>
> On Aug 6, 2009, at 5:37 PM, Jeffrey Fisher wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Shane Mage <shmage at pipeline.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> As I recall, Emerson said that Jesus was the only person in history to
>>>> appreciate humanity fully enough because he thought he was God.
>>>>
>>>> If that were true that's what he would have been charged with--claiming
>>> to
>>> be a god, not merely a king.
>>>
>>> not if the people charging him didn't get it. this is partly to do with
>> the
>> "son of god" language, which is the king in the psalms.
>>
>
> Which is why "son of god" is a title, not a genealogy. The gospels provide
> two Davidic genealogies for Jesus--one to his foster-father and one to his
> mother--precisely to establish his claim to the royal title "messiah."
>
> on the other hand, our main sources are the gospels, which are not exactly
>> reliable historical records.
>>
>
>
> If there is one thing in the gospels that is certainly a reliable
> historical record it is the quotation (in John only) of the charge that was
> the Roman legal basis for his execution as a revolutionary rebel against the
> Empire--that he "claimed to be messiah, a king."
>
and the king was the son of god. is my point. the question, back to mr. estabrook's post, is the sort of theoretical elision on son of god (and also the use of "son of man" language from apocalyptic traditions). here the baptism scenes are important (which mirror the anointing of the king in the psalms).
my point was only that it's a theme especially in mark, but in the other gospels as well, that people misunderstand who jesus is. this is represented most clearly (in mark) in the women going to the grave to anoint him and expecting him to be there.
my argument would be that at least in mark jesus is being reduced by the people around him to a political figure, when he is something much bigger. i think i could make a very similar kind of case about john (thus, the charges).