Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 05-11-2012, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

.....gMark did not need to rely on War.6.5.3 for his story. All gMark needed was to be familiar with Jewish/Hasmonean history. The mocking and flogging of the last King of the Jews, Antigonus, in 37 b.c., by the Roman, Marc Antony....

How can you be so wrong??? gMark's Jesus story did NOT need "the mocking and flogging of Antigonus. The author used Hebrew Scripture.

Please See Psalms 22.

aa - interpreting scriptures is anyone's game...open season to let ones' imagination take full flight. That, however, while it may gain one momentary popularity and success - will only last until the next best thing comes along. People are fickle - look at christianity today. It has been well said, that christianity is the mother of heretics. Hundreds, thousands, of scriptural interpretations...

The gospel JC story had staying power - not because it is based upon mythology and OT interpretations - but because underlying all of that there was Jewish/Hasmonean history. That is the oral telling, the oral tradition, that had the staying power. People could find some reflection of history within the stories. Indeed, with time, that historical reflection faded away - and the JC story itself became viewed as 'history'. But for ahistoricists/mythicists to reject a historical core to the JC story is to fall into the self-same trap the JC historicsts are in - both positions fail to see past the historical reflection, they both fail to see through the pseudo-history to the history it reflects and rests upon.

Why can't you admit that your interpretation is wrong??? The Jesus story of gMark is NOT modeled by the Antigonus story.

Examine gMark 15. 13-14

Quote:

And they cried again Crucify him then Pilate said unto them WHY, WHAT EVIL HATH HE DONE.

Antiquities of the Jews 15.1.1

Quote:

Now when Antony had received Antigonus as his captive, he determined to keep him against his triumph; but when he heard that the nation grew seditious, and that, out of their hatred to Herod, they continued to bear good-will to Antigonus, he resolved to behead him at Antioch, for otherwise the Jews could no way be brought to be quiet.

Remarkably, astonishingly the crucifixion of Jesus in gMark was done for the very Opposite reason.

Pilate the Roman governor EXONERATED Jesus but crucified him because the Jews wanted Jesus dead.

But the very opposite happened to Antigonus--he was beheaded by Antony because the Jews showed GOOD-WILL towards Antigonus and Not to Herod.

Jesus was REJECTED by the Jews in gMark .

Antigonus was ACCEPTED by the Jews in Josephus.

The Jesus story is based on Hebrew Scripture NOT Antigonus.

maryhelena · 05-11-2012, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

.....gMark did not need to rely on War.6.5.3 for his story. All gMark needed was to be familiar with Jewish/Hasmonean history. The mocking and flogging of the last King of the Jews, Antigonus, in 37 b.c., by the Roman, Marc Antony....

How can you be so wrong??? gMark's Jesus story did NOT need "the mocking and flogging of Antigonus. The author used Hebrew Scripture.

Please See Psalms 22.

aa - interpreting scriptures is anyone's game...open season to let ones' imagination take full flight. That, however, while it may gain one momentary popularity and success - will only last until the next best thing comes along. People are fickle - look at christianity today. It has been well said, that christianity is the mother of heretics. Hundreds, thousands, of scriptural interpretations...

The gospel JC story had staying power - not because it is based upon mythology and OT interpretations - but because underlying all of that there was Jewish/Hasmonean history. That is the oral telling, the oral tradition, that had the staying power. People could find some reflection of history within the stories. Indeed, with time, that historical reflection faded away - and the JC story itself became viewed as 'history'. But for ahistoricists/mythicists to reject a historical core to the JC story is to fall into the self-same trap the JC historicsts are in - both positions fail to see past the historical reflection, they both fail to see through the pseudo-history to the history it reflects and rests upon.

Why can't you admit that your interpretation is wrong??? The Jesus story of gMark is NOT modeled by the Antigonus story.

Examine gMark 15. 13-14

Quote:

And they cried again Crucify him then Pilate said unto them WHY, WHAT EVIL HATH HE DONE.

