Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 11-23-2010, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I am not clear about your position at all.

If you have two significantly different historical figures who lived at significantly different times for your Jesus then you should have CLEARLY made them known in your previous post.

Try this earlier post of mine to this thread......and a number of others in this forum that you could find by doing a little research re my postings....

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....99#post6582899

I am doing my own research for my theory about the story of Jesus. My theory, based on the evidence so far, suggests that it was a SIGNIFICANT event that triggered the Jesus story.

That SIGNIFICANT event was the Fall of the Temple c70 which seemed to have fulfilled the prophecy in Daniel 11.31

Da 11:31 -

Quote:

And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.

Matthew 24.15-16

Quote:

15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand) 16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains....

It would appear that the authors of Jesus story are attempting to claim or show that the Fall of the Temple and the destruction of Jerusalem which fulfilled the supposed prophecy in Daniel was caused when the Jews rejected and CRUCIFIED Jesus as BLASPHEMER when he supposedly was TRULY the Son of God.

spin · 11-24-2010, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

I can't offer any more than what I posted re this issue - I'll Google later and see if I can find anything more. I did drop a hint to spin (on another thread) to see if he has any update or further clarification for what is on the Wikipedia page........but so far no response...

I haven't had time to think about the issue, but I have fixed the error (which was mine) and rewritten the Wiki page on Lysanias. There are a number of indications that in the east Livia was deified during her life as Augustus was in his.

spin

maryhelena · 11-24-2010, 03:20 AM

DCH

A second find re Lysanias.

Quote:

The Life of Jesus, Critically Examined, David Friedrich Strauss (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Page 210/211

We cannot indeed prove what Suskind demands for the refutation of this hypothesis, namely, that had such a younger Lysanias existed, Josephus must have mentioned him; yet that he had more than one inducement to do so, Paulus has satisfactorily shown. Especially, when in relation to the times of the first and second Agrippa he designates Abilia, xxxxxxxxxx(greek), he must have been reminded that he had only treated of the elder Lysanias, and not all of the younger, from whom, as the later ruler, the country must at that time have derived its second appellation. If, according to this, the younger Lysanias is but an historical fiction, the proposed alternative is but a philological one................The conclusion is therefore inevitable that the writer himself erred, and, from the circumstances that Abilene, even in recent times, was called after the last ruler of the former dynasty, xxxxxxxxx (greek), drew the inference that a monarch of that name was still existing; while, in fact, Abilene either belonged to Philip, or was immediately subject to the Romans.

(my xxxxxxxx greek)

Quote:

footnote

7. Tholueck thinks he has found a perfectly corresponding example in Tacitus. When this historian, Annal ii.42 (A.D.17) mentions the death of an Archelaus, king of Cappadocia, and yet, Annal. Vi.41 (A.D.36), cites an Archelaus, also a Cappadocian, as ruler of the Clitae, the same historical conjecture, says Tholuck, is necessary, viz., that there were two Cappadocians named Archelaus. But when the same historian, after noticing the death of a man, introduces another of the same name, under different circumstances, it is no conjecture, but a clear historical datum, that there were two such persons. It is quite otherwise when, as in the case of Lysanias, two writers have each one of the same name, but assign him distinct epochs. Here it is indeed a conjecture to admit two successive persons; a conjecture so much the less historical, the more improbable it is shown to be that one of the two writers would have been silent respecting the second of the like-named men, had such an one existed.

Perhaps it's also worth keeping in mind that Luke also makes mention of the high priest Annas (6 ce to 15 ce). Sure, this mention is often taken to refer to some sort of joint high priest involvement with Caiaphas - but that again is conjecture re the gospel storyline. Perhaps the simplest way is to just read what Luke has written, just take the history for what it implies and stop efforts to make that history fit a supposed HJ scenario. Once HJ ideas are set aside - so too is any necessity to make a dogs dinner out of Luke's attempt to draw a larger historical framework for his Jesus storyline.

angelo · 11-24-2010, 03:47 AM

Most, if not all historical biblical scholars take as the default position that there was a HJ.

Here is what Dan Barker an ex evangelical preacher turned atheist has to say, and really says it all with these four quotes.
1. There is no external historical confirmation for the N/T stories.
2.The N/T stories are internally contradictory.
3. There are natural explanations for the origin of the Jesus legend.
4. The miracle reports make the story unhistorical. end quote.

