Freethought & Rationalism Archive

maryhelena · 07-29-2010, 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Well Charles, let me start by explaining how Jewish religious tradition works. It is based on tradition. New ideas are eschewed. Ideas have to be rooted in tradition (as a means of preventing 'heresy' from spreading). That's why when you read a Jewish text you have these prefaces like 'R. Ashi says ...' or 'R. Ashi according to R. Joshua' etc. You can't just invent things out of thin air. That's not to say that misunderstandings don't develop or that apocryphal legends make their way into the literature, but the Mishnah is a very reliable document. It is very early and very reliable - reliable in the sense that it reflects the beliefs of second century Jewry (not in the sense that that belief is necessary perfect or well informed).

Nevertheless, we have the Mishnah which says that Agrippa was accepted as a Jew and a legitimate ruler. The context as I note in my book is clearly messianic (standing not sitting in the context of reading a certain passage in Deuteronomy) it was also a Sabbatical year when the eighth year is clearly referenced. All messianic clues.

The Jerusalem Talmud - a text which is rooted in the third century - reads the Mishnah a text rooted in the second century as if it refers to the Agrippa who ruled when the temple was destroyed. As such this would be 'Agrippa II' by the unfortunate reckoning of the Christianized texts of Josephus.

The point is that - as I have noted at other posts - when we question the reliability of the question who was believed to be the messiah by various and Jewish groups we have to admit that the MOST RELIABLE tradition is that many Christians believed that Jesus was the Christ. This becomes clear from Irenaeus (and his role in preserving texts from earlier in the second century - Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin etc). Irenaeus lived at the end of the second century (the very age that the Mishnah was completed).

Irenaeus's works were 'codified' into a collection of five books 'Against the Heresies' in the third century according to my reckoning. He was widely influential and there can be no doubt that there were Christians who believed that Jesus was the Christ in his age and subsequent to that period (third century CE).

At the same time, I would argue there was a Christian position from Alexandria which was clearly persecuted by the Roman government which held that Jesus was God who came down to earth in order to hail his messiah (cf Pslam 2 etc). I think Origen was part of a third century effort to reconcile that tradition associated with St. Mark with the officially sanctioned orthodoxy of Christianity associated with the Severan Emperors.

If assume Clement's beliefs were associated with Origen's as some sort of on going Alexandrian tradition transforming itself to avoid persecution then I there is evidence to suggest that St. Mark was a remnant of an original Alexandrian Christian acceptance that Marcus Julius Agrippa was Jesus's anointed king. If you are reading my book you know how that argument unfolds.

I think that Origen's allusion to this 'Jewish history' is a sign that the Alexandrian Christian tradition was connected with a parallel Jewish belief in Agrippa as the messiah. Origen and the Origenist Patriarchs of Alexandria (most notably Arius) are all accused of Jewish leanings. The reality is that Origen and to some extent Clement share the same interpretation of Daniel 9:24 - 27 as the many of the greatest lights of the rabbinic tradition and it all revolves around Agrippa being taken to be the messiah of Dan 9:26.

This has to be explained but never is.

The point is that there is a way to connect Origen to the rabbinic tradition through Justus. It has to be carried out cautiously. Adler says 'it is tempting' to take Justus as the author of Origen's first (or second) century 'Jewish history.' Even if it is some other figure we have no information about the stone lands quite close to Justus.

Big divide to cross here, Stephen - connecting the early christian writing of Origen to the rabbinic tradition re an Agrippa. "Cautiously" is perhaps the high hope that this big jump can be attempted under cover of darkness...Because that's the only way this divide can be crossed. Cross fingers, close eyes and jump - no way I'll be doing that....

Quote:

The Agrippa is clearly 'Agrippa II' as the context is the destruction of the temple. Everyone who has ever commented on this situation has come to the same conclusion. Mary Helena is different of course but she has never read any or all of the pertinent material. Perhaps if she used less imagination and actually took the time to read the sources she would change her mind ...

Even if Origen is referencing Agrippa II and the destruction of 70 ce in connection with Daniel ch.9 - this interpretation, a christian interpretation - does not mean that the rabbinic literature is doing the same thing - either previous to Origen or later as in following the christian, the Origen, interpretation.

