![]() |
Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
![]() |
#131 | |||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: England
Posts: 2,527
|
![]() Quote:
No, don't know re Eusebius and Hasmonean/Jewish history.... Actually, by the time of Eusebius, to my thinking anyway, the gospel JC story was up and running. Whatever, if any, changes were made to that story - it's central premise, a Jewish messiah figure was executed by Rome - remains. That is the premise of the gospel JC story that reflects actual Hasmonean/Jewish history. Quote:
|
|||||
![]() |
![]() |
#132 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
![]() Quote:
Please refer to "Against the Galileans". Julian the Emperor did not appear to know that Josephus mentioned Jesus or Paul. Julian challenged his readers to pronounce that he was a Liar if they could have produce well known writers of antiquity who mentioned Jesus or Paul. The writings attribute to Eusebius appear to have been manipulated or are blatant forgeries. Up to c 360 CE, it would appear that the TF was unknown to Julian. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#133 | |||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3,619
|
![]() Quote:
"After the crippling defeat of Crassus at Carrhae in 53 B.C and during the roman civil war, Parthia made a determined effort to conquer Syria. The Parthian king Pacorus I launched a major invasion of Syria aided by Roman traitors like Q. Labienus “who styled himself “Particus Imperator”, The Parthian army proved invincible and killed and conquered at will. Most of the client kings defending Rome were disloyal or incompetent. At Jerusalem Pacorus set up a king, Antigonus, of a cadet branch of the royal house. The damage and disgrace was immense, Rome suffered immensely.But the domination of Parthia was transient. Brundisium freed the armies of Rome." The above was extracted from: The roman revolution, Ronald Syme.OUP 2002, page 223 ISBN 8780193803207 Antigonus was an ally of Pacorus, Rome could have never made a deal with him. The Jewish Encyclopaedia is worthless. The Jews never spoke in terms of a king of “Jewish blood” and Herod was the right arm of the Romans in that region. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#134 | |||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: England
Posts: 2,527
|
![]() Quote:
I take it you don't like the statement in the Jewish Encyclopedia, that uses the word 'blood'.... Quote below from Josephus - contrasting the Hasmonean blood lineage to that of Herod who came from a " vulgar family". Quote:
|
|||||
![]() |
![]() |
#135 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: England
Posts: 2,527
|
![]()
Judean Kingdom, Mattathias Antigonus (Mattatayah), 40 - 37 B.C.
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#136 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3,619
|
![]()
The comments of Josephus are silly.
Antigonus belonged to the Hasmonean dynasty, his uncle was Hyrcanus II. Herod came from an Idumean family and the Idumeans had been forcibly converted to Judaism by John Hyrcanus. Forcible conversion is the very thing that Christians and Islam were later accused of doing to Judaism. Antigonus was the puppet would-be king of the invading armies of Parthia, and he may have minted coins and called himself king, but he was only the candidate of Parthia. Rome responded by elevating Herod, the son of Antipater, to the status of king. Te Romans made Herod a king with the standard title of, socious et amicus populi romani ( partner and friend of the Romans) Parthia was defeated and in 37 BC Jerusalem was taken by Herod with Roman support and the life of the puppet king of Parthia came to an end, but the life of the puppet king of Rome flourished. I think the Israelites said something about a shoot of Jesse for dynastic preference. :wave: |
![]() |
![]() |
#137 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: England
Posts: 2,527
|
![]()
Maybe - but those comments are what they are....
The point of issue is not what we, today, think about Antigonus. Nor is it relevant what the Romans thought of Antigonus. The point of issue is what the Josephus writer has written about Angigonus. Antigonus was the last Hasmonean King and High Priest of the Jews. That's a historical fact. Antigonus was as much a King as was Herod - in fact, as Josephus points out - Antigonus comes from a royal line - and Herod from a vulgar family. Sure, not nice to our modern ears - but that was a point being made by the Josephan writer - a writer who, himself, claimed Hasmonean ancestry. Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#138 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
|
![]()
Technically speaking it is not forced conversion, i.e. dragging men to be circumcised and holding a sword over them when they ate food to make sure it was kosher. It was more a case of voluntarily conversion with no other choice available, as was apparently only done among the elites of the Edomites. However, all rabbinical sources have condemned this type of conversion.
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#139 | |||
Regular Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Primary residence in New York State
Posts: 231
|
![]() Quote:
Many historical Jewish messiah figures were executed by Rome in the first century CE aside from the fictional JC of the gospels. Onias |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#140 | ||
Regular Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Primary residence in New York State
Posts: 231
|
![]() Quote:
I agree that " There is no evidence whatsoever that the character in the NT called Jesus of Nazareth was confirmed to have lived." But I usually assume most of us think JC only existed as a fictional literary character within the gospel narrative (just as Captain Kirk existed as a character in Star Trek), though I am not sure what Mary thinks. Onias |
||
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|