Jesus, As Son of God, Brought Humanity Salvation

No. 9 & 8 are still rejected by the blog software. Following is a shorter summary:

NUMBER 9 was about Matthew 10:34, which shows that "Jesus" was not always only about peace. He brings about a conflict that tears apart families, which is usually the case in a civil war.

That civil war was mentioned in NUMBER 8, where I answered Crossan's question, what services Augustus rendered to receive all those holy names and titles. Actually he didn't do many original things and for the most part only continued on the path of his divine father. But he also brought tyranny over Rome in the form of the proscriptions and a civil war that was more violent than the one his father fought.

But the true victory, not the one through war, but the one through peace, forgiveness and sacrifice, had already been achieved by his father, Divus Iulius.

PS: Guys, one honest recommendation: you need to improve your blog software and/or filters.

Number 10 (next try):

JDC: Early Christians, with whom I stand as a contemporary Christian, claimed that Jesus was Divine, Son of God, God, and God from God; Lord, Redeemer, Liberator, and Savior of the World. Those titles, taken from a Roman emperor on the Palatine hill and given to a Jewish peasant on the Nazareth ridge, were either low lampoon or high treason.

MJ: Who says that Christ was a "Jewish peasant from the Nazareth ridge"? Please deliver one, just one rock-solid source that is NOT from the New Testament. I think that you can't. No-one can. So how can we decide that "Jesus" was a "Jewish peasant from the Nazareth ridge", if there's no proof? Not even proof of his existence by the way. If Christ was a "Jewish peasant from the Nazareth ridge", it means that he was a Mr. Nobody (IF he ever existed!). If he's a Mr. Nobody, how can he at the same time be super-duper-hyper-transcendental god, the greatest god-fella ever? That's only belief and religious upbringing, not scientific reason, and even worse: for some people this goes hand in hand with religious intolerance, disrespect and the usual Christian arrogance concerning everything "pagan". Well… did you know that "paganus" originally meant "civilian", as opposed to "military", the army, where Christianity first took hold? Tertullian and other church fathers are quite clear about that. So "pagan" and "Christian" comes from the same cultural and religious sphere. Paganism is not opposed to Christianity. It rather serves as a completion of the "whole picture", and it's part of the same mindset from ancient times.

Now I'll try to do something about Nos. 8, 9 & 10.

17.a) JDC: But among those three metaphors, Jesus as Son of God is very special because that was the title of Caesar on coins and inscriptions, statues and structures all over the Mediterranean world at the time of Jesus’ birth. To confess that title of Jesus was to de-confess it of Caesar

MJ: Funny, but you're right. This holds up well, since "Jesus" is a later transformation of Divus Iulius. It's only logical that the early Christians claimed these titles for their god, because he was the first Divus, the first imperator, the true founder of the empire. For them Divus Iulius (Jesus) always shone brighter than any divinized emperor who came after Caesar and Augustus. The light from the East!!

17.b) JDC: that is, to commit your life to peace through justice rather than peace through victory. It still is.

MJ: See above: the Roman Son of God gained peace not only through victory, but also through justice. The Christian Son of God gained peace not only through justice, but also through victory (Crucifixion = Victory etc. pp.).

16. JDC: Finally, titles of Jesus like Lamb of God, Word of God, and Son of God are relational metaphors. They are not literal but they are real because we humans can only see by seeing-as, that is, metaphorically. But metaphor is never simply Rorschach. It never means just whatever we need or want. It always requires some integrity of interpretation from the constraints of meaning born of time and place, society and culture.

MJ: Not by a long shot. They are the original terms and properties from Roman sources, rituals etc.. We've already covered (1) "Son of God" above, and it should again be noted that the Greek terms used in the gospels are often the official terms from the imperial cult… verbatim! Now to the other two:

(2) The "Lamb of God" is based on the Ovis Idulis, the lamb sacrificed by the rex sacrorum on the Liberalia, the day of Caesar's funeral and resurrection, the day where Caesar's body was presented to the people on the Forum as a wax effigy, nailed to tropaeum, a Roman victory cross, and turned in all directions, so everyone could see Caesar as a slaughtered victim, the ultimate sacrifice for all of Rome. The lamb of God, sacrificed to Iuppiter on that day, was instantly identified with Divus Iulius, the new Jupiter and "other" sacrifice.

(3) For the "Word of God", the logos, one only needs to look in the dictionary in order to distinguish between the later Christian interpretation and the original classical meaning of the word: "logos" is a political term and means the "right of speech", "order", "discussion", "resolution". Since the notion of logos goes back to John 1:1, it is connected to "archê", which doesn't only mean "beginning", but is also a political term in classical times: "power", "imperium", "command", "magistrate" or generally "office". So a classical translation of John 1:1 would catapult us into a political discussion. There is even a debate about God himself: "kai o logos ên pros ton theon". Further down the sentence we'll find the finishing touches of a neat and logical progression: people debate about offices of power, they even debate about God and his powers, and then God has the right to speak, he has the word (i.e. the power to order and instruct), and he fulfills his rights with wisdom and reason. ("Ratio" by the way is also very political.) The problem, why Christians interpret this "logos" of Christ as something esoterical and metaphysical, goes back to the Vulgate translation, which eradicated the political and autocratic meaning of the original Greek passage in John, by using "verbum" instead of the better-suited "dictum", which could have been part of the original Vetus Latina.

In reality John 1:1 is a one-to-one and very correct summary of the Senate session (beginning of January 49 BC), where Julius Caesar's and the Senators' powers were debated, at the start of the civil war, i.e. before God crossed the Rubicon (corresponding to "Jesus" crossing the Jordan). The Senators were especially debating whether Caesar could run for office of consul in absentia.

Everything in the NT, everything in Christianity has its roots in the cult of and sources on Divus Iulius and Julius Caesar… and yes: also a bit of Augustus. There are no such things as "relational metaphors" in early Christian thinking. The Gospel writers saw themselves as historical authors. They (and others who came later) may have been theologians as well, but they had a strong Roman (and Julian!) fundament. It's very easy to analyze early Christian thinking, when one compares it to the Roman sources. One doesn't need to theologize and interpret further: that's often only modern pseudo-science or conjecture or kitchen philosophy… there are many words for it. There is no real need for "interpretation", because one should always go for historical facts. But since nobody possesses facts about Christ and his vita (unless he makes the connection to Divus Iulius), then it's only logical that scholars flinch and announce it's all "not literal", that it's basically free-floating, metaphorical, diffuse early Christian wish-wash etc., and that it therefore needs to be "evaluated" and "defined" by pundits and clerics. But that's working with an image and notion of the Christian religion which has no fundament.

15.a) JDC: Jesus confronted the Empire of Rome with the Kingdom of God

MJ: The only problem is that the "Empire of Rome" was also and already an "Empire of God" (see above). The term "basileus" in Greek doesn't only mean "king", but also the Roman "imperator". So there is no difference between kingdom and empire here.

And it's also a bit misleading to call the Christ "Jesus". The oldest parts of the original codices only show the nomen sacrum IC, the first and last letter. There's no "Jesus" in the oldest scriptures. And "IC" can mean a lot in Greek, e.g. "Iulius".

15.b) JDC: and his followers later confronted the Roman emperor as Son of God with the Jewish Jesus as Son of God.

MJ: Why then did they copy all those names and titles verbatim? ¿Maybe because they were all talking about the SAME Son of God, only the one as the original western Son of God, the other one however the transformed Son of God from the east, after a cultural adaptation, re-definition and diegetic transposition? The latter explanation is much more probable, that's quite obvious.

15.c) JDC: Today we may like or dislike their choice of theological language, but we should at least recognize that they proclaim God’s opposition to Empire – Egyptian or Roman, British or American – because of its violent injustice.

MJ: Has the Christian Empire never been injust? Sure, from its self-image the Church is only just. But did this always result in just actions throughout history? Has the Church never been violent? Sure, Christ (mostly) preaches non-violence. But did this result in a completely peaceful Church history? Of course not. Christianity is even "violent" on a metaphysical and integrated level: e.g. the Roman Church sees exorcisms as the highest and purest form of… drum-roll… warfare.

14.a) JDC: Jesus’ alternative vision was utterly Jewish

MJ: For many centuries the Jews have thought the opposite (and many still do), namely that the whole mindset behind Christianity and Christus comes from the hellenized sphere. To say that the Christ's vision was "utterly Jewish" is therefore only conjecture. It's what most Christians believe, yes, but faith can only emulate science. It's never factual, never scientific.

14.b) JDC: Jesus’ alternative vision was utterly Jewish even if not every first-century Jew would have agreed with it

MJ: "Jesus' alternative vision" was anything but Jewish (see above): it's Graeco-Roman with only a judaized coating… a mere transposition. "Not every first-century Jew would have agreed with it"? That's right. No sane first-century Jew agreed, especially not with the proclamation of Christ as "Son of God". And no sane Jew agreed until the 19th and early 20th century either, until a few misguided Jews and Christians started "discovering Jesus Christ" as an "itinerant Jewish rabbi preacher" (or something similar).

14.c) JDC: not Josephus, for example, nor similar faith-based Roman collaborators.

MJ: Yes, there were those Jews that modern views label as "good", and there were those Jews that modern views label as "bad". But who says that the Roman Jews or the Non-Roman-but-Pro-Roman Jews were the bad Jews? On what scientific grounds do you base your political alliance with the Anti-Roman Jewish movement?