The gospels are the only way to study/look for a historical Jesus, and they are far from having any credibility at all.
All extra-biblical sources are passing on what was already in existence when they put quills to parchment. None can be used to confirm a HJ.

maryhelena · 11-24-2010, 03:54 AM

Keeping in mind the OP - re the crucifixion of the gospel Jesus by the Romans - and the historical circumstances re the crucifixion and beheading of the Hasmonean Antigonus in 37 ce - the appearance of Lysanias of Abilene in Luke 3:1 is not out of place. As would be the case with an unknown and historically unattested later Lysanias.

In 40 bc Lysanias, according to an earlier Josephan account, was involved with getting Antigonus to capture Jerusalem. Luke is most probably more interested in Antigonus than Lysanias and has used Lysanias simply as a historical 'marker'. (Rome was still in power after all - and any Hasmonean 'talk' could easily be misconstrued.....) Interestingly, both Antigonus and Lysanias were king priests - so again, a link between them. Both suffered death at the hands of the Romans. And seemingly, they were cousins - but don't know where that reference is.

Lysanias in Josephus

Quote:

Lysanias was the ruler of a tetrarchy, centered on the town of Abila. This has been referred to by various names including Abilene, Chalcis and Iturea, from about 40-36 BC. Josephus is our main source for the life of Lysanias.

His father was Ptolemy son of Mennaeus who ruled the tetrarchy before him. Lysanias was cousin of Antigonus, who he helped during the latter's attempt to claim the throne of Judea in 40 BC with the military support of the Parthians.

According to Josephus (B.J. 1.248), he offered the Parthian satrap Barzapharnes "a thousand talents and 500 women to bring Antigonus back and raise him to the throne, after deposing Hyrcanus". However, Josephus in his later work, the Jewish Antiquities 14.330-331, relates that it was Antigonus who made the offer to the Parthians. Whichever the case, Lysanias was put to death by Mark Antony for his Parthian sympathies, at the instigation of Cleopatra, who had eyes on the territories of Lysanias.

Coins from his reign indicate that he was "tetrarch and high priest". The same description can be found on the coins of his father, Ptolemy son of Mennaeus and on those of a possible near relative Zenodorus who held the territory in 23-20 BC[1].

DCHindley · 11-25-2010, 06:44 AM

MH,

I notice a lot of the websites transliterate omegas as well as omicrons as "o", and etas and epsilons both as "e". That is why I use the more or less standard CCAT transliteration scheme of W, O, H & E respectively.

SEBASTWI (sg masc/neut dative) is quite different than SEBASTOI (pl masc nominative), even though both might get transliterated "sebastoi" on web pages (such as the Wiki article) or even in footnotes to some academic publications (the latter assume the academic reader already knows whether long or short vowels are meant).

DCH (now ... I'm off to feast a great feast)

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

DCH

A second find re Lysanias.

Quote:

The Life of Jesus, Critically Examined, David Friedrich Strauss (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Page 210/211

We cannot indeed prove what Suskind demands for the refutation of this hypothesis, namely, that had such a younger Lysanias existed, Josephus must have mentioned him; yet that he had more than one inducement to do so, Paulus has satisfactorily shown. Especially, when in relation to the times of the first and second Agrippa he designates Abilia, xxxxxxxxxx(greek), he must have been reminded that he had only treated of the elder Lysanias, and not all of the younger, from whom, as the later ruler, the country must at that time have derived its second appellation. If, according to this, the younger Lysanias is but an historical fiction, the proposed alternative is but a philological one................The conclusion is therefore inevitable that the writer himself erred, and, from the circumstances that Abilene, even in recent times, was called after the last ruler of the former dynasty, xxxxxxxxx (greek), drew the inference that a monarch of that name was still existing; while, in fact, Abilene either belonged to Philip, or was immediately subject to the Romans.

(my xxxxxxxx greek)

Quote:

footnote

7. Tholueck thinks he has found a perfectly corresponding example in Tacitus. When this historian, Annal ii.42 (A.D.17) mentions the death of an Archelaus, king of Cappadocia, and yet, Annal. Vi.41 (A.D.36), cites an Archelaus, also a Cappadocian, as ruler of the Clitae, the same historical conjecture, says Tholuck, is necessary, viz., that there were two Cappadocians named Archelaus. But when the same historian, after noticing the death of a man, introduces another of the same name, under different circumstances, it is no conjecture, but a clear historical datum, that there were two such persons. It is quite otherwise when, as in the case of Lysanias, two writers have each one of the same name, but assign him distinct epochs. Here it is indeed a conjecture to admit two successive persons; a conjecture so much the less historical, the more improbable it is shown to be that one of the two writers would have been silent respecting the second of the like-named men, had such an one existed.

