FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-12-2010, 08:20 PM   #71
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darstec View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller View Post
Another complicating factor is terminology. Synagogues weren't called 'synagogues' outside Judea in the early period especially in Egypt and Alexandria. The preferred terminology was proseuche but this confirmed in every respect to what we would call a 'synagogue.'
They weren't called synagogues anywhere in or outside of Judea until the second century. That is an anachronism. And proseuche means prayer or an open field gathering. It has nothing to do with any building built for Jews. That is just another faith justifying definition for a prayer or prayer gathering. Buildings are not a legitimate use of the term.

This is essentially what Robert M. Price says in his recent radio interview and podcast here (28 mins into it)

Quote:
Originally Posted by PRICE


28:00 / 42:04


No Galilaen synogues have been discovered by archaeologists.
Jesus is making a tour of the synogogues in Galilee in the gospels
buts its all anachronistic and unhistorical.
mountainman is offline  
Old 08-12-2010, 08:31 PM   #72
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller View Post
I thought we were on the same side on this one.
Didn't think that was the issue. I was grumbling about someone suddenly breaking out into another language for rhetorical purposes in a linguistic context that is notoriously monolingual.


spin
spin is offline  
Old 08-12-2010, 10:03 PM   #73
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 2,608
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller View Post
What evidence is there to suggest that Antigonus was so important than anyone a hundred years later would remember his crucifixion? This, especially when the gospel was written AFTER the Jewish War when hundreds - if not thousand of Jews - were crucified to great effect. Antigonus was from the perspective of the Evangelist a nebish - a person of no great importance. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

We walk around using Josephus as a bible to the period because we have no other source of information. The people who lived in that time were far more fortunate. Josephus was not their bible. They were living in a contemporary stream of ideas and concepts which is unlikely to have made reference to a second rate figure like Antigonus.
I'm curious. Is there any verifiable evidence that AFTER the Jewish war there were hundreds -- if not thousands of Jews crucified? What of comparison to other groups of people?
storytime is offline  
Old 08-12-2010, 11:17 PM   #74
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: England
Posts: 2,527
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darstec View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russellonius View Post

Nobody said anything about a synagogue tradition.
Maryhelena mentioned local existing synagogues.

Well now - I just searched this thread and I found no mention by me of 'synagogues'...or synagogue...
maryhelena is offline  
Old 08-13-2010, 12:40 AM   #75
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by storytime View Post
I'm curious. Is there any verifiable evidence that AFTER the Jewish war there were hundreds -- if not thousands of Jews crucified? What of comparison to other groups of people?
2nd Century CE CRUCIFIXIONS

According to the Roman historian – Florus Quintilius Varus Florus, Epitome of Roman History – II, 88, in the early 2nd CE, 2,000 Jews of the town Emmaus were crucified by Trajan. This may in fact have relevance to the The origin and meaning of the Emmaus Road Resurrection Appearance in Luke, but Neil does not make reference to Trajan at the moment in his blog, which is very informative.

The Lord God Caesar Trajan is also responsible for the genocide of the Dacians (c.101 ? to 106 CE), Zalmoxis (philosopher & sage) and the King Burebista (See Strabo 7, 3, 5),

These Roman Lord God Caesars were all temporarily securely in control of the empire and its well being, even if it was only less than 24 hours. It was a dog heap. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. These guys ran their own mints for Christ's sake. Josephus's literature was perverted by 4th century Roman Christians.

With an abundance of historical crucifixions under Trajan, how can we be sure that these also should not be considered as a model for the fraudulent and retrojected HJ story?

3RD Century -- the Crucifixion of Mani in the Persian capital c.270's

How can we be sure that the crucifixion of the Persian sage Mani and the crucifixion and persecution of his apostles and followers and the burning of their literature was not also implicated in the model for the HJ story? Here in the Mani model we have built-in real historical heretics. We must be quite clear that the bible only reached the masses in the 4th century and before that it was "underground".
mountainman is offline  
Old 08-13-2010, 09:41 PM   #76
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 60
Default

I think I figured out the 'synagogue' problem with darstec.