The Herodian coins reflect two Agrippas - as does Josephus. And it is this position, a position that is upheld by both Jewish and Christian historical scholars, that your theory has to face.

So, perhaps, instead of throwing rabbinic tradition around - or any tradition for that matter, as though it were the sole arbitrator of anything at all - one needs to have a clear historical picture from which to support the tradition. Sure, traditions can contain a kernel of 'truth' - but along side that kernel lies a whole lot of storytelling. Sifting the wheat from the chaff is as just as relevant an undertaking with rabbinic tradition as it is with the christian tradition. So, yes, Stephen - great caution is required with handling traditions.

Stephen, lets not get personal with all of this - suggesting that I do this that and the other is not relevant to the points that I have raised re your one Agrippa theory. You need historical facts to back up your theory - and you don't have them. That is the bottom line here. All you have is the very shaky ground of an *interpretation* of rabbinic tradition.

Sure, I am offering different interpretations - of the NT storyline and of Josephus. But I have not published a book presenting my 'imagination' as plausible history. You have done that - thus opening up your theory to public debate - public criticism - and rejection. Live with it. I am not a scholar - as are most probably the majority of the people who buy your book. But it's not the non scholarly, surely, that you hope to win over to your theory; winning them over by capitalizing on their lack of reading the relevant literature for themselves is, to be charitable, shortsighted. So, if its the bigger scholarly fish that you are hoping will take a bite at your theory - then let me, sincerely, suggest, that you endeavor to attract such big fish by providing them with something a little more to their taste - a sound historical footing for your theory.

stephan huller · 07-29-2010, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Even if Origen is referencing Agrippa II and the destruction of 70 ce in connection with Daniel ch.9 - this interpretation, a christian interpretation - does not mean that the rabbinic literature is doing the same thing - either previous to Origen or later as in following the christian, the Origen, interpretation.

Hi, this will be the fifth time I have said this but ...

Origen is getting his information from a Jewish history!

Why is this a 'Christian interpretation'? Adler makes clear that IT WAS ORIGEN'S SOURCE not Origen that made the arguments.

Porca miseria!

maryhelena · 07-29-2010, 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

Even if Origen is referencing Agrippa II and the destruction of 70 ce in connection with Daniel ch.9 - this interpretation, a christian interpretation - does not mean that the rabbinic literature is doing the same thing - either previous to Origen or later as in following the christian, the Origen, interpretation.

Hi, this will be the fifth time I have said this but ...

Origen is getting his information from a Jewish history!

Why is this a 'Christian interpretation'? Adler makes clear that IT WAS ORIGEN'S SOURCE not Origen that made the arguments.

Porca miseria!

Origen is getting his information re Agrippa from a Jewish source - which is quite plausible as I'm sure a source of Jewish history would mention an Agrippa...I am not questioning that. I am questioning your *interpretation* of this unknown Jewish source - that this unknown Jewish source is reverencing Agrippa II as a Jewish messiah figure - the Agrippa that lived in 70 ce. You are assuming that this is so. I am saying that your assumption is unfounded - for the reasons I have previously stated - and restated. Herodian coins are referencing two Agrippas. Obviously, with two historical Agrippas - the possibility does arise that one of these Agrippas was of interest to Jewish interests re a messiah figure - and that the second Agrippa was of interest to christian ideas. Thus, because the literature of both, Jews and Christians, mentions an Agrippa - does not mean that they are both referencing the same Agrippa! The Herodian coins reflect two Agrippas - giving grounds, very strong grounds, for caution here.

