stephan huller

Men who want to live longer would need a very painful remedy.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete....html?ITO=1490

We can offer up Jesus, Origen and a few others as counter-arguments but their deaths were man-made.

PhilosopherJay

Hi stephen huller,

So sex does lead to death after all.

Given 14-19 extra years or sex, I would take the sex.

Actually, I would like to see more than one set of palace records studied for this conclusion. There might have been other factors involved. For example, I would imagine that Eunuchs might have been considered more valuable or they might have been richer or given better medical care than other people in the palace.

In Italy, after Opera became popular in the 17th and 18th centuries, there were many boys castrated to keep their high singing voices. It would be interesting to study their life expectancy.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

sotto voce

There is no evidence that John lived for much longer than the 'three score and ten' years of many of his period. There was high infant mortality, but if one survived childhood, if one was of reasonably prosperous lifestyle, and lived moderately, one had as much chance of a long life as people today.

maryhelena

Agrippa II = 70 to 72/73 years old according to the above.


Marcion = around 75 years old according to the above.


Yes, I'm aware that you don't believe Marcion existed - that in your theory 'Marcion' is Agrippa II - thus you might be looking for some way to make Agrippa II live a longer life than is generally accredited to him - i.e. give him an extra 30 years or so in order for Agrippa II to be alive during the time period accredited to Marcion....

Yes, of course, Agrippa II could have lived a lot longer than is generally accredited to him - but, as far as I'm aware - there is no evidence to suggest that he did. It seems to me that it's just your theory re Agrippa II/Marcion that requires giving Agrippa II those extra 30 years or so...

stephan huller

I actually had to take you off ignore to read these comments. Why do you continue to cite dates for people as if we have have birth and death records for them? No one knows when Marcion was born or when he died. Clement says that he became a Christian when 'Simon heard the preaching of Peter.' I take that to mean the apostolic era. You can do what you want with that. There are other references which place Marcion in Rome c. 140 CE. Clement consistently references his age - he was an elder when the other heretics were young pups - is the gist of what he says. We are talking about a career which spans 60 - 140 CE or 150 CE? So birth 40 - 150 CE or a range somewhere therein?

The same with Marcus Julius Agrippa. We have no date for his birth and guesses about his death (although a lead weight gives a date close to 100 CE which is confirmed - depending on how you read the reference - by Photius). I have never heard an explanation for how a Jewish man with enough money to get any woman he wants ends up with no kids. Gay or castrated are the only options I can think of. He was also never married which in my mind eliminates sterility as the explanation. What kind of Jewish man doesn't get married? Even Einstein married his cousin. I am sure you have your own theory.

I have listed John, Marcion and Marcus Julius Agrippa as three separate individuals in the thread. What more do I have to do for you crazy people? Why don't you get laid or something? They say that castration adds to longevity but people around here make me think that the cost is mental instability. Is it possible to just discuss ideas without insulting people? Especially people with the 'A' around their names? Why do they take this stuff so seriously? It's interesting that these three guys never got married, never had kids. How is that explained?

maryhelena

I quoted Wikipedia re the dates for Agrippa II and Marcion. If you want to challenge these dates - fair enough. However, it's always good to place ones cards on the table. In this case your motive for so challenging these Wikipedia dates. And that motive, knowing your theory re Agrippa II and Marcion, could well be an interest in connecting these two figures re a contemporary time frame.

And Stephan, what is the point of putting someone on ignore if one is going to take that person off ignore when one wants to read what they post.....Sounds to me it's more a case of wanting to give a public display of disdain rather than really avoiding what a person posts....

Duke Leto

Actually, we do have a date of birth for Marcus Julius Agrippa II. It's between 27 and 28 CE. You know, the date in Josephus? The historian you're spastically trying to prove lied about everything he wrote? The theory which has absolutely noting to do with your opinions on Agrippa II and Marcion?

stephan huller

I would welcome a citation of the 'date of birth' from Joseph. You know I am completely ignorant about these things. A date for his decease would be equally welcomed. As much as I have resisted this, I am going to have to start a thread about Agrippa at some point.

The basic question I raised was whether it was really plausible that after marrying into the royal bloodline of David whether Josephus's account that Herod would have slaughtered all his male heirs. It seemed to me to be a self-serving propaganda piece for later Christianity which argued that only Jesus was the heir of David.

Remember in the rabbinic literature there is a different manner of denying the story. Herod is acknowledged to have had sexual relations with Mariamne but it is now said to be necrophilia (i.e. she refuses to allow her womb to be used for the propagation of Herodian heirs and he preserves her dead corpse in honey). One could argue that the Christian narratives (= Josephus) and the rabbinic ones achieve the same purpose.

No tradition is completely monolithic and the understanding of Marcus Agrippa as the messiah of the Jews is preserved in both Judaism and Christianity through other scriptural arguments. So it is that we have a situation where Agrippa is still identified as the messiah but though different theological arguments (Dan 9:26 etc).

My original argument was not a systematic proof that Josephus was a 'lie' but that it was clearly used to arrange a version of history which was favorable for the second century belief that Jesus was the heir of David rather than Agrippa. The portrait of Agrippa that emerges in Josephus is hardly flattering and it is hard to believe that Josephus wrote this account while Agrippa was still alive and his sovereign.

More problematic is Josephus's alleged 'hatred' of Justin of Tiberias, Marcus Agrippa's secretary. Justin wrote what must have been the authoritative account of the war in the ancient world. His history was used extensively by Julius Africanus in his Chronography. Justin was a real historical figure who was a recognized authority on Plato despite being Jewish. It would be impossible to deny Justin's version of history as he is a known historical figure from independent sources. The same cannot be said of Josephus.

Duke Leto

Antiquities Book 19, Chapter 9, Section 1 explicitly states that he was 17 at the death of his father. Agrippa I. The actual person. In the 3rd year of his father's reign. Which began when Caligula was assassinated. In 41 CE.

But hey, if you feel like making an argument that the Talmud is TOTALLY more reliable than Josephus because the first one can be made to support your pet theory and the second one can't, have fun with that. Will you be supporting the Ashkenazim/Khazar hypothesis next?

stephan huller

The argument isn't that the Talmud is more accurate but that the same underlying purpose - to deny that Herod's children from Mariamne survived - is demonstrated in both accounts.