I said:
Quote:
After 135CE everybody would have been dispersed. There would have been a shift of authority from the now-gone Temple to whatever was or had been going on in local synagogues. Degrees of assimilation is what the surviving traditionalist refugees would have found in their new host cities.
So it was me, Russellonius, and not maryhelena who gave darstec a soapbox for his polemic. He took my statement out of context, claiming I was talking about buildings. I was talking about the refugee situation in the Diaspora after 134CE. It does not really make any difference what kind of buildings they met in. Their existence is not in question.
Quote:
(responding to spin) As far as I have read, there have been no certifiable synagogues prior to about the fourth century. ...And a book by "Christian" scholars is very suspect as far as I am concerned. Neither author is an archaeologist. (darstec)
Then do your own research. Wiki agrees with the data posted by spin.

Synagogue
Quote:
The oldest Samaritan synagogue, the Delos Synagogue dates from between 150 and 128 BCE, or earlier and is located on the island of Delos.
The Jericho Synagogue, the oldest, securely dated, mainstream Jewish synagogue in the world was built between 70 and 50 BCE at a royal winter palace near Jericho.
The oldest synagogue fragments are stone synagogue dedication inscriptions stones found in middle and lower Egypt and dating from the third century BCE.
Quote:
I think that the fact that in Pomeii and Herculaneum there is not one mention of Jesus, the messiah, a christ, nor christian is pretty good evidence that nobody else heard of Christianity either. It was a second century fabrication after the Final Diaspora of 134 CE. (darstec)
Those cities were destroyed in 79CE. Lack of evidence doesn't prove anything. Do you think Jews were twiddling their thumbs and not speaking to each other about their religion for two centuries while Rome took over and eventually destroyed their capital city? How many Christians do you think there were in 79CE?

Quote:
We are talking about True Believers here that are trying to validate their faith and nothing more. (dastec)
I totally agree totally with that! True Believer atheists want Christianity to be FABRICATED with evidence that was PLANTED and STORED and is a FRAUD perpetrated on WITLESS VICTIMS of DELUSION. That's the orthodox atheist position. I suspect the reason why.

Unfortunately this atheist polemic plays into the hands of supersessionist Christians. And they are the most conservative ones. They believe that Christianity is discontinuous with Second Temple Judaism because the Jews rejected the messiah who had been sent by God for their salvation.

Atheists have theological beliefs as well. If they didn't they would be agnostics, claiming to know nothing of the nature of God, that being untestable. People would not even address the question of God's existence if they stuck to scientific methodology. Value judgments about the quality of religious products hinder efforts to discover their origin and distribution patterns. It's an admission of bias.

(Some) atheists support the theological Christian doctrine of supersessionism when they claim that the new religion did not evolve from the old religion. (Some) atheists like to believe that Christianity is discontinuous with Second Temple Judaism because they want to discredit the value of the product. But that puts them in the same camp as the most conservative Christians! (Now I understand why Neil Godfrey was accused of being like creationists. As if saying, "It came suddenly out of nowhere, and not from anything that had happened before.")

The purpose of this thread as I understand it is to discover how Christianity grew out of previous tradition. Much of it probably occurred in buildings that were not dedicated exclusively to that purpose.

Here's what one scholar did:
The Rise of Christianity: How the Obscure, Marginal, Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force in the Western World in a Few Centuries (or via: amazon.co.uk)
Quote:
Table 1.1
Christian Growth, Projected at 40 Percent per Decade
Year - - - - - - Number of Christians - - - - Percent of Population*
40 - - - - - - - - - - - 1,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.0017
50 - - - - - - - - - - - 1,400 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.0023
100 - - - - - - - - - - 7,530 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.0126
150 - - - - -- - - - - 40,496 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.07
200 - -- - - - - - - -217,795 - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.36
250 - - - - - -- - -1,171,356 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.9
300 - - - - - - - - 6,299,832 - - - - - - - - - - - - 10.5
350 - - - -- - - -33,882,008 - - - - - - - - - - - - 56.5
*Based on an estimated population of 60 million
Rodney Stark took reasonable reported figures from the past and did some math and compared the result to modern observations of religious growth. Mormons experienced an observed average of 43% per decade growth over a century.

