Holy Roman Gods, Batman

Let's take a trip in the way back machine to the Roman Empire and look at three dudes.

First, Augustus. He started out as Gaius Octavius Thurinus, and later was named Gaius Julius Caesar. 27BC is where the title Augustus comes in -- a title which subsequent emperors were also given. Go look up a list of Roman emperors. It's interesting to see all the man-glorifying crap that was slapped on the end of their names. The Augustus title is not a political title, but a religious one. It stood for authority over humanity and nature, meaning something like "the illustrious one" or "the revered one". He also used the title "divi filius" for himself quite often, meaning "the son of a god". On top of that, he allowed worship of himself as a living god. When Augustus died, he was deified like Julius.

Second, Tiberius, the next emperor. Like his predecessor, he was given the same title Augustus, but he didn't go around flaunting divine titles and he refused to be worshiped as a living god. He didn't care much for temples dedicated to him either, but he did allow one to be built in Smyrna. Tiberius was very unpopular by the time of his death, and the senate refused to vote him divine honors.

Third, Caligula, who had the phrase "Let there be one Lord, one King". Of course, it seems he thought that "one" should be him. He appeared in public dressed as various Roman gods, referred to himself as a god when meeting with politicians, presented himself as a god to the public, replaced the heads of various Roman gods on statues replaced with his own, and encouraged people to worship him as a living god, Neos Helios -- the New Sun. Got pride?

Now, this phrase "divi filius" is not the same as "dei filius" -- "divus" seems to be lesser than the "deus" used for Roman gods like Jupiter and Mars. Dei filius is what the early Christians used for Jesus -- the divine Son of God, who is the same "stuff" as God. In other words, God in the flesh.

So, given this little history lesson, I find two things worthy of mention.

First, I find it curious that when Jesus was walking around on the earth, the emperor at the time, Tiberius, refused to be worshiped as a living god. In contrast, Jesus accepted worship from people, from the wise men who came to visit him as a toddler to after his resurrection. The emperor before and the emperor after didn't, but this one did. Curious, indeed.

Second, it seems that the claims of the early Christians could certainly piss off some leadership. Here, with Augustus, Caligula, and beyond, you have men born into wealth and power who say either "I'm a god" or "I'm a son of a god", encourage temples to be built to them, encourage worship of themselves, and so on. All the while you have Jesus' followers saying that there is one God who became flesh in the person of Jesus Christ, born poor in a no name town to a teenage girl. On top of that, the title they use for him puts him above all, including deified emperors and greater "gods" like Jupiter.

There's quite a difference between a man trying to be God and God becoming a man. The former sends one to hell, and the latter saves many from it. I'll take door number two, Jesus.