14.d) JDC: His vision came from the non-violent creation in Genesis 1, from the core of Torah in Leviticus, from the relentless critique of injustice and inequality in the prophets, from the insistence that the world belonged to God in the psalms. It came from God’s opposition to Empire – Egyptian in Exodus, Assyrian in Nahum, Babylonian, Medean, Persian, Greek, and Syrian in Daniel.

MJ: Isn't this just conjecture? Where's the historical proof? Aren't most of the AT-links in the NT midrashes? A mere cultural-regional flavor? Is there real proof for what you write? Proof that is scientifically valid. One thing needs to be mentioned. You write…

14.e) JDC: It came from God’s opposition to Empire

MJ: Why then is Christ all about being "authoritative", "imperial", "catholic", "pantocratic", establishing an all-encompassing "kingdom" of god? Jewish theologians have always noted this major discrepancy between their god and Christus: the Jewish god (to quote Jewish comedian Lewis Black) is a "pr*ck". He's at times a relentless, negative criminal avenger and butcher. And he is the god of a single, tiny little people called the Jews, he's the god of only one nation. On the other hand we have the Christian god who is the exact opposite. This is a polar arrangement: on the one side Judaism with nationalist and exclusionist tendencies, and on the other side Christianity with imperial and "catholic" tendencies. So you're right that god used to oppose empire. But that was the JEWISH god, not the Christian god. The Christian god IS DE FACTO IMPERIAL. And that strictly contradicts nationalism or the proto-nationalism of ancient Jewry. In any case: many people (and not only Marcion!) have pinpointed that the Christian god is not the Jewish god, and the difference between these two gods' incongruent imperial and national philosophy is one of the most striking differences.

11. JDC: Since the Romans did not roll over laughing, I trust their judgment that they were deliberate anti-titles.

MJ: Where do the Romans say that they were "anti-titles"? I'd be much obliged if you directed us to the relevant sources. The only thing we know for sure is that the Christians actually used the ORIGINAL titles. 1 to 1. The Romans didn't roll over laughing because they were quite intelligent in religious matters. They knew (or at least sensed) that Christ was a diegetic transposition of Divus Iulius. They also didn't roll over laughing, because in Rome the people—unlike many people today (including many believers by the way)—took religion very seriously, which especially meant: religious tolerance and respect for the religious fundament. Many today are not that tolerant anymore. One huge disadvantage of monotheism.

12. JDC: They announced that, not Caesar the Augustus, but Jesus the Christ had incarnated and contributed the fullest transcendental service to the human race.

MJ: Which is… well, sort of logical, because Christ is (with an extremely high probability) Divus Iulius incognito after a cult transformation, diegetic transposition of scripture and subsequent judaization due to the Palestine environment, where Caesar's veterans settled down after the civil war (cp. Carotta's astounding book on the Julian origins of Christianity). And the followers of the new religion of course only worshipped the original Divus, their god and commander, and not the Divi who came after him. Why does the emperor Trajan refrain from executing the Christians, whom Pliny describes, although they are explicitely NOT worshipping the emperor? You could say it's the famous Roman religious tolerance, but it's probably more: Trajan knew they were AT LEAST worshipping the original founder, Divus Iulius. A valid theory, in my view.

13. JDC: What, then, was that alternative service to the imperial chant of peace through victory? It was the call of peace through justice and that vision came straight from the heart of Judaism.

MJ: I fear that this may be "Judaeo-Christian" obscurantism. Why have so many Jews rejected the Christ, Christianity, Christian faith, the New Covenant, scripture, iconography, soteriology, exegesis (also of the AT!!) etc. pp.? Why is Christ on the Cross for almost a thousand years depicted as a victorious god? Why was the patiens-type introduced so late? What is the difference between a) being victorious, bringing peace and creating an empire of god (Caesar and the imperial cult) and b) being the victor, bringing peace and creating a kingdom of god (Christus)? Was ancient Judaism always and/or only peaceful? Is there something peaceful about the countless people that the Jews slaughtered in the Middle East while attacking and occupying the surrounding regions? Is there something peaceful about converting others to Judaism by force, like e.g. Herod the Great, and then (after his death) spitting on and raiding his grave? Is there something peaceful about the Palestinian Jews who started to fight their own brothers and sisters, who were Pro-Roman, a civil war that eventually turned into the Jewish revolts against Rome itself? Can we call it peaceful, when we look at their constant relapses into war and violence until they were eventually (and from a Roman point of view: rightfully) thrown out of Palestine by the Romans? To say that the peace of Christianity came straight from the heart of Judaism is an unbelievable affront against the Catholic faith. I find this quite irritating coming from a fellow Catholic Christian. And it's historically incoherent. And it's even theologically wrong: the peace of Christianity comes from Christ, and Christ alone. He opposed the old views and the old decadent and decayed religion. We have a New Covenant now. This should not be forgotten.

No. 9 & 10 have also been blocked.

For some strange reasons number 8 of my post seems to be refused and sent to the "blog owner for approval" instead, which is quite annoying. If something is offensive, there's actually the "Report Offensive Comments"-button.

I'll first continue with No. 9 and try to post No. 8 later.

7. JDC: Deification was usually accorded only after death but Caesar Augustus received it even while he was alive.

MJ: But it was only inofficial. The sources are crystal-clear that Augustus prohibited all rituals, in which he was worshipped as god, a tradition that was continued by almost all of the emperors. He even managed to create an alternative: the cult of his genius, the holy guardian spirit. But Augustus knew that he had direct religious control only over the city of Rome. And he knew that the rest of the Romans and the Greek Romans didn't really care: outside of the city they worshipped him anyway, because he was Son of God, the son of their God, but it was never officially decreed. It was a constant back and forth, of giving and taking, religious flattery, true religio etc.. The big problem however came later: an inofficial cult of the living emperor was already established early on, which led to the decline and importance of the cult of the posthumously divinized emperor over the course of the centuries. No wonder that Servius entered the scene one day and said: "enough! I don't care what Varro wrote, I don't care what was hundreds of years ago!" The imperial cult became only a shadow of its former self. Only the cults of the first two Divi remained strong: the cult of Divus Iulius, which was often renewed by later emperors, e.g. Vespasian… and also the cult of Divus Augustus, whose festive day was connected with Apollo and was celebrated even in Christian Rome until late Roman antiquity.

6.a). JDC: In any case, and by whatever term, the essential job-description of a deified human,

MJ: No, not a "deified human". Remember Varro: a true and eternal god! "Backward and forward".

6.b) JDC: In any case, and by whatever term, the essential job-description of a deified human, of a person raised to divine status was quite clear. Required: major salvific service to the human race.

MJ: "Major salvific service to the human race required"? To me this sounds somewhat condescending, as if the early imperial cult and its gods were not "really gods", that they're worth only little, that their major religious impact needs to be diminished in Christian soteriology, in order to maintain that "Jesus" did come first and is absolutely unique in a soteriological context. Fact is that Caesar and Augustus (as gods!!!) were there generations before the Gospels were written, and Caesar was the first and new God: for the Romans throughout the empire he was a man on a five-year-mission, a true savior, redeemer, God, Son of God, who came as an epiphany with his advent when he crossed the fateful river from Gallia, the land in the North, and advanced toward the Holy City in the south, a teacher, highpriest, pontifex maximus and preacher with a continuously increasing number of followers, a propagator of religious freedom and tolerance, a revolutionary, the man of new and modern ways who opposed the old political and religious order and the fathers of the old scriptures (the Senators = patres conscripti!), a king who was never made king, a true man and true eternal god, benevolent ruler with charity, love and clemency. He had delivered them from hardship and hunger, had given them their daily bread, had even remitted many people's debts, had saved Rome from the evil and sins of the civil war, a savior who had made himself a slave to the Romans, to found a new Rome with new prosperity, an empire of God on Earth, a liberator and savior, who loved and forgave his enemies, and who was betrayed and murdered, who resurrected and ascended to heaven as highest God of all, while his heavenly and divine empire was established, his work finished, under the divine rule of Son of God and God from God Augustus, under the supervision of his first highpriest MARCUS Antonius and the new pontifex Lepidus. And under Augustus the Last Judgement came, the defeat of the assassins and conspirators, where the triumvirate and new God appeared during the battle of Philippi, the four horsemen of this Roman Apocalypse, then at last the new Pax Romana (or Pax Augusta), the defeat of Antonius and Cleopatra, defeat of Egypt, the land of the serpent, the defeat of the beast! The next savior of Rome was then created, and he was God's only begotten son, and he ruled the whole world, the empire of god. THAT'S EXACTLY how most Romans saw Divus Iulius and his legacy! And Augustus profiteered enormously.

How then can Christians maintain that Jesus was the first and only true god? That he is truely unique? That his salvation is the real one? Even if this phantom called "Jesus of Nazareth", which has been haunting the scientific community since the Enlightenment, if this phantom ever existed (which is quite impossible from a scientific standpoint), then this "Jesus", who is described in the Gospel, did not do remotely manage to bring about the salvation that the first divus, Divus Iulius, brought about in his lifetime. The salvation through Christ is a later theological construct, transposed from real-life salvation through Divus Iulius after the transformation of the Julian cult into Christianity (see also below). That doesn't mean that the salvation through Christ is untrue. No, it's perfectly real… under one condition: one has to make the connection to the original Roman cult of Divus Iulius and the sources on Caesar's deeds and passion from the crossing of the Rubicon until his entombment and resurrection. If one doesn't do that, "Jesus" has no historical existence and cannot have ever brought about and will never bring about any salvation & redemption. He'll remain this phantom for all eternity.

