Freethought & Rationalism Archive

maryhelena · 04-03-2012, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

The historical figure that was bound to a cross, flogged and slain,

I'm not sure why you say 'the historical figure that ...' rather than 'a historical figure that ...' Wouldn't there have been more than one historical figure this happened to?

Sure, hundreds probably.....but how many of them were a King and a High Priest of the Jews?

Josephus tells of his three friends that were crucified after the war of 70 c.e. Three men taken down from their cross - one survived - and the other two died after being taken down from the cross.

Antigonus did not die on the cross. Cassius Dio says he was later slain. By the axe according to Josephus. Keep in mind that being bound to a tree, for Jewish thought, was to be cursed. "Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree". That a Jewish King and High Priest was hung on a cross/stake/tree would be a very dishonorable thing indeed. Little wonder than that a Jewish historian would seek to focus only on the axe.

Quote:

And this Antony seems to me to have been the very first man who beheaded a king, as supposing he could no other way bend the minds of the Jews so as to receive Herod, whom he had made king in his stead; for by no torments could they he forced to call him king, so great a fondness they had for their former king; so he thought that this dishonorable death would diminish the value they had for Antigonus's memory, and at the same time would diminish the hatred they bare to Herod. Antiquities book 15 ch.1.

Antigonus had to be dishonored in such a way that the Jewish people would turn away from him - and accept Herod the Great as King. It's not a beheading that would do that - it's being hung on a cross/stake/tree that would accomplish that dishonoring of Antigonus for Herod's purposes. And of course, in the NT JC story, it's the cross that is the stumbling block for Jews. And this only the cross of an itinerant carpenter preacher.... how much more the turning away from their historical King who met such a fate at the hands of Rome... However, this very Jewish negative was turned into a positive in the NT by changing the context for crucifixion - from the no-value physical reality to the salvation value of a spiritual heavenly 'crucifixion'. The crucifixion of Antigonus becomes the historical 'root' from which sprung the NT JC storyboard.

maryhelena · 04-03-2012, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Indeed, my position on Antigonus is that he is the model for the JC crucifixion part of the JC story. George Wells has a position where his Galilean preacher figure is not crucified. My position is that the lives of two historical figures have been fused together to create the gospel JC figure. One historical figure crucified and the other historical figure lived to old age and died a natural death.

Yes, many think the biblical Jesus is a fusion. It is nice to see a meaty proposition about that ie. on with a real name in a real time-frame.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

The historicist assumption is a historical crucified gospel JC. That assumption cannot be sidelined by offering a spiritual christ figure crucified in a spiritual realm.

I was essentially referring to the confusion of the various scenarios by the adding of a "spiritual" dimension.

Quote:

One approach is to suggest that the crucified historical figure the historicists are seeking is one from a different time than that of Pilate. The time of Pilate is the memorial, the remembrance of that earlier crucified historical figure.

A 70 year memorial for Antigonus in Luke's gospel. And a 100 year memorial of Antigonus in Josephus.

Antigonus, the last King and High Priest of the Jews, bound to a cross, flogged and slain in 37 b.c.	100 year Anniversary of the killing of Antigonus, 63 c.e.
High Priests, 37/36 b.c, appointed by Herod the Great	High Priests, 62/63 c.e, appointed by Agrippa II
Ananelus 37/36 b.c. (removed)	Joseph Cabi ben Simon, (removed)
Aristobulus III drowned, (plot of Herod the Great) brother of Mariamne I. (37/36 b.c.)	Ananus ben Ananus, (removed) 3 month rule, James stoned, brother of JC.
Ananelus (restored) 36-30 b.c.	Jesus, son of Damneus, made High Priest.

That is interesting.

This one is also interesting.....

100 Year Anniversary of Antigonus being taken prisoner to Rome: 63 b.c. - 37 c.e.	Paul and Aretas
36/37 c.e. Aretas IV war with Herod (Antipas). John the Baptist in prison - and beheaded. Antiquities Book 18 ch.5	Galatians 1:18. Three years after conversion Paul visits Jerusalem. If JC has a 3 year ministry after the 15th year of Tiberius (gJohn) the year is 33 c.e. If 'Paul's conversion is soon after that then he would be visiting Jerusalem about 36/37 c.e.
63 b.c. Siege of Jerusalem. Antigonus was taken prisoner to Rome. He later escapes. Earlier, Aretas III had laid siege to Jerusalem. Aretas III loses control of Damascus.	2 Cor. 11:32,33. Paul escapes from Aretas and Damascus.

J-D · 04-03-2012, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

The crucifixion of Antigonus becomes the historical 'root' from which sprung the NT JC storyboard.

That's an intriguing suggestion, but I don't see that your case is conclusive.

aa5874 · 04-03-2012, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

So, HJers are really the ones who are attempting to destroy the Faith and have blamed everyone else but themselves.

Well, some HJers, as anti-religious atheists, are in fact deliberately trying to destroy the faith; and are ticked at MJers for trying to prop up the dying faith.

that is simply absurd

I knew it. HJers are confused by their own propaganda.

You very well know of the QUEST for the historical Jesus that was started 250 years ago and that to this day HJers cannot IDENTIFY a credible source for an HJ.

