Might I just mention, parenthetically, that that seems to me to be one bucketload of listenings. Then again, I became so deeply hooked on my cassette of Godspell that I wore out the cassette. Twice. :eek:
Have you ever noticed that if you start the soundtrack to " J.C.S. " at exactly the first note and synchronize it with the first frame of the original “Star Wars”, … 
Non-wise-assed post. 'Tis the season for this kind of stuff it seems. I would dearly love to know what Judas really thought, really did and whether or not he was asked to do so by Jesus. We’ll never know. ( Robert Silverberg fans aside )
IF the document’s provenance is indisputable, well…dang. That’s pretty neat. Is it just coincidence that this document was stored in Hicksville, NY- the very same town where Billy Joel hung out during his formative years? I think not.
That is so near my hometown. And my mother would love it if I’d go see it. She doesn’t accept that I don’t have much interest in anything churchy, although I’ve told her so.
Back then, however, “son of God” did not mean what we see it to mean today. A Jew saying they were a son of God then is roughly analogous to a preacher telling people that they are the children of God today. The more controversial claim that Jesus made was that he was the “son of man,” which meant that he was the fulfillment of prophecy. This is something that the Pharisees and others refused to accept.
Jesus never explicitly claimed that he was, in fact, divine. That’s whether he was fully divine, fully human, or part divine/part human was a doctrinal question that was answered (or at least asserted) by the Council of Nicea centuries after Jesus’ death.
Should this not be in Great Debates or Cafe Society? Just wondering.
When looking at anything, especially things with media sensation behind it and/or anything like “secret teachings” “opressed by_____” or the like, look at it through the eyes of a skeptic. Many times they are not telling the entire story or are making a mountain out of a molehill. And sometimes, it is just false information. Be careful out there in media land, fellow dopers.
(I am feeling under the weather so I am going to lay on the couch and watch I Love the 80s:3D which I have DVRed)
“Son of God” was also used as a designation for kings of Israel. It still wasn’t used to denote the literal, physical ofspring of a deity, but “Son of God” could certainly be used as a way to imply that someone was a rightful heir to the throne of David – i.e, the Messiah.
“Son of Man” (actually “son of Adam.” Adam means “man”) was just a Hebrew/Aramic way to refer to all human beings. Everybody is a son of Adam. It had no titular meaning in ancient Judaism. It acquired a Messainic meaning in Christianity because the book of Daniel says that the Messiah will be “one like a son of Adam” – i.e. a human being. Mark took a generic phrase for “humans” and recast it is a titular phrase for the Messiah but the Pharisees would not have seen it as such or had any problem with it. There was nothing wrong with even claiming to be the Messiah for that matter. People might think you were wrong or you were crazy, but you wouldn’t be breaking any laws or anything.
Having said all that, Mark’s use of those terms reflected his own theology and perception of the Messiah and did not necessarily correspond to how they were used in Jesus’ actual historical milieu. All the more reason to read the Barabbas story as parabolic rather than historical.
Or look here http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible1.html