Stephen - two Agrippas, Agrippa I and Agrippa II - continually crying foul to the historical scholars will not be doing your theory any good at all... Tradition will be of no help in fighting the hard realities of historical research.

stephan huller · 07-29-2010, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Origen is getting his information re Agrippa from a Jewish source - which is quite plausible as I'm sure a source of Jewish history would mention an Agrippa...I am not questioning that. I am questioning your *interpretation* of this unknown Jewish source - that this unknown Jewish source is reverencing Agrippa II as a Jewish messiah figure - the Agrippa that lived in 70 ce. You are assuming that this is so. I am saying that your assumption is unfounded - for the reasons I have previously stated - and restated. Herodian coins are referencing two Agrippas. Obviously, with two historical Agrippas - the possibility does arise that one of these Agrippas was of interest to Jewish interests re a messiah figure - and that the second Agrippa was of interest to christian ideas. Thus, because the literature of both, Jews and Christians, mentions an Agrippa - does not mean that they are both referencing the same Agrippa!

I have just finished typing a lengthy explanation to explain your objections in another post. THIS HAS TO STOP EVENTUALLY. At least I got you to admit that Origen is using a Jewish history. That was a miracle. Now let's move on to the next point.

The Jewish history says that Agrippa was the messiah because of Daniel 9:26. How can this prophesy apply to 'Agrippa I' even if he had historical existence?

Quote:

Seventy weeks (i.e. 490 years) are decreed upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sin, and to forgive iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal vision and prophet, and to anoint the most holy place. Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem unto one anointed, a prince, shall be seven weeks (i.e. 49 years the Jews identified this with anointed with Cyrus the king of Persia); and for threescore and two weeks (sixty two weeks), it shall be built again, with broad place and moat, but in troublous times. And after the threescore and two weeks (sixty two weeks) shall an anointed one be cut off, and be no more; and the people of a prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; but his end shall be with a flood; and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week; and for half of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease; and upon the wing of detestable things shall be that which causeth appalment; and that until the extermination wholly determined be poured out upon that which causeth appalment.' [Dan 9:24 - 27]

The point is that the words of Daniel can be interpreted as connecting the 'cutting off' of the messiah seven years before 'the end' (i.e. the culmination of the 490 years). Agrippa II IS THE ONLY Agrippa EVER IDENTIFIED AS THIS FIGURE this whether we talk about Jewish theologians or scholars who study this tradition.

Indeed when the Christian texts of Josephus were taken over by Jews (see the other post) and developed into the Yosippon (c. 10th century) the Christian formulation of two Agrippas (not found in the rabbinic literature) was retained and Agrippa II is the one 'killed.'

Come on the study of history is not intended to be a creative writing exercise. Texts have to be studied and we have to shape our opinions by things written by people with more knowledge and who have read ALL of the pertinent material.

You just can't persist in promoting a creative interpretation of the Herodian relationship to Christianity once I have exposed you TO A TRADITION YOU DIDN'T EVEN KNOW EXISTED. It was Agrippa II who was always taken to be the messiah of Daniel.

THERE ARE ABSOLUTELY NO EXAMPLES OF AGRIPPA I BEING ASSOCIATED WITH DANIEL'S PROPHESY BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE GIVEN THE TIMELINE IN CHAPTER 9!

Daniel says explicitly that the messiah (who everyone took to be Agrippa) was cut off 'a week' before the culmination of the seventy weeks. Whenever you date the destruction of the temple relative to the seventy sevens AGRIPPA I DOESN'T WORK, CAN'T WORK. That's why no ancient witness every promotes this stupid idea.

Surely the fact that no one identifies Agrippa I as the messiah of Daniel 9:26 MEANS SOMETHING, even to a creative thinker like you.

maryhelena · 07-29-2010, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I have just finished typing a lengthy explanation to explain your objections in another post. THIS HAS TO STOP EVENTUALLY. At least I got you to admit that Origen is using a Jewish history. That was a miracle. Now let's move on to the next point.

No miracle because you did not get me to admit what you seem to think you did....

I don't think you will find, if you re-read my posts, that I said anything at all about Origen NOT using a Jewish source. I questioned your assumption that the Agrippa Origen found within his Jewish source, was the same Agrippa that Origen, a christian writer, had in mind. Had in mind when he attempted an interpretation of Daniel ch.9 related to the events of 70 ce. A time period relevant to Agrippa II and not to Agrippa I.

Two historical Agrippas allows for the possibility, a very strong possibility, that the Agrippa of the Jewish history was confused, by Origen, with the later Agrippa II. It is the later Agrippa, Agrippa II, that was of interest to christian writers re their interest in the events of 70 ce - in connection with the gospel 'prophecies'.