Stark and his colleagues also report that conversion and re-affiliation of personal religious consumption between competing products proceeds mainly through social attachment. Marriage, having babies, making new friends after separation from old friends, etc. The appeal of doctrine to strangers cannot account for a significant proportion of growth as measured by observation. We should assume that religion is a natural phenomenon and functioned in the past the same way it does now. The only way a religion can spread voluntarily between strangers is by sustained supernatural activity. Ex nihilo creation of Christianity is out of the question. It started as a Jewish sect.

Texts are ancillary to what was happening on the ground. About 95% of people could not read back then. Texts recorded what happened in performance among the people. People created a mythology. Other people bought it because they thought it had value. The market decided it was good. Look at the numbers.

Getting behind the texts and trying to figure out who was doing what is the key. That's what maryhelena and Stephan Huller are trying to do.

Why are atheists so inclined to view the spread of Christianity as something other than a natural phenomenon? "It's all bullshit" is an expression of consumer choice. Your individual consumer choice cannot help explain why Christianity became the dominant religion in the Mediterranean basin within three centuries.

Differential fertility rates between non-Christians and Christians is part of the explanation. The non-Christian imperial fertility rate was negative, declining from the reign of Julius Caesar.

maryhelena,
It seems very distasteful to me that Hasmoneans would have been sprinkling, pouring, bathing in and drinking the blood of one of their own recent ancestors. What I figure is that salvation through the blood was a rationalization on the part of the rulers for all the killing they were doing, suppressing all those Maccabee-like Anti-Hellenizing rebellions. It must have been doing some good for Herodian/Hasmoneans to execute so many of their compatriot ideological opponents. Or at least they would want to justify their actions to themselves somehow. (Think "Manifest Destiny" and 'Aryan superiority'.)

"Slaughter of the Innocents" could simply be a scripture mining reference to the Passover from the Exodus story - 'Jesus was like Moses', but if it has a historical core I draw the line to the murders of Alexander and Aristobulus. The execution of Antigionus was the end of Hasmonean rule, but Herod's murder of these two sons of Mariamne was the end of the hope that Hasmoneans might one day rule again. And it's closer to the time-frame of the narrative.
Russellonius is offline  
Old 08-13-2010, 10:33 PM   #77
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Russellonius View Post
Quote:
I think that the fact that in Pomeii and Herculaneum there is not one mention of Jesus, the messiah, a christ, nor christian is pretty good evidence that nobody else heard of Christianity either. It was a second century fabrication after the Final Diaspora of 134 CE. (darstec)
Those cities were destroyed in 79CE. Lack of evidence doesn't prove anything.
Darstec was probably refering to the new evidence from places like Villa of the Papyri in Herculaneum.

Quote:
How many Christians do you think there were in 79CE?
We have no evidence for even one christian at that date 79CE.
Josephus may have been just about to write "Antiquities" without the famous fraudulent christian interpolation.
Evidence and not rhetoric is highly regarded.
Starks "Early Christian Demographic" stats are utterly conjectural.
mountainman is offline  
Old 08-14-2010, 12:01 AM   #78
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Russellonius View Post
I
Here's what one scholar did:
The Rise of Christianity: How the Obscure, Marginal, Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force in the Western World in a Few Centuries (or via: amazon.co.uk)
Quote:
Table 1.1
Christian Growth, Projected at 40 Percent per Decade
Year - - - - - - Number of Christians - - - - Percent of Population*
40 - - - - - - - - - - - 1,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.0017
50 - - - - - - - - - - - 1,400 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.0023
100 - - - - - - - - - - 7,530 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.0126
150 - - - - -- - - - - 40,496 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.07
200 - -- - - - - - - -217,795 - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.36
250 - - - - - -- - -1,171,356 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.9
300 - - - - - - - - 6,299,832 - - - - - - - - - - - - 10.5
350 - - - -- - - -33,882,008 - - - - - - - - - - - - 56.5
*Based on an estimated population of 60 million
Rodney Stark took reasonable reported figures from the past and did some math and compared the result to modern observations of religious growth. Mormons experienced an observed average of 43% per decade growth over a century.....
Where did the scholar get his figures for 40 CE? From Acts of the Apostles?