Perhaps it's also worth keeping in mind that Luke also makes mention of the high priest Annas (6 ce to 15 ce). Sure, this mention is often taken to refer to some sort of joint high priest involvement with Caiaphas - but that again is conjecture re the gospel storyline. Perhaps the simplest way is to just read what Luke has written, just take the history for what it implies and stop efforts to make that history fit a supposed HJ scenario. Once HJ ideas are set aside - so too is any necessity to make a dogs dinner out of Luke's attempt to draw a larger historical framework for his Jesus storyline.

maryhelena · 11-25-2010, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

MH,

I notice a lot of the websites transliterate omegas as well as omicrons as "o", and etas and epsilons both as "e". That is why I use the more or less standard CCAT transliteration scheme of W, O, H & E respectively.

SEBASTWI (sg masc/neut dative) is quite different than SEBASTOI (pl masc nominative), even though both might get transliterated "sebastoi" on web pages (such as the Wiki article) or even in footnotes to some academic publications (the latter assume the academic reader already knows whether long or short vowels are meant).

DCH (now ... I'm off to feast a great feast)

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

DCH

A second find re Lysanias.

(my xxxxxxxx greek)

Perhaps it's also worth keeping in mind that Luke also makes mention of the high priest Annas (6 ce to 15 ce). Sure, this mention is often taken to refer to some sort of joint high priest involvement with Caiaphas - but that again is conjecture re the gospel storyline. Perhaps the simplest way is to just read what Luke has written, just take the history for what it implies and stop efforts to make that history fit a supposed HJ scenario. Once HJ ideas are set aside - so too is any necessity to make a dogs dinner out of Luke's attempt to draw a larger historical framework for his Jesus storyline.

Thanks, DCH

I'm afraid Greek is above my head - so maybe spin might be so kind as to offer an opinion......

Enjoy the feast.....take care re any driving....:wave:

PhilosopherJay · 11-26-2010, 06:43 AM

Hi Kapyong,

Good list.

A secondary problem is that there are no claims of Jesus being mentioned in lost works. We may presume that the works of most First and Second writers are lost. However, we would expect that any references to Jesus in them would have been preserved by Christians. They were obviously involved in polemics and any mention pro or con could have been of great value. Nobody even suggests that any of hundreds or thousands of non-Christian authors wrote about Jesus in the 1st or 2nd Centuries. He is simply missing from history outside of the history fabricated by Christians, and the few examples you gave, which all are highly suspect, problematic and cannot be used for reasonable proof.

Besides the lack of secondary source evidence, we should also note the lack of any archaeological evidence (e.g. tombstones, wall paintings, mosaics, pottery, vases, etc.) for nearly two centuries after the chronological setting of the story.

Celsus, circa 180 appears to be the first non-Christian to talk about Jesus and he appears to criticize him as a poorly drawn fictional character in a gospel scroll, created by Jewish Platonists who did not understand Plato.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

WRITERS CLAIMED TO MENTION JESUS

JOSEPHUS

Much has been said about Josephus, but not here.

Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but may not have.

TACITUS

Cornelius Tacitus wrote a celebrated passage about Jesus roughly 80 years or so after the alleged events - but he seems to be reporting Christian beliefs of his later times, not using earlier documents: he uses the incorrect title 'procurator' - the term used in Tacitus' time, not Pilate's; he fails to name the executed man (Roman records could not possibly have called him 'Christ '); and he accepts the recent advent of the Christians, when Rome was known to allow only ancient cults and religions.

Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but probably late hearsay.

NUMENIUS

In the 3rd century, Origen claimed Numenius "quotes also a narrative regarding Jesus--without, however, mentioning His name"

Numenius does not mention Jesus, just a story that was later attributed to him.

Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but probably late hearsay.

SUETONIUS

Gaius SUETONIUS Tranquillus wrote a histories/biographies of Roman Caesars c.120CE.