5. JDC: (And, of course, since the New Testament was written in Greek, not Latin, the fully human Jesus is designated there as divine with theos- not divus-language.)

MJ: a) On "theos" also meaning "divus" see above: what you've written is wrong.

MJ: b) Was the NT written in Greek? Lots of it, yes, e.g. John. But what e.g. about the synoptic gospels and more specifically the Gospel of Mark? How can you be so sure? Proclaiming a purely Greek origin is not very scientific! Where do all the latinisms (and even gallicisms like "reda"!) come from, especially in the oldest Gospel of Mark? Where do all those termini technici from the Roman army come from? When writing about the origins of the Gospel, one should not ignore Couchoud, Dormeyer, Carotta, Stauffer et al.. Why do many ancient copies of the gospels begin with the remark that the original gospel was written in Latin? Why has the old Church always maintained that the original gospel was written in Latin in Rome 12 years after the Lord's death? Why did the Latin text always have priority No. 1? No-one can prove without doubt that there was no Latin Ur-Gospel. Impossible. Fact is however that everything points to a Latin Ur-Gospel. For this a scholar needs good skills in philological analytical methods. And one has to reveal all the facts. One tiny little example: verbs in the Greek language normally precede the sentence they're in. But in Mark the verbs are extremely often at the end of the sentence, which we know from the Latin language. This is especially the case in subordinate clauses. And we find it in Mark. A Greek origin? Really?!

4. JDC: Greeks used the same word for both types of divinity – theos or thea.

MJ: Wrong again. "Theos" and "Thea" are not the Greek words for "deus" and "divus". A quick look into a Greek dictionary like the Liddell-Scott is enough to show us that the two Greek terms denote the GENUS of "god". "Thea" is the Greek word for a female god, whereas "theos" means at first a male god. But "theos" is the primary word because "theos" can ALSO mean "goddess". It has to inferred from the context if "theos" stands e.g. for Jupiter or Victoria.

But let me write quickly what the Greeks did: on Greek inscriptions both "divus" and "deus" were written as "theos", which is kind of logical, because the Romans themselves didn't distinguish it at first either. But as I wrote above, things changed with the cult of Divus Iulius, already during Julius Caesar's lifetime: divus and deus were suddenly interpreted differently by the theopolitical ruling class, and the old and simple translation of both terms as "theos" suddenly became insufficient. But to think that the Greeks then applied new words in the whole hellenized and Greek sphere of the empire, is of course nonsense, as we can see that on all later inscriptions "divus" remained translated as "theos". There was no real difference in Greek. It's not that people didn't try, especially in written sources, as also Gradel has shown, using Cassius Dio as an example. The fact that "deus" and "divus" now had two different meanings, created problems for Cassius Dio, who at first used "Dios Ioulious" (= engl.: "Zeus Julius") for the compound god-name "Divus Iulius" (see above). But this was not enough, so Dio later settled on the following terminology:

a) Caesar received a kind of "pantokrator"-statue in Rome during his lifetime, probably with an inscription similar to SENATVS·POPVLVSQVE·ROMANVS·DIVO·CAESARIS. Dio used the Greek word "hemitheos" for the term "divus" in this inscription. It means that "hemitheos" was the term for the divine ruler during his LIFETIME.

Please keep in mind that "hemitheos" in this context must not be translated as "half-god". It means "divus" = "god", with the specification that it's a god LIVING in human form. The word "hemitheos" in the alternative meaning of "half-god" entered the Latin language very late, ca. in the 4th century AD, because there was already a Latin word for "half-god", namely "semideus", which was coined as a direct translation of the Greek "hemitheos" by Ovid, but that was AFTER Varro's new definition of "divus"! Before Ovid there was no real Roman concept of a "half-god". There were only divine and non-divine entities.

b) For the divine ruler as Divus AFTER HIS DEATH AND APOTHEOSIS, Dio translated "divus" as "heros" in those cases, where "heros" stood alone, without the addition of the emperor's name.

c) As part of OFFICIAL CULT NAMES, Dio always used "theos" or "theios" for "divus", e.g. "Theios Augoustos" for "Divus Augustus". In this context it is also important to note that the original divus, namely Divus Iulius, at first received special treatment, as Dio called him "Dios Ioulious" (see above).

This practice of translating "divus" as "theos" when dealing with official cult names corresponds to the Greek rule of always using "theos" for the Latin "divus" on inscriptions (see above). Your assessment in this matter is completely wrong. So "theos" in the NT can easily also mean "divus".

3. JDC: "Romans distinguished those two categories linguistically as deus or dea versus divus or diva."

MJ: Wrong again. First of all, "the Romans" didn't distinguish between deus and divus, as Roman poetry and writings from the times before and after the introduction of the imperial state cult clearly show: these two words meant one and the same, namely "god" and only "god". In terms of the imperial cult and the cult of Divus Iulius—these two cults were two quite different religions, by the way!—, a new definition of "divus" was introduced, but the interpretation you deliver is the one by Servius, the Virgil-commentator. He lived rather late. But in order to understand what a divus was in 44 BC, one needs to look at contemporary sources, or at least infer them from later ones. Gradel has done so convincingly: "divus" (correctly: DIVVS) was closer to DIEVS, the old name of Iuppiter, than DEVS was, which is why the Senate and Caesar chose Divus Iulius as the title for the new Jupiter. (Accordingly Cassius Dio at first translated the compound god-name DIVVSIVLIVS as "Dia Ioulion", obviously the accusative of "Zeus Ioulios"; cp. "flamen DIAlis", the highpriest of Iuppiter. Weinstock's and other scholars' conjecture that "Iuppiter Iulius" hides behind this, is plain wrong. It was a translation of "Divus Iulius" from the very beginning.) After (or even before) the decision on the god-name, the Roman genius Varro had defined "divus" as denoting the elite, immortal & eternal and most noble gods. The term "deus" then specifically meant deified persons like Scipio Africanus! So in elevating Caesar and Augustus to Divi, they became the highest gods… REAL gods.

Servius however—who lived in a time, when Christianity was on the rise and the imperial cult on a decline—explicitly turned Varro's definition around by 180 degrees: "divus" now meant only a "deified ruler". In Servius' time the imperial cult was often only flattery, and not a full-fledged religion as during the reign of the Julio-Claudian and Flavian dynasties, and the term "deus" was subsequently used by Servius for eternal gods and was then also used for Christus. The Divi became a sub-category of the Dii. But please keep in mind that throughout the centuries "divus" and "deus" had been divergently defined by Varro, Servius and others as theopolitical labels only. And it's of course only logical that a scholar with a Christianized viewpoint like you uses the Divus-interpretation that fits the Christian mindset best, which in this case would be the later one by Servius. But talking about Caesar and Augustus and at the same time ignoring Varro's definition of "divus" distorts the historical reality at the beginning of the principate. Servius' view is not applicable here. But in general the terms "divus" and "deus" in standard classical Latin denote the same, namely simply "god", as I've written above. The two terms were completely interchangeable.

2. JDC: "Greeks and Romans distinguished between a god who was eternal backwards and forwards – for example, Jupiter – and a deified human, eternal only forwards – for example, Hercules."

MJ: No, that's wrong. Only the Greeks did so. The Romans adopted this custom at first, e.g. for the deifications and/or cults of Scipio Africanus and Marius Gratidianus during the Republic, but this all changed with the resurrection, ascension and apotheosis of Julius Caesar as Divus Iulius. Caesar was made highest god of the state, the new Iuppiter, received the most influential new flamen maior, a very strong empire-wide religion etc. pp.. Ittai Gradel (2002) has shown that the Roman Divi starting with Divus Iulius were the eternal elite gods, backwards and forwards, something that by the way has been known to a lot of scholars before Gradel. Divus Iulius may have been a man (called Gaius Iulius Caesar), but as God he became eternal, and eternally divine, and in retrospect his life as a human was interpreted as divine (cp. the title of Sueton's biography: "Divus Iulius"). He was then God and Son of God, who had walked the face of the Earth.

0. The response to J. D. Crossan's article has not been posted yet in its entirety, so at least I try to add the responses one by one. Taken from the revised post: I won't write a coherent article myself, but will address every point consecutively, even if it means a few repetitions here and there.

1.a) John D. Crossan wrote: For me, as a Christian, Jesus was and still is the “Son of God” as a transcendental alternative to Caesar as ”Son of God.”

Maria Janna writes: This opinion is understandable from a Christian perspective. But the Divi filius, and even more so his father Divus Iulius, who was also Son of God, namely of Venus, was as transcendental to Romans as Christ is to Christians today. To imply that Christ is therefore in any way "more transcendental", "more unique", "more divine", (you know: "more pregnant"!), just because Christians believe so, doesn't make it true, let alone historically true. One cannot judge ancient events and mindsets from a modern-day perspective, which furthermore may be biased and christianized. This would not add any value.

1.b) JDC: High above the Meander plain, on the mid-Aegean coast of Turkey, lies a broken beam from above the entrance to ancient Priene’s main temple. It proclaims in large Greek letters a dedication to that city’s patron goddess, Athena, but also to the “Autocrat Caesar, the Son of God, the God Augustus.”