Antiquities of the Jews 15.1.1

Quote:

Now when Antony had received Antigonus as his captive, he determined to keep him against his triumph; but when he heard that the nation grew seditious, and that, out of their hatred to Herod, they continued to bear good-will to Antigonus, he resolved to behead him at Antioch, for otherwise the Jews could no way be brought to be quiet.

Remarkably, astonishingly the crucifixion of Jesus in gMark was done for the very Opposite reason.

Pilate the Roman governor EXONERATED Jesus but crucified him because the Jews wanted Jesus dead.

But the very opposite happened to Antigonus--he was beheaded by Antony because the Jews showed GOOD-WILL towards Antigonus and Not to Herod.

Jesus was REJECTED by the Jews in gMark .

Antigonus was ACCEPTED by the Jews in Josephus.

The Jesus story is based on Hebrew Scripture NOT Antigonus.

aa

1, Antigonus is a historical figure, the last King and High Priest of the Jews, bound to a stake/cross, mocked and flogged and slain/beheaded, by the Roman Marc Antony, in 37 b.c.

2, The JC story is not history. It is a pseudo-historical story. A pseudo-historical story reflecting Jewish/Hasmonean history - plus - OT interpretation and mythological elements.

To maintain, as you seem to be doing, that the JC story has nothing to do with Jewish history - that is pure assumption.

Grog · 05-11-2012, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/NTcanon.html

showing that anonymous oral tradition was still king when the Didakhe was written

but never names any NT book--and the allusions are of the sort that could merely reflect common oral traditions.

Thus, Papias reveals the early Christian preference for oral rather than written tradition. It was only in the later 2nd century that this preference began to change. Other quotations of his work show how destructive this 'preference for oral tradition' was, since Papias apparently recorded the most outlandish claims as if they were true,

We see the authority of oral tradition is again elevated above the written--like all the previous authors, no NT text is called scripture, though many OT texts are, and the only cited source for NT information is the report of 'unnamed' evangelists

just read the whole article.

I will get back to this, I just don't have time right now. One thing I would point out though is that it makes a difference if you are talking about the preservation and transmission of knowledge or if you are talking about the primary means of the average person's point of contact with the material. The distinction is often confused. Yes, most people heard the stories orally. But an oral tradition without a literary authority behind it is highly fluid. So usually when you hear of oral tradition in, for example, first century Judaism, it is often concerning the memorization of texts and then the recitation of those memorized texts. That is how a tradition begins to be "fixed" in a literary culture.

In all your comments about "oral tradition" you do not make any distinction as to what you are talking about. In fact, it seems like you conflate it all together. You seem to have this idea that for 40 years or so people told more or less the same idea and then one day, Mark had the bright idea to write down a story. In reality, there is a high degree of interplay between oral and literary traditions. We even see in Paul's writings remnants of a preceding literary tradition in the Christian tradition.

Duvduv · 05-11-2012, 09:22 AM

The context of Tacitus makes absolutely no sense. But we see things don't make any sense in Josephus or even in Philo. Yet there are those who would hold fast to them without considering the context. All they do is see the word Christ and their lights go on. Makes no sense at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

If we throw Tacitus into the mix we add to the ludicrous claims of "historians." The followers of Christus in Judea were called Christians by the populace but not because they called themselves by that name in Antioch or anywhere else. And within a mere 30 years after Pilate, their "center" became Rome. Pilate is not described as having any conflict with Jews but with this group of followers of Christus, which is found nowhere.
And of course there is the matter of the fire in Rome in 64 CE, for which no blame is mentioned by Tacitus.

