Lena Einhorn's ideas

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Lena Einhorn
Posts: 166
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2016 1:15 pm

Re: Lena Einhorn's ideas

Post by Lena Einhorn » Wed Nov 28, 2018 4:28 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 4:17 pm
I think there may be more than those two or three parallels for Jesus ben Ananias, at least according to Theodore Weeden: http://vridar.info/xorigins/josephus/2jesus.htm.
"During the whole period up to the outbreak of war he neither approached nor was seen talking to any of the citizens."
This is not a messianic leader with a great following. Who were his disciples? Who wrote down his story? Who spread his religion around the Mediterranean?

As I said, I don't want to argue against other hypotheses. I simply would like to suggest that one takes a bird's eye view of the New Testament as history. I maintain that there is a complete story there. A story of the Jewish war and its messianic leaders.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 10062
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Lena Einhorn's ideas

Post by Secret Alias » Wed Nov 28, 2018 4:32 pm

But surely it would be just as easy to poke holes in your theory. That's the problem with these theories. You have to find an ancient witness to the time shift in order to take it REALLY seriously. Otherwise it comes down to competing hobby horses.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

Lena Einhorn
Posts: 166
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2016 1:15 pm

Re: Lena Einhorn's ideas

Post by Lena Einhorn » Wed Nov 28, 2018 4:34 pm

Secret Alias wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 4:32 pm
But surely it would be just as easy to poke holes in your theory.
Please do.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 10062
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Lena Einhorn's ideas

Post by Secret Alias » Wed Nov 28, 2018 4:38 pm

I am speaking in general terms. But are you saying that there are no theories to your theory or are you putting up token resistance with the hope of getting eyes on your theory? As La Rochefoucault once wrote c'est une grande folie de vouloir être sage tout seul.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

Lena Einhorn
Posts: 166
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2016 1:15 pm

Re: Lena Einhorn's ideas

Post by Lena Einhorn » Wed Nov 28, 2018 4:44 pm

Secret Alias wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 4:38 pm
But are you saying that there are no theories to your theory or are you putting up token resistance with the hope of getting eyes on your theory?
What do you mean by "no theories to your theory"?
No, I am not putting up token resistance. I posted to let people know there was a Powerpoint presentation uploaded by Glen and Dave Wise on Youtube where I present the hypothesis. The discussion of the hypothesis came from others in this thread. I am simply saying: if you suggest it's just as easy to poke holes in my hypothesis, then feel free to do it. The suggestion came from you.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5937
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Lena Einhorn's ideas

Post by Ben C. Smith » Wed Nov 28, 2018 4:59 pm

Lena Einhorn wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 4:28 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 4:17 pm
I think there may be more than those two or three parallels for Jesus ben Ananias, at least according to Theodore Weeden: http://vridar.info/xorigins/josephus/2jesus.htm.
"During the whole period up to the outbreak of war he neither approached nor was seen talking to any of the citizens."
This is not a messianic leader with a great following. Who were his disciples? Who wrote down his story? Who spread his religion around the Mediterranean?
I completely agree, both here and where you wrote:
Lena Einhorn wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 4:03 pm
At the same time, the differences are numerous.
Lots and lots of differences. Agreed.

But that is not the portion of your post I was responding to. This is:
Lena Einhorn wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 4:03 pm
I just have one comment: most of the theories put forth hone in on one or two, or perhaps three, similarities -- in the case of Jesus ben Ananias it would be the name, and the fact that this person was brought in front of the Roman governor and flayed.
The link I gave listed quite a few more than just two or three parallels. So either those parallels are fabricated or at least not very good or the theory surrounding Jesus ben Ananias does not fall into your category of theories which hone in on one or two similarities, maybe three.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

Lena Einhorn
Posts: 166
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2016 1:15 pm

Re: Lena Einhorn's ideas

Post by Lena Einhorn » Wed Nov 28, 2018 5:11 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 4:59 pm
The link I gave listed quite a few more than just two or three parallels. So either those parallels are fabricated or at least not very good or the theory surrounding Jesus ben Ananias does not fall into your category of theories which hone in on one or two similarities, maybe three.
Ben, I am not counting. Of course there may be more similarities than two or three. But the question is the strength of the parallels, the uniqueness of the parallels, the strength of the differences, and the pattern of the combined parallels. Or if I may quote myself: "... when evaluating each parallel between the New Testament and Josephus, it has to be looked at with a statistical eye: How many coinciding elements are there for each suggested parallel? How many diverging elements? How unique are the coinciding elements? To what extent do the different parallels form a pattern? And do the diverging elements for each parallel also form a pattern, i.e. do they co-vary?"