MJ: Yes, one of many inscriptions and enormous amount of evidence concerning the fact that all of the Christ's titles, names, appellations etc. go back to the cult of Divus Iulius and the Augustan imperial cult of Divi filius… and yes: even later rulers such as Nero. In the NT we even find the exact same Greek term for "Divi filius" from the Roman imperial cult!

Two days ago I posted my thorough review and criticism of J.D. Crossan's article. It hasn't been published yet, which I find a bit irritating: it was either censored because I refuted Crossan 100% or because some of my wordings were a bit *aggressive*. I would ask the moderators to explain their behavior, because otherwise this ain't nothing else but Gitmo in written form. PS: read Carotta.

I'm sorry, Mr. Crossan. You may be an acclaimed scholar, but a lot of what you wrote about the imperial cult and the Christian implications is wrong and sometimes even condescending, a sign of complete ignorance concerning ancient religious realities, obfuscated by modern Christian indoctrination. Maybe I'll have time tomorrow or at a later date to refute your conjecture. I know it was all 1 1/2 years ago, but this has got to be addressed.

aiser the etruscan word for GOD. C the roman numeral for 100. norse mythology aesar= skyclad home of gods. zoar the german word for hear cea is another languages word for ear. YOUR BIBLE says be holy for I am holy OR does it mean be wholly C=100% aesar. YOUR BIBLE says heaven rules from on high! does that not mean There is no king but "see aiser=skyclad home of gods" Your bible say's Peace good will toward men = pax romana as you stated above. YOUR BIBLE says "'JESUS have you come to torment us before the time"! The only temple to a god Caesar built was to the GOD ApollO.THE MAIN TEMPLE IN Rome to Apollo was dedicated APOLLO THE TORMENTOR. The spirit of JESUS is the SPIRIT of Prophecy as it is written in ST.pauls letters. Do you want to guess who the god of prophecy is? hummm...should I keep breaking down your Christian CODEX!!! ok YOU TALKED ME INTO IT. You neglected to mention a title of Octavian was potifex maximus or the head of the state religion. Want to know why? because the head of the church is christ! St.Paul says I will APPEAL to Caesar. Appeal is a synonym of Pray. please feel free to reference your DICTIONARY OR YOUR THESAURUS. Jesus said blessed are the pure in heart for they shall SEE+ AESAR=etruscan word for God! JESUS said my burden is light GERMAN WORD FOR LIGHT=HELL. You seach the srciptures for in them you think you have eternal life but those are they who testify of me? HAIL LONG-LIVE CAESAR! WHICH was the ROMAN CREED. CREED IS A SYNONYM OF FAITH! JESUS SAID IM COMING LIKE A THIEF IN THE NIGHT. A theif in the night SEIZES YOUR PROPERTY! IM THE ALPHA= AUGUSTAS AND THE OMEGA =OCTAVIAN IS THE PICTURE BECOMING CLEAR. THE SON OF MAN GAVE HIS LIFE A RANSOM FOR MANY. AUGUSTAS TOOK HIS INHERITANCE FROM GAUIS JULIUS CAESAR AND PAID OFF THE LEGIONS. BY THE WAY LEGION =MANY. WHERE THE BODY IS THEIR THE EAGLES WILL BE GATHERED THE EAGLE WAS CAESARS STANDARD! FOR THOSE THAT ASK RECIEVE. THERE IS NO KING BUT CAESAR? CAN BE IN ENGLISH CONSIDERED A QUESTION! TIME WILL COME WHEN YOU WILL WORSHIP THE SON AS YOU WOULD THE FATHER! TO SAY HAIL LONG LIVE IS WORSHIPPING AND BLESSING THE NAME OF THE LORD. A SYNONYM FOR LORD IS A CAESAR OR KING. SAME REASON THEY DIPICT A BLONDE HAIR BLUE- EYED JESUS. I COULD GO ON AND ON BUT I WILL JUST END WITH THIS. WHY did augustas build a temple to APOLLO? even if you deny the LORD HE CANNOT DENY HIMSELF TO HIMSELF HE REMAINS FAITHFUL. PLEASE FORGIVE MY POOR ENGLISH...

Dr. Crossan, Thank you for that bit of writing. I am currently teaching an introduction to the Bible course and found your remarks very helpful in situating the discussion of the historical Jesus. I think students - especially one's from staunchly religious backgrounds - have a hard time with this issue. Thanks again, John Kaag

Oops, make that Professor Crossan with great thoroughness.

Added information:

Professor Crossan with great throughness examined all the existing scriptural writings from the first and second centuries AD/CE. If you do not have his 505 page book, The Historical Jesus, see http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan1.rtf.

Using these documents plus the conclusions of the major NT exegetes in the past two hundred years, he compared Jesus' reported acts and sayings to when they were reported and how many reports were made. Those acts and sayings with single or later attestations along with the current biblical scholarship negativity, were judged not to be done or said by the historical Jesus. Approximately 67% of the NT was judged to be in that category, i.e. embellishments of the facts typically made to compete with the "Caesar", "Alexander" and Egyptian gods. See http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf

Use this latter site to analyze NT references for "Crossan" acceptance, e.g. Matt 1:23
26±. Jesus Virginally Conceived: (1) Gos. Heb. 1; (2) Matt 1:18-25; (3) Luke 1:26-38; (4a) Ign. Eph. 7:2; (4b) Ign. Eph. 18:2a; (4c) Ign. Eph. 19:1; (4d) Ign. Smyrn. 1:1b., was judged to be not from the historical Jesus but of theological importance.

These same passages also are in direct conflict with (!5a) John 6:42
(!5b) John 7:40-44
(!5c) John 8:39-41
(!5d) John 8:56-58
(!6) Luke 2:27,33,41,48

where Joseph is reported to be the father of Jesus.

"In Rabbi Jesus: An Intimate Biography (2000), Bruce Chilton develops the idea of Jesus as a mamzer; someone whose irregular birth circumstances result in their exclusion from full participation in the life of the community. He argues for the natural paternity of Joseph and finds no need for a miraculous conception. In his subsequent reconstruction of Jesus' life, Chilton suggests that this sustained personal experience of exclusion played a major role in Jesus' self-identity, his concept of God and his spiritual quest."

"John P,Meier [Marginal Jew I,220-22] discusses the virginal conception as part of his larger chapter on Jesus' origins. He earlier notes that both infancy narratives "seem to be largely the product of Christian reflection on the salvific meaning of Jesus Christ in the light of OT prophecies (p. 213). At the end of his examination, Meier concludes:

The ends result of this survey must remain meager and disappointing to both defenders and opponents of the doctrine of the virginal conception. Taken by itself, historical-critical research simply does not have the sources and tools available to reach a final decision on the historicity of the virginal conception as narrated by Matthew and Luke. One's acceptance or rejection of the doctrine will be largely influenced by one's own philosophical and theological presuppositions, as well as the weight one gives to Church teaching."

It is always interesting to me to see unbelievers get so passionate and agry about something they say is a myth and never existed. Seems like the ultimate waste of time and energy being that they are so "wise" and "intellectual". Interesting that imaginary things upset them so much... very revealing actually.

Thank you very much, Dominic. That helps a lot.

I can see that part of the mix-up is that in the bookstore, I obviously originally saw the second edition, then saw the first edition several months later. Adding to the confusion is that on Amazon, while they mention that they are selling the revised edition, the prologue available for viewing is from the first edition – there’s no mention of the James ossuary box. You might be able to get them to correct that.

Still confusing to me is my recollection of seeing a photo of the box in your book (which is not in the prologue to the second edition on your website) and my recollection that the prologue suggested that the box might be authenticated just a few months after publication. Maybe that was further on in the book, or from another source. Although I have an active imagination, I doubt it is that active.

Still unexplained are your quotes found on the Nazarene Way website. Of course, I know you’re not responsible for putting them there. Perhaps the quotes are also from another part of the book or from another source. The site does not reference them. Perhaps the quotes are also out of context. It would be quite a leap to say of something you suspect is a fraud, "It's high on the list – probably No. 1…the closest we come archeologically to Jesus."

Again, thank you for responding. I don’t think anyone posting here expects regular responses from panelists, but your occasional popping in tells us that you’re listening and makes this a real dialogue.

Thanks also to Sally Quinn and Jon Meacham and their respective publications for making this possible.

Dear E. Favorite:
Please check my web-site, www.johndominiccrossan.com under "Books" as you have the first & second editions of "Excavating Jesus" somewhat mixed up. There you can read the "Forward to the New Edition" (created just to add & discuss that ossuary) of "Excavating Jesus." My co-author, the Galilean archaeologist Jonathan Reed, insisted the ossuary was a fake from Day 1 - I preferred to await until a more neutral, scientific, & international analysis could be made - that still has to be made, by the way. We both agreed it was the most importat archaeological discovery "about Jesus" -even or especially as a fake - because it drew attention to the problem of unprovenanced loot (for Jonathan) and the importance of Jesus's blood-brother James (for me). We knew exactly what we were doing and why. Hope that helps a little,
Dominic

Alert! Dr. Crossan and Martiniano

Martiniano, you said, “Don't you recall the recent excitement over the ossuary? It was such a big deal because it offered one of the few, very few, bits of evidence that Jesus existed. But it was apparently a hoax.”

