Alexander and Jesus | Sons of God | Hellenism
5.6 هزار بار بازدید -
6 سال پیش
-
Alexander's conquests going East and
Alexander's conquests going East and the Apostle Paul's message going West were big influences on the evolution and birth of Christianity. The mix of cultural movements during Hellenism led to an evolution of beliefs eventually leading to Christianity where the apostle Paul (A Roman Jew) would lead the theological mixing of beliefs and as the message of Jesus moved West it would even become more Hellenistic and Roman as Jesus went from a Messiah to a God.
No religious revelation comes out of no where it is from the same stuff that was there from before. What is new is its hybrid nature of religious and cultural narratives that keep getting expanded. Alexander was a Son of God (War and conquest) where Jesus was a Son of God (Peace and Roman occupation)
It is no accident the New Testament was written in Greek and the apostle Paul was a Jewish educated Roman citizen. The mix and influence of Hellenism is found in the Apostle Paul himself and all over the New Testament.
The Jewish religion itself evolved from the mix that came from conquering civilizations like Babylon and Persia where the influence of Zoroastrianism had a profound impact.
Alexander the Great Son of Zeus - Amun. Salvation in this world through war and conquest. And Jesus Son of a Jewish God of a new covenant of peace and love. Salvation in another world through death and sacrifice. It was the perfect counter narrative to Imperial theology.
"I have always thought of the historical Jesus as a homeland Jew within Judaism within the Roman Empire. I have always thought of the historical Paul as a diaspora Jew within Judaism within the Roman Empire. For me, then, within Judaism within the Roman Empire has always been the absolutely necessary matrix rather than the annoyingly unnecessary background for any discussion of earliest Christianity. You can see that three-layer matrix, for example, in the sub-titles to the first and last books above. For the historical Jesus, The Life of a Mediterranean Peasant, emphasizes Rome, Judaism, and Jew.
The Apostle Paul Opposed Rome's Empire with God's Kingdom, emphasizes Jew, Rome, and Judaism. Whether you start or end with the Roman Empire, the Roman Empire is always there."
John Dominic Crossan
Incarnation was not invented by Christianity. Caesar and Alexander before him were Sons of God. The Jesus as God theology was a revolution not by a man as a Son of God but what TYPE of man could be a son of God. It was also a counter narrative to what type of man could be a Messiah for the Jews.
Alexander and Jesus both had later claims that their Fathers were God. Alexander and Jesus also died around the same age, one as an Imperial King in Babylon and the other as a usurper against the Roman empire in Jerusalem.
A son of God who was not a conquering King. A messiah who was not a man of power but a man of suffering and tragedy. This was the counter narrative of Christianity to the incarnation theology in the ancient world.
"Why did we call Jesus 'lord'? In the Roman world, Caesar was lord, so if you call Jesus lord, Caesar ain't, and it becomes high treason. What was the alternative vision for the world that Jesus and Paul had, and why did it get them killed?"
In MATTHEW AND EMPIRE, New Testament professor Warren Carter examines the political claims and visions of social organization found in the Gospel of Matthew, which he describes as "a theological challenge to Rome's imperial propaganda." Biblical studies professor Neil Elliott interprets Paul's Letter to the Romans "in the shadow of empire" in a book entitled THE ARROGANCE OF NATIONS, and he makes a case for "the counter-imperial aspects" of Paul's rhetoric. In THE POWER OF THE WORD: SCRIPTURE AND THE RHETORIC OF EMPIRE, to "deconstruct the language of imperial domination in which scriptural texts remain caught up."
No religious revelation comes out of no where it is from the same stuff that was there from before. What is new is its hybrid nature of religious and cultural narratives that keep getting expanded. Alexander was a Son of God (War and conquest) where Jesus was a Son of God (Peace and Roman occupation)
It is no accident the New Testament was written in Greek and the apostle Paul was a Jewish educated Roman citizen. The mix and influence of Hellenism is found in the Apostle Paul himself and all over the New Testament.
The Jewish religion itself evolved from the mix that came from conquering civilizations like Babylon and Persia where the influence of Zoroastrianism had a profound impact.
Alexander the Great Son of Zeus - Amun. Salvation in this world through war and conquest. And Jesus Son of a Jewish God of a new covenant of peace and love. Salvation in another world through death and sacrifice. It was the perfect counter narrative to Imperial theology.
"I have always thought of the historical Jesus as a homeland Jew within Judaism within the Roman Empire. I have always thought of the historical Paul as a diaspora Jew within Judaism within the Roman Empire. For me, then, within Judaism within the Roman Empire has always been the absolutely necessary matrix rather than the annoyingly unnecessary background for any discussion of earliest Christianity. You can see that three-layer matrix, for example, in the sub-titles to the first and last books above. For the historical Jesus, The Life of a Mediterranean Peasant, emphasizes Rome, Judaism, and Jew.
The Apostle Paul Opposed Rome's Empire with God's Kingdom, emphasizes Jew, Rome, and Judaism. Whether you start or end with the Roman Empire, the Roman Empire is always there."
John Dominic Crossan
Incarnation was not invented by Christianity. Caesar and Alexander before him were Sons of God. The Jesus as God theology was a revolution not by a man as a Son of God but what TYPE of man could be a son of God. It was also a counter narrative to what type of man could be a Messiah for the Jews.
Alexander and Jesus both had later claims that their Fathers were God. Alexander and Jesus also died around the same age, one as an Imperial King in Babylon and the other as a usurper against the Roman empire in Jerusalem.
A son of God who was not a conquering King. A messiah who was not a man of power but a man of suffering and tragedy. This was the counter narrative of Christianity to the incarnation theology in the ancient world.
"Why did we call Jesus 'lord'? In the Roman world, Caesar was lord, so if you call Jesus lord, Caesar ain't, and it becomes high treason. What was the alternative vision for the world that Jesus and Paul had, and why did it get them killed?"
In MATTHEW AND EMPIRE, New Testament professor Warren Carter examines the political claims and visions of social organization found in the Gospel of Matthew, which he describes as "a theological challenge to Rome's imperial propaganda." Biblical studies professor Neil Elliott interprets Paul's Letter to the Romans "in the shadow of empire" in a book entitled THE ARROGANCE OF NATIONS, and he makes a case for "the counter-imperial aspects" of Paul's rhetoric. In THE POWER OF THE WORD: SCRIPTURE AND THE RHETORIC OF EMPIRE, to "deconstruct the language of imperial domination in which scriptural texts remain caught up."
6 سال پیش
در تاریخ 1397/10/28 منتشر شده
است.
5,666
بـار بازدید شده