Quote:

The Jewish history says that Agrippa was the messiah because of Daniel 9:26. How can this prophesy apply to 'Agrippa I' even if he had historical existence?

"Even if he had historical existence"?

The Herodian coins testify that Agrippa I did have a historical existence :banghead:

Daniel ch.9 and Agrippa I? Interpretations are, as I keep saying, anyones game - interpretations are easy. It's only lack of imagination that prohibits their use in the 'fulfillment' scenarios....

Quote:

Seventy weeks (i.e. 490 years) are decreed upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sin, and to forgive iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal vision and prophet, and to anoint the most holy place. Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem unto one anointed, a prince, shall be seven weeks (i.e. 49 years the Jews identified this with anointed with Cyrus the king of Persia); and for threescore and two weeks (sixty two weeks), it shall be built again, with broad place and moat, but in troublous times. And after the threescore and two weeks (sixty two weeks) shall an anointed one be cut off, and be no more; and the people of a prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; but his end shall be with a flood; and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week; and for half of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease; and upon the wing of detestable things shall be that which causeth appalment; and that until the extermination wholly determined be poured out upon that which causeth appalment.' [Dan 9:24 - 27]

The point is that the words of Daniel can be interpreted as connecting the 'cutting off' of the messiah seven years before 'the end' (i.e. the culmination of the 490 years). Agrippa II IS THE ONLY Agrippa EVER IDENTIFIED AS THIS FIGURE this whether we talk about Jewish theologians or scholars who study this tradition.

And when exactly was Agrippa II "cut off"? I thought you just now agreed that Agrippa II lived way beyond 70 ce...So, it's some figurative or symbolic cutting off?? The "cutting off" is figurative or symbolic but the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple is literal.....That sure sounds a very selective and arbitrary interpretation. Daniel's 490 years end like a damp squid re his messiah figure having a change of job.....

Quote:

Indeed when the Christian texts of Josephus were taken over by Jews (see the other post) and developed into the Yosippon (c. 10th century) the Christian formulation of two Agrippas (not found in the rabbinic literature) was retained and Agrippa II is the one 'killed.'

I'm pretty sure that Jewish history is not interested in Agrippa II - what with his siding with Rome re the siege of Jerusalem - echoes of Josephus here, methinks.....Why would Jewish history be bothered with such a 'traitor'. Agrippa I is a different matter. Messianic interest and Daniel ch.9 - try this one out.

Agrippa I dies in 44 ce. That year is 490 years from 446 bc - the 20th year of Artaxerxes - a time period dealing with Nehemiah and the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem. Agrippa I ruled Judea from 41 ce - lets say for three and a half years.....and so it goes....interpretations are a dime a dozen. (Oh, and yes, Josephus has some story re Agrippa I wanting to repair the walls or fortifications around Jerusalem - but was prohibited from continuing.....)

Quote:

Come on the study of history is not intended to be a creative writing exercise. Texts have to be studied and we have to shape our opinions by things written by people with more knowledge and who have read ALL of the pertinent material.

You just can't persist in promoting a creative interpretation of the Herodian relationship to Christianity once I have exposed you TO A TRADITION YOU DIDN'T EVEN KNOW EXISTED. It was Agrippa II who was always taken to be the messiah of Daniel.

THERE ARE ABSOLUTELY NO EXAMPLES OF AGRIPPA I BEING ASSOCIATED WITH DANIEL'S PROPHESY BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE GIVEN THE TIMELINE IN CHAPTER 9!

Daniel says explicitly that the messiah (who everyone took to be Agrippa) was cut off 'a week' before the culmination of the seventy weeks. Whenever you date the destruction of the temple relative to the seventy sevens AGRIPPA I DOESN'T WORK, CAN'T WORK. That's why no ancient witness every promotes this stupid idea.