It was definitely a hoax, as reported in the NY Times.
http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F60617F83C5D0C738FDDAB0994DC404482
(subscription required)

Here’s the beginning of the article:
December 30, 2004
Israel Indicts 4 in 'Brother of Jesus' Hoax and Other Forgeries

By GREG MYRE
“The Israeli police filed criminal indictments on Wednesday against four antiquities collectors, accusing them of forging biblical artifacts, many so skillfully that they fooled experts. Some were even celebrated briefly as being among the most significant Christian and Jewish relics ever unearthed. ….”

I figured it would be a hoax, just because these things always are. Thanks for jogging my memory about this episode, because it helped me research more deeply to try to solve a mystery, which involves Professor Crossan himself.

I was in a bookstore skimming his book, “Excavating Jesus” less than a year ago, and was disturbed to find that he mentioned the James ossuary box as a promising new find, that was likely to be verified as authentic just a few months after his book went to print. It seemed that he and his co-author (or maybe the publisher?) were irresponsibly leading readers on. I felt they either should not have mentioned it (knowing it would probably turn out to be fake), or should have delayed publication until they could make a definitive claim.

When I saw that Crossan was a panelist on this forum, I saw an opportunity to ask him directly about it. However, when I went back to the bookstore and also checked on Amazon, I couldn’t find the ossuary box reference, which I recalled being in the prologue. Was I losing my mind? Misguided, or confused? I let it go.
Until today, when I googled “Crossan James ossuary box” and found this:

http://www.thenazareneway.com/ossuary_of_james.htm
"It's high on the list – probably No. 1" of the most important Jesus related artifacts, says John Dominic Crossan, coauthor of "Excavating Jesus." It is "the closest we come archeologically to Jesus."

And this:

"We're not just dealing with mythical characters who are being theologically assessed," says Dr. Crossan, "These were real people in real situations."

Granted, my memory might be faulty, but this sounds remarkably like what I recall from the prologue to “Excavating Jesus.” It also had a photograph of the box from the book, which I remember vividly. It looks like this website picked up and capitalized on Crossan’s comments about the ossuary box, before it was disproved and excised from the book.

I also saw that on the Amazon site, it mentions that they are selling the “revised and updated” version of the book. I don’t know much about book publishing, but revising a book on ancient history a few years after publication seems unusual. I suspect that the authors and publishers decided to excise the inaccurate, misleading reference. If so, that’s great – I applaud it.

But – I also think there should have been a reference to having removed the original text, because it was disproved, or at least mentioning that the once promising James ossuary box had been proven to be fraud. It seems like the “Christian” as well as the scholarly thing to do.

If my analysis is wrong, please, Dr. Crossan, I implore you, tell me, and provide insight, if you can, as to how I may have become so confused.

You should also check further down in the “Nazarene way” website, to see that while it acknowledges the possibility of fraud, it does not state outright that the claims are disproved. Instead, it states that: “All this has left the box trapped, perhaps forever, in historic limbo - revered by many believers as the onetime repository for the remains of Jesus' brother, James, even as skeptics revile the ossuary as an attempt to deceive biblical history.”

So the deception continues, via people driven enough to find these kinds of websites, or via conventional wisdom that makes it easier to lead people astray or keep them ignorant, instead of helping them to think clearly.

The problem is that we are told that Jesus was the Son of God by the human authors of Scripture but with proper human analyses the passages that indicate there is a link have been found to be embellishments. God being God does not need humans to communicate through. The fact that there are so many differences in NT scripture is enough to conclude that God is not involved in recording the events 2000 years ago.

For added thought, here is what JD Crossan has to say about atonement theology: (from his book, "Who is Jesus" co-authored with Richard Watts)

"Moreover, an atonement theology that says God sacrifices his own son in place of humans who needed to be punished for their sins might make some Christians love Jesus, but it is an obscene picture of God. It is almost heavenly child abuse, and may infect our imagination at more earthly levels as well. I do not want to express my faith through a theology that pictures God demanding blood sacrifices in order to be reconciled to us."

"Traditionally, Christians have said, 'See how Christ's passion was foretold by the prophets." Actually, it was the other way around. The Hebrew prophets did not predict the events of Jesus' last week; rather, many of those Christian stories were created to fit the ancient prophecies in order to show that Jesus, despite his execution, was still and always held in the hands of God."

"In terms of divine consistency, I do not think that anyone, anywhere, at any time, including Jesus, brings dead people back to life."

Even if the ratio (38:1) were true, sociologists tend to be on the extreme "left" end of the spectrum, generally speaking. More importantly, it's not clear to me what that has to do with anything we're talking about in these forums. For instance, what does that tell us about how phyiscists and biologists conduct research?

At the risk of stereotyping, in most universities, folks in the natural sciences are not as curious about social issues (naturally!?!) as those in social sciences (sociology, anthropology, business, etc.) or in humanities like history and literature.

"I wonder what's behind thoses statistics. It could be that not very many conservatives choose to get a PhD in sociology. Maybe the life of a professor seems unappealing or too low paying."

Universities have often offered the only in-field employment to persons whose educational credentials have low market value (Sociology, Women's Studies, Literature), so it's not unusual that they think society's rewards are distributed unjustly.

I bet a graph of professor's liberalism vs. starting pay for graduates in their field would show almost perfect inverse correlation.

Antiluminous: You say, "I read an article recently that showed statistics for university hiring. Sociologists, for example, are hired in ratios of 38 leftists to 1 conservative."

I wonder what's behind thoses statistics. It could be that not very many conservatives choose to get a PhD in sociology. Maybe the life of a professor seems unappealing or too low paying.

Maybe conservatives are more likely to become investment bankers or military officers.

It would be interesting to know.

Historical Jesus studies have been afoot for only about 200 years. Before that the lack of education and communication in the global world prevented a thorough review of this fellow Jesus so called son of God.

Blind faith based on the musings of a few elderly gentlemen of the first and second century CE, and promulgated by a few "elite", white male Europeans is no longer acceptable. Please review the following before making any more judgments.

1. Historical Jesus Theories, (from Google) -- the names of most of the contemporary historical Jesus scholars and the titles of their over 100 books on the subject.

2. Early Christian Writings, (from Google)
-- a list of early Christian documents to include the year of publication

3. Historical Jesus Studies, (from Google)-- "an extensive and constantly expanding literature on historical research into the person and cultural context of Jesus of Nazareth"

4. Jesus Database, (from Google)--"The JESUS DATABASE is an online annotated inventory of the traditions concerning the life and teachings of Jesus that have survived from the first three centuries of the Common Era. It includes both canonical and extra-canonical materials, and is not limited to the traditions found within the Christian New Testament."

5. Josephus on Jesus (from Google)

6. The Jesus Seminar, (from Google)

7. Writing the New Testament- (from Google)

Fr. Crossan has stated his belief in a way that would make sense to the modern reader. The work of Jesus is a work in progress and will remain such. That there have been mis-steps is a given and yet there are still prophets willing to admonish the "People of God" and urge them to work for justice; show compassion and share is the suffering of the Cosmic Christ.

Yes, Rome co-opted Christianity as did the institution of patriarchy; but the core concept of power over is slowly being successfully challenged.

Rick -- I loved your post - and got what you were trying to say despite the occasional typo.

I hope you find opportunities off this forum to get your thoughts heard.

I sense in you a real desire to communicate, not to just preach or pontificate.

I am, quite frankly, disheartened by all this back and forth argumentative banter. I truly believe that Christians are called to be Christ-like. I also believe that we are called to be Loving, now in this moment, where we are and with whom we are. Others will know we are Christians only by our Love, for that is all they have to work with. Any other standard falls far short of the mark. Paul says it best in 1 Corinthians 13:

“If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.”

For me, the question always gets back to “what does it mean for me to be loving in this moment, in this particular situation, with these “least among us””: Which is to say, you and me on this forum, our wives and husbands, our children and extended families, our neighbors, the poor, the widow and her children, the imprisoned and even our enemies. How will these least among us know we are Christian except by our love? I believe my call as a Christian is to Love and to be Loving. If I am true to this calling, others will encounter Christ working through me. No argument will convince anyone that I am Christian or that I come from a “Christian nation”. When I forget this I fall into the trap of thinking there is something to win, such as this current argument or some other. But in truth my behavior, my being Loving, my being Christ-like, will say all that needs saying and my words will ultimately count for little.

Crossan's response is a really interesting look at how minority political and religious movements can use the language of the majority to the benefit of their cause.

Of course, if the contemporary political and religious authority (the emporer) is titled "Son of God" etc., then a good way to strip that position or perspective of its unquestioned power would be to appropriate the same titles for the opposite cause.

While I don't believe that Jesus is the only Son of God (as I am not Christian), I do see the reasoning, at the time, of taking such a title, according to Crossan's argument.

Puzzled:

"Surely no reasonable person really believes that the universe is 6000 years old and that extinction has never happened?"

Unfortunately, a great many people do -- and those people consider themselves to be reasonable.

In order to have a meaningful dialogue, there has to be at least some common foundation -- either a foundation of common logic, or common facts, or both. The concern is that significant technological advances -- such as we are experiencing now -- has the effect of creating a superstituous backlash where things like 6000-year old earth timelines are promoted as fact.

If you believe that Jesus existed and was in fact 'the Son of God' -- then that will without doubt have an impact on how you live your life. If you instead acknowledge that you have doubt, and that you may never know, then you put yourself in a more open position to examine his teachings and determine your response to them.

Of course, the danger in that approach is that folks may scream at you for being an agnostic.

Sigh.

Puzzling postings abound... Not sure where to begin.