He mentions a "Chrestus" (a common slave name meaning "Useful") who caused disturbance in Rome in 49CE.

Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but did not.

PHLEGON

Phlegon wrote during the 140s - his works are lost. Later, Origen, Eusebius, and Julianus Africanus (as quoted by much later George Syncellus) refer to him, but quote differently his reference to an eclipse. There is no evidence Phlegon said anything about Gospel events - just evidence for later Christians believing his statements about an eclipse (there WAS an eclipse in this period) was really about the Gospel darkness.

Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but did not.

THALLUS

Thallus perhaps wrote in early 2nd century or somewhat earlier (his works are lost, there is no evidence he wrote in the 1st century, in fact there is some evidence he wrote around 109 BCE, and some authors refer to him for events before the Trojan War!) - 9th century George Syncellus quotes the 3rd century Julianus Africanus, speaking of the darkness at the crucifixion: "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse". There is no evidence Thallus made specific reference to Jesus or the Gospel events, as there was an eclipse in 29, the subject in question. Furthermore the supposed reference to Thallus in Eusebius is likely a mis-reading.

Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but did not.

aa5874 · 11-26-2010, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

....Celsus, circa 180 appears to be the first non-Christian to talk about Jesus and he appears to criticize him as a poorly drawn fictional character in a gospel scroll, created by Jewish Platonists who did not understand Plato....

There is an account of what "Celsus" thought of the birth of Jesus in Origen's "Against Celsus".

"Against Celsus" 1.32

Quote:

But let us now return to where the Jew is introduced, speaking of the mother of Jesus, and saying that "when she was pregnant she was turned out of doors by the carpenter to whom she had been betrothed, as having been guilty of adultery, and that she bore a child to a certain soldier named Panthera;"

and let us see whether those who have blindly concocted these fables about the adultery of the Virgin with Panthera, and her rejection by the carpenter, did not invent these stories to overturn His miraculous conception by the Holy Ghost:

for they could have falsified the history in a different manner, on account of its extremely miraculous character, and not have admitted, as it were against their will, that Jesus was born of no ordinary human marriage. It was to be expected, indeed, that those who would not believe the miraculous birth of Jesus would invent some falsehood...

It would appear that it was RUMORED that Jesus was the product of adultery during the time of Celsus.

But, this RUMOR tends to indicate that the Jesus story was very late and written WELL outside Judea since ONCE Jesus was ACTUALLY PUBLICLY CRUCIFIED in the presence of Jews and Romans then it would have been KNOWN at that time that Jesus was just a Man and NOT the offspring of the Holy Ghost or the Creator of heaven ans earth.

Once Jesus was PUBLICLY CRUCIFIED in the presence of or KNOWN BY Jews, Romans and people of the Roman Empire, then it would have been KNOWN as a fact that the JESUS CULT was a MOST DISHONEST group.

The CULT members would have KNOWN they were lying to themselves and that EVERYONE who knew Jesus himself and that he was PUBLICLY CRUCIFIED and DIED also knew that the CULT were LYING about Jesus.

But, this did not happen. There are ONLY rumors about the birth of Jesus and that he was CRUCIFIED and was the ACTUAL Creator of heaven and earth.

Thousands of Jews were PUBLICLY CRUCIFIED and there is NO credible historical source of Antiquity that can SHOW that anyone of them was DEIFIED after being PUBLICLY EXECUTED.

angelo · 11-27-2010, 12:18 AM

Either very dishonest, or completely delusional. Or in fact that perhaps it was repeating hearsay.

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

11-24-2010, 03:47 AM	#124
angelo Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 5,706	Most, if not all historical biblical scholars take as the default position that there was a HJ. Here is what Dan Barker an ex evangelical preacher turned atheist has to say, and really says it all with these four quotes. 1. There is no external historical confirmation for the N/T stories. 2.The N/T stories are internally contradictory. 3. There are natural explanations for the origin of the Jesus legend. 4. The miracle reports make the story unhistorical. end quote. The gospels are the only way to study/look for a historical Jesus, and they are far from having any credibility at all. All extra-biblical sources are passing on what was already in existence when they put quills to parchment. None can be used to confirm a HJ.

11-27-2010, 12:18 AM	#130
angelo Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 5,706	Either very dishonest, or completely delusional. Or in fact that perhaps it was repeating hearsay.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.