I’m sure there are some religious experts here, how valid is the concept that Jesus was the son of a roman soldier? If so I wonder what role that would have had in his anti-Roman, pro-Jewish attitudes.
I thought that was Brian.
Yeah, son of Naughtius Maximus.
Shut up big nose.
I was shocked when I first read that there was a tradition of Jesus being the son of a Roman Soldier named pantera. It was in a footnote in T.H. White’s excellent The Bestiary: A Book of Beasts, which is a translation of a medieval bestiary, complete with all the religious asides. Maddeningly, in the section on the Panther, White flung out this tidbit of informaion without his usual followup, so it sat there as a bare, uncited and unsupported asserttion. It was years before I found a lengthy explanation of it in Morton Smith’s 1978 book Jesus the Magcian
Regardless of Smith’s own beliefs, the book is a useful compendium of scurrilous rumors about Jesus in the first few centuries of the Christian Era. Smith observes that there is a Roman grave marker in Germany to one Pantera and “if real might be our only relic of the Holy Family”.
I doubt if Smith actually believed that – he was being provocative. It’s possible that the idea arose from sayings that Jesus was the son of a parthenos (virgin), interpreted and re-imagined by a hostile audience that shaped it into the son of pantera.
The first serious reply, thank you for that. I haven’t heard of that book but it sounds interesting. I’m asking the library to get a copy for me.
Interesting, I’d never heard of this. So, was this actually what the Pythons were going for, or is the analogous lineage of Brian just a coincidence?
There is no historical evidence supporting the notion that Jesus was the son of a Roman soldier. I’ve seen the argument advanced, once, that the story of the Virgin birth must have been concocted to cover up the embarrassing truth, and it would have been quite embarrassing if Mary had been impregnated by a Roman. Tenuous reasoning, to put it mildly.
As for Jesus’s “anti-Roman, pro-Jewish attitudes”, no explanation seems necessary. He was born and raised in a Jewish village culture and viewed himself as fulfilling Jewish religious and cultural expectations. He was not more anti-Roman than the culture, but less. Different Jewish groups at the time were all antagonistic to Roman rule. One group, the “Zealots”, pushed for open revolt, but more mainstream groups accepted Roman rule and instead focused on remaining pure from the surrounding pagan culture. Jesus, on the other hand, regularly invited crossing of the border between Jews and pagans. He ignored purification laws and rituals that Jews generally observed with regards to non-Jewish people.
The Greek philosopher Celsus made the same claim at around the same time. So it seems to have been a fairly common rumour in the Ancient world during the late second century. But Celsus was writing a polemic against Christianity, so it seems at least as likely that it was basically a way of ridiculing the virgin birth story as anything else.
And Joseph is really the only name the two genealogies for Jesus agree on, so it seems likely the boring truth is that that was his actual father’s name.
The Greek philosopher Celsus made the same claim at around the same time. So it seems to have been a fairly common rumour in the Ancient world during the late second century. But Celsus was writing a polemic against Christianity, so it seems at least as likely that it was basically a way of ridiculing the virgin birth story as anything else.
And Joseph is really the only name the two genealogies for Jesus agree on, so it seems likely the boring truth is that that was his actual father’s name.
(That said, Joseph is suspiciously absent in Paul and Mark and in the general biblical narrative. So its not impossible he was a made up character to give Jesus a connection to the House of David. But I think its more likely he just died early on, and so while the early Christians actually knew Mary, they didn’t have any connection to Joseph (other then James the Just, of course)).
You seem vewy certain about that, Centuwion. :dubious:
FWIW and this goes into witnessing, Nephilim (hybrid) children, such as Jesus, need a biological father, though their real father is in the heavens. These hybrid children are all born sinless. The surrogate father could be anyone and that is really irrelevant to who this child is except to the point that the child must realize this and overcome this. So it is possible that Jesus’ bio-dad was a roman soldier but really doesn’t matter, Mary only saw and interacted with a ArchAngel (or God) that she saw through this man.
Well, I don’t suppose she would have been the first girl to have her cherry popped by Dimebag Darrell.
That is blatant heresy since 1) it denies the Virgin Birth and 2) makes Jesus the equivalent of Nephillim rather then the One and Only Begotten Son of God.
"God is One’ and God only has one child, that single child is all of us.
Does it deny the virgin birth, are you the one who accuses Mary of adultery when God Himself has found no fault in her?
\
What are you implying here? Do you mean to deny the Trinity?
Nonsense. We (or at least the Elect) are the children of God in one sense of the word in that we all share in the inheritance of Christ but God had only one Son.
What do you mean? Are you suggesting that it would been adultery for Mary to have impregnated and given birth as a virgin?
Actually, rather than a heresy, I see it as a hijack. It has nothing to do with the question in the OP and if either of you, (or anyone else), wants to pursue this line of discussion, you will open up a separate thread to do it.
[ /Moderating ]
No convincing evidence. But a legitimate scholar, James Tabor of the University of North Carolina, argues for it in the book The Jesus Dynasty. And the book is at least legit enough to get positive blurbs from other legitimate bible-era scholars:
http://jamestabor.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/EndorsementsJesusDynasty.pdf
I read the book, and the claim is made in a tentative manner.
If Tabor does have the right father, it is extremely frustrating that there’s an image of his body, but the head is missing:
If so, every religion except Christianity, as well as atheism, is a heresy.
Secular study of religion has to look for non-miraculous explanations.
It might be heresy if Prof. Tabor claims to be a Christian. But I dont’ recall he does. And he certainly does not claim to be a theologian.
I was only referring to kanicbird’s ideas as heresy since 1) he is a professing Christian and 2) his ideas were explicitly theological.
Qin, this isn’t your first exposure to kanicbird’s rather exotic version of Christian faith, is it?
Answer to the OP, I don’t think so, but it certainly is an ancient tradition, possibly 3rd generation since Jesus.