How are evolution and Big Bang related? The only way these ideas contradict the Bible is if you read it literally. But once you start doing that, then there are a host of other problmes to navigate: We don't own slaves these days (or worse, we are not slaves ourselves), and women have equal (legal) rights as men, etc.

Surely no reasonable person really believes that the universe is 6000 years old and that extinction has never happened?

In order to have any conversations in the true sense of the word (i.e., not talking PAST each other), there has to be some amount of common knowledge and even more critical, some common sense, too. I see evidence of neither. Just a diversion from the really interesting question of the day.

Does Jesus have to be the son of God for the Bible to have any meaning in how we live our lives? Or, to put it another way, are some of the key ideas that Jesus taught (as written in the New Testament) good templates for everyone to get along in our (global) society (even if he was not really the "son of God")?

antiluminous,
One question: what does TLOP mean?
I found a possible meaning at this site http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=TLOP
Is this what you're talking about.

One thing is for sure. Christians need to be on guard against evil within their ranks, as demonstrated by the behavior of Representative Virgil Goode of Virginia. And he doesn't deserve to be called an American.

"Do you believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God? If so, what exactly does that mean? If not, who was he?"

No. Anyone who does must prove two assertions:

1. That God exists.

2. That God procreates and somehow produces a son.

The concept is meaningless.

Jesus was a Jew, possibly a revolutionary, who did not confine himself to doctrine and dogma, had some influence among the populace of his time, opposed the status quo and was affective enough to warrant execution by the religious and political power elete of his time. . . Today, he might be a simple Palestinian who might influence the Israeli public to such an extent that both the Palestinian and Israeli power eletes would simply kill him because he posed too great a threat to their status.

Yest Me, You are an atheist that disbelieves the credibility of the Holy Bible. I knew that by reading your posts. Why would you want to talk to a believer in God like me? I would imagine you would want to hang out at infidels.org or something.

...sorry for the spelling errors and other mishaps in my previous postings.
I unfortunately left out (near the top of my post), the key word "science" at the end of the following statement: >> How they fail to reconcile faith versus...

Karen, I read an article recently that showed statistics for university hiring. Sociologists, for example, are hired in ratios of 38 leftists to 1 conservative.

38:1

The fact is, credentials and ability do not matter. What matters first are loyalty oaths to ideology and leftist dogma.

Media has even more discriminatory hiring against conservatives than the universities do, and that is saying something. For example, newspapers would rather lose 60% of their subscriber base and revenue than hire 10% more conservative columnists and make a profit.

Everything in America is about ideology and dogma now.

This is why they didn't see 9/11 coming, and why they can't see the next one.

I do believe in Jesus as a true historical figure. I do believe that, like Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Theresa, and Ghandi, to name a few, that humans ARE capable of great altruistic acomplishments.
What I have an issue with is not just with Jesus and Christianity but with most other organized religions as well. It's this: How they fail to reconcile faith versus. We live in an age and time now that could not have been predicited at the time when most of the worlds current major religions were in their formative stages. Think of the scientific discoveries of evolution, biology, DNA, space, etc... For one, I cannot believe that a god went to an area in the middle east to start a religion. Our earth is just a tiny speck of dust in the vastness of time and space. This is a known fact: As big as our sun is (thousands of times bigger than our own earth), there are more starts in the universe than there are individual grains of sand on the entire earth! Wrap your head around that one! So Christ went only to the middle east as a human form, what to save only the people of the area? Like I said I do believe in a historical Jesus and I do believe Jesus was an extraordinary man. But what happens to the Chinese, the Africans, the Mayans, Incas, etc... Millions if not billions of people have existed prior to Christ and billions more afterward who do not "follow" Christianity. Are they condemned to eternal "limbo" if not outright damnation? At least the is how Christianity, Judiasm, and the Muslim faiths explains it. If there is a God who created everythings, that being must be extremetely, even UNIMAGINABLY powerful. I mean the ENTIRE UNIVERSE? And wrap your head around this: there is MORE EMPTY space than there is all the volume of all the stars in the universe. And now some scientist beleive that there may even be an infinite numiber of universes other than our own. This is utterly, unfathomably unimaginable! That makes me then beleive that a true omniscient, omni-potent, "God" could not have made itself known through a chosen people, a specific time, and an isolated place. If anything a more "truer" "God" would make itself known NOW, in this age of nuclear bombs, DNA cloning, our fuller understanding of our evolution as humans, of our understanding of space/time/math. Bringing people back from the dead, walking on water, healign the sick - these are claims that have been made throughout history among virtually most cultures. Our current Gods, it has been said is "too small" for me. If this God were to make itself known now, in the form of a human, animal, object, or whatever - it would have to perform "miracles" of an unimaginable power and scope. Not that I need to believe in the existence of a God because of it's mega-powers, but on the contrary - its "powers" are already self-evident in our now awareness of how wonderfully complex life (us and other living beings) is and how amazingly huge, and complicated our universe is - and for us to even fathom a minuscule part of it all - is all I need to prove that there is some system "out there" that "exists" to have brought all of this together. We are just (or should be) "appreciators" of this system and our whoel part of this. It has been said that man is so arrogant that he can create/make up a thousand gods but he cannot even make a single worm!

The internet is an amazing thing, in that it allows absolute idiots the opportunity to dominate a conversation that would go overwhelmingly the other way if the majority of the American people were polled. America is a Christian nation, as 70-80% of Americans self-ientify as Christians. Over 90% of Americans believe that God loves them, and a greater percentage (as is obvious) believes that God exists. The rampantly anti-religion, anti-Christian minority in this country no doubt watch out for the opportunity to "contribute" to conversations like this in order to give their pathetic, self-defeating lives some meaning in between reading Nietzsche and crawling out of their parents' basement at 30 years old. My suggestion: try stop blaming others for what you don't like in yourselves, stop mounting a fruitless effort to convince Americans that this country does not have a Biblical mandate, and try to leave this world a better (and more Godly) place than you left it.

Karen, I hope you don't mean scientists believe. That rules them out as scientists. What they say is "it's possilbe, can't be ruled out yet" and not believed. Yes there could be one or more Gods. And yes a God could have created the universe. And yes again, there could have been an exploding teacup full of matter somewhere in the process. No, there is no evidence God did it. There is evidence of the teacup of matter.

Theories are accepted and used but always questioned and must be discarded with any exception. Dogmas are not to be questioned. Dogmas are believed and we must have faith in them else the boogie man will get us. When little inconsistantcies like the earth is round are found in dogmas they are fixed, explained as mysteries when all else fails, anything including absolute nonsense but never discarded. Faith faith and more faith no matter what.

The Bible is a proved hoax. That proof is to the standard for proving literary hoaxes. Will that change anything?

Antiluminous, If you believe that no orthodox scientist would ever say that the BIg Bang is God's work and His way of creating the universe, please check out "The Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel. You will find that dozens of PhDs from the best US schools and working all over the US including in teaching positions at non christian universities believe exactly the above. YOu will find that many also believe in microevolution (ie within the same species) but not macroevolution (going from fish to human for example). There are many scientists that believe in intelligent design without being christians precisely because they feel that their scientific research points to a creator. So they are theist without belonging to a specific faith. Yet others are commited christians who find their faith strenghthened by their scientific findings.
I don't mean to be argumentative. I just want to point out a great resource that I am really enjoying reading at the moment.

Antiluminous:

I see I can't fool you. I'm so ignorant I dream things like that up, me being there when God created the world. Can you please help me?

Who was there when God said, "let there be light?" Was that you or are you, like me ignorant and just dreaming things up trying to hide your ignorance.

Maybe we should be more honest with ourselves. Don't you think? And if we are dishonest with ourselves then maybe others have been dishonest with us telling us a creation story they just thought up and claiming it God's word.

Have you learned lies and now believe them, have faith in them? That's bad. It's being negative educated making you more ignorant than before you started to learn.

Maybe this will help, http://www.hoax-buster.org/learninglies That's what you say that other fellow has done isn't it?

Martin, you haven't answered any of my questions. I don't know what realm of science you operate in, but it is not the professional scientific orthodoxy that operates in the west, that's for sure.

No orthodox scientist will ever claim that the Big Bang was "God's" work. Are you kidding me lol.

Want a taste of how the discipline of science really works? Take a look at this:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/the_house_government_reform_su.html

That is what happens to scientists who challenge scientific orthodoxy. Scientists don't mention God at work. If they do they are starved for it.

Antiluminous:

What actually happened? I was there along with 11 other reliable witnesses when God created a teacup full of highly compressed matter, lit the fuse and scooted. And the thing went kerbooooooom. Splattered star dust all over us.

Now one of those 11 others was not all that reliable, a Judas type. Genesis is his story. He's doing real good selling it. It's the most sold, owned, read, given and since Guideon has been putting them in motel rooms, stolen book of all time.

Do I need to tell you that it's a proved hoax? At least you have the real story of creation from me. The rest of the Bible story is at http://www.hoax-buster.org

Anti, you assume way too much. You think of the scientific community as monolithic. Let me tell you, it ain't so. There are fractures and debate and discourse occurring on every subject at every moment.

"Science" does not say whether or not God created the universe. Many scientists believe that the Big Bang is HOW God created the universe. They, and I am one of them, think the Big Bang IS Creation and God is responsible for the Big Bang. You can't come up with any way to test this part of the hypothesis, so it can't be included in any scientific way.