But you have just indicated that your interpretation of Daniel ch.9 has both a figurative or symbolic meaning plus a literal interpretation re Jerusalem. All you have done here is declare open season on interpretations of Daniel ch.9. Once you admit to a symbolic or figurative interpretation re Agrippa II - then why not a figurative or symbolic interpretation re Jerusalem itself??? Open season re Daniel ch.9...

Quote:

Surely the fact that no one identifies Agrippa I as the messiah of Daniel 9:26 MEANS SOMETHING, even to a creative thinker like you.

Why should that mean anything to me at all? I beat my own drum.

stephan huller · 07-29-2010, 10:55 AM

Quote:

But you have just indicated that your interpretation of Daniel ch.9 has both a figurative or symbolic meaning plus a literal interpretation re Jerusalem.

But there is no attestation for this view WHATSOEVER in his history AND more importantly it is contradicted by the fact that the messiah of Daniel IS ALWAYS the last king of the Jews IN ORDER TO MAKE IT FIT WITH GENESIS 49:10.

Agrippa I doesn't work in this scenario and that's why Danny Schwartz assigned the material to Agrippa II.

I will say it again the Agrippa who is the messiah of the Christian and Jewish material HAS TO BE AGRIPPA II

It's not just me who says this but people much, much, much smarter than I am.

maryhelena · 07-29-2010, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

But you have just indicated that your interpretation of Daniel ch.9 has both a figurative or symbolic meaning plus a literal interpretation re Jerusalem.

But there is no attestation for this view WHATSOEVER in his history AND more importantly it is contradicted by the fact that the messiah of Daniel IS ALWAYS the last king of the Jews IN ORDER TO MAKE IT FIT WITH GENESIS 49:10.

Agrippa I doesn't work in this scenario and that's why Danny Schwartz assigned the material to Agrippa II.

I will say it again the Agrippa who is the messiah of the Christian and Jewish material HAS TO BE AGRIPPA II

It's not just me who says this but people much, much, much smarter than I am.

This is utterly, utterly, unbelievable. On the one hand you try all sorts of innuendo re my character because I don't accept an INTERPRETATION of Daniel ch.9 - and yet you, yourself, have the 'right' to reject HISTORICAL EVIDENCE RE HERODIAN COINS - coins that support the position of historical scholars that there were two Agrippas - Agrippa I and Agrippa II.

:huh:

stephan huller · 07-29-2010, 11:56 AM

WHAT DRUGS ARE YOU ON? WHEN DID I REFERENCE THE COINS? I am not debating whether there are two Agrippas or one because it has no bearing on this discussion.

You want me to take the bait so we can get off this subject. But I am not biting. Because this discussion exposes that you make opinions without ANY KNOWLEDGE of the original subject matter.

BTW with regards to the coins read Smallwood's analysis of the evidence. I am not biting.

The question is again why is everyone in history wrong in identify the Agrippa that ruled at the time of the destruction of the temple (commonly identified as Agrippa II) and maryhelena is really more knowledgeable and more correct WITHOUT HAVING READ ANY OF THE LITERATURE?

stephan huller · 07-29-2010, 12:25 PM

So maybe you think that Origen, ALL the rabbinic sages and ALL the scholars who have studied this subject of the Agrippa who is said to be the messiah of Daniel 9:26 isn't enough. Let's go on the internet and see what we can find from 'regular folks' like you and me:

"And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one will be cut off, and he will be no more,...

This anointed one is referring to King Agrippa II. In 70 CE his rule came to an end suddenly with the siege and destruction of Jerusalem and the exile of the people."

http://www.turntotorah.com/daniel_proofs.html

"Rather, Rashi sees this person referred to as, anointed one or messiah as Agrippa king of Judah (A.D. 27-93). The problem with Agrippa II is he was not cut off before the city or the Temple were destroyed. In fact, he helped the Romans and their general Titus conquer Jerusalem."

http://www.truthnet.org/TheMessiah/1...aniels70weeks/

"Rashi believes it refers to King Agrippa II (a descendant of Herod) who was killed at the time of the Temple's destruction."

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Orthodox-...Daniel-9-5.htm

"He [Rashi] identifies the first "Moshiach/ Anointed One" of Daniel 9:25 as Cyrus King of Persia ... However, he is wrong as to Agrippa II ..."

http://books.google.com/books?id=1f4...ointed&f=false

"And after the sixty--two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and be no more....

