Originally Posted by saltwn

perhaps where for all practical purposes the Devine right began was with Charlemagne:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne

Originally Posted by FrancSevin

I think you may be off by about 7,000 years.
Mesopotamian Kings

Ziusudra* (Noah) [Ubaid Period: 5900-2900? B.C.; 3000 yrs?] Kish [2800 B.C.] B.C. ; 250 yrs?]
Meshkiagasher, Son ofUtu. Uruk“Father was a nomad [?]” B.C. ; 130 yrs?] B.C. ; 120 yrs?] KishII [Sets Umma/Lagash border ~2450 B.C.]

Remember in early cultures, Pharaohs and Kings were the religion. They were considered "divine."

Originally Posted by saltwn

Mostly in the beginning (thinking of France and England or other western cultures), the king gained his strength from big land owners and drew a standing army from them. the king couldn't tick off the Lords or else they would depose him and find another king. when kings started confiscating their own land or being gifted it they eventually sometimes through violence started to control more vast amounts of real estate.
the church owned a lot till henry the eighth got the hots for Anne Bolin and he broke from Catholicism, taking also much power.
bloody Mary not withstanding his last ruling child, Elizabeth, financed pirates to add Spanish gold to her coffers.
I don't know who's idea it was to perpetrate the myth of Elizabeth I as the reincarnated Arthur of round table fame but she certainly didn't do anything to dispute it. To this day, the ruling family of the UK owns more property than anyone else in the kingdom.

The French
bishop Bossuet (1627–1704), was a theorists who asserted that "the king's person and authority were sacred; that his power was modeled on that of a father's and was absolute, deriving from God; and that he was governed by reason (i.e., custom and precedent)" He probably did this at the behest of his king and benefactor. so it was politics plus greed.


As for Egyptians' and Romans' monarchs , they were worshiped outright as Gods since Christianity had not yet come into existence. How Jews maintained their faith and lives under those rulers is a testament to the protection of God Almighty, since these were complete rulers with every authority over life and death.

Originally Posted by Manitou

Boiling it down, I find that kings get their power from the sycophantic laying on of hands of cowards, religious or rich or other.

Originally Posted by mr wonder

So he wasn't really talking about the biblical use of the term. Just his understanding of the term's use OUTSIDE of the biblical text in the middle east during that era.

Well OK that's fine and an interesting bit of info, But it doesn't seem to have much bearing on the use of he term in the biblical text OT and NT.
There it's contextualized in a different way.
Even the various words for "God" in area and overtime have had several shades of application. In that historical context and in the surrounding areas of the time as well as different meanings biblically in various context.

But sure, in many parts of the world the rulers claimed some kind of Devine heritage. But that status waxed and waned over time and sometimes overnight if they were defeated or overthrown. Even the Romans turned dead Leaders into "gods" after a while.

In a similar vien there where many other people who's name was Jesus during the 1st century in the Middle East.
There where many other people who claimed to be messiah, savior, and the son of (a) god(s) or GOD outright then and throughout history and up totoday.

The fact there are imposters and versions in other context is not something that really adds to or detracts from who Jesus is. In one sense it could be looked at as a study in contrast. If someone comes up and shows you his Rusted VW Beatle but calls it a brand new Rolls Royce that doesn't make the Rolls Royce a Beatle or the Beatle a Rolls Royce. If everyone in the world commonly calls rusted out VW Beatles, "Rolls Royce's" it doesn't make them one.


anyway a few scriptures come to mind here.

John 3
...For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son....


John 10
...Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”....

Mark 14
...Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” And the high priest tore his garments and said, “What further witnesses do we need?...

1 John 5
...Whoever believes in the Son of God accepts this testimony. Whoever does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because they have not believed the testimony God has given about his Son....

Originally Posted by saltwn

read jack london short stories of cave men telling ancestral story of life before men even had sense enough to climb trees to protect their woman from being stolen by another.
starts out they went to the trees then they saw strength in numbers. but then they wanted a leader.
at first one guy invents a fish trap then the chief confiscates it for the village. by the end of the fantasy story everyone is starving except the fat chief and his minions. the guy who invented the trap isn't allowed to use it. they also invented bartering with shells instead of goods.
then they saw that women would work (catching fish) for less shells than the men...


dang I wish I could remember the title.

Originally Posted by Manitou

The title is THE STRENGTH OF THE STRONG.

Originally Posted by pjohns

I really am not quite certain just what the relevance of these Scriptures might be, since they all come from the New Testament.

My pastor does not claim that the term "Son of God" does not refer to the messiah in the New Testament. He simply says that it has an entirely different meaning in the Old Testament, and the Apocrypha (in most cases--though not in all).


And he was speaking both of the way the term was typically used in the Old Testament and the Apocrypha, and the way that it was used throughout the entire Middle East.

Originally Posted by mr wonder

Did he site any sources for his Info on the specific use of the term 'son of god' in extra biblical sources. Or was it just a passing comment?

Originally Posted by mr wonder

Concerning the NT
the Pharisees that accused Jesus of using the term primarily used the OT as a reference point for it's use, or in their mind's Jesus's MISuse of the term "son of God". Not some generic historical reference M.E. notion.
And it would have meant little to the other Jews as a title without the OT concept of God and messiah. [Bold added]

Originally Posted by saltwn

read jack london short stories of cave men telling ancestral story of life before men even had sense enough to climb trees to protect their woman from being stolen by another.
starts out they went to the trees then they saw strength in numbers. but then they wanted a leader.
at first one guy invents a fish trap then the chief confiscates it for the village. by the end of the fantasy story everyone is starving except the fat chief and his minions. the guy who invented the trap isn't allowed to use it. they also invented bartering with shells instead of goods.
then they saw that women would work (catching fish) for less shells than the men...


dang I wish I could remember the title.