In any event, how on earth could the emerging Christian movement have expected to attract new followers in the 4th century if they even so much as hinted that their religion as presented was just recently invented?? Antiquity prior to the destruction of the Jewish Temple of at least 250 years earlier and the implications of the Bar Kochba fiasco was the only backdrop useful for them through the Jews' rejection of Jesus.

outhouse · 05-11-2012, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/NTcanon.html

showing that anonymous oral tradition was still king when the Didakhe was written

but never names any NT book--and the allusions are of the sort that could merely reflect common oral traditions.

Thus, Papias reveals the early Christian preference for oral rather than written tradition. It was only in the later 2nd century that this preference began to change. Other quotations of his work show how destructive this 'preference for oral tradition' was, since Papias apparently recorded the most outlandish claims as if they were true,

We see the authority of oral tradition is again elevated above the written--like all the previous authors, no NT text is called scripture, though many OT texts are, and the only cited source for NT information is the report of 'unnamed' evangelists

just read the whole article.

I will get back to this, I just don't have time right now. One thing I would point out though is that it makes a difference if you are talking about the preservation and transmission of knowledge or if you are talking about the primary means of the average person's point of contact with the material. The distinction is often confused. Yes, most people heard the stories orally. But an oral tradition without a literary authority behind it is highly fluid. So usually when you hear of oral tradition in, for example, first century Judaism, it is often concerning the memorization of texts and then the recitation of those memorized texts. That is how a tradition begins to be "fixed" in a literary culture.

In all your comments about "oral tradition" you do not make any distinction as to what you are talking about. In fact, it seems like you conflate it all together. You seem to have this idea that for 40 years or so people told more or less the same idea and then one day, Mark had the bright idea to write down a story. In reality, there is a high degree of interplay between oral and literary traditions. We even see in Paul's writings remnants of a preceding literary tradition in the Christian tradition.

It was not the same idea, but the cores matched the real events and man.

you do understand that the illiterate passed on legends and OT biblical text orally??

You also understand that there were many legends of jesus and they all changed beased of what geographic location you heard the legend.

you would also know that there were earlier written sources that no longer exist, that we have but a small fraction of what used to be.

You had different communities each with their own traditions and sources for their personal legend of jesus, oral tradition was the most common of all tradition's, even gmark's author or scribe used a combination of sources, Paul would have mainly relied on oral tradition for his legend.

most people were illiterate, most people used oral traditions. plain and simple.

outhouse · 05-11-2012, 09:36 AM

Quote:

But an oral tradition without a literary authority behind it is highly fluid

very true.

the m,ain point you may or may not be missing is this.

oral tradition "can" be accurate almost word for word when within one culture and one religion.

when you have cross culture oral tradition like we hade here, its a little more then fluid. There is no reason to maintain any sort of accuracy.

thats why early on there were so many different ways the movement was going.

we are only left with teh roman version of events that amounts to jesus direct enemies telling the legend of jesus, accurate?? no way in hell. but that doesnt discount a historical core.

outhouse · 05-11-2012, 09:38 AM

Quote:

That is how a tradition begins to be "fixed" in a literary culture.

Key point

were dealing with a highly illiterate culture

aa5874 · 05-11-2012, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

.....gMark did not need to rely on War.6.5.3 for his story. All gMark needed was to be familiar with Jewish/Hasmonean history. The mocking and flogging of the last King of the Jews, Antigonus, in 37 b.c., by the Roman, Marc Antony....

How can you be so wrong??? gMark's Jesus story did NOT need "the mocking and flogging of Antigonus. The author used Hebrew Scripture.

Please See Psalms 22.

aa - interpreting scriptures is anyone's game...open season to let ones' imagination take full flight. That, however, while it may gain one momentary popularity and success - will only last until the next best thing comes along. People are fickle - look at christianity today. It has been well said, that christianity is the mother of heretics. Hundreds, thousands, of scriptural interpretations...