This second "anointed one" was King Agrippa II of Judah.123 At the destruction of Jerusalem and the slaughter and exile of its inhabitants in 68 C.E. , his rule came to an abrupt end:"

http://www.drazin.com/chap7.phtml

"In Talmudic times Agrippa II was looked upon as the "anointed prince." Christians naturally saw a reference to the death of Christ. Many students, counting backward from the death of Jesus, assumed that the word went forth in "

http://books.google.com/books?id=oa1...nce%22&f=false

"Apparently knowing of this objection, Drazin (following Rashi) absurdly thrusts forth King Agrippa II of Judah (r. AD 50-100), a Herodian, as the anointed one of Daniel"

http://books.google.com/books?id=v_7...page&q&f=false

"Some believe that the “anointed one” that was to be “cut off” (Dan. 9:26) designates King Agrippa (II), who lived at the time of Jerusalem's destruction"

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...2055116AAWpeVc

"Rather, Rashi sees this person referred to as, anointed one or messiah as Agrippa king of Judah (A.D. 27-93). The problem with Agrippa II is he was not cut off ..."

http://www.truthnet.org/pdf/TheMessi...l_70_Weeks.pdf

The point is that there are over four thousand references to this. Everyone thinks it is Agrippa II, except of course maryhelena ...

stephan huller · 07-30-2010, 01:37 PM

I have been instructed by the moderators to stop criticizing points of view that can't be supported by any of the surviving evidence. Therefore I will concede that my twenty years of research, translations of obscure Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Coptic and Latin texts related to this topic don't in any way decide the issue. What is really decisive here is imagination and inspiration. I have learned that putting too much faith in logic and the assumption that people who are actually familiar with the original sources maybe flawed. What this discussion needs is more a creative approach - an 'anything is possible' attitude which I have for too long eschewed.

I now see that as unlikely as the possibility might have seemed to me at first, it is in fact within the realm of possibilities that Justus, Origen, the Seder ‘Olam Rabba, the Yosippon Jerome, Rabbi Abaye, Samuel b. Nahmani, pseudo-Saadiah Gaon, Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Ibn Daud, Nachmanides, Abarbanel, Calvin, Luther, the Metsudat David and literally over a hundred other writers influenced by these sources and over a thousand commentaries developed from these original sources WERE ALL MISINFORMED.

The correct possibility it turns out is the one that is never recorded IN ANY WRITER AT ANY TIME IN HISTORY - namely that Agrippa I was really meant as the messiah of Daniel 9:26. I apologize to Mary Helena. Her wisdom and insight has penetrated mysteries which even the greatest minds of the ancient past couldn't fathom.

I humbly submit that I have sinned. I was arrogant, abusive and misguided. Moreover I was misinformed. I was wrong for following what is actually written in the surviving writings. I was wrong for getting frustrated with her dismissing of any evidence but that which came out of her own imagination.

I again apologize for not taking her word that such a possibility existed in spite of - what now seems to be - an insignificant and worthless number of witnesses.

I will never again disagree with this person who is in all ways my superior.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-29-2010, 11:56 AM	#28
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	WHAT DRUGS ARE YOU ON? WHEN DID I REFERENCE THE COINS? I am not debating whether there are two Agrippas or one because it has no bearing on this discussion. You want me to take the bait so we can get off this subject. But I am not biting. Because this discussion exposes that you make opinions without ANY KNOWLEDGE of the original subject matter. BTW with regards to the coins read Smallwood's analysis of the evidence. I am not biting. The question is again why is everyone in history wrong in identify the Agrippa that ruled at the time of the destruction of the temple (commonly identified as Agrippa II) and maryhelena is really more knowledgeable and more correct WITHOUT HAVING READ ANY OF THE LITERATURE?