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 5748
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Lena Einhorn's ideas

Post by MrMacSon » Wed Nov 28, 2018 5:59 pm

Secret Alias wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 4:32 pm
You have to find an ancient witness to the time shift in order to take it Really seriously.
An "ancient witness" who stated it overtly? or various less overt things of those times, such as
  • Eusebius reporting the Acts of Pilate dated the crucifixion to the 7th of Tiberius (btw, do you have a citation or two for that?),
  • Origen and Eusebius attributing things to Josephus that Josephus did not say, or
  • the manufactured early-bishops list/s,
  • the lack of evidence of orthodoxy before Irenaeus through Origen, or even later
  • etc., ??
Last edited by MrMacSon on Sat Dec 01, 2018 10:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

hakeem
Posts: 237
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: Lena Einhorn's ideas

Post by hakeem » Wed Nov 28, 2018 7:05 pm

Lena Einhorn wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 5:11 pm
....... Of course there may be more similarities than two or three. But the question is the strength of the parallels, the uniqueness of the parallels, the strength of the differences, and the pattern of the combined parallels. Or if I may quote myself: "... when evaluating each parallel between the New Testament and Josephus, it has to be looked at with a statistical eye: How many coinciding elements are there for each suggested parallel? How many diverging elements? How unique are the coinciding elements? To what extent do the different parallels form a pattern? And do the diverging elements for each parallel also form a pattern, i.e. do they co-vary?"
Your theory only reinforces the argument that Jesus of the NT was an invented character without a shred of history. The hypothesis that the historical Jesus was an Egyptian who was alive during the time Felix was governor or procurator of Judea c 52-60 CE means that the entire NT Jesus story is utter fiction when it is claimed Jesus of Nazareth was physically crucified under Pilate C 27-37 CE.

If the Egyptian in "Antiquities of the Jews" was the historical Jesus c 52-60 CE then the so-called witnesses of the trial and crucifixion of NT Jesus under Pilate c 27-37 CE were fabricated which includes all the disciples, apostles and Paul.

So when it is claimed in the Epistles that Paul preached Jesus crucified since the time of Aretas c37-41 CE such a story was invented if the historical Jesus was seen alive in Jerusalem in the time of Felix.

Ulan
Posts: 1291
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Lena Einhorn's ideas

Post by Ulan » Wed Nov 28, 2018 7:13 pm

Lena Einhorn wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 4:03 pm
Ulan wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 3:18 pm
the trial of Jesus in the gospels seems to be based on the trial of Jesus ben Ananias in Josephus.
Ulan, my aim is not to put down other theories on the identity of the Historical Jesus. I just have one comment: most of the theories put forth hone in on one or two, or perhaps three, similarities -- in the case of Jesus ben Ananias it would be the name, and the fact that this person was brought in front of the Roman governor and flayed. At the same time, the differences are numerous. And the similarities are not unique.
Do you have any other trial stories that match the Jesus trial in the gospels, including the refusal to say anything as defense? He also predicted the destruction of the city, and Ben's link shows quite a few other similarities in the details.

The trial issue, or the lack of anything related to death and resurrection are of course major holes in your theory. The Egyptian was never arrested or personally faced any consequences of his deeds. As a parallel, he's lacking some major topics of the gospels. I don't say the parallels you saw are not there - they certainly are and I already said I appreciate that you point them out - but you only found one puzzle piece that, if you look closely, isn't such a good match for the whole gospel story, either (none of the figures in Josephus is a perfect fit). For Simon bar Giora for instance, I listed several similarities where he definitely is a better fit. You just picked the Gerasene scene and discarded the Jesus similarities in his case, because those don't fit your proposal.

Note that I didn't say Jesus ben Ananias or Simon bar Giora are the gospel Jesus. I suggested that the gospel Jesus absorbed parts of many messianic figures. If there were only one good fit, people would have probably picked up on the Egyptian similarities much earlier, time shift or not. As I said, he's lacking in that whole "trial, death and resurrection" department. Using several figures as basis, we may even have some insight into the development of the text, if we look at a merging of accounts from different messianic figures.

Post Reply