stephan huller

Of course she doesn't have an argument. In order to have an argument you would actually have to READ books and be familiar with the subject matter WHICH SHE ISN'T.

I am not assassinating your character. You're probably a wonderfully nice person. Maybe a great mother. Maybe you took care of your parents when they were sick. You may well be a better human being than I am. I don't know

BUT YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT WITH THIS SUBJECT MATTER BECAUSE I AM THE GUY THAT SHOWED IT TO YOU FOR THE FIRST TIME. You were a virgin when it came to the tradition that Agrippa was considered the messiah by almost all the Jews and Christians and their interpretation of scripture AND I BROKE YOU IN. And now you want to act like you've been around the block with the football team and my uncle Larry.

How much more explicit do I have to be?

I TOLD YOU ABOUT THIS TRADITION. I wrote a book about this tradition. You haven't read ANY OF THE DOCUMENTS associated with this tradition. How can you be the 'expert'?

You put a link to Daniel Schwartz's Agrippa I the last king of Judea. The Google previews are limited. I bought that stupid book. I shelled out $75 and when it came from Amazon it was like 70 pages. Over a dollar a page. Oy veh

Anyway, he puts EVERY POSSIBLE reference into this book which MIGHT have something to do with Agrippa I. He never references the Agrippa is the messiah of Daniel which is known to every Jew of every period EVER. Why do you think that is? Is Schwartz 'misinformed' like Origen?

No because they've read the material. They know what Daniel 9:24 - 27 is about and the fact that it doesn't make sense to say that because of Agrippa I being killed in 43 or 44 CE the sacrifices stopped in 70 CE.

Who would make such a ridiculous argument?

You throw up all this tangential bullshit about the coins (which I have Smallwood's assessment ready for a thread one day which says 'they don't make sense'), the details from Josephus which I think almost everyone at this site acknowledges are corrupt.

None of this has any bearing on the issue. What is wrong with you?

The issue is whether it makes more sense to suppose that Origen, the various authors of the rabbinic literature, the editor of the Yosippon all 'made a mistake' in identifying Agrippa II (or the Agrippa who was alive at the time of the destruction of the temple) when it was 'really' Agrippa I.

As I said you're probably a descent person whose done great things in your life BUT YOUR NOT SUCH A GENIUS THAT I WOULD TAKE YOUR WORD AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF TWO THOUSAND YEARS OF DISCUSSION IN THIS TOPIC WHEN YOU HAVEN'T READ THE MATERIAL!!!!!

I have never had a discussion like this with anyone IN MY LIFE. An expert with no expertise.

So you're God or have the Holy Spirit in you? Psychic powers? You don't need to read you just know because an idea came to you. Why don't you tell me what lottery numbers I should pick this weekend cause maybe you'll replace that psychic octopus.

maryhelena

Well, I could point to Josephus - but that's a matter of interpretation....

And, actually, that is not the issue here at all. The issue is the claim by Stephen Huller that Agrippa II was the "REAL" messiah figure of both Jews and Christians. I have rejected that interpretation of Daniel ch.9.

That I might have my own ideas re Agrippa I is a side issue.

Interpretations, by their very nature are open ended - fluid. They depend in large measure upon the accuracy of our historical knowledge base. And since the early origins of christianity are undefined - interpretations re Daniel ch.9 that might have some relevance to a reconstruction of that history - have to be, at this stage, tentative.

Thus, getting hot under the collar when an interpretation that one offers is rejected, is just plain silly. As I keep saying, interpretation is anyones game - anytime, any place. No one size fits all - open ended as the day is long...

stephan huller

We're still waiting for a rational argument from you in favor of Agrippa I as the messiah whose 'cutting off' caused the end of the sacrifices. You don't have any knowledge of the primary sources (and don't care to learn them) so then ...

Maybe you could do an interpretive dance to explain why you know better than Origen, the rabbinic authorities, the author of the Yosippon and ALL THE SCHOLARS who have ever written on the subject.

Maybe you could do some finger painting and draw a picture about how you see things? OR there's always writing a song on the guitar.

There are many creative ways to express yourself. I want to be the catalyst for your creative energy (just credit me in the liner notes).

maryhelena

Just to put something on record here. Stephen, what I learned from you has nothing to do with Agrippa II. What I learned from you is that the rabbinic literature has only one Agrippa. I did not know that. And yes, this information from the rabbinic literature has allowed me to further my own ideas re early christian origins. You might have been the bearer of this information - but you are not its originator and have no copyright.

For the rest of your post - please calm down. It is not nice having to witness this melt-down - especially over such a small matter as an interpretation...

Loomis

But the issue isn’t WHAT DID PEOPLE OF ANTIQUITY DO?

The issue is if passages like Acts 5:30; Acts 10:39; Acts 13:29; Hebrews 13:12; Galatians 3:13; 1 Peter 2:24, and Sanhedrin 43a portray the Jesus character as being hung on a tree by Jews (and not crucified by Romans). The hypothesis is that these passages are based around the rebellious son laws in Deuteronomy 21:18-23. The hypothesis allows the crucifixion stories to co-exist because the hypothesis contends that it is all fiction.

Elijah

I don’t know when the cross got popular but I think one of the reasons would be that it’s a pretty simple and specific symbol for both dualism and monism. In this case it’s being used by dualists. It’s like the Star of David (which is another one I’m curious about the start date of use) but as the Star of David is symbolism of a more universal wide dualism the cross symbolizes a point where heaven and earth meet. This is the story of Jesus in a nut shell, of a man personifying the Word in the flesh, where the spiritual and material became one for a moment.

It could also have been popularized because it’s a primitive symbol of peace or pacifism being a sword turned down. They could have also realized the sacrifice was important and that was the only thing available to really represent it.

Godless Raven

Well, I did join this thread to try and read about your theory and learn something from the discussion... but frankly your arrogance, rudeness and blatant character assassination of somebody questioning your high and mighty theory disgusted me to the point of having zero interest in reading any of this horse shit.

I don't even recall a time on this board where I've seen this many unwarranted personal shots at a single poster in one thread.

That is shameful behaviour considering you want to argue using yourself as some form of an authority on the matter.

I'll be sure to make you the first person I've put on ignore in over 4 years posting on here.

stephan huller

You know I am Canadian that should be a point in my favor.(lol)

I am a nice person. If I could just explain my perspective. My posts aren't just idle daydreams. They're not like 'maybe its this or maybe its that.' I don't just write something I heard about on Oprah.

These posts take a lot of effort to write and it's like your working in the kitchen to prepare a five course meal and the person walks through the door and looks at what you've prepared and said BEFORE TRYING ANY OF THE MEAL - 'oh you should have cooked it like this, I am going to McDonalds'

I guess I am stupid but how does someone argue for a position which is untenable and without sufficient expertise about the original subject matter?

I am sorry I take this stuff seriously. Maybe its a 'male thing.' I should just want to have a coffee and 'gab' about stuff. Maybe I am in the wrong place ...

Toto

[staffwarn] Everyone chill out. Don't let your emotions take over. [/staffwarn]

charles

Thanks Toto
Let's back to discussing something of substance. In Islam there is a denial that the cross was ever a part in Christianity? They deny that Jesus was crucified and that the cross is a horrible thing. The Ayyubid poet Ibn al-Nabih writes of al-'Adil as follows: 'Through him God has destroyed the Cross and its followers. Through him the minaret of the community of Islam is lifted.'

How does this fit in with your theory?