07-29-2010, 12:25 PM	#29
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	So maybe you think that Origen, ALL the rabbinic sages and ALL the scholars who have studied this subject of the Agrippa who is said to be the messiah of Daniel 9:26 isn't enough. Let's go on the internet and see what we can find from 'regular folks' like you and me: "And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one will be cut off, and he will be no more,... This anointed one is referring to King Agrippa II. In 70 CE his rule came to an end suddenly with the siege and destruction of Jerusalem and the exile of the people." http://www.turntotorah.com/daniel_proofs.html "Rather, Rashi sees this person referred to as, anointed one or messiah as Agrippa king of Judah (A.D. 27-93). The problem with Agrippa II is he was not cut off before the city or the Temple were destroyed. In fact, he helped the Romans and their general Titus conquer Jerusalem." http://www.truthnet.org/TheMessiah/1...aniels70weeks/ "Rashi believes it refers to King Agrippa II (a descendant of Herod) who was killed at the time of the Temple's destruction." http://en.allexperts.com/q/Orthodox-...Daniel-9-5.htm "He [Rashi] identifies the first "Moshiach/ Anointed One" of Daniel 9:25 as Cyrus King of Persia ... However, he is wrong as to Agrippa II ..." http://books.google.com/books?id=1f4...ointed&f=false "And after the sixty--two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and be no more.... This second "anointed one" was King Agrippa II of Judah.123 At the destruction of Jerusalem and the slaughter and exile of its inhabitants in 68 C.E. , his rule came to an abrupt end:" http://www.drazin.com/chap7.phtml "In Talmudic times Agrippa II was looked upon as the "anointed prince." Christians naturally saw a reference to the death of Christ. Many students, counting backward from the death of Jesus, assumed that the word went forth in " http://books.google.com/books?id=oa1...nce%22&f=false "Apparently knowing of this objection, Drazin (following Rashi) absurdly thrusts forth King Agrippa II of Judah (r. AD 50-100), a Herodian, as the anointed one of Daniel" http://books.google.com/books?id=v_7...page&q&f=false "Some believe that the “anointed one” that was to be “cut off” (Dan. 9:26) designates King Agrippa (II), who lived at the time of Jerusalem's destruction" http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...2055116AAWpeVc "Rather, Rashi sees this person referred to as, anointed one or messiah as Agrippa king of Judah (A.D. 27-93). The problem with Agrippa II is he was not cut off ..." http://www.truthnet.org/pdf/TheMessi...l_70_Weeks.pdf The point is that there are over four thousand references to this. Everyone thinks it is Agrippa II, except of course maryhelena ...

07-30-2010, 01:37 PM	#30
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I have been instructed by the moderators to stop criticizing points of view that can't be supported by any of the surviving evidence. Therefore I will concede that my twenty years of research, translations of obscure Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Coptic and Latin texts related to this topic don't in any way decide the issue. What is really decisive here is imagination and inspiration. I have learned that putting too much faith in logic and the assumption that people who are actually familiar with the original sources maybe flawed. What this discussion needs is more a creative approach - an 'anything is possible' attitude which I have for too long eschewed. I now see that as unlikely as the possibility might have seemed to me at first, it is in fact within the realm of possibilities that Justus, Origen, the Seder ‘Olam Rabba, the Yosippon Jerome, Rabbi Abaye, Samuel b. Nahmani, pseudo-Saadiah Gaon, Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Ibn Daud, Nachmanides, Abarbanel, Calvin, Luther, the Metsudat David and literally over a hundred other writers influenced by these sources and over a thousand commentaries developed from these original sources WERE ALL MISINFORMED. The correct possibility it turns out is the one that is never recorded IN ANY WRITER AT ANY TIME IN HISTORY - namely that Agrippa I was really meant as the messiah of Daniel 9:26. I apologize to Mary Helena. Her wisdom and insight has penetrated mysteries which even the greatest minds of the ancient past couldn't fathom. I humbly submit that I have sinned. I was arrogant, abusive and misguided. Moreover I was misinformed. I was wrong for following what is actually written in the surviving writings. I was wrong for getting frustrated with her dismissing of any evidence but that which came out of her own imagination. I again apologize for not taking her word that such a possibility existed in spite of - what now seems to be - an insignificant and worthless number of witnesses. I will never again disagree with this person who is in all ways my superior.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.