrian type of thing...I'm just guessing here though).

 

Prophets were generally part of the court of a king. Kings had lots of prophets at their disposal. They weren't just some guy roaming around. It could be that the priest was also a prophet. There isn't a lot of information from Canaan on this (that I'm aware of).

 

mwc

[Dagan]

I am afraid I don't know what you are quoting/asking MWC.

At this point in time Israel and Judah were two states (Israel being the more well-off of the two). Since Judah didn't cooperate it was their people and temple that paid the price and it was from them that captives (~17,000 as I recall) were taken.

 

So what of Israel? Your hypothesis omits them (or seems to assume they were part of Judah).

 

mwc

 

Isn't Judah the only tribe that really survived to write everything down?

 

Maybe the glorious history of the 12 tribes was made up to explain their situation? After all, the 10 tribes were allegedly exiled in 800 B.C. so there was lots of time for the story to evolve into legend.

 

Are we relying on the word of scribes from Judah to tell Israel's story?

[Tyson]

I am afraid I don't know what you are quoting/asking MWC.

At this point in time Israel and Judah were two states (Israel being the more well-off of the two). Since Judah didn't cooperate it was their people and temple that paid the price and it was from them that captives (~17,000 as I recall) were taken.

 

So what of Israel? Your hypothesis omits them (or seems to assume they were part of Judah).

 

mwc

 

Isn't Judah the only tribe that really survived to write everything down?

 

Maybe the glorious history of the 12 tribes was made up to explain their situation? After all, the 10 tribes were allegedly exiled in 800 B.C. so there was lots of time for the story to evolve into legend.

 

Are we relying on the word of scribes from Judah to tell Israel's story?

 

MWC, to go along with Jabber's response, note carefully in the Bible that not one Israelite king is written about in a favorable light. It appears that the later scribes wanted to make sure that it was drilled home in the minds of the Judahites that their brethren across the border left the TRUE god (Yahweh) and his TRUE temple (Jerusalem) to pursue other gods and built their own temple in a declaration of rebellion to the true royal lineage over Israel - the house of David. Naturally, as a result, the story is told that they were erased from the land BECAUSE of these affronts to god. For the Jewish scribe tying to make sure his own tribe stayed faithful to the religion, stories of past failures that led to punishment filled up the books of Exodus all the way through to the books of Chronicles.

[Neon Genesis]

According to Bishop Spong in his book, Rescuing The Bible From Fundamentalism, different Isrealites had different beliefs about what God thought of kings. The Isrealites who wrote the Yahwist document of the Hebrew bible believed kings were sanctioned by God whereas the Isrealites who wrote the Elohist document of the Hebrew bible was antiking and believed God's covenant was with the people rather than the royal family and these two documents were spliced together in an attempt to form a coherent narrative that wasn't really so coherent, which explains why in some bible passages, God is seen as praising kings while in other passages, God is seen as condemning kings.

[mwc]

MWC, to go along with Jabber's response, note carefully in the Bible that not one Israelite king is written about in a favorable light. It appears that the later scribes wanted to make sure that it was drilled home in the minds of the Judahites that their brethren across the border left the TRUE god (Yahweh) and his TRUE temple (Jerusalem) to pursue other gods and built their own temple in a declaration of rebellion to the true royal lineage over Israel - the house of David. Naturally, as a result, the story is told that they were erased from the land BECAUSE of these affronts to god. For the Jewish scribe tying to make sure his own tribe stayed faithful to the religion, stories of past failures that led to punishment filled up the books of Exodus all the way through to the books of Chronicles.

So when you say "the Jews" you're not speaking of the Israelites. You're speaking only of those from Judah.

 

I wonder why there could be so much friction between these two once the push to "unite" them started?

 

mwc

[Tyson]

MWC, to go along with Jabber's response, note carefully in the Bible that not one Israelite king is written about in a favorable light. It appears that the later scribes wanted to make sure that it was drilled home in the minds of the Judahites that their brethren across the border left the TRUE god (Yahweh) and his TRUE temple (Jerusalem) to pursue other gods and built their own temple in a declaration of rebellion to the true royal lineage over Israel - the house of David. Naturally, as a result, the story is told that they were erased from the land BECAUSE of these affronts to god. For the Jewish scribe tying to make sure his own tribe stayed faithful to the religion, stories of past failures that led to punishment filled up the books of Exodus all the way through to the books of Chronicles.