Then you say that evolution is the rejection of creationism. Science does not say that. In fact, it is Christians who say the opposite: Creationism is the rejection of evolution. But there are many scientists who believe that evolution is the way that God created us. They, and I am one of them, believe that God is responsible for evolution.

So it is you who is holding up a myth to say that God waved a magic wand (6,000 years ago no doubt) and created the universe and all life exactly as it is today.

Give me a way to test that and I'll believe it. Don't give me the writings of captive Jewish scholars telling stories. Give me ways to test your hypothesis.

The existence of Jesus may be so. The Dead Sea Scrolls tells the story of one person that might qualify.

There was a Jewish magician that attempted to convince the Romans that the Jew God was so powerful the Romans should pack up and leave if not outright run for their lives. His story is in part in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The plan: The magician had perfected the death act. He had knock-out potient that he adminsitered to his subject making them look dead and then claimed to bring him back to life. It worked well on the ignorant so he decided to try it on the Romans.

In short: he faked a curcifixion. The plan called for two others to be crucified with him, (good and bad thieves?). At dusk each day the Romans took the crucufied down off the cross and held them over night in a holding cell that was blocked by a large stone and guarded. The two thieves were big guys capable of moving the stone. So he and they would hang on the cross, NOT NAILED but just tied up. Things went well until the knock-out drops were administered to the Jesus figure making him look dead.

The Romans said alright he's dead but to just make sure they ran a lance through his side and into his vitals actually killing him. They also looked at the two big guys and said they might move the stone so they broke their legs.

It was one of those good ideas that when put into practice had a tragic ending.

Martin: "And you're still not making the connection between the big bang theory and evolution. I don't see any connection. Can you clarify?"

If you don't see a connection between the Big Bang Theory and Darwinism, you don't know science very well and how scientific institutions conduct loyalty oaths.

In the scientific community, you must be loyal to two things in order for your peers to accept you. Those two things are:

1) That God did not create the universe (The Big Bang Theory)

and

2) Evolution (the rejection of creationism)

I pointed these issues out many posts ago so you should have asked for clarification, but I assumed you were approaching this debate from a position off learned science and thought you already knew it. You see, you do not get published in science and judged by your peers unless you're loyal to the two scientific religious oaths above.

The problem with Darwinism is one of scientific record. There are large gaps in the fossilized record concerning evolution and man. It is incomplete, yet Darwinists say that it is not only complete, but there is evidence of such completeness. That compares to how science treats the Big Bang Theory. Absent evidence, science still draws conclusions.

Any other questions?

Re: Antiluminous,
I was in an old fashioned neighborhood Irish bar (they don't make them anymore) the other eveing when this flaky guy came walking in. It was close to closing time (3am) and flakes who were thrown out of regular bars end up in Kelly's
Sure enough this flake sits down right next to me and starts talking. Before I go on, why do I call him a flake: because he looked like a flake.
What is a flake: A falke is a guy who walks into aa Irish neighborhood bar in the Brons and ddemands we turn off the football game to watch the news on Channel 13, (the NPR TV channel) which we all know is a a commie, anti catholic, gay and lesbian, pagan TV front)
Anywasy, in walks Mr Flake and says: "My name is Antiluminous." I couldn't believe it. Here, in the flesh, mind you, is the guy who pontificates on the "On Faith" blog which is run by the anti catholic pro commie G&L pagan Washington POst which owns the commie pagan anti catholic Newsweek, and its pagasn Moderator Sally Quinn, (who need to go to confession in the Catholic church before it's too late, and.....)
Sorry, I do wonder.
AAnyway, mr Antiluminous, is about to order a drink, wwhen Eddie Murphy, our wonderful God fearing Irish bartender says: "Listen Mr. Antiluminous, I've read your attacks on Holy Mother the Church, and you'll not be getting a drink in this God fearing bar. Begone, Satan.":
Speachless, Mr. Antiluminous, slunk out.
I know there is a God in heaven.
James Whalen
President
Irish Catholic Existential Society

Creationism is not a Christian invention. It come from the Torah. Christians adopted it as they cherry picked Judaism.

And you're still not making the connection between the big bang theory and evolution. I don't see any connection. Can you clarify?

What proof is there, outside of the bible, that Jesus existed.

Are you saying that Jesus' existence is a theory?

Martin: "Over and over again the predicted expectations have been found in evidence."

The predicted expectation was nothing more than matter propelled from a central point with measureable energy. That is the Big Bang Theory and it is hogwash.

You can run the same models to recreate a rock thrown into a pond to produce ripples made of energy, or a gunshot through a watermelon, etc. It is the same outcome.

Science cannot use it as evidence to claim it understands, let alone proves, the origins of the universe.

The Big Bang Theory is scientific faith, which is designed to pull folks into Darwinism. You didn't understand what I meant by that so you probably should have asked me before speaking for me. Darwinism does what, it conflicts with Christianity over creationism. So when you combine the Big Bang Theory with Darwinism, you get science's religious determination that TLOP is god.

That is no different than a Christian saying God created the universe, absent evidence.

Norrie,

I assume you are familiar with the writings of Josephus. He mentions Jesus in Antiquities. His writing, like that of the Gospel (injeel), have been rewritten and revised over the past 2000 years so it is difficult to know what he actually wrote about Jesus. But here are two quotes of the passage - one from the western version of his writings (and probably revised to support Jesus' divinity) and the second quote is from a 10th century Arabic scroll. I pulled this from http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/josephus-jesus.html

One:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man IF IT BE LAWFUL TO CALL HIM A MAN, for he was a doer of wonders, A TEACHER OF SUCH MEN AS RECEIVE THE TRUTH WITH PLEASURE. He drew many after him BOTH OF THE JEWS AND THE GENTILES. HE WAS THE CHRIST. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, FOR HE APPEARED TO THEM ALIVE AGAIN THE THIRD DAY, AS THE DIVINE PROPHETS HAD FORETOLD THESE AND THEN THOUSAND OTHER WONDERFUL THINGS ABOUT HIM, and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day (Antiquities 18:63-64).

Two:

At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders.

Antiluminous, where do I start...

In the context of science the word "theory" does not mean "guess". You are confusing "hypothesis" with "theory".

The big bang was a hypothesis. Scientists from many branches of natural science came up with expectations based on mathematical models to determine what should be observed if the big bang happened. Over and over again the predicted expectations have been found in evidence. Enough has been found to support the hypothesis that science now refers to it as a "theory". The big bang can never be proven because it can never be reproduced. So it will remain a theory that is highly respected and accepted by most scientists, including many Christian scientists.

And how in the world did you associate the big bang theory with Darwinism? They are totally different areas of science!

Now back to Norrie's: Is there proof OUTSIDE the Bible that Jesus existed? No. There is speculation but no proof. Without referring to the Bible please tell me where the proof is? As you've said, the Romans have destroyed all evidence they held.

So name one proof of Jesus' existence without referring to the Bible.

"Ask yourself this question. If Christianity had historic flaws, do you not think that some atheist or atheist collective would have long ago pointed them out?"

To paraphrase what Sam Harris wrote in The End of Faith, if we were to take almost any European from the years 100-1400 AD, and bring him with us today, we would consider him a complete ignoramus in almost any area of science.

His beliefs about astronomy, biology, chemistry, geography and culture outside Europe, would be an embarssment to even a 10-year old today. (Some parts of math he might have been OK with.)

Did the fact that hundred of millions of Europeans believe that iron could be turned into gold by non-atomic-level chemical processes make it true? That the other planets and stars rotate around the earth? That humans and other primates are not genetic relatives?

If your argument is that hundreds of millions of people over thousands of years can't be wrong, that is just mistaken.

Martin, "Truth is unequivocal."

Finally someone steps in to provide me a challenge. I have been waiting the past few days for this moment.

Now Martin, has science proved the creation of the universe? No, it has not. However, we know the universe exists, right? So what science did was come up with the Big Bang theory to try and force all the scientists into the Darwin camp. But the Big Bang theory is just what, a "theory" so it too has to be taken by "faith" in order to be believed.

As a scientist, if I cannot replicate a theory, it is not proven. I say that because TLOP makes it so, not because I want a specific outcome or not. If I adjust scientific notes to try and prove a theory, that is not credible, is it? No, and it would violate scientific ethics to do so.

So what we are left with from some quarters within science is "hey, we can't prove that the universe was created by God, nor can we disprove it, so God must not exist."

That is what science tells us. Is that a true statement? No it is not. However, we ask all those pesky Christians out there to believe science without question and that is just plain wrong to do that.

So when science says that the Big Bang theory created the universe, it is no different than the Christian saying that Christ will return in their lifetime. See it? Science then admits "faith", even if that faith exists in the potential that one day science may be able to answer the ultimate question humanity wants in terms of how the universe began.

Now, since science cannot answer the ultimate question as to how the universe began using TLOP, it is fallacy to tell Christians that they are kooks, wingnuts, wackos and everything else for believing in Christianity.

In fact, Christianity has the upper hand because of all the archeological evidence. Sure the Ossuary didn't work out, but the Dead Sea Scrolls certainly do. There is archeological evidence appearing all the time.

Also, the Roman state has an interest in making Jesus disappear because the Jews and others believed he was their "Messiah". So the Romans wanted him in an unmarked grave, so to speak. That doesn't disprove he existed. He existed because the historic record proves that he does. Folks witnessed what he did and did what, they performed like good scientists and wrote down their observations.

