• FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Alright but he quoted a gospel from 70AD, and the idea that in the “true gospel” he wasn’t the son of god or never claimed to be is a concept present in opposing religions like Islam first written down 500 years later, which famously mistranslated Marry with “she flowed like a river” instead of “she was chaste” when the region was constantly caught between Phoenician based alphabets like Greek, Hebrew, multiple Arabics, and much later on Cyrillic.

    The Roman’s artistic licenses aside, their accounts of history are the most reliable source on all of this.

    • Tryptaminev@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

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

      Jesus as literal son of god was only established some 400 years later. And when later the records of the gospel got translated through multiple languages it seems very plausible to me, that under the assumption that Jesus should be the literal son of god, this sentence is supposed to be worded to confirm that. It is as easy as forgetting a half sentence like “HE said” or turn a third person into a first person form. Or to loose the context that he was announced already before Ibrahim etc.