So when you say "the Jews" you're not speaking of the Israelites. You're speaking only of those from Judah.

 

I wonder why there could be so much friction between these two once the push to "unite" them started?

 

mwc

 

Correct MWC. When I say Jews, I am referring to those who survived to tell THEIR tale.

[Tyson]

According to Bishop Spong in his book, Rescuing The Bible From Fundamentalism, different Isrealites had different beliefs about what God thought of kings. The Isrealites who wrote the Yahwist document of the Hebrew bible believed kings were sanctioned by God whereas the Isrealites who wrote the Elohist document of the Hebrew bible was antiking and believed God's covenant was with the people rather than the royal family and these two documents were spliced together in an attempt to form a coherent narrative that wasn't really so coherent, which explains why in some bible passages, God is seen as praising kings while in other passages, God is seen as condemning kings.

 

You bring up a GREAT set of points here! I often say that while much has been said about the religious tug of wars that have gone on since the start of Christianity, little attention is given to the religious wars that took place in the days of the Old Testament. It was not a clean, clear cut and dried situation. Bleeding through the pages of the Old Testament are accounts of religious factions fighting against each other for religious prominence. In the end, the Yahwehists won out.

 

One example of this that has always struck me is the story of Josiah who came to the throne of Judah at age 9 (I think). At such a young age he was already making decisions to eliminate every other rival gods and their priests. Like his ancestor Hezekiah, he is lauded for these purges and reforms and graced with the noblest of praises. But then I look behind the scenes and realize that the respected prophet, Jeremiah, and other Yahwehists are behind the throne of the young king.

 

This is just one example of the Yahwehists pushing their agenda to ensure their worldview became the dominant worldview amongst the Jews.

[Dagan]

According to Bishop Spong in his book, Rescuing The Bible From Fundamentalism, different Isrealites had different beliefs about what God thought of kings. The Isrealites who wrote the Yahwist document of the Hebrew bible believed kings were sanctioned by God whereas the Isrealites who wrote the Elohist document of the Hebrew bible was antiking and believed God's covenant was with the people rather than the royal family and these two documents were spliced together in an attempt to form a coherent narrative that wasn't really so coherent, which explains why in some bible passages, God is seen as praising kings while in other passages, God is seen as condemning kings.

 

This view also shows up in Asimov's Guide to the Bible, which is really goddamn long (longer than the Bible itself!) but well worth the read.

 

Interestingly enough, even though the conflict between royalists and Yahwehists in the bible is pretty clear once you study it, it's never touched on in church, even though it's well-known in scholarly circles.

 

I always wondered about the differences between Kings and Chronicles as a young Christian. Why tell the same stories with different details? Now I know – because Chronicles is a later, more sanitized and priest-approved version of history.

[Tyson]

According to Bishop Spong in his book, Rescuing The Bible From Fundamentalism, different Isrealites had different beliefs about what God thought of kings. The Isrealites who wrote the Yahwist document of the Hebrew bible believed kings were sanctioned by God whereas the Isrealites who wrote the Elohist document of the Hebrew bible was antiking and believed God's covenant was with the people rather than the royal family and these two documents were spliced together in an attempt to form a coherent narrative that wasn't really so coherent, which explains why in some bible passages, God is seen as praising kings while in other passages, God is seen as condemning kings.

 

This view also shows up in Asimov's Guide to the Bible, which is really goddamn long (longer than the Bible itself!) but well worth the read.

 

Interestingly enough, even though the conflict between royalists and Yahwehists in the bible is pretty clear once you study it, it's never touched on in church, even though it's well-known in scholarly circles.

 

I always wondered about the differences between Kings and Chronicles as a young Christian. Why tell the same stories with different details? Now I know – because Chronicles is a later, more sanitized and priest-approved version of history.

 

 

when it comes to bible religious/church history and how things REALLY went down, that is an area of knowledge MOST church folks are clueless about. Those who know either continue to fake it or walk away.