Christians then are the first true scientists by writing down everything they saw and even punching writing through copper scrolls to form a scientific "data center" so to speak for future generations.

Science and Christianity not only prove the existence of Jesus, they also justify the existence of God due to science's inability to explain it away otherwise.

Professor Crossan,

Caesar was not God but you relate Jesus to the "god" Caesar but not to the "god" God. As much as I like your scholarship, you skirt some issues. With a simple Yes or No, is Jesus the Son of the Almighty God the Father, the Creator of Heaven and the Universe?

Antiluminous, brother you do get me worked up!

"Science has already proven the existence of Jesus Christ."

You and I clearly have different definitions for "science". I hold "science" to the definition borne of Descarte and Bacon. Truth is unequivocal.

Don't you recall the recent excitement over the ossuary? It was such a big deal because it offered one of the few, very few, bits of evidence that Jesus existed. But it was apparently a hoax.

Josephus mentions hearing of Jesus Christ and that may be the closest thing you'll find to evidence.

You and no one have any idea who wrote the Gospel.

Personally, I believe Jesus lived. But there is no proof.

Doug asked: "Are the millions of people who supported the burning of witches proof that they existed?"

I think that it proves that Christianity and witchcraft don't mix lol.

Look Doug, I know you are trying to find some non-sequitor to punch a hole in Christian history, but there isn't one.

Ask yourself this question. If Christianity had historic flaws, do you not think that some atheist or atheist collective would have long ago pointed them out? Come on! It is the year 1990 forward and all of sudden a bunch of atheists get TV and media time to claim that "christianity" doesn't exist?

Are you people that naive as to believe that? Is this being taught in American public schools? What is the source of this "special atheist knowledge" that Christ did not exist? Some high school teacher? lol What is the source? o.0

Professor Crossan:

I'm confused. Please explain salvation. That is the act of being saved? When the Baptist preacher came to my door to personally invite me to his church he asked if I had been saved but failed to tell me what from. When I asked what from he only said "you know." Do I know?

He wasn't talking about the demon, monster critter that eats people all gone was he? "You know" Eater? Perhaps you can fill me in before I buy the story that Christianity began in ancient Egypt and is the act of extorting wealth from people by threatening them with hell. I'm guessing "you know" but just in case, there's a description of Egyptian Christianity at http://www.hoax-buster.org

antiluminous: Doug, the millions of churches and billions upon billions of humans that have joined them since Christ's resurrection are proof that he existed.

Are the millions of people who supported the burning of witches proof that they existed?

When I guess at the mix of functions that applies to various activities of the Biblical Jesus, I find merely recommendations. I am lost as to how the Biblical Jesus provided salvation to humanity. From my readings outside the Bible, I find nothing that remotely resembles any salvation to humanity that arose from either the Biblical or historical Jesus. Can any of you help me understand what Crossan is saying in that context?

Doug, the millions of churches and billions upon billions of humans that have joined them since Christ's resurrection are proof that he existed.

Jesus Christ has had his name scratched down on almost every conceivable form of crafted object since his crucifixion. The archeological evidence alone could fill the Library of Congress to the ceiling multiple times.

Jesus existed because history proves it, not just through eye-witness accounts and the historical record as written in the bible (yes the bible is a historical record), but through the voluminous tangible evidence.

Do you think that Pontius Pilate didn't exist? We know he existed through the Roman's extensive record-keeping. He ordered Christ's crucifixion. Then he converted to Christianity afterwards. Now, why would Pontius Pilate convert to Christianity if Christ did not exist?

Science has already proven the existence of Jesus Christ.

sorry to read and Judge but, here is a group of people trying to read into scripture and decern what GOD THINKS ,Am i to believe that men who and women also, could even ,or would,, atempt to think
what GODS plans Are or why? IN all his glory GOD knows as do you that his thoughts are not your thoughts ,so just satisfy your selves with the knowledge that without him,,,
Hells the only out you have

MERRY CHRISTMAS

antiluminous: Norrie, the bible is a historic record of Jesus's life and efforts. Much of it was written by Jesus's own disciples, who witnessed the events of those days first hand.

That wasn't the question. He specifically asked for "any evidence extrinsic to the Bible" that Jesus existed.

Norrie, the bible is a historic record of Jesus's life and efforts. Much of it was written by Jesus's own disciples, who witnessed the events of those days first hand.

Denying that Jesus existed is like trying to deny the existence of the Holocaust. There is 2000 + years of evidence that proves Jesus existed.

Candide, Jesus was not sent to Earth by God to destroy the Romans. He was sent to save them. In fact, Jesus was passively converting the Romans, his captors, right up until he was crucified.

When Pontius Pilate confronted Jesus and told him that he had the power to let Jesus live or die, Jesus told him: "You have no power over me except that which was given to you from above."

And guess what, after Christ was crucified, the man who ordered his crucifixion, Pontius Pilate, converted to Christianity!

Then the entire Roman nation converted over time afterwards.

This is why we must bring Christianity back into our schools so we can teach Christianity to folks like Candide who obviously did not benefit from such religious philosophy in school. Our schools today are only giving students 1/2 an education.

I will volunteer to teach. If some college out there isn't hostile to Christianity and wants me to teach, just let me know and I will come teach.

Dr. Crossan, you say, “…the Romans…announced that, not Caesar the Augustus, but Jesus the Christ had incarnated and contributed the fullest transcendental service to the human race.”

Are you saying that early Christians just transferred long, established qualities accorded to Caesar onto Jesus? Interesting. I’d never heard that before.

Still, it’s not very original, and doesn’t seem like reason enough to assume the qualities truly belong to Jesus. Is that what you were trying to say? It seems more in keeping with other lifted pieces of the Jesus story taken from Pagan tradition, e.g., the virgin birth, the resurrection.

I have a question that for me is very serious. Perhaps I should know the answer, but I don't. Is there any evidence extrinsic to the Bible that Jesus the man actually existed, and that he did the non-supernatural things the Bible records? I would appreciate a non-polemical answer. Thank you.

Ohhh. Jesus saved man cuz his father was going to wipe out humanity. But he killed his son instead.
Thus saving humanity. Who's idea was that? Dumbest one ever perhaps. Deluded folk will believe the dumbest things!

I am going to punish the Jews and wipe them all out!

But, on second thought, I'll kill my son.

So that crazy gentiles can say I killed him to save them.

My god, how stupid is religion?

Thank you Dr. Crossan --- your perspective is very helpful. I particularly appreciate the following,

"Jesus confronted the Empire of Rome with the Kingdom of God and his followers later confronted the Roman emperor as Son of God with the Jewish Jesus as Son of God. Today we may like or dislike their choice of theological language, but we should at least recognize that they proclaim God’s opposition to Empire – Egyptian or Roman, British or American – because of its violent injustice."

I would love to hear your thoughts on contemporary practitioners of nonviolence. How might faith communities in the United States more boldly proclaim our allegiance to Jesus, the Son of God and oppose empire? How are we to confront "Caesar" worship in our contemporary churches?

Sorry, I spelled reproach wrong. Also excellence wrong. I got carried away.

Crossan is a good scholar but a sentimentalist. His idea that Jesus as Son of God is some kind of reproch vs. imperial grandiosity is ridiculous. The Roman empire in adopting Christianity made it the Roman religion par excellance and it has remained this. Jesus was anti-Roman but Rome defeated him and his ideas and made Christianity into a newly strengthened form of despotism.

One needs to forget about Jesus. His teachings are found elsewhere. His original contributions were mostly defeated.

How did Jesus bring humanity salvation in any way shape or form?

Jesus protected us from risk, loss, and destruction?

At what point in time?

All I can see is 2000 years of strife. Crusades, burning times, holocausts, ethnic cleansings, pogroms, 9-11's, Arab Israeli conflicts and just plain ol' homophobes.

What salvation do you speak of?

I see the opposite.

The man is a fulcrum for catastrophe, used by the self-abused.

Now he's a persoality cult? Used tojudge others by. He'd puke if anything.

There is no God. Get real folks.

For me as a Jew, Jesus was a good man, wonderful teacher/idol and might be a prophet like other prophet. But absolutely he was not God, God does not grow up like Jesus, God is almighty but Jesus was not almighty, he could not defense himself against crucifying.

"But among those three metaphors, Jesus as Son of God is very special because that was the title of Caesar on coins and inscriptions, statues and structures all over the Mediterranean world at the time of Jesus’ birth. To confess that title of Jesus was to de-confess it of Caesar, that is, to commit your life to peace through justice rather than peace through victory. It still is."

Crossman is a genius. :)

"To confess that title of Jesus was to de-confess it of Caesar, that is, to commit your life to peace through justice rather than peace through victory. It still is."

Being an atheist myself, I have no use for anyone to be the offspring of God in any supernatural sense.

But the life and teachings of Jesus are still of high value about the role religion can play in life. Old Testament Judaism was largely a "political" religion. It was about what the laws of society should be and about the military victories that would accrue to a society who obeyed them.

Jesus preached a variation on Judaism to those who did not possess political power to make their own laws. His version is based on forgiveness of sin.

One does not have to interpret "sin" or forgiveness supernaturally to understand that we all do things that are wrong and all need to be forgiven and to forgive others for them.

Dr. Crossman said: "For me, as a Christian, Jesus was and still is the “Son of God” as a transcendental alternative to Caesar as ”Son of God.”

That is 100% correct! Well said.