I hope not. Acts of the Apostles is FICTION.

Up to the middle of the 2nd century, based on Justin Martyr, it was an old man whom he met by chance that told him something about some people who knew the truth.

Before Justin was converted he did not appear to even know a single well-known Jesus believer, preacher or church.

Before Justin Martyr met the old man he did NOT write that he went to any Church or talk to any Jesus believers in his community.

The figures from the scholar may be completely erroneous from 40-350 CE since a Messiah named Jesus with followers before the Fall of the Temple cannot be found anywhere in the non-apologetic sources of history.


It is most likely that there were ZERO Jesus believers in 40 CE.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 08-14-2010, 12:45 AM   #79
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Where did the scholar get his figures for 40 CE? From Acts of the Apostles?
YES. Stark arrived at an estimate using data "revealed" in Acts.
mountainman is offline  
Old 08-14-2010, 04:46 AM   #80
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: England
Posts: 2,527
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Russellonius View Post
maryhelena,
It seems very distasteful to me that Hasmoneans would have been sprinkling, pouring, bathing in and drinking the blood of one of their own recent ancestors. What I figure is that salvation through the blood was a rationalization on the part of the rulers for all the killing they were doing, suppressing all those Maccabee-like Anti-Hellenizing rebellions. It must have been doing some good for Herodian/Hasmoneans to execute so many of their compatriot ideological opponents. Or at least they would want to justify their actions to themselves somehow. (Think "Manifest Destiny" and 'Aryan superiority'.)

"Slaughter of the Innocents" could simply be a scripture mining reference to the Passover from the Exodus story - 'Jesus was like Moses', but if it has a historical core I draw the line to the murders of Alexander and Aristobulus. The execution of Antigionus was the end of Hasmonean rule, but Herod's murder of these two sons of Mariamne was the end of the hope that Hasmoneans might one day rule again. And it's closer to the time-frame of the narrative.
On the one hand you want the 'slaughter of the innocents' to go way back to the Exodus story - and on the other hand you want to end the hopes of a Hasmonean rule with the more recent deaths of Herod's two sons by Mariamne - instead of of going just 30 years back to the crucifixion and beheading of Antigonus....

What ended in 37 bc with the crucifixion and beheading of Antigonus was the end of the Hasmonean rule of Kings/Priests. Neither of Herod's two sons by Mariamne would be able to fit this role. 1) they carried Herodian blood and 2) they could not become King/Priests.

Yes, it's interesting as to why Herod would kill these two sons in 7 bc - if indeed he did kill them and not simply disinherited them. Either way the question is an intriguing one. To be so enamored by the Hasmonean bloodline, as Herod was, and to undercut what he had himself set up in order to achieve a Herodian/Hasmonean bloodline - somehow is rather odd. Sure, he had grandchildren from Alexander and Aristobulus - but these grandchildren were carrying a bloodline that was more Herodian than Hasmonean; his two sons from Mariamne not marrying Hasmoneans.

But was there a last ditch hope for Herod? What he did do was arrange a marriage between his granddaughter Herodias and ?? Big question re who did Herodias marry. I've attempted an answer in another post. A post that seeks to show that Herod had another option: Mariamne had a son prior to her marriage to Herod - a Hasmonean son....a son, I'm suggesting, that Herod later adopted - possibly in 7 bc when this son would be about 30 years of age. A son that never used the family name of 'Herod'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maryhelena View Post
Who is Philip the Tetrarch?
maryhelena is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:09 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.