Who was YOUR HJ??? A TAX-COLLECTOR???? Tell Ehrman about the Jesus you IMAGINED!!!

maryhelena · 04-04-2012, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

The crucifixion of Antigonus becomes the historical 'root' from which sprung the NT JC storyboard.

That's an intriguing suggestion, but I don't see that your case is conclusive.

I'm open to suggestions as to a better way to confront the assumption of a historical gospel JC.....

The historicists assumption of a flesh and blood gospel JC cannot be dislodged by a spirit figure crucified in a spiritual heavenly realm. It needs flesh and blood to dislodge the historicists assumption re the gospel JC figure. One can't 'fight' the elephant in the room with a fly swatter....

maryhelena · 04-04-2012, 12:16 AM

Check out this guest blog post on Vridar.

An alternative way to view Bart Ehrman's book......

http://vridar.wordpress.com/2012/04/...t-truth-world/

Quote:

The Ehrman Debacle and Our “Post-Truth” World

Tim Widowfield

Similarly, Dr. Richard Carrier, Acharya S, Earl Doherty, and my buddy Neil have been diligently cataloging the errors in Bart’s Myth-bashing opus. I’m glad. We need to try to set the record straight. However, I don’t expect it to do much good — at least in the popular media — and certainly not within the guild. We won’t be able to change the media narrative that Dr. Ehrman has “dispelled the myth of mythicism.“

Yes, Bart is demonstrably, factually wrong on several key points. Yes, his arguments often hinge upon misreadings of the text. And yes, he commits errors that strongly indicate that he didn’t even read the books he says he did.

Debunking doesn’t work

However, it doesn’t make any difference. Debunking doesn’t work, because the message never reaches the mass audience — or if it does happen to reach them, the message is distorted and diluted into “Some people disagree” or “Some people have a different opinion” — or worse. Oddly enough, fighting for the truth can sometimes get you branded as a crank or a whiner.

You’ll know and I’ll know that Bart’s new book is pretty bad at what it attempts to do. But in the alternate reality created by the media, Bart has slain the dragon of mythicism. In an ideal world, Dr. Ehrman would issue a public apology, fire the grad students who did his research for him, and start all over again. But not in this world.

"...slain the dragon of mythicism" - perhaps its time for the ahistoricits/mythicsts to reevaluate their approach to the historicists. That's their claim - historicity for JC - and it's history that has to be used to debunk or dislodge that claim.

J-D · 04-04-2012, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

The crucifixion of Antigonus becomes the historical 'root' from which sprung the NT JC storyboard.

That's an intriguing suggestion, but I don't see that your case is conclusive.

I'm open to suggestions as to a better way to confront the assumption of a historical gospel JC.....

I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by that, so it doesn't help me to see your case as being any more conclusive.

maryhelena · 04-04-2012, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

The crucifixion of Antigonus becomes the historical 'root' from which sprung the NT JC storyboard.

That's an intriguing suggestion, but I don't see that your case is conclusive.

I'm open to suggestions as to a better way to confront the assumption of a historical gospel JC.....

I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by that, so it doesn't help me to see your case as being any more conclusive.

The historicists have made a claim - the NT gospel figure of Jesus is a historical figure.

How should one, how could one, go about disproving that claim?

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-04-2012, 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

The historicists have made a claim - the NT gospel figure of Jesus is a historical figure.

This is not the claim.

Do you have any examples of factual errors committed by Ehrman in the book?

maryhelena · 04-04-2012, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

The historicists have made a claim - the NT gospel figure of Jesus is a historical figure.

This is not the claim.

Do you have any examples of factual errors committed by Ehrman in the book?

I've not read Ehrman's book - and have no intention of wasting my money, and my time, in reading it.....

The claim on the Huffington Post:

Quote:

Bart Ehrman: Whether we like it or not, Jesus certainly existed

And just to make it clear - there is no other Jesus except the one written about within the pages of the NT gospel story. Whatever variation of that Jesus is cherry-picked from that story - it is a Jesus from the pages of the NT gospel story. There is no other Jesus that is relevant to Christianity.

View Poll Results: Check off everything you would need to see to say a guy was a "Historical Jesus."
God	1	2.63%
Resurrection	3	7.89%
Healed miraculously and drove out real demons	3	7.89%
Was a conventional (non-supernatural) faith healer and exorcist, but did not do miracles	13	34.21%
Performed nature miracles such as walking on water	3	7.89%
Was born of a virgin	2	5.26%
Said all or most of what is attributed to him in the Gospels	4	10.53%
Said at least some of what is attributed to him in the Gospels	21	55.26%
Believed himself to be God	2	5.26%
Believed himself to be the Messiah	5	13.16%
Was believed by his followers to be God	1	2.63%
Was believed by his followers to be the Messiah	16	42.11%
Was involved in some kind of attack on the Temple	9	23.68%
Was crucified	27	71.05%
Was from Nazareth	8	21.05%
Was from Galilee	12	31.58%
Had 12 disciples	3	7.89%
Had some disciples, not necessarily 12	25	65.79%
Raised the dead	2	5.26%
Was believed by his disciples to still be alive somehow after the crucifixion.	17	44.74%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 38. You may not vote on this poll

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.