Solo

As someone who grew up in Eastern Europe during "History"'s implacable march toward the final victory of communism in the world, I can personally attest that maryhelena formulates nothing new under the sun.

Best,
Jiri

maryhelena

Care to enlighten me as to what point you are attempting to make here?

Roger Pearse

I remember it too. Any use of abstractions as if they were people invariably conceals either confusion or dishonesty.

An excellent example came in the budget speech here in the UK a few days ago, when the chancellor spoke of the need to encourage "business". Business is an abstraction; what he means is that he believes we should all "encourage" some specific businessmen. Which ones, and why? Quite why (e.g.) Lord Sainsbury (a businessman) needs to be encouraged by all the rest of us he didn't say. I wasn't aware that his Lordship was in need of encouragement, in truth. But if he was, we'd have to hear why you and I and the old granny at number 27 should be obliged, under threat of prison, to hand over our money to encourage Lord Sainsbury. And an explanation of that might be a while in coming. So the abstraction allowed the chancellor to talk piffle without being called on it.

Likewise he said "Britain is open for business". "Britain" is likewise an abstraction: who precisely, we may ask, is "open for business"? The poor women in the red light district, in a sense more uncomfortable than laudable? The corner shop manned by Mr Patel? Or does it mean that Mrs chancellor will be doing Bed-and-Breakfast? The answer, of course, is that it means none of these things at all, and quite probably nothing at all.

Once you get into the habit of turning abstractions into concrete terms -- it takes a bit of effort -- you quickly see how often people allow rhetoric to cloud their minds.

(And if you do, and once you start pointing this out, you will quickly discover how few people appreciate thoughts that they have never heard before...)

All the best,

Roger Pearse

maryhelena

Oh my - anything to get away from the focus of the OP

Solo

Just that there were people before you who were speaking for 'History', and ended up bitterly disappointed.

Best,
Jiri

maryhelena

And the people are?
And what did they speak about 'History'?

Solo

Marx, Engels, Lenin...you will have to pick it up from there. A good point to start would be The Origin of The Family, Private Property and The State (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Engels. BTW, you know that 'mythical Jesus' was the state-imposed dogma under communism, don't you ?

Best,
Jiri

maryhelena

All very interesting but has no relevance to what this thread is about - an attempt to set down the Hasmonean and Herodian history that has some relevance for the gospel JC story.

As for a 'mythical Jesus' being "state-imposed dogma under communism" - what is that supposed to contribute to this thread? A smear against mythicism??

Solo

No, it is a statement of fact and comments directly on your banner:

HISTORY REJECTS THE ASSUMPTION OF A HISTORICAL GOSPEL JESUS FIGURE

I am not saying you are communist; I am saying this is how communists personified HISTORY. :huh:


Best,
Jiri

maryhelena

I did not take your comment, re communism and mythicism, as referring to me! I questioned it's relevance to the OP.