The gospel JC story had staying power - not because it is based upon mythology and OT interpretations - but because underlying all of that there was Jewish/Hasmonean history. That is the oral telling, the oral tradition, that had the staying power. People could find some reflection of history within the stories. Indeed, with time, that historical reflection faded away - and the JC story itself became viewed as 'history'. But for ahistoricists/mythicists to reject a historical core to the JC story is to fall into the self-same trap the JC historicsts are in - both positions fail to see past the historical reflection, they both fail to see through the pseudo-history to the history it reflects and rests upon.

Why can't you admit that your interpretation is wrong??? The Jesus story of gMark is NOT modeled by the Antigonus story.

Examine gMark 15. 13-14

Quote:

And they cried again Crucify him then Pilate said unto them WHY, WHAT EVIL HATH HE DONE.

Antiquities of the Jews 15.1.1

Quote:

Now when Antony had received Antigonus as his captive, he determined to keep him against his triumph; but when he heard that the nation grew seditious, and that, out of their hatred to Herod, they continued to bear good-will to Antigonus, he resolved to behead him at Antioch, for otherwise the Jews could no way be brought to be quiet.

Remarkably, astonishingly the crucifixion of Jesus in gMark was done for the very Opposite reason.

Pilate the Roman governor EXONERATED Jesus but crucified him because the Jews wanted Jesus dead.

But the very opposite happened to Antigonus--he was beheaded by Antony because the Jews showed GOOD-WILL towards Antigonus and Not to Herod.

Jesus was REJECTED by the Jews in gMark .

Antigonus was ACCEPTED by the Jews in Josephus.

The Jesus story is based on Hebrew Scripture NOT Antigonus.

aa

1, Antigonus is a historical figure, the last King and High Priest of the Jews, bound to a stake/cross, mocked and flogged and slain/beheaded, by the Roman Marc Antony, in 37 b.c.

2, The JC story is not history. It is a pseudo-historical story. A pseudo-historical story reflecting Jewish/Hasmonean history - plus - OT interpretation and mythological elements.

To maintain, as you seem to be doing, that the JC story has nothing to do with Jewish history - that is pure assumption.

What nonsense. You are the one who has PRESUMED that a Myth Fable is based on Antigonus WITHOUT a shred of evidence. The WRITTEN statements in the NT are NOT assumptions. It can be shown that:

1. The Jesus of gMark was NOT beheaded.

2. The Jesus of gMark was crucified because of the Jews.

3. The crucifixion scene of Jesus in gMark was LIFTED from Hebrew Scripture, and specifically Psalms.

4. The Jesus story in gMark is a product of Multiple sources of antiquity including the books of the Prophets and the Works of Josephus.

5. In gMark, Jesus did NOT even want the Jews to know he was the Christ until the day he was crucified.

You are the one who have been Myopic and refuse to take into account that the gMark story was derived from MULTIPLE sources.

Duvduv · 05-11-2012, 11:06 AM

Spin, I don't think that's the point. What I was trying to bring out was that apparently the doctrine of the trinity, which is not described in the NT emerged in the 4th century (when it would seem "Tertullian" was written) AND that it appears highly fishy that it was an original doctrine when according to the Christian narrative it took FOUR HUNDRED years for councils of clergymen to work out what is a PILLAR of their religion that presumably would have existed through the tradition of the apostles or in the NT texts themselves, but isn't. That's all I was trying to suggest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Just like good old Eusebius, Theodore of Mopsustia, John Chrysostom etc.as potential contributors to the Christian theology emerging in the fourth century along with the invention of the Trinity and predominance of the orthodox either from the second century or the fourth.

To call the trinity an invention is to misunderstand the process that brought it to manifestation in the 4th century. There was a tacit binitarianism in the literature for at least a century before the time of Arius. It's just that the nature of how that could be had not been battered out. Trinitarianism is just the same thing as binitarianism with the silliness of the holy spirit to confuse the matter. So the main thing that trinitarianism brings to the table, if you overlook the reification of the holy spirit, is the claim that Jesus is not like essence with god, but the same essence!!! This is development by majority opinion. No active creation required.

maryhelena · 05-11-2012, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

.....gMark did not need to rely on War.6.5.3 for his story. All gMark needed was to be familiar with Jewish/Hasmonean history. The mocking and flogging of the last King of the Jews, Antigonus, in 37 b.c., by the Roman, Marc Antony....

How can you be so wrong??? gMark's Jesus story did NOT need "the mocking and flogging of Antigonus. The author used Hebrew Scripture.

Please See Psalms 22.

aa - interpreting scriptures is anyone's game...open season to let ones' imagination take full flight. That, however, while it may gain one momentary popularity and success - will only last until the next best thing comes along. People are fickle - look at christianity today. It has been well said, that christianity is the mother of heretics. Hundreds, thousands, of scriptural interpretations...

The gospel JC story had staying power - not because it is based upon mythology and OT interpretations - but because underlying all of that there was Jewish/Hasmonean history. That is the oral telling, the oral tradition, that had the staying power. People could find some reflection of history within the stories. Indeed, with time, that historical reflection faded away - and the JC story itself became viewed as 'history'. But for ahistoricists/mythicists to reject a historical core to the JC story is to fall into the self-same trap the JC historicsts are in - both positions fail to see past the historical reflection, they both fail to see through the pseudo-history to the history it reflects and rests upon.

Why can't you admit that your interpretation is wrong??? The Jesus story of gMark is NOT modeled by the Antigonus story.

Examine gMark 15. 13-14

Quote:

And they cried again Crucify him then Pilate said unto them WHY, WHAT EVIL HATH HE DONE.

Antiquities of the Jews 15.1.1

Quote:

Now when Antony had received Antigonus as his captive, he determined to keep him against his triumph; but when he heard that the nation grew seditious, and that, out of their hatred to Herod, they continued to bear good-will to Antigonus, he resolved to behead him at Antioch, for otherwise the Jews could no way be brought to be quiet.

Remarkably, astonishingly the crucifixion of Jesus in gMark was done for the very Opposite reason.

Pilate the Roman governor EXONERATED Jesus but crucified him because the Jews wanted Jesus dead.

But the very opposite happened to Antigonus--he was beheaded by Antony because the Jews showed GOOD-WILL towards Antigonus and Not to Herod.

Jesus was REJECTED by the Jews in gMark .

Antigonus was ACCEPTED by the Jews in Josephus.

The Jesus story is based on Hebrew Scripture NOT Antigonus.

aa

1, Antigonus is a historical figure, the last King and High Priest of the Jews, bound to a stake/cross, mocked and flogged and slain/beheaded, by the Roman Marc Antony, in 37 b.c.

2, The JC story is not history. It is a pseudo-historical story. A pseudo-historical story reflecting Jewish/Hasmonean history - plus - OT interpretation and mythological elements.

To maintain, as you seem to be doing, that the JC story has nothing to do with Jewish history - that is pure assumption.

What nonsense. You are the one who has PRESUMED that a Myth Fable is based on Antigonus WITHOUT a shred of evidence. The WRITTEN statements in the NT are NOT assumptions. It can be shown that:

1. The Jesus of gMark was NOT beheaded.

2. The Jesus of gMark was crucified because of the Jews.

3. The crucifixion scene of Jesus in gMark was LIFTED from Hebrew Scripture, and specifically Psalms.

4. The Jesus story in gMark is a product of Multiple sources of antiquity including the books of the Prophets and the Works of Josephus.

5. In gMark, Jesus did NOT even want the Jews to know he was the Christ until the day he was crucified.

You are the one who have been Myopic and refuse to take into account that the gMark story was derived from MULTIPLE sources.

Finally!!

The JC story, as in gMark, is a story "derived from MULTIPLE sources"....

Great - so therefore - you cannot rule out Jewish/Hasmonean history - as though it is not relevant to that gMark JC